G.R. No. L-21447 November 29, 1965
JOSE REYES, SOLEDAD REYES and CARMELITA REYES DE PASTOR, petitioners, vs. HON. FRANCISCO ARCA, Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance of Manila (Branch 1) and EUSEBIO MILLAR, respondents.

FACTS

Feliciano and Pilar Basa leased three parcels of registered land to Eusebio Millar on December 3, 1949, for a five-year term renewable for another five years, at a monthly rental of P320.00 payable in advance. The lease agreement included an option for Millar to purchase the property should the lessors decide to sell, with a stipulation that any buyer would respect the lease terms. On August 28, 1953, the Basas sold the properties to Jose Reyes, Soledad Reyes, and Carmelita Reyes de Pastor for P42,000.00. The buyers respected the lease in favor of Millar. On March 16, 1954, Millar filed an action against the Basas and the buyers to declare the sale null and void, to exercise his option to purchase, and to recover damages. Millar also deposited the monthly rentals with the court from September 1953 onward due to the litigation. On June 22, 1959, Millar moved to withdraw the deposits (which had reached P20,000.00) upon filing a surety bond, which the trial court granted on September 25, 1959. Millar withdrew the cash deposit on September 28, 1959, after filing an “Undertaking Covering Real Property” as security. On February 2, 1963, the buyer-defendants moved to require Millar to deposit rentals from January 1959 to December 1962 (totaling P15,360.00) and to continue depositing monthly rentals thereafter. The trial court denied this motion on March 20, 1963, and denied a motion for reconsideration on April 6, 1963. The buyers then filed this petition for certiorari and mandamus.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to require the lessee, Eusebio Millar, to deposit the accrued and future rentals with the court during the pendency of the litigation.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari. The lessee, Eusebio Millar, has a clear legal duty under Article 1657 of the New Civil Code to pay the rent according to the terms stipulated. The law (Article 1658, New Civil Code) allows suspension of rent payment only in two specific instances: failure of the lessor to make necessary repairs or to maintain the lessee in peaceful and adequate enjoyment. None of these grounds existed in this case. By sustaining the suspension of rental payments without legal basis, the trial court sanctioned the unjust enjoyment of another’s property without payment, contrary to the principle of justice and good faith under Article 19 of the New Civil Code. This constituted grave abuse of discretion tantamount to excess of jurisdiction. Since an appeal would not be a speedy and adequate remedy, certiorari was appropriate. The Court set aside the orders dated March 20 and April 6, 1963, and ordered respondent Millar to deposit with the trial court the sum of P16,640.00 for rentals from January 1959 to April 1963, and monthly rentals of P320.00 for every month thereafter.