Co v. Honorable Court Of Appeals

CRUZ, J.:

p The simple question raised in the case at bar could have been definitely resolved on the lowest level of the judiciary and did not have to reach the highest tribunal. The subject of the petition is a verbal contract of lease over a portion of a building belonging to the private respondents and occupied by the petitioner as lessee. On December 12, 1985, the lessors notified the petitioner that they were terminating the lease as they intended to renovate the building and thereafter use it themselves.

The petitioner refused to vacate. In his decision dated July 2, 1987, 1 Judge Tirso C. Briones disposed thus: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant, ordering the latter and all persons claiming rights under it, to vacate the premises specifically described in the amended complaint; to pay plaintiffs the sum of P3,000.00 as rental for the reasonable use and occupancy of the premises commencing January, 1986 and monthly thereafter, until the same The petition for consignation is hereby denied for lack of merit. This decision2 which3 In this petition for review on certiorari , the principal submission is that the courts below erred in not giving the petitioner an extension of its lease in accordance with Article 1687 of the Civil Code.

This article provides as follows: Art. 1687. If the period for the lease has not been fixed, it is understood to be from year to year, if the rent agreed upon is annual; from month to month, if it is monthly; from week to week, if the rent is weekly; and from day to day, if the rent is to be paid daily. However, even though a monthly rent is paid, and no period the lease has been set, the courts may fix a longer term for the lessee after the lessee has occupied the premises for over one year.

If the rent is weekly, the courts may likewise determine a longer period after the lessee has been in possession for over six months. In case of daily rent, the courts may also fix a longer period after the lessee has stayed in the place for over one month. In support of its position, the petitioner cites the cases of Araneta v.De Mesa, 35 SCRA 137, and Divino v.Marcos, 4 SCRA 186.

The In the second case, When the plaintiff's petition was called for hearing, the parties agreed that judgment be rendered on the pleadings in connection with such petition. There is no written agreement as to the duration of the lease between plaintiff and defendants. The fact remains that plaintiff entered the premises with the knowledge and consent of the defendants and with the assurance of the latter that the plaintiff could remain occupying the lot as long as he pays the corresponding rents.

Sustaining The lot in question has been rented to the petitioner for about 20 years and his predecessor in interest for more.tacita reconduccion ") until the ejectment case was It was considered important in that case that: 1) the plaintiff had been occupying the leased premises for more than twenty years; 2) he was assured by the defendants that he could remain in the house as long as he continued paying the rentals; and 3) he made improvements on the house costing P20,000,00 with the consent of the defendants. The petitioner in the case at bar has not pointed to similar circumstances other than the claim that it has been occupying the subject premises for more than twenty years. On the second issue, the Court noted that the parties did not submit any evidence on the basis of the stipulation of the facts earlier narrated.

Thus, there is nothing in the The circumstance that the petitioner has paid its rentals religiously during the past twenty years is also not In the view of the Court, the applicable case is Cruz v.Intermediate Appellate Court , 4 where it was held: Ricardo Cruz further maintains that the lease contract with Roman Legarda So is one with an indefinite period, no specific term having been agreed upon by the parties, hence the court can legally fix a longer term. We reject such proposition. As earlier stated, the contract of Ricardo Cruz, being on a month-to-month basis, is a lease with a definite period.arguendo that Article 1687 applies, Ricardo Cruz would still not be entitled to have the term fixed for a longer period since his action was filed only after the contract had expired.

As held in Vda.de Prieto vs.Santos, et al. (98 Phil. 509 ): Under Defendants hereto maintain that the lease contracts did not, and could not, come to an end until after the court has fixed its lifetime and the term thus fixed has expired.discretion to extend the period of the lease.not bound to extend said term. Conformably, we hold that as the rental in the case at bar was paid monthly and the term had not been expressly agreed upon, the lease was understood under Article 1687 to be terminable from month to month. To As correctly cited by the plaintiffs, "The power of the Courts to fix a longer term for lease is protestative or discretionary, "may"

is the word - to be exercised or not in accordance with the particular circumstances of the case; a longer term to be granted where equities come into play demanding extension, to be denied where none appears, always with due deference to the parties' freedom to contract." (Divino v. Marcos, January 31, 1962, 5 SCRA 186.)Prieto v.Santos , 98 Phil. 509 cited in Alegre v.Laperal , 22 SCRA 934, it was held that "an extension of the The petitioner also contends that it was denied its day in court when judgment was rendered against it without the benefit of a trial on the merits. It must be added that even if there was indeed no trial before The respondent court did not err in sustaining the award of attorney's fees in the sum of P10,000.00, taking into account the fact that the petitioner unreasonably resisted the private respondent's demand to vacate the property following the termination of their lease contract.

Judge Lagman acutely observed that the petitioner had already enjoyed a de facto extension of two years during the period the ejectment case was pending, first before the Municipal Trial Court and then before his court. We note with disapproval that by appealing to the Court of Appeals and later to this Court, the petitioner gained another extension of more than three years, for a total of almost six years from the time the amended complaint was filed on June 17, 1986. It is an economic fact that construction costs rose considerably Many lessees are able to defer their deserved ejectment through the simple expedient of appealing their lost cause all the way up to even this Court.

Counsel are admonished against abusing the judicial process WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the appealed decision AFFIRMED in toto , with triple costs against the petitioner. SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Griño-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur. Footnotes 1 Rollo , p. 43. 2 Through Judge Roberto M. Lagman. 3 JJ. , concurring. 4 180 SCRA 702.