GR L 27598; (May, 1968) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-27598 May 27, 1968
ELISA MEDINA CUE, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PILAR DOLLA, defendant-appellee, PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK, intervenor-appellant.
FACTS
Plaintiff Elisa Medina Cue sold a land and building, which included premises leased by defendant Pilar Dolla on a month-to-month basis, to Philippine Savings Bank (PSB) by a deed dated February 14, 1966. The deed required Cue to deliver possession free from tenants by May 31, 1966. Cue notified Dolla of the sale and requested her to vacate, but Dolla refused. Cue then terminated the lease and filed an ejectment suit in the city court. The city court rendered judgment on June 18, 1966, allowing Dolla to stay for one year provided she continued paying rentals. Both parties appealed to the Court of First Instance. Before trial in the CFI, PSB filed a motion to intervene on November 10, 1966, joining Cue’s prayer to eject Dolla but seeking increased reasonable compensation of P14,000 per month. The CFI denied the motion to intervene, reasoning that PSB’s failure to intervene in the city court was fatal and that intervention would create new issues. PSB’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of First Instance erred in denying Philippine Savings Bank’s motion to intervene in the ejectment case while it was on appeal for trial de novo.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the orders of the lower court and directed it to allow PSB’s intervention. The Court held that a perfected appeal from the city court to the CFI operates to vacate the judgment of the inferior court, and the case stands for trial de novo as if originally commenced in the CFI. Since all proceedings in the city court are deemed vacated, intervention may be permitted before trial in the CFI. The intervention would not change the cause of action, which remains ejectment; the increase in the amount claimed for compensation is merely incidental to that cause. The Court found that the trial court’s discretion was not prudently exercised, considering PSB’s investment, its need for possession to construct a branch office, and the prejudice from delay under its deed of sale.