GR L 57469; (April, 1988) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-57469 April 15, 1988
GUEVARA REALTY, INC., petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, DOMINADOR CACPAL, Sheriff of the City of Manila, VICTORINO VARGAS, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Guevara Realty, Inc. filed an ejectment case against its lessee, Ma Kong, in the City Court of Manila for non-payment of rentals. The court rendered a decision ordering Ma Kong to vacate the premises and pay accrued rentals, which became final and executory. A writ of execution was subsequently issued. The building was occupied by various sub-lessees of Ma Kong, who were not made parties to the ejectment suit. These sub-lessees filed a petition for prohibition in the Court of First Instance of Manila to enjoin the execution, but the petition was dismissed. Instead of appealing, they filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which issued a resolution restraining the enforcement of the ejectment order. Guevara Realty then filed the instant petition before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether sub-lessees are bound by a final judgment of ejectment rendered against the lessee, even if they were not impleaded as parties to the case.
RULING
Yes, sub-lessees are bound by the judgment against their sublessor. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s reasoning that a sub-lessee’s right of possession is derived entirely from, and is dependent upon, the right of the lessee. Since Ma Kong, the sublessor, lost his right to possess the premises by virtue of a final judgment, the sub-lessees’ rights were concomitantly extinguished. They cannot assert a better right than their sublessor. The legal principle, well-established in jurisprudence, is that a judgment of eviction against a lessee affects his sub-lessees because the sub-lessees’ possession is merely an extension of the lessee’s possession. The sub-lessees’ recourse, if any, is to seek damages from their sublessor for any breach of their sublease agreement, but they cannot resist the execution of the ejectment judgment obtained by the owner against the principal lessee. The Court also noted that the lease was for commercial purposes, thus, rental control laws (P.D. No. 20 and B.P. No. 25 ) were inapplicable. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the Court of Appeals’ resolution, and made permanent the restraining order against the enforcement of that resolution.