Domingo T. Dikit, petitioner vs. Ramon A. Ycasiano, et al., respondents, G.R. No. L-3637, May 23, 1951

Media

Part of The Lawyers Journal

Title: Domingo T. Dikit, petitioner vs. Ramon A. Ycasiano, et al., respondents, G.R. No. L-3637, May 23, 1951
extracted text: v Domingo T. Dikit, Petitioner,• vs. Ramon A . Ycasiano, et al., Resvondents, G. R. No. L-3637, May 23, 1951. PLEAOING & PRACTTCE: UNL.4.lVFUL DETAINER; PRELIMINARY PREVENTIVE INJUNCTION CANNOT ISSUE IN UNLAWFUL DETAINF..'R. - In an action for unlawful detainer, the judge of the municipal court issued a writ of preliminary injunction ordering the occupant of the preinisC's in question, his attorneys, representatives, agents and "mployees to refrain from entering or making use of the snmc. HELD: If the action in which the prehmina!'y injundion w~ issued were of forcible entry, the judge did not act m excess of his jurisdiction in issuing said preliminary injunction, unrler section 3 of Ruic 72 but as the action was of unlawful' detainer; the judge a.cted in cxc~s3 of his jurisdiction :mrl, ther~fore1, the writ of pt•e:liminnry injunction issued must be set aside as null and void. Jose Cando for appellant. Assistant Solicitor General Inocencio Rosal and Solicitor Jesu.1; A. A va11ce1"'ia for appellee. DECISION FERIA, J .: This is a. special civil action of certiorari against the responcients b:lsed on the ground that thP. r~spondent Judge of the Municipal Court of Manila acted in P.xcess of the court's jurisdiction in issuing a writ of preliminary injunction, upon a petitioR e:c7J<lrte of the respondent Consolidated Investment Bldg., Inc., ns plaintiff, against the petitioner as defendant in the civil action or case No. 9708 of the sa.id Municipal Court to eject the latter from the premises leased to him by the former. In said writ the respondent Judgt> ordered that said defendRnt, his nttorneys, representatives, agents and employees refrain from entering or n1aking use of the lobby and mezzanine of the Consolidated In\'Cstment Building at Plaza Goiti, Manila.. There is no question or dispute between the parties and they both agree that if the action instituted by respondent Consolid4ted Investment Bldg. Inc. against the petitioner Domini;ro T. Dikit in sa'id civil case No. 9708 were of forcible entry, the respondent Ju.:ige did not act in ex~ess of the court's jurisdiction in issuing said preliminary injunction under Section 3, Rule 72 of the Rules of Court; but if it were of unlawful detainer, the respondent Judge :l.Cted in excess of the <'onrt's jurisdiction and, therefore, the writ of preliminary injunction issued must be set usjdc ns null and void <Piit vs. De Lara and Velez, 58 Phil. 765, 767; Sevilla vs. Judge De los Santos, G.R. No. L-1980, promulgated on May 25, 1950). Sedion 1, Rule 72 of the Hul1-s of Court, which ddines and distinguishes forcible entry from unlawful detainer, provid(s: SECTION 1. Who ma11 in!ttitute proceedings, awt w/il'n. -Subject to the provisions of the next succeeding section, a person deprived of the possession of any land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, or a landlord, vendor, vendee, or rther person against whom the poss:es::iion of any land or building is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession, by virtue of any contract, express or implied, or the legal representatives or assigns of any such landlord, vendor, vendec, or other person, may, at any time within cne year a.ft.er such unlaWful deprivation or withholding of possession bring an action in the proper inferior court against the person or persons unlawfully withholding or depriving of possession, or any person or persons claiming under them, for the restitution of such possession, together with damages and costs. Applying the above quoted provisions t.o the present case, we are of the opinion, a.nd so hold, that the facts alleged in the com. plaint filed in said case No. 9780, constitute an action of unlawful detainer and not of forcible entry, and therefore the respcmdent Judge acted in excess of the Municipal Court of Ma. nila's jurisdiction in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction ccmplained of. The pertinent parts of the complaint reads as follows: That with the aforementioned representations and assur~ ances given to herein plaintiff as n ba~is, dcfc.>ndant had appli<'d for the lease of the lobby and mel'.za.nine of the Consolidated Iuvcstments Ruilding located at the Plaza Goiti, City of Manila, and within the juri::;diction of this Honorable Court, under the basic conditions of constructing the partitions that will scparnte the lobby from the side entrances of the building, to pay an advance rental of !'30,000.00 applicable to the last six ((i) months under a proposed 5-year lease-contract, and to pay in advance the current monthly rental of rs,000.00 from the time that the construction of the separating walls or partitions is completed. That by reason 2.nd on the strength of said undertakings of the defcnrlant, the defendant succe<'ded in getting the possession of the lobby and mezzanine of the Consolidated Investment Building, proceed with the construction of the ~t> parnting walls or partitions mentioned above and carried out the remodelling work that said defendant would require to put the premises in question in condition to be used hy "The Bank of Manila." which, the said defendant had assured the plaintiff, will stat"t operating early in July, 1949. That the monthly rental of f'5,000.00 would accrue !ind become payable in ~dvance within the first five (5) days of each month upon completion of the construction of the sc.. parating walls or partitions mentioned above. x '!'hat having failed to obtain the proper license to operate his proposed "The Rank of M:i.nila", the defendant on September I, 1949, had relinquished 2.11d turned over to the plaintiff the lobby and mezzanine o·f the Consolidated Investments Building, and said defendant had accepted the position of Vice. President of the proposed "The Bank of Manila" under a new group of capitalists. That subsequently thereafter defendant reg-.i.ined possession of the lobby and mezzanine of the Consolidated Investments Building by representing to the plaintiff that he <the defendant) was able to obta.in the cooperation of certain Fili-· pino residents of Hawaii who were ready t.o capitalize his proposed "The Rank of Manila" and that said capitalists were willing to pay to herein plaintiff an advance rental of f'l00,000.00 applicable to the last months under a 5-year lease-contract, at the rate of f'S,000.00 per month. x x x That defendant, notwithstanding the several extensions of time requested by him, not only has failed to pay the advance rcutal promised by him, but also has faileri and refused to pay uuto the plaintiff the curre!lt rentals corresponding to the months of October and November, 1949, at the rate of !'5,000.00 monthly, notwithstanding the repeated and persistent demands ma.de on him by the plaintiff for at least five days prior to the !iling of the complaint. That plaintiff likewise had demanded of the defendant that the latter vacate the lobby and mezzanine of the Consolidated Investments Building, which demand was made for more than five days prior to the ·filing of this complaint, but said dP.fcntlant has failed and refu:oed to rumply with said friendly demand up to the present timt-. The plaintiff's action was not of forcible entry, but of unlawful detainer, because according to said Section 1 of Hulc 72, forcible entry is the act of depriving a person of the material or actual possession of land or building or of taking possession thereof by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, against the will or without the consent of the possessor; while unlawful detainer is the act of unlawfully withholding the possession of a land or building against or from a landlord, vendor, vendee or other persons, after the expiration or termination O f the detainer's right to hold possession by virtue of a ~ontract, express or implied. In forcible entry, the possession of the intruder or person who de- · prives another of the possession of the land' or building is illegal from the beginning, because his entry into or taking possession thereof is made against the will or without the consent of the March 31, 1954 THE LAWYERS JOURNAL 131 former possessor. In unlawful detainer the possession of the de tainer is originally legal or lawful but it beeomes ilkga.l oniy after th{' expiration or termination of his right to hold possession of the land or building by virtue of a contract, as the pos�ssion of a te nant after termination of tJ.,e contract of lease for non-payment of the rents due or violation of the terms of said contra.ct. In the r,resent case, according to the above quoted complaint, the peu- 2. tioner took possession of the part of the building leased, not againf:t the will or without the consent, but with the express con�ent of the owner or possessor thereof by the virtue of the contract of lease entered between them, and therefore his possession of the premises leased was legal or lawful from the beginning, and it became illegal only after the termination of his right to continue in possession of sai<l premises for having failf'd to pay the rents or other con ditions of the contract of lease. The fact that the petitioner cb tained the consent of the lessor to enter into said contract ar..d leke possession of the premises leased through false misrepresentation as alleged in the complaint, did not make petitioner's poSS('Ssion illegal from the beginning and the action instituted against him one of forcible entry. The stealth, strategy or fraud em ployed to deprive a per5'ln of his possession of a land or bui!Jing t:nder Section 1 of Rule 72, are the means used by the intn1der to take possession of said land or building, without the consent or knowledge of the person in possession thereof. Such !ls, for ins tance, entering into the possession of a. house taking advantage of the absence therefrom of its possessor or inhabitant, or after the latter has gone out of it because he was deceived or told by thP. intruder to go to another place at th"e request of one of his fi-iend 01· relative. Besides, in an action of forcible entry, no previous demand to vacate is requir�d by law before the filing of the a.ction, while Section 2 of Rule 72 it requires that in an action of unlawful de tainer by a landlord against his tenant, ouch demand is required, and compliance with this tiemand or condition is alleged in the last quoted p&ragraph of the complain!:. In view of the foregoing, the \\'rit of preliminary injunction was issued by the respondent Judge in ex\!ess of the court's jui-is diction, and therefore it is set aside with �osts against the respon dent Consolidated Investments Bldg. Inc. ParfJ,.j, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, and Bautista Angelo. - J.J. Tuason; Montemayor; Jugo 132 THE LA WYERS JOURNAL March 31, 1954
Date: 1954
Rights