GR 3406; (March, 1907) (Digest)
G.R. No. 3406 (March 4 1907)
FACTS
– José Iturralde, as duly appointed agent of the owners of the hacienda “La Estanzuela,” sued Sotero Evangelista for possession of a 3,656 m² parcel that formed part of the hacienda.
– The plaintiff alleged that the defendant occupied the land as a tenant, had previously paid the agreed rent of ₱1.50 per annum, but refused to pay the increased rent of ₱12.00 per annum that the owners sought to impose from May 1904 onward, and thus should be ejectÂed and required to pay all accrued rentals and costs.
– The trial court ordered the defendant to vacate, to pay rentals of ₱1.50 per annum from May 1900 to May 1903, and ₱12.00 per annum from May 1904 to the execution of the judgment, and to bear costs.
– The defendant appealed, contended that the factual findings were manifestly contrary to the evidence, and moved for a new trial. He also failed to file a printed brief as required by Supreme Court rules.
ISSUE
1. Whether the lower court’s findings of fact and the award of rentals were supported by the evidence, particularly concerning the period May 1903 May 1904 that was omitted in the award.
2. Whether the appellant’s failure to submit a printed brief bars the Supreme Court from adjudicating the merits of the appeal.
RULING
– The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s factual findings that the plaintiff was the lawful owner, the parcel lay within the hacienda, and the defendant occupied it as a tenant who had previously paid the stipulated rent.
– The Court held that the lower court erred in omitting the rentals for the period May 1903 May 1904; therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to:
1. ₱1.50 per annum for each year from May 1900 to May 1904 (total ₱6.00);
2. ₱12.00 per annum for each year from May 1904 until the judgment is executed;
3. Issuance of a writ of ejectment; and
4. Recovery of costs.
– The procedural defect of the appellant’s unprinted brief was noted, but it did not prevent the Court from deciding the case on the merits. The appeal was thus allowed, and the judgment was modified to include the missing rent for May 1903 May 1904.