Guzman v. Lichauco
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns two actions of unlawful detainer filed by Faustino Lichauco against Luis Guzman, in his capacity as administrator of the estate of Doña Eriberta Sanchez, and Jose Guzman, with Luis Guzman subsequently intervening. Lichauco sought to recover possession of properties on Rizal Avenue. The justice of the peace ruled in favor of Lichauco, assessing the monthly value of use and occupation at P250 and P300, respectively. 2. Procedural History: The defendants appealed the justice of the peace decisions to the Court of First Instance of Manila. As required by section 88 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Act No. 2588, they were obligated to pay the monthly sums for use and occupation on or before the tenth day of each calendar month to avoid immediate execution of the judgment pending appeal. While payments were made monthly, they were often later than the tenth day. Lichauco moved for immediate execution, which Judge Carlos Imperial granted on August 16, 1921, due to these delayed payments. 3. The Petition: Luis Guzman, as administrator, filed a petition with the Supreme Court, ostensibly for a writ of mandamus, seeking relief from the order of immediate execution. The Supreme Court, however, treated the petition as one for a writ of certiorari, as it deemed the facts presented more aligned with that remedy. The petitioner argued that the ten-day period for monthly payments should be computed from the date of the appeal, with each month lasting thirty days. The respondents contended, and the Court agreed, that payments were due on or before the tenth day of each calendar month, and the payment made on August 11, 1921, was therefore late, validating the order for execution.
Issue(s)
Whether the payments of monthly rentals made by the defendant-appellant in an unlawful detainer case, pending appeal, were made within the period prescribed by law to avoid immediate execution of the judgment. Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in ordering the immediate execution of the judgment.
Ruling
The Supreme Court sustained the demurrer to the petition. The Court held that the payment made on August 11, 1921, was one day late, and therefore, the order for immediate execution was in conformity with law. The petition was dismissed unless amended within five days to show a sufficient cause of action.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the interpretation of Section 88 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended, requires payment of monthly rentals on or before the tenth day of each calendar month. The phrase "on or before the tenth day of each calendar month" is unambiguous and refers to the tenth day of the calendar month itself, not ten days after the expiration of a thirty-day period from the date of appeal. The Court also noted that Section 13 of the Administrative Code (1917) clarifies that 'month' refers to a calendar month, superseding Article 7 of the Civil Code regarding the thirty-day computation. Therefore, the payment made on August 11, 1921, was indeed late, as it should have been made on or before August 10, 1921. The respondent's contention that payment should be made for each entire month in the calendar on or before the tenth day of the succeeding month was deemed correct and clearly intended by the law. On Issue 2: The Court found that the respondent judge acted in accordance with law when ordering the immediate execution of the judgment. Since the petitioner failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of paying the monthly rental on or before the tenth day of the calendar month, the condition for avoiding immediate execution was not met. Consequently, the judge had the legal authority and duty to order the execution of the judgment. The petition for certiorari, which seeks to annul an act of a lower court performed without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, was therefore without merit as the judge's action was legally justified.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed that under Section 88 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Act No. 2588, a defendant appealing an ejectment case from the justice of the peace court must pay the monthly rental on or before the tenth day of each calendar month to prevent immediate execution of the judgment. The Court clarified that 'month' refers to a calendar month, and payments made after the tenth day of the succeeding month are considered late, justifying the execution of the judgment.