G.R. No. L-46468. May 27, 1981.
FRANCISCO SAURE, petitioner, vs. HON. PRUDENCIO S. PENTECOSTES, Municipal Judge of Camiling, Tarlac, DEPUTY SHERIFF VIVENCIO PALANCIO, SPOUSES TELESFORO GALANG and NIEVES GALANG, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Francisco Saure was the lessee of a unit in a building owned by respondent spouses Telesforo and Nieves Galang. He used the premises as his family’s residence for ten years, operating a small photography shop therein to supplement his income. The lease was for an indefinite period at a monthly rental of P50.00. Private respondents sought to eject Saure after he refused to accede to their demand to increase the rental to P180.00. Respondent Municipal Judge Prudencio S. Pentecostes rendered a decision ordering Saure’s ejectment and later denied his motion for relief from judgment. A writ of execution was issued by Deputy Sheriff Vivencio Palancio.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the ejectment of the petitioner despite the protective provisions of Presidential Decree No. 20.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari and prohibition, nullifying the challenged decision and orders. The Court held that the respondent judge committed a jurisdictional error by disregarding the explicit mandate of Presidential Decree No. 20. This decree indefinitely suspended the filing of ejectment cases for dwelling units, except when the lease is for a definite period, and prohibited rental increases for units where the monthly rental does not exceed P300.00. The lease here was indefinite and the rental was only P50.00, squarely placing it under the decree’s protection. The mere location of the building in a commercial district or the presence of a small home business did not convert the residential unit into a commercial establishment excluded from the decree’s coverage. The law’s definition of a residential unit includes those used for home industries or retail stores if the owner or lessee actually lives therein and uses it principally for dwelling purposes. The sole ground for ejectment was the refusal to pay an illegal rental increase, which is prohibited. The decree, as a police power measure intended to alleviate the plight of lessees, applies to existing leases and must be construed liberally to achieve its beneficent purpose. Consequently, the ejectment action was not legally allowable, rendering the respondent judge’s decision void for lack of jurisdiction. The Court made permanent its restraining order but directed petitioner to pay all back rentals within ninety days.