G.R. No. L-22022 December 26, 1967
Emiliano T. Ramirez, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Jose Sy Chit, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Plaintiff Emiliano T. Ramirez is the owner of a parcel of land in Manila, a portion of which (188.30 sq.m.) had been leased to defendant Jose Sy Chit since 1946 at a monthly rental of P230.00, payable in advance. The lease was not in writing. Plaintiff notified defendant in June and September 1962 of his intention to terminate the lease to construct a building. Defendant, who had constructed a building on the land and subleased it, failed to vacate. Plaintiff filed an ejectment case in the Municipal Court. Defendant invoked Article 1687 of the Civil Code, asking the court to fix the period of the lease. The Municipal Court fixed June 30, 1963 as the termination date, ordered defendant to pay accruing rentals and vacate by that date, awarded attorney’s fees, and imposed damages of P25.00 per day for delay in vacating. Defendant appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI). During the appeal, plaintiff moved for execution due to defendant’s failure to pay rents for April and May 1963. The CFI granted execution and later affirmed the Municipal Court’s decision in toto. Defendant appealed, assigning errors regarding the execution order, jurisdiction, lease duration, damages, and attorney’s fees.

ISSUE

1. Whether the order of execution pending appeal was premature.
2. Whether the Municipal Court had jurisdiction over the action considering defendant’s invocation of Article 1687 of the Civil Code.
3. Whether defendant was entitled to a longer period of lease.
4. Whether the award of P25.00 per day as damages, in addition to monthly rents, was proper.
5. Whether the award of attorney’s fees to plaintiff was proper.

RULING

1. No, the order of execution was not premature. The extended lease period granted by the court was conditional upon payment of current rentals, which defendant failed to pay. Furthermore, the issue became moot as execution was carried out after the CFI’s confirmatory decision.
2. Yes, the Municipal Court had jurisdiction. The action remained one for ejectment. The court’s power under Article 1687 to fix the lease period is incidental to the ejectment action and can be exercised by the court hearing it, preserving the summary nature of ejectment proceedings.
3. No, defendant was not entitled to a longer period. The court’s power to fix the period is discretionary. No abuse of discretion was shown, as defendant did not personally occupy the premises but subleased them, and the period granted (over a year from the first notice) was reasonable.
4. No, the award of P25.00 per day as damages in addition to the monthly rental was improper. Under the Rules of Court, the damages recoverable in ejectment correspond to the reasonable value of the use and occupation, which in this case is the agreed monthly rental. An additional daily award has no legal basis.
5. Yes, the award of P200.00 as attorney’s fees to plaintiff was proper. Defendant unjustifiably continued the litigation, putting plaintiff to unnecessary expense, which is sanctioned under Article 2208 of the Civil Code.
The decision was AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the award of damages (P25.00 per day) was set aside.