[ G.R. No. L-186. August 06, 1946 ] 77 Phil. 7
[ G.R. No. L-186. August 06, 1946 ]
HORACIO A. GUANZON ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEES, VS. ANG BAN, ANG CHUNG AND TAN KUE, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS. D E C I S I O N
PERFECTO, J.:
On February 24, 1941, Epifania Vda. de Guanzon and defendant Tan Kue entered into a written contract of lease of the former’s property located at Nos. 1008 and 1010 Lavezares, Binondo, Manila, at a monthly rental of P130. effective March 15, 1941, up to March 15, 1946.
Tan Kue abandoned the property in December, 1944, because he evacuated with his family to Batangas, failing’ to pay the monthly rentals from January, 1945.
Finding defendants Ang Ban and Ang Chung occupying, without any legal ground at all, the premises abandoned by defendant Tan Kue, the original complaint was filed on April 28, 1945, for the ejectment of said two defendants. By amendments in the pleadings, Tan Kue was later included among the defendants in this case.
Alleging that he returned to Manila in March, 1945, and resided with his family at 1522-24 Oroquieta, Manila, where he is keeping a business, Tan Kue, testified that, he failed to offer plaintiff the rents in arrears because he was very busy. Horacio A. Guanzon testified that Ang Ban and Ang Chung transferred to the premises in question because their house was burnt; that he required them to move out of the premises; that on May 4, 1945, Tan Kue.asked him for another lease upon the premises, with the promise to sue Ang Ban and Ang Chung, but Tan Kue did not offer . payment of the rents due for the first months of 1945. Ang Ban alleged that he was left in the premises by Tan Kue to take care of the latter’s belongings, and that Ang Chung is a mere host from the province.
Judge Mariano L. de la Rosa of the Court of First Instance of Manila rendered a decision, declaring terminated the lease contract between Epifania Vda. de Guanzon and Tan Kue and ordering defendants to move out of the premises and to pay jointly and severally the sum of P130 per month from January, 1945, until the property is vacated, and the costs.
Appealing from the decision, defendants point out two errors allegedly committed by the lower court: (1) that it did not dismiss the complaint notwithstanding plaintiffs’ failure to serve the notice required by section 2 of Rule 72 of the Rules of Court; and (2) that it did not declare that Tan Kue’s failure to pay the rents was due to force majeure.
Section 2 of Rule 72 is not applicable in the present case.
Defendant Tan Kue can not invoke it because he was and is not sued for ejectment in accordance with Rule 72. In the amended complaint of May 21, 1945, Tan Kue is sued only for a sum of money, consisting of unpaid rents, liquidated damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.
Defendants Ang Ban and Ang Chung can not also invoke section 2 of Rule 72, because,they are not tenants of plaintiffs, but are mere intruders.
Whether Tan Kue’s failure to pay the rents was due to force majeure or not is immaterial for purposes of determining his obligation of paying the rents due at the time this case was decided in the lower court. Whether he was justified or not in not paying said rents in due time is irrelevant to the question of whether he is duty bound to pay said rents. That obligation is not denied by any one. If there was any reason or justification for delay in the payment of said rents before, now there is none any more. It appearing from defendants’ own evidence that Tan Kue had something to do for his co-defendants’ unjustifiably occupying the premises, he is equally responsible for the rents until Ang Ban and Ancr Chung shall have completely vacated the property.
Rents due up to March 10, 1945, subject to moratorium (Executive Order No. 32 and Presidential Proclamation No. 6), the lower court’s decision is affirmed with the sole modification that it is unnecessary to order the ejectment, of defendant Tan Kue, it appearing that he has already ceased to occupy the premises since December, 1944, and his lease contract having been terminated in accordance with the facts of this case and the terms of the contract itself, with the costs against appellants. Paras, Pablo, and Bilado, JJ., concur.