Villaroman v. Techico
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Francisco R. Villaroman, owner of apartments on Magdalena Street, Manila, filed an action for forcible entry against respondent Florentino J. Techico for occupying apartment No. 1324 without a contract. Villaroman claimed he needed the apartment for his own use. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance (CFI) initially found that Villaroman had consented to Techico's occupancy with the expectation of reasonable rental and ordered Techico to vacate and pay P100 monthly. Upon a second motion for reconsideration, the CFI found that Villaroman did not need the premises for his own use but for remodeling, and allowed Techico to stay upon payment of P100 monthly, conditional on Villaroman's affidavit that the building was ready for remodeling and all tenants were vacating. The Court of Appeals modified the decision by increasing the monthly rental to P150. The Petition: Villaroman appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning as errors the indefinite stay granted to Techico, the indirect application of Commonwealth Act No. 689, as amended by Republic Act No. 66, and the fixing of the rental at P150 monthly despite similar apartments renting for P200.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in allowing the defendant-appellee to remain in possession of the premises indefinitely upon paying a monthly rental of P150. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in indirectly applying the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 689, as amended by Republic Act No. 66, to the instant case. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in fixing the reasonable rental of the premises at P150 monthly, despite its finding that other similar and adjoining apartments are renting at P200.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the decision of the Court of Appeals, ordering the defendant-appellee to vacate the apartment in question and to pay the plaintiff P150 per month as rental from March 11, 1945, until he shall have actually vacated the apartment, with costs against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of indefinite possession and monthly rental: The Court held that the facts found by the trial court and the Court of Appeals showed that although the defendant occupied the apartment with the knowledge and consent of the owner, there was no agreement as to the duration of the lease or the amount of rental per month. Therefore, the case falls under Article 1581 of the Civil Code. This article states that in the absence of an agreement on the duration of the lease, it is understood to be from year to year if the rent is annual, from month to month if the rent is monthly, and from day to day if the rent is daily. Since the rental was monthly, the lease should be considered as from month to month and could be terminated by the plaintiff at the end of any month. The Court cited previous decisions, such as Roque vs. Cavestani de los Santos, Ramirez vs. Reyes, and Borja vs. Bautista, which support the principle that a monthly lease without a fixed term can be terminated by the landlord after each month with due notice, regardless of the tenant's willingness to pay or continue occupancy. On the applicability of Commonwealth Act No. 689, as amended by Republic Act No. 66: The Court ruled that the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 689, as amended by Republic Act No. 66, which refer only to buildings used for residential purposes, are not applicable to the present case. This is because the apartment in question is commercial, being partly used by the defendant as a drug store. Therefore, the appellate court did not err in not applying these statutes. On the fixing of the reasonable rental: The Court stated that the amount of rental fixed by the Court of Appeals is a question of fact that cannot be reviewed by the Supreme Court. The fact that adjoining similar apartments were renting for P200 a month, as found by the Court of Appeals, did not affect the latter's conclusion that P150 was a reasonable value for the use of the apartment in question. This was because the Court of Appeals itself considered the P200 rental for adjoining apartments to be somewhat excessive. Thus, the Supreme Court found no error in the Court of Appeals' determination of the monthly rental.
Main Doctrine
In the absence of a fixed term for a lease agreement with a monthly rental, the lease is considered to be on a month-to-month basis and may be terminated by the lessor at the end of any month, provided proper notice is given.