GR L 4043; (February, 1908) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-4043
ROMAN DE LA ROSA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. GREGORIO REVITA SANTOS, Defendant-Appellant.
February 17, 1908 | Mapa, J.
—
FACTS:
1. Property Ownership & Execution Sale:
– Defendant Gregorio Revita Santos owned seven tenement houses in Calle P. Herrera, Tondo, Manila.
– The properties were sold at a sheriff’s auction on February 5, 1906, under a writ of execution. Plaintiff Roman de la Rosa purchased them for P100 as the highest bidder.
– At the time of sale, Santos occupied one of the houses.
2. Demand for Possession/Rent:
– De la Rosa demanded Santos vacate the property within 30 days or pay a monthly rent of P175 (P25 per apartment). Santos refused to pay or vacate.
– On July 17, 1906, De la Rosa filed a complaint to recover possession and accrued rent.
3. Lower Court Ruling:
– The trial court ordered Santos to pay P540 in back rent (at P90/month). Santos appealed.
—
ISSUE:
Whether a judgment debtor (Santos) occupying the property sold at an execution sale is obligated to pay rent to the purchaser (De la Rosa) during the redemption period.
—
RULING:
NO. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision, absolving Santos from paying rent.
1. Statutory Interpretation:
– Under Section 469 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a purchaser is entitled to collect rent from tenants occupying the property during redemption. However, the law is silent on whether the judgment debtor (owner) must pay rent if they remain in possession.
– The Court applied the maxim “inclusio unius est exclusio alterius”since the statute expressly covers tenants but not the judgment debtor, the latter is excluded from the obligation.
2. Practical & Legal Implications:
– Rent collected from tenants is credited toward the redemption price, benefiting the judgment debtor. Forcing the debtor to pay rent would be circularany payment would ultimately offset their own redemption liability.
– The law’s silence on debtors implies no legislative intent to impose such an obligation.
3. Disposition:
– The Court dismissed De la Rosa’s claim for rent and Santos’ cross-complaint (regarding redemption, which was rendered moot as Santos’ successor had already redeemed the property).
No costs awarded.
Concurring Justices: Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson, Carson, Willard, and Tracey.
—
KEY TAKEAWAY:
– Judgment debtors occupying their own property post-execution sale are not liable for rent to the purchaser during redemption.
– Statutory silence excludes obligations not expressly imposed.
– Rent claims apply only to third-party tenants, not the debtor-owner.