G.R. No. L‑3078 (December 7 1906)
FACTS
– On 15 January 1904 Bosque sold a house to Perez with a “right of repurchase” exercisable until 31 March 1905 and agreed to occupy the house as a tenant paying ₱40 per month.
– On 24 August 1904 the parties executed a new notarial deed cancelling the January contract and selling the house to Perez outright for ₱4,000; the same day Perez granted Bosque a renewed right of repurchase until 31 May 1905.
– The August instruments were silent on occupancy. Bosque continued to occupy the house until he vacated on 31 May 1905 and never exercised the repurchase right.
– Perez sued for ₱580 in unpaid rent. Evidence showed Bosque had paid rent for three months (including a receipt dated 1 June 1904).
ISSUE
Whether Bosque is liable for rent from 1 July 1904 to 31 May 1905, and if the lower court’s issuance of execution was procedurally proper.
RULING
– The lease created by the January contract obligated Bosque to pay ₱40 per month; rent for July 190424 August 1904 is owed under its express terms.
– The August contracts did not address occupancy; Bosque’s continued possession for 15 days after the original lease’s termination implied a renewal under Art. 1566 Civil Code. Consequently, Bosque is liable for rent from 24 August 1904 to 31 May 1905 at the same rate.
– Procedural irregularities in the issuance of execution did not prejudice the defendant’s substantive rights; the judgment stands.
Disposition
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed; costs are imposed on the appellant (Perez).