MAURO PRIETO, PETITIONER, VS. HON. HIGINIO B. MACADAEG AS JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, BRANCH X, LUIS ALCANTARA AND AURORA ALCANTARA, RESPONDENTS.

This is an original action for certiorari and mandamus against two
orders of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Hon. Higinio Macadaeg,
presiding, dated November 27, 1957 and January 23, 1958, suspending the
present action of unlawful detainer until after the action for
expropriation pending before another sala of the (this) court shall
have been terminated. (Annex “LL”.)

The record discloses that petitioner is the owner of a parcel of
land containing an area of about 55,424.27 square meters, suitable for
residential purposes, within which defendants are occupying a lot of
598.80 square meters situated on Gen. Geronimo St. No. 107 and on which
defendants have built a house. The monthly rental of the lot is P12.50
and defendants were in arrears in the payment of the monthly rentals in
the sum of P508.46 itemized as follows:

Balance due for the year 1952…………………………………………………………………………	P250.16
Balance due for the year 1953…………………………………………………………………………	P147.60
Balance due for the period from January to September 1954……………………………………	110.70
	_______
	P508.46

The above amount was found to be due by a first decision of the
Municipal Court of Manila dated October 18, 1954 (Annex Exh. “C”). Upon
presentation of a motion by defendants in said case, said court
modified its first decision and ordered the ejectment of defendants
from the land after five years from date of decision, and requiring
them to pay the arrears in the rentals amounting to P508.46 plus the
rentals from October, 1954 at the rate of P12.30 a month until the land
is vacated. (Annex Exh. “I”). The case was appealed to the Court of
First stance of Manila and after a hearing partly based on stipulation
of facts and on the pleadings, the Court of First Instance entered the
order of November 27, 1957 ‘ now sought to be set aside, which is
sought to be reversed on the ground that the court committed a grave
abuse of discretion in issuing the same.

There seems to be no question that defendants, respondents herein,
have been in arrears in the payment of the monthly rentals, although
the lame excuse is given that the collector of the petitioner has not
been going to defendants-respondents to collect their rentals.
Respondents herein opposed a petition for the execution of the judgment
of the Municipal Court based on the provisions of Rule 72, Rules of
Court, mainly upon the provisions of Republic Act No. 1162, as amended
by Republic Act No. 1599, enacted June 17, 1956, the pertinent
provisions of which are as follows:

“SEC. 1. The expropriation of landed estates or
haciendas, or lands which formerly formed part thereof, in the City of
Manila, which are and have been leased to tenants for at least ten
years, is hereby authorized: Provided, That such lands shall have at least fifty houses of tenants erected thereon.”

“SEC.
5. From the approval of this Act, and even before the commencement of
the expropriation herein provided, ejectment proceedings against any
tenant or occupant of any landed estates or haciendas or lands herein
authorized to be expropriated, shall be suspended for a period of two
years, upon motion of the defendant, if he pays his current rentals,.
and such suspension shall continue upon the filing of expropriation
proceedings until the final determination of the latter: Provided,
however, That if any tenant or occupant is in arrears in the payment of
rentals or any amounts due in favor of the owners of said landed
estates or haciendas or lands, the amount legally due shall be
liquidated and shall be payable in eighteen equal monthly installments
from the time of liquidation, but this payment of rentals in arrears shall not be a condition precedent to the suspension of ejectment proceedings: Provided, further,
That the rentals being collected from the tenants of the landed estates
or haciendas or lands herein authorized to be expropriated, shall not
be increased above the amounts of rentals being charged us of December
thirty-one, nineteen hundred and fifty-three, except in cases where
there are existing rental contracts for a period which expired on said
date, in which case the court shall fix a reasonable rental not
exceeding eight per centum of the assessed value on December
thirty-one, nineteen hundred and fifty-three, but, in any case, if
after said date there has been an increased in assessment, the rental
may also be increased by the corresponding amount of actual increase in
the land tax: Provided, furthermore, That no lot or portion
thereof actually occupied by a tenant or occupant shall be sold by the
landowner to any other person than such tenant or occupant, unless the
latter renounces in a public instrument his rights under this Act: Provided, finally, That if there shall be tenants who have constructed bona fide
improvements on the lots leased by them, the rights of these tenants
should be recognized in the sale or in the lease of the lots, the
limitation as to area in section three notwithstanding.” (Italics
supplied.)

The order suspending the action was based on a motion presented by
respondents herein, dated November 14, 1957, attaching thereto a
complaint filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila for the
expropriation of properties of petitioner and Antonio Prieto filed in
said court around August 7, 1957, Civil Case No. 33385, entitled
“Republic of the Philippines (by Land Tenure Administration) vs. Antonio Prieto & Mauro Prieto (see Annex Exh. “GG,” Annex “1”).

The respondents claim that there has been no abuse of discretion on
the part of the judge below and that, in any case, petitioner could
have availed himself of an action to collect the arrears in rent. There
is no doubt in the mind of this Court that in suspending the action,
the judge below ignored the express provision of Section 5 of Republic
Act No. 1162, as amended by Republic Act No. 1599, above-quoted, which
directs the liquidation of the arrears in rents and the payment of the
liquidated amount in eighteen equal monthly installments. The order of
the court denied the right of petitioner to be paid immediately the
rentals in arrears, which right is expressly recognized in the law.
Such denial amounts to a refusal to grant petitioner a property right
and constitutes a clear abuse of discretion, subject to review by
certiorari and mandamus. The remedy suggested by respondents, i. e.,
the filing of an ordinary action, would neither be speedy nor adequate,
taking into account that judicial proceedings can be unduly delayed by
parties by taking advantage of postponements of proceedings and of
costly appeals.

For the foregoing considerations, the orders sought to be annulled
are hereby set aside and the case is remanded to the court below for
action or proceedings in accordance with Section 5 of Republic Act No.
1599. Costs against the respondents Luis Alcantara and Aurora Alcantara.

So ordered.

Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Reyes J. B. L., Endencia, Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.
Paras, C.J., reserves vote.

---

CONCEPCION, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I concur in the view that the respondent Judge erred in not
requiring respondents, Luis Alcantara and Aurora Alcantara, to pay, in
conformity with the provisions of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 1599,
the amounts due to the owners of the land in question. However, I am
constrained to dissent from the majority decision, insofar as it sets
aside fully the Orders of November 27, 1957 and January 23, 1958,
suspending the action for unlawful detainer, inasmuch as said section 5
explicitly provides that the “payment of rentals in arrears shall not be a condition precedent to the suspension of ejectment proceedings.”