Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

Encarnacion vs. Baldomar, No. L-264, 77 Phil.

470 , October 04, 146


G.R. No. L-264 October 4, 1946
VICENTE SINGSON ENCARNACION, plaintif-appellee,
vs.
JACINTA BALDOMAR, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
Bausa and Ampil for appellants.
Tolentino and Aguas for appellee.
ILADO, J.:
Vicente Singson Encarnacion, owner of the house numbered 589 egarda Street, !anila, some si"
#ears ago leased said house to $acinto %aldomar and her son, efrado &ernando, upon a month-to-
month basis for the monthl# rental of '(5. )fter !anila was liberated in the last war, speci*call# on
!arch +,, +9-5, and on )pril ., of the same #ear, plaintif Singson Encarnacion noti*ed defendants,
the said mother and son, to vacate the house above-mentioned on or before )pril +5, +9-5, because
plaintif needed it for his o/ces as a result of the destruction of the building where said plaintif had
said o/ces before. 0espite this demand, defendants insisted on continuing their occupanc#. 1hen the
original action was lodged with the !unicipal 2ourt of !anila on )pril 34, +9-5, defendants were in
arrears in the pa#ment of the rental corresponding to said month, the agrees rental being pa#able
within the *rst *ve da#s of each month. 5hat rental was paid prior to the hearing of the case in the
municipal court, as a conse6uence of which said court entered 7udgment for restitution and pa#ment of
rentals at the rate of '(5 a month from !a# +, +9-5, until defendants completel# vacate the premises.
)lthough plaintif included in said original complaint a claim for '544 damages per month, that claim
was waived b# him before the hearing in the municipal court, on account of which nothing was said
regarding said damages in the municipal court8s decision.
1hen the case reached the 2ourt of &irst 9nstance of !anila upon appeal, defendants *led therein a
motion to dismiss :which was similar to a motion to dismiss *led b# them in the municipal court; based
upon the ground that the municipal court had no 7urisdiction over the sub7ect matter due to the
aforesaid claim for damages and that, therefore, the 2ourt of &irst 9nstance had no appellate
7urisdiction over the sub7ect matter of the action. 5hat motion to dismiss was denied b# <is <onor,
$udge !amerto =o"as, b# order dated $ul# 3+, +9-5, on the ground that in the municipal court plaintif
had waived said claim for damages and that, therefore, the same waiver was understood also to have
been made in the 2ourt of &irst 9nstance.lawphil.net
9n the 2ourt of &irst 9nstance the graveman of the defense interposed b# defendants, as it was
e"pressed defendant efrado &ernando during the trial, was that the contract which the# had
celebrated with plaintif since the beginning authori>ed them to continue occup#ing the house
inde*netl# and while the# should faithfull# ful*ll their obligations as respects the pa#ment of the
rentals, and that this agreement had been rati*ed when another e7ectment case between the parties
*led during the $apanese regime concerning the same house was allegedl# compounded in the
municipal court. 5he 2ourt of &irst 9nstance gave more credit to plaintif8s witness, Vicente Singson
Encarnacion, 7r., who testi*ed that the lease had alwa#s and since the beginning been upon a month-
to-month basis. 5he court added in its decision that this defense which was put up b# defendant8s
answer, for which reason the 2ourt considered it as indicative of an eleventh-hour theor#. 1e thin? that
the 2ourt of &irst 9nstance was right in so declaring. &urthermore, carried to its logical conclusion, the
defense thus set up b# defendant efrado &ernando would leave to the sole and e"clusive will of one of
the contracting parties :defendants in this case; the validit# and ful*llment of the contract of lease,
within the meaning of article +35, of the 2ivil 2ode, since the continuance and ful*llment of the
contract would then depend solel# and e"clusivel# upon their free and uncontrolled choice between
continuing pa#ing the rentals or not, completel# depriving the owner of all sa# in the matter. 9f this
defense were to be allowed, so long as defendants elected to continue the lease b# continuing the
pa#ment of the rentals, the owner would never be able to discontinue it@ conversel#, although the
owner should desire the lease to continue, the lessees could efectivel# thwart his purpose if the#
should prefer to terminate the contract b# the simple e"pedient of stopping pa#ment of the rentals.
5his, of course, is prohibited b# the aforesaid article of the 2ivil 2ode. :8 !anresa, (d ed., pp. ,3,, ,3.@
2u#uganvs. Santos, (- 'hil., +44.;
0uring the pendenc# of the appeal in the 2ourt of &irst 9nstance and before the 7udgment appealed
from was rendered on Actober (+, +9-5, the rentals in areas were those pertaining to the month of
)ugust, +9-5, to the date of said 7udgment at the rate of '(5 a month. 0uring the pendenc# of the
appeal in that court, certain deposits were made b# defendants on account of rentals with the cler? of
said court, and in said 7udgment it is disposed that the amounts thus deposited should be delivered to
plaintif.
Bpon the whole, we are clearl# of opinion that the 7udgment appealed from should be, as it is hereb#,
a/rmed, with the costs of the three instances to appellants. So ordered.
Paras, Pablo, Perfecto and Padilla, JJ., concur.