Arambulo v. Perez
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: This case concerns an ejectment dispute over premises located at No. 1933 M. Natividad, Manila. The plaintiffs initiated legal action against the defendant, Pepita Perez, seeking possession of the property. The core of the dispute appears to stem from the defendant's refusal to pay an increased rental amount demanded by the plaintiffs. 2. Procedural History: The ejectment case originated in the municipal court, which ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. The defendant appealed this decision to the Court of First Instance of Manila, which also rendered a judgment of ouster against her. The defendant subsequently filed an appeal to the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: The defendant's appeal to the Supreme Court raises two primary assignments of error. First, it is argued that the complaint is fatally defective due to an insufficient verification, failing to meet the requirements of Rule of Court No. 15, section 6. Second, the defendant contends that the plaintiffs do not require the premises for their own use and that the suit was motivated by the defendant's refusal to pay increased rent. The defendant also alluded to the plaintiffs rebuilding their house after the lower court's judgment, a point not timely raised as proof.
Issue(s)
Whether the complaint was fatally defective due to improper verification. Whether the plaintiffs genuinely needed the premises for their own use, and if the ejectment suit was motivated by the defendant's refusal to pay increased rent. Whether evidence not presented during the trial could be considered on appeal.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila, ordering the ejectment of the defendant-appellant. The Court found the complaint to be substantially compliant with the verification requirements and upheld the lessor's right to recover possession of the premises. The Court also ruled that evidence not presented during the trial could not be considered on appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: Whether the complaint was fatally defective due to improper verification. The Court held that the complaint was substantially compliant with the verification requirements under the Rules of Court. The attorney for the plaintiffs signed the complaint and included an oath stating that he had read the pleading and that the allegations thereof were true to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief. The Court clarified that Section 6 of Rule 15, which requires the affiant to state that the allegations are true of his own knowledge, applies when the person verifying is other than the attorney signing the pleading. In this case, the attorney's certification under Section 5 of Rule 15 was deemed sufficient. The Court also referenced the case of Lim Bonfing y Hermanos, Inc. vs. Rodriguez, emphasizing that an oath stating "to the best of my knowledge and belief" does not preclude personal knowledge and is distinct from an oath based solely on information. The Court further noted that Section 5 of Rule 15 provides a safeguard against sham pleadings by authorizing the striking of such pleadings and the imposition of disciplinary penalties on erring attorneys. On Issue 2: Whether the plaintiffs genuinely needed the premises for their own use, and if the ejectment suit was motivated by the defendant's refusal to pay increased rent. The Court overruled the defendant's arguments regarding the plaintiffs' need for the premises and the motivation behind the ejectment suit. The lower court had already ruled against these defenses, and the Supreme Court found no sufficient ground to reverse this finding. The Court cited the ruling in De Licauco vs. Reyes Estaniel, stating that a tenant's defense that the lessor owns other houses and may lease them out would lead to a complete nullification of the lessor's right to recover possession. The Court also noted that Commonwealth Act No. 689, as amended by Republic Act No. 66, which might otherwise provide protection to tenants, expressly excepts cases where the premises are needed by the lessors, as in the present case. On Issue 3: Whether evidence not presented during the trial could be considered on appeal. The Court refused to consider the defendant's intimation that the plaintiffs had rebuilt their house after it was burned, as this information was contained in the defendant's memorandum and was not timely made the subject of proof during the trial. The Court stated that it could not take this point into account. Moreover, this assertion was met by a denial under oath in the plaintiffs' memorandum, further precluding its consideration. The principle that issues not raised or evidence not presented in the lower courts cannot be considered for the first time on appeal was implicitly applied.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed that a complaint verified by the attorney's oath, stating that the allegations are true to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, substantially complies with the Rules of Court. It also reiterated that a lessor's need for the leased premises for their own use is a valid ground for ejectment, and tenants cannot defeat this right by arguing that the lessor owns other properties. The Court emphasized that new issues or evidence not presented during the trial cannot be considered on appeal.