GR L 1066; (November, 1902) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-1066, November 22, 1902
SITIA TECO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. THE HEIRS OF BALBINO VENTURA HOCORMA, defendants-appellees.
FACTS:
The plaintiff, Sitia Teco, filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila against the heirs of Balbino Ventura Hocorma. Teco alleged that during his lifetime, Hocorma entered into a rental contract with him for a plot of land on Calle Santa Elena, Tondo, Manila, for the purpose of building a structure. After Hocorma’s death, his heirs collected the monthly rents, which Teco claimed ratified the contract. However, the defendants refused to accept the rent for February and subsequently terminated the lease, arguing that it was on a month-to-month basis and could be terminated under Article 1581 of the Civil Code without special notice. Teco contended that Article 1581 did not apply because the lot was leased specifically for building purposes. During the suit, Teco sought a preliminary injunction, claiming the defendants repossessed the land after the municipal government demolished his building and were preparing to construct their own. The trial court ruled against Teco, dissolving the injunction. Teco appealed, seeking to restore the injunction and arguing that his appeal and supersedeas bond suspended the trial court’s judgment.
ISSUE:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary injunction to maintain possession of the leased property pending appeal, and whether the month-to-month lease was validly terminated under Article 1581 of the Civil Code.
RULING:
The Supreme Court denied the application for a preliminary injunction and affirmed the trial court’s decision. The Court held:
1. An appeal from an order dissolving an injunction does not revive the interlocutory injunction, following the precedent in Watson & Co. vs. Enriquez.
2. Article 1581 of the Civil Code applies to the lease, as the rent was fixed monthly and no fixed term was established. The owners were therefore at liberty to terminate the lease at the end of any month upon proper notice.
3. The plaintiff failed to demonstrate a clear right to possession or any equitable grounds for injunctive relief, especially since the building he erected had been demolished, negating any potential equities related to improvements.
4. The bill of exceptions was defective for not showing any exception taken to the trial court’s orders or judgment.
The application for injunction was denied, with costs against the plaintiff.