G.R. No. L-8496; April 25, 1956
Lim Si, plaintiff-appellant, vs. Isabelo P. Lim, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

The plaintiff, Lim Si, occupies two doors of an accessoria owned by the defendant, Isabelo P. Lim. He was an old lessee and was allowed to occupy the premises starting July 15, 1953, after the building’s reconstruction. No definite rent was fixed initially, but it was understood it would be the same as other lessees. The plaintiff believed the rent should be P300 per door (P600 total), equivalent to what another lessee paid for better quarters. As the defendant could not decide on the amount, they agreed the plaintiff would deposit P1,000 to be applied for rents starting January 1954. The plaintiff repeatedly offered P600 monthly, but the defendant refused. On April 2, 1954, the defendant demanded P700 monthly rent from January 1, 1954. Fearing an ejectment suit, the plaintiff began depositing P600 monthly, first with the defendant and later with the court. The plaintiff filed a complaint praying for the court to fix the monthly rental at P600 from January 1, 1954, and to authorize him to continue occupying the premises. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing the action was an improper consignation and the issue should be resolved in an ejectment case. The defendant also informed the court he had filed an ejectment case (Civil Case No. 22492) against the plaintiff in the Municipal Court of Manila. The trial court dismissed the complaint, ruling the rental question would be involved in the pending ejectment action and that an owner cannot be compelled to lease property.

ISSUE

Whether the plaintiff’s action for judicial fixation of rental and consignation is the proper remedy, or whether the disagreement between lessor and lessee over the amount of rent should be decided in the ejectment case filed by the lessor.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. It held that the plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendant under the alleged facts. Consignation under Article 1176 of the Civil Code is not the proper proceeding to determine landlord-tenant relations, the reasonableness of rental, or the tenant’s right to retain possession against the landlord’s will. These questions must be decided in an ejectment case under Rule 72 of the Rules of Court. The Court cited Pue, et al. vs. Gonzales, which held that a lessee’s defense that a demanded rental is unreasonable should be submitted in the ejectment action initiated by the lessor, not in a separate consignation case. Consignation is proper for extinguishing an existing debt when a creditor refuses acceptance, not for determining the obligation’s amount. The defendant has the cause of action because the plaintiff refuses to pay the fixed rent and will not vacate. If the plaintiff claims the demanded rent is unreasonable, he should raise it as a defense in the ejectment case filed against him.