[ G.R. No. L-653. November 26, 1946 ] 77 Phil. 657
[ G.R. No. L-653. November 26, 1946 ]
CRISPULO OCAMPO LEUS AND ESTRELLA BAUTISTA, PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEES, VS. CIRILO MARTIN, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. R E S O L U T I O N
PERFECTO, J.:
In a petition filed on August 9, 1946, copy of which was served on the same day on the other party, plaintiffs-appellees pray that the moneys deposited as monthly rentals by defendant-appellant with the clerks of the Municipial Court and Court of First Instance of Manila and this Supreme Court be turned over to them and that defendant-appellant be required to surrender the receipts for said deposits so that the amounts therein stated may be properly withdrawn by the plaintiffs-appellees.
Plaintiffs, as owners of the house at 2502 Tindalo, Manila, seek to oust defendant therein for failure to pay the agreed monthly rental of fl2 for August and September, 1945. On October 29, the Municipal Court of Manila rendered decision as prayed for in the complaint. Defendant appealed to the Court of First Instance of Manila.
On January 10, 1946, plaintiffs prayed that the defendant be declared in default for failure to file his answer within the period of fifteen days fixed by the rules (section 1, Rule 9 and section 7, Rule 40). On February 14, 1946, defendant was pronounced in default and on February 28 decision was rendered ordering the defendant to vacate the premises and to pay the rents in arrears and those that may become due until he vacates the property. Defendant appealed again.
Two errors are assigned in defendant’s brief, dated July 24, 1946, but no issue is raised in said brief regarding the fact that plaintiffs are entitled to collect the rents in question. Defendant’s failure to oppose, object to, or even answer plaintiffs-appellees’ petition of August 9, 1946, could obviously be taken for granted as acquiescence therein.
Although according to sections 8 and 9 of Rule 72, all moneys deposited by the defendant “for the purposes of stay of execution” shall be held “until the final disposition of the appeal,” and “shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the judgment,” this court taking the position that Rules are not ends by themselves but means to serve the interest of justice had, on more than one occassion, allowed the turning over ef said moneys to the plaintiffs.
In Estrella, et al, vs. Sangalang (42 Off. Gaz., 2095), plaintiffs-appellees prayed to be allowed to withdraw all the monthly rentals deposited by defendant appellant for the months of March, April, May, and June, 1945, at the rate of f30, and for July, August and September, at the rate of P37.50. Defendant opposed the withdrawal of all the amounts deposited on the ground that he did not agree to the increased rental of P37.50 a month, he being willing to continue paying the prewar rental of f 30 a month. By resolution adopted on October 13, 1945, we granted the motion only as to’the undisputed monthly payment of P30, but not as to the disputed balance of P7.50 per month, which will be taken up when the case is finally decided.
In four cases—L-187, L-188, L-189, and L-190, Reyes vs. Regala, et al.,—by resolution adopted on February 16, 1946, we granted appellees’ petition to withdraw all the amounts deposited by appellants by way of rentals, “it appearing1 that counsel for the appellants is agreeable thereto.” In case L-97, Borja vs. Bautista, we granted equally the motion, “defendants not having filed any objection thereto.” Similar petition was granted in L-715, Leus, et al., vs. Valentin, because defendant failed to object to the petition.
On the other side, in case L-702, Gamboa Hilado vs. Schweigert, plaintiff’s motion to withdraw rents was denied because appellant opposed it on the ground that the ownership of the property in question is in litigation between plaintiff and a third party, Salem Assad, who claims to be the owner and to be entitled to the rents in question.
It is, therefore, settled that when the defendant agrees or fails to oppose plaintiff’s petition to withdraw said moneys, the petition must be granted.
The wordings and phraseology of the rules are not rigid mouldings. They are the means to convey the ideas and legal objectives of the authors, always with the view of attaining justice. Those ideas and objectives are not rigid in themselves, but are resilient as all manifestations of the mind, as all rules of human life and conduct. The purpose of sections 8 and 9 of Rule 72 is to avoid that the defendant may suffer if plaintiff should be allowed to withdraw the moneys deposited when plaintiff’s right to collect the moneys is in issue. Where no such issue is raised, there is no harm to be protected against.
Plaintiffs’ petition to withdraw the rents deposited is granted; but his petition to require defendant to surrender the receipts for moneys deposited, being groundless and unnecessary, is denied.
Moran, C. J., Paras, Pablo, HUado, Bengzon, Briones, Padilla, and Tuason, JJ., concur.