GR L 93 94; (April, 1946) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-93 and L-94. April 25, 1946.
Lucia Gomez, et al., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. Ñg Fat, et al., defendants-appellants.
FACTS
The plaintiffs-appellees filed two separate ejectment cases against the defendants-appellants, who were lessees of houses in Manila. The plaintiffs sought to eject the defendants on the ground that the lease contracts were terminated due to the defendants’ breach, specifically their non-payment of monthly rentals from February 1945. The defendants answered that their failure to pay was due to the plaintiffs’ demand for increased rentals (demanding P50 instead of P32 from Dee Choy Pio Lee, and P80 instead of P37 from Ng Fat) and because the plaintiffs had stopped sending their collector to collect the rents. The Court of First Instance of Manila, on appeal from the municipal court, rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering the ejectment of the defendants. The defendants appealed.
ISSUE
Whether the defendants’ failure to pay the rentals from February 1945 constitutes a valid ground for their ejectment under the circumstances.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the lower court and dismissed the complaints. The Court found the appellants’ defense meritorious. It was improbable that the appellants would intentionally default on payments during a period of acute housing shortage in Manila, especially when they had regularly paid rentals since 1941 until January 1945. Their hesitation to pay was more likely due to the plaintiffs’ unlawful demand for increased rentals. The appellants’ default was not the type that justified dispossession under Article 1569 of the Civil Code or the Rules of Court. Furthermore, the default was partly attributable to the plaintiffs’ own omission or neglect to collect the rents, as the place of payment, in the absence of an agreement, was the lessees’ domicile. The plaintiffs’ practice of sending a collector and the abnormal conditions in Manila in February 1945 supported this conclusion. The Court also rejected the claim against Ng Fat for admitting subtenants, as the lease contract contained no express prohibition against subletting under Article 1550 of the Civil Code. Finally, the alleged termination of the lease contracts was premised solely on the non-payment of rents, which the Court had already overruled. The complaints were dismissed, with costs against the plaintiffs, who were allowed to withdraw all deposits made by the defendants for overdue rents.