G.R. No. L-28170 and L-28200, February 17, 1968.
Carmen Pardo de Tavera y Lopez Manzano, petitioner, vs. Demetrio B. Encarnacion; Hon. Jose B. Jimenez as Judge, Court of First Instance of Cavite, Branch III; Hon. Walfrido de los Angeles, as Judge, Court of First Instance of Rizal, and Hon. Ricardo Tensuan, as Judge, Court of First Instance of Quezon City, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Carmen Pardo de Tavera is the owner of a parcel of land in Quezon City. On February 18, 1954, she leased the lot to respondent Demetrio B. Encarnacion for twelve (12) years at a monthly rental of P120.00. The contract stipulated that the lease could be renewed for another eight (8) years if both parties agreed on the terms at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the initial term; otherwise, the lease would not be renewed. Before the lease expired on February 18, 1966, the parties exchanged communications but failed to reach an agreement on renewal, with the lessee requesting a reduced rental and the lessor proposing an increased rental. On February 17, 1966, one day before expiration, the lessee filed a complaint for specific performance with damages in the Court of First Instance of Cavite, seeking renewal at a reduced rental. After the lease expired, on March 10, 1966, the lessor instituted an unlawful detainer case against the lessee in the City Court of Quezon City. The lessee then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, which issued an order restraining the city court from proceeding with the ejectment case. The Court of First Instance of Cavite also declared it had jurisdiction over the specific performance case. The lessor filed the present petition directly with the Supreme Court seeking annulment of the lower courts’ orders, prohibition against further proceedings in those cases, and mandamus to order the Quezon City court to proceed with the ejectment case.

ISSUE

Whether the issue of the lessee’s right to a renewal of the lease contract should be decided in the unlawful detainer-ejectment case filed by the lessor, thereby making the separate action for specific performance before the Court of First Instance of Cavite dismissible to avoid multiplicity of suits.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition. It ruled that the right of a lessee to occupy the land against the lessor’s demand should be decided under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court governing ejectment cases. The lessee’s claim of a right to renewal is a proper and legitimate defense that can be raised in the unlawful detainer suit. The principle prohibiting multiplicity of suits applies, and the mere fact that the unlawful detainer case was filed after the specific performance action does not bar the dismissal of the latter, as the rules require only a pending action, not a prior pending action. The writs of certiorari and prohibition were issued, the preliminary injunction was made permanent, and costs were assessed against respondent Encarnacion.