Landicho v. Tensuan
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: This case originates from an ejectment suit filed by private respondent Leonida Aseron against petitioners Agaton T. Landicho and Lucena M. Landicho. The dispute centers on the petitioners' alleged failure to pay rent and vacate a building located at Naranghita Street, Project 2, Quezon City. The City Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendants to vacate, pay P400.00 monthly rent from August 1977 until possession is surrendered, and to pay attorney's fees and costs. 2. Procedural History: Following the City Court's decision on September 15, 1978, the petitioners appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Quezon City. The CFI affirmed the lower court's judgment in its entirety on March 15, 1979. The petitioners then filed a notice of appeal and appeal bond. However, the private respondents opposed this, arguing that the proper remedy was a petition for review, not an ordinary appeal. Consequently, the CFI dismissed the appeal on July 2, 1979. As the period for appeal had lapsed, the CFI granted the motion for execution of judgment on July 24, 1979. This led to the petitioners filing the instant petition. 3. The Petition: The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, and preliminary injunction, impleading all judges involved in the case and the private respondent. The core issue presented to the Supreme Court is whether the appeal to the CFI was correctly dismissed. The petitioners argue that their appeal was improperly dismissed, seeking to overturn the CFI's order. The Supreme Court notes that the petitioners have voluntarily vacated the premises during the pendency of the petition, but their counsel insists the case must proceed. The Court also points out that the petition questions the inferior court's judgment, which had already been affirmed by the CFI. The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order on August 15, 1979, enjoining the enforcement of the writ of execution.
Issue(s)
Whether the appeal filed before the Court of First Instance was correctly dismissed. Whether the petitioners were delinquent in the payment of rentals. Whether the deposit of rentals made by the petitioners constituted a valid consignation.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The temporary restraining order issued on August 15, 1979, is dissolved. Costs against petitioners. This decision is immediately executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On the correctness of the dismissal of the appeal: The Court reiterated that Section 45 of the Judiciary Act, as amended by Republic Act No. 6031, and Section 22 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, do not allow an appeal by record on appeal and notice of appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance in an appealed case falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Municipal or City Courts. The correct remedy is a petition for review. Therefore, respondent Judge Ricardo Tensuan did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal. The Court noted that petitioners interposed this extraordinary remedy in lieu of the remedy of appeal which they had lost, which cannot be allowed. On the delinquency in payment of rentals: The records clearly show that from the time the plaintiff-appellee bought the premises, the defendants-appellants refused to recognize her as the owner, despite her introduction as such. They never made any attempt to pay rentals to the plaintiff-appellee, even when a demand was made. Delinquency in the payment of rentals due to the plaintiff-appellee is therefore clear and undisputed. The findings of fact of the court a quo, as reviewed by the Supreme Court, revealed that the defendants-appellants were in default in paying rent since August 1977, and not a single monthly rental was paid to the new owner after the transfer of ownership in November 1977. On the validity of consignation: The Court found that the defendants-appellants did not make a valid consignation when they deposited the back rentals in the Office of the Presidential Assistant. The law prescribes that such consignation or deposit of rentals should be made with the Court and/or under Batas Pambansa Blg. 25 in the bank and not elsewhere, as per Article 1258 of the Civil Code. The protestation that they deposited the rentals due, though belatedly, with the Office of the Presidential Assistant does not help their cause at all. Thus, due to non-payment of rentals, their ejectment is a necessary consequence.
Main Doctrine
An appeal by record on appeal and notice of appeal is not the proper remedy from a decision of the Court of First Instance in an appealed case falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Municipal or City Courts; the correct remedy is a petition for review. Failure to make a valid consignation or deposit of rentals with the Court or as prescribed by law renders the tenant delinquent.