Lee Tian Po & Co. v. Rodas
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Maria de la Estrella Soriano Vda. de Cerdeira filed an ejectment case against Lee Tian Po & Co. for a commercial premises. The Municipal Court of Manila rendered a judgment on September 1, 1947, ordering the defendant to vacate the premises and pay P380 monthly rent from July 1947 until vacation. Procedural History: The defendant appealed to the Court of First Instance of Manila. On January 14, 1948, the plaintiff filed a motion for execution of the judgment, alleging that the defendant failed to deposit the rent for December 1947. The defendant opposed the motion, arguing that they had tendered payment for both December and January rents on January 14, 1948. The Honorable Judge Rodas, after considering the arguments, found that the defendant failed to pay the December rent within the first ten days of January 1948 and ordered the execution of the judgment. A motion for reconsideration filed by the defendant on May 14, 1948, was denied on June 21, 1948. The Petition: The defendant, as petitioner in the present petition for certiorari and preliminary prohibitory injunction, alleged that the respondent judge acted in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order of execution.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge acted in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the execution of the judgment. Whether Commonwealth Act No. 689, as amended by Republic Act No. 66, applies to premises occupied for commercial purposes.
Ruling
The petition is denied, with costs against the petitioner. The order of execution issued by the respondent judge is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and excess of jurisdiction: The Court found that the respondent judge's conclusion that the defendant failed to pay the rent for December 1947 within the first ten days of January 1948 was well-founded. The defendant only tendered payment on January 14, 1948, along with the January rent. The Court reiterated the ruling in Zamora v. Dinglasan, which states that the provision of Article 8, Rule 72 of the Rules of Court is mandatory. If the appellant incurs in delay in the payment or deposit of accrued rentals, the appellee has the right to ask for the execution of the judgment, and it is the duty of the court to order such execution. The plaintiff did not waive her right to ask for execution; instead, she actively sought it through a motion filed on January 14, 1948, with notice to the defendant. On the applicability of Commonwealth Act No. 689: The Court noted that the petitioner, Lee Tian Po & Co., is a commercial firm occupying the premises for its business operations, not solely for habitation. Commonwealth Act No. 689, as amended, is intended for houses "destined exclusively for habitation" and does not apply to premises occupied for commercial purposes. Therefore, the petitioner could not invoke the provisions of this law to justify their occupancy or delay in payment. The cited cases of Arcega v. Dizon and Manotok v. Legaspi were distinguished, as they did not support the petitioner's contention in this regard. In Arcega, the Court held that failure to deposit rentals within the prescribed time during appeal warrants execution, and in Manotok, the right to ask for execution pending appeal was deemed waivable, which was not the case here as the plaintiff actively pursued execution.
Main Doctrine
The failure to deposit rentals within the period fixed by the Rules during the pendency of an appeal in an ejectment case entitles the plaintiff to the execution of the judgment, as the provision of Article 8, Rule 72 of the Rules of Court is mandatory and not discretionary.