GR L 9428; (December, 1956) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-9428 December 21, 1956
Domingo R. Acasio, petitioner, vs. Corporacion de los PP. Dominicos de Filipinas, respondent.
FACTS
The respondent corporation owned a house in Manila leased to Esteban Garcia for P75 monthly. Garcia subleased two rooms to spouses Domingo R. Acasio and Vicente Tengco Acasio for P25 monthly. In 1950, Garcia demanded the Acasios vacate and filed an ejectment suit, which was dismissed in January 1952. Garcia vacated at January’s end. On February 5, 1952, Mrs. Acasio went to the administrator of the corporation’s properties and, upon being informed the rent would be increased to P100, paid that amount for February, albeit reluctantly. That same day, Domingo Acasio wrote protesting the increase. The corporation refused to reduce the rent. The Acasios subsequently refused to pay P100, insisting on P75. The corporation filed an ejectment action in September 1952. The Court of First Instance allowed Acasio to remain until July 31, 1953, at P75 monthly, and ordered him to pay P100 monthly thereafter or vacate. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding Acasio’s refusal to pay P100 violated the lease terms, ordering him to vacate and pay P100 monthly from March 1952.
ISSUE
Whether petitioner Domingo R. Acasio is entitled to the benefits of Article 1687 of the New Civil Code, allowing courts to fix a longer term for a lease, based on his occupancy since the Japanese occupation.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. First, the Court upheld the appellate court’s factual finding that from April 1945, the lessee was Esteban Garcia, and the Acasios were mere sub-lessees. Mrs. Acasio’s act of asking to lease the house in February 1952 confirmed they were not the direct lessees at that time. Second, her reluctant payment of P100 in February 1952 constituted a valid new contract of lease, not a renewal. Third, Article 1687 applies only to a “lessee” with a contractual relation with the owner, not to a sub-lessee or mere occupant. Fourth, the power under Article 1687 is discretionary (“may”), and no abuse was shown in denying an extension, especially given the reasonableness of the rent increase. Finally, even assuming Acasio was a lessee from 1945-1952, that contract was entered before the New Civil Code, and Articles 2252 and 2255 prohibit the retroactive application of new provisions that would impair vested rights or obligations under prior contracts.