GR L 15983; (October, 1962) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-15983; October 31, 1962
MAXIMO ACIERTO, GABRIEL ALEGRE, ET AL., petitioners-appellants, vs. VICTORINA G. DE LAPERAL, assisted by her husband ROBERTO LAPERAL, respondents-appellees, CONSORCIA B. DAWAL represented by her attorney-in-fact JOE TUPA, intervenor-appellant.
FACTS
The petitioners, tenants on a month-to-month lease of portions of the respondents’ land in Tondo, Manila, sued in the municipal court to compel acceptance of their monthly rentals from December 1958 onward, offering to deposit them until the court fixed a longer lease period. The respondents refused the rentals, having notified the petitioners of their intent to eject them to construct their own building on the land, for which plans were already prepared. The municipal court, after hearing, ordered the petitioners to vacate the premises and to pay accrued rents. The petitioners perfected their appeal to the Court of First Instance of Manila.
The Court of First Instance set the case for hearing on June 2, 1959. On May 29, 1959, the petitioners’ counsel filed an unverified motion for postponement, citing a previously scheduled trial in Castillejos, Zambales. No supporting papers were attached. On June 2, neither the counsel nor the petitioners appeared in court. The trial court denied the motion for postponement and, due to this failure to appear, declared the appeal abandoned. A motion for reconsideration, which did not include an affidavit of merit, was subsequently denied.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for postponement and declaring the appeal abandoned.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order, finding no abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized that motions for postponement are addressed to the sound discretion of the court. The petitioners’ motion was procedurally defective: it was not under oath and lacked supporting evidence for the alleged conflict in schedule. Furthermore, the motion was not set for hearing prior to the trial date, and the petitioners’ failure to appear on the scheduled date indicated an erroneous assumption that the postponement would be automatically granted.
The Court also noted the absence of a meritorious defense, which was evident from the petitioners’ failure to attach an affidavit of merit to their motion for reconsideration. On the substantive merits, the Court ruled that the respondents’ action for ejectment was legitimate. The lease contracts were on a month-to-month basis under Article 1687 of the Civil Code, expiring automatically at the end of each month without need for a special demand. The respondents had given the petitioners, who had occupied the premises for over a year, more than three months’ notice to vacate to pursue their construction plans, which was deemed reasonable. Therefore, the declaration that the appeal was abandoned was proper.