GR 91406; (July, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. No. 91406 , July 31, 1990
HEIRS OF JULIO ROSAS, represented by MERCEDES ROSAS, petitioners, vs. HON. OSCAR R. REYES, Presiding Judge of Pasay City Branch 47, Metropolitan Trial Court, CHARRY CARANAY and SANTIAGO I. BARCENAS, respondents.
FACTS
The petitioners, owners of a residential apartment in Pasay City, leased a unit to private respondents under a contract expiring in June 1986. In February 1987, petitioners demanded a rental increase and, alternatively, that respondents vacate. Respondents refused the increase, claiming an implied renewal of the lease. Petitioners later refused rental payments, prompting respondents to deposit rentals in a bank. Petitioners filed an unlawful detainer suit. The Metropolitan Trial Court ruled for petitioners, ordering ejectment.
On appeal, the Regional Trial Court reversed, dismissing the complaint. The RTC found no valid demand to vacate before the old lease expired, creating an implied new lease under Article 1670 of the Civil Code. Applying Article 1687, the RTC fixed a definite new lease period of six months, ending April 30, 1988, ordering respondents to vacate by that date. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. After April 30, 1988, petitioners filed a motion for execution in the MTC to enforce the vacation order, but the respondent judge denied it, treating the RTC’s directive as a mere instruction requiring a fresh ejectment suit.
ISSUE
Whether, after a court fixes a definite period for an implied new lease, the lessor may eject the lessee upon its expiration via a motion for execution, without filing a new ejectment action.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, ordering execution. The RTC decision, while dismissing the original ejectment complaint, simultaneously fixed a new six-month lease term ending April 30, 1988, pursuant to Article 1687. This judicial fixing of a period is a final determination of the lease’s duration. Upon its expiration, the lessee’s right to possess terminates. The portion of the dispositive clause ordering vacation by that date is an integral, executory part of the judgment, not a mere directive. Enforcement requires only a motion for execution under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, as no new factual determination is needed. Requiring a new ejectment suit would defeat judicial economy, promote multiplicity of suits, and frustrate speedy disposition. The respondent judge’s denial constituted an error of judgment. The Court also ordered private respondents to pay unpaid rentals until vacation, rejecting an alleged unauthorized condonation. No administrative sanction was imposed on the judge, as there was no showing of bad faith.