G.R. No. L-44563. May 31, 1978.
GERONIMO REALTY COMPANY, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and DOMINGO AVERIA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Geronimo Realty Company and respondent Domingo Averia entered into a lease agreement dated August 26, 1970, settling a prior ejectment suit. The contract stipulated a five-year lease term with specified monthly rentals. A key provision stated that the ceiling height of Averia’s 20-square-meter space would match that of an adjacent lessee. During the construction of the new building, Averia noticed a mezzanine being built above his leased area. He filed a motion in the prior case to stop this construction, but the trial court ruled that any alleged breach of the lease agreement must be pursued in a separate action, not via a motion for execution.
Despite his protest, Averia occupied the premises in October 1971 and paid the stipulated rentals without fail for fifteen months, until December 1972. In January 1973, after sending a letter reiterating his objection to the mezzanine, Averia unilaterally stopped paying rent, stating he would withhold payments until the company complied with the agreement. Geronimo Realty subsequently filed an ejectment suit for willful breach of contract and non-payment of rentals.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Averia’s unilateral stoppage of rental payments, based on an alleged violation of the lease contract concerning ceiling height, constitutes a willful breach justifying his ejectment.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reinstated the decision of the Court of First Instance ordering Averia’s ejectment. The legal logic is anchored on the principle that a lessee cannot unilaterally suspend the payment of rent based on a perceived violation of the lease contract, especially after having peacefully occupied the premises and paid rentals without protest for a significant period. Averia accepted the premises and paid rentals regularly for 15 months from October 1971 to December 1972. This conduct constituted acquiescence and effectively waived any immediate right to withhold payment based on the initial condition of the premises.
The proper remedy for the alleged violation concerning the mezzanine construction was a separate action for specific performance or damages, as correctly indicated by the trial court when it denied his motion in the prior case. By choosing instead to withhold rent, Averia committed a willful breach of his essential obligation to pay. The lease contract’s terms, including the rental amounts, were binding. The city court erred in reducing the stipulated rental; such a unilateral modification was unjustified. Consequently, Averia’s non-payment was not justified, and his ejectment for willful breach of contract was proper. The Supreme Court ordered immediate execution of the judgment.