Ampil v. Alvendia
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Quintina S. Vda. de Ampil and Domingo Brothers, Inc. sought a writ of execution pending appeal from a Municipal Court decision ordering respondent Vicente Manuel to vacate premises leased from petitioners. The Municipal Court found the defendant in arrears in rent at P70.00 per month from April 1958 up to July 1960, totaling P1,870.00, and ordered payment of monthly rentals within the first five (5) days of each month until possession is surrendered, plus attorney's fees and costs. Procedural History: Respondent Vicente Manuel appealed the Municipal Court's decision to the Court of First Instance. Pending appeal, petitioners filed a motion for execution pending appeal, alleging that Manuel failed to deposit the monthly rent within the first five (5) days of each month as ordered by the Municipal Court. The respondent judge denied the motion, finding that Manuel had been making the monthly deposits within the first ten (10) days of the month following that for which the deposit was made, and thus concluded that the defendant had not failed to make the monthly deposit on time. The Petition: Petitioners, having been denied reconsideration, resorted to the Supreme Court, praying for a writ directing the respondent judge to order the execution pending appeal of the Municipal Court's decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the monthly deposits of current rentals pending appeal in a forcible entry or detainer case must be made within the first five (5) days of each month as stated in the Municipal Court's judgment, or within the first ten (10) days of each succeeding month, considering the absence of a specific finding in the Municipal Court's judgment regarding the contractual terms of payment.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Court of First Instance, holding that the respondent judge correctly ruled that the appellant had not failed to make the monthly deposits on time.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the order of the Court of First Instance was correct. The Court reasoned that Rule 72, Section 8 of the Rules of Court expressly prescribes that the defendant-appellant should pay or deposit, during the dependency of the appeal, "the amount of rent from time to time under the contract, as found by the judgment of the justice of the peace or municipal court to exist, or in the absence of contract, he pays to the plaintiff or unto the Court, on or before the tenth day of each calendar month." The crucial phrase is "as found by the judgment." In this case, there was no specific finding in the Municipal Court's decision (Annex D) that the contract of lease explicitly required the monthly rent to be paid within the first five (5) days of each month. While the initial complaint (Annex A) did allege such a term, mere allegations do not satisfy the stringent requirements of the Rule. The Court reiterated its ruling in Yu Phi Khim v. Teng Giok Yan (G.R. No. L-5441, Nov. 29, 1952), which held that the words "in the absence of contract" covers not only situations where no contract exists, but also where the judgment does not make findings as to the existence and/or terms of the contract. Therefore, where the time for payment under the contract of lease is not specifically declared in the judgment of the justice of the peace or municipal court, the ten-day period must be followed. The portion of the Municipal Court's decision requiring payment within the first five days was not controlling because it lacked a pronouncement that the contract itself stipulated such payments. The Court distinguished Chung Ben v. Co Bun Kim (51 Off. Gaz., 6197) by noting that in that case, the appellant failed to dispute the terms of the contract, whereas in the present case, the lessee explicitly averred "that there is no specific contract providing for time of payment."
Main Doctrine
In ejectment cases, where the judgment of the municipal court does not make specific findings as to the existence and terms of the lease contract regarding the time for payment of rent, the monthly deposit of rent pending appeal may be made within the first ten (10) days of each calendar month, as provided by Section 8 of Rule 72 of the Rules of Court.