G.R. No. 3402 - FEBRUARY 1907 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. 3402February 28, 1907 Jose Iturralde vs. Francisca Alfonso G.R. No. 3135February 28, 1907 E. M. Bachrach vs. James J. Peterson, et al. G.R. No. 3007February 28, 1907 Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, et al. vs. Municipality of Badoc, et al. G.R. No. 3298February 27, 1907 Felisa Nepomuceno, et al. vs. Genaro Heredia G.R. No. 3255February 27, 1907 United States vs. Candido Ulat G.R. No. 3229February 27, 1907 Arsenio De La Rosa vs. Mariano Arenas G.R. No. 2962February 27, 1907 B. H. Macke, et al. vs. Jose Camps G.R. No. 3444February 26, 1907 City of Manila vs. Cheng Y Chiang, et al. G.R. No. 2938February 26, 1907 Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Graciano Punzalan, et al. G.R. No. 3351February 25, 1907 Ang Seng Quen, et al. vs. Juan Te Chico, et al. G.R. No. 3066February 25, 1907 H. L. Heath vs. Steamer ''San Nicolas'' G.R. No. 3650February 23, 1907 Margarita Toribio, et al. vs. Modesta Toribio, et al. G.R. No. 3380February 23, 1907 United States vs. Simon Schneer G.R. No. 3371February 23, 1907 United States vs. Hilario Buenconsejo, et al. G.R. No. 3347February 23, 1907 United States vs. Alvaro Padlan G.R. No. 3305February 23, 1907 United States vs. Pilar Javier G.R. No. 3390February 21, 1907 United States vs. Ciriaco Nueca, et al. G.R. No. 3199February 21, 1907 Angel Ortiz vs. La CompaÑia Maritima G.R. No. 2973February 18, 1907 Juan Muyco vs. Pedro Montilla, et al. G.R. No. 3462February 16, 1907 United States vs. Santacruz Duruelo, et al. G.R. No. 2963February 14, 1907 CompaÑia General De Tabacos De Filipinas vs. City of Manila G.R. No. 2001February 14, 1907 Salvador Panganiban vs. Agustin Cuevas G.R. No. 3346February 13, 1907 United States vs. Francisco Dimitillo G.R. No. 3070February 11, 1907 United States vs. Juan Cabiling G.R. No. 3019February 9, 1907 La CompaÑia General De Tabacos De Filipina vs. Vicente Araza G.R. No. 3176February 9, 1907 United States vs. C. M. Pendleton G.R. No. 3345February 9, 1907 Juan Hernandez Tio-Quinchuan, et al. vs. Manuel Lim, et al. G.R. No. 3253February 9, 1907 United States vs. E. S. Jockers G.R. No. 3246February 9, 1907 Cadwallader &Amp; Company vs. Smith, Bell &Amp; Company, et al. G.R. No. 3240February 8, 1907 Pablo Trinidad vs. Lucas Ricafort, et al. G.R. No. 3086February 7, 1907 Mitsui Bussan Kaisha vs. Government of the Philippine Islands G.R. No. 2409February 7, 1907 In Re: Felipe G. Calderon G.R. No. 1210February 7, 1907 United States vs. Filomeno Apurado, et al. G.R. No. 3225February 6, 1907 Behn, Meyer &Amp; Company vs. W. H. Mitchell G.R. No. 3148February 6, 1907 Enrique Ma. Barretto vs. City of Manila G.R. No. 3088February 6, 1907 El Banco EspaÑol-Filipino vs. James Peterson, et al. G.R. No. 3150February 1, 1907 Cirila Domingo vs. Antonio Osorio The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Jose Iturralde vs. Francisca Alfonso E. M. Bachrach vs. James J. Peterson, et al. Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, et al. vs. Municipality of Badoc, et al. Felisa Nepomuceno, et al. vs. Genaro Heredia United States vs. Candido Ulat Arsenio De La Rosa vs. Mariano Arenas B. H. Macke, et al. vs. Jose Camps City of Manila vs. Cheng Y Chiang, et al. Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Graciano Punzalan, et al. Ang Seng Quen, et al. vs. Juan Te Chico, et al. H. L. Heath vs. Steamer ''San Nicolas'' Margarita Toribio, et al. vs. Modesta Toribio, et al. United States vs. Simon Schneer United States vs. Hilario Buenconsejo, et al. United States vs. Alvaro Padlan United States vs. Pilar Javier United States vs. Ciriaco Nueca, et al. Angel Ortiz vs. La CompaÑia Maritima Juan Muyco vs. Pedro Montilla, et al. United States vs. Santacruz Duruelo, et al. CompaÑia General De Tabacos De Filipinas vs. City of Manila Salvador Panganiban vs. Agustin Cuevas United States vs. Francisco Dimitillo United States vs. Juan Cabiling La CompaÑia General De Tabacos De Filipina vs. Vicente Araza United States vs. C. M. Pendleton Juan Hernandez Tio-Quinchuan, et al. vs. Manuel Lim, et al. United States vs. E. S. Jockers Cadwallader &Amp; Company vs. Smith, Bell &Amp; Company, et al. Pablo Trinidad vs. Lucas Ricafort, et al. Mitsui Bussan Kaisha vs. Government of the Philippine Islands In Re: Felipe G. Calderon United States vs. Filomeno Apurado, et al. Behn, Meyer &Amp; Company vs. W. H. Mitchell Enrique Ma. Barretto vs. City of Manila El Banco EspaÑol-Filipino vs. James Peterson, et al. Cirila Domingo vs. Antonio Osorio The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 3402            February 28, 1907

JOSE ITURRALDE,plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
FRANCISCA ALFONSO,defendant-appellant.

Buencamino & Diokno for appellant.
Ramon Fernandez for appellee.

JOHNSON,J.:

This was an action commenced by the plaintiff against the defendant in the justice's court of the pueblo of Cavite, Province of Cavite to recover possession of a certain parcel of land alleged to be within thehacienda"La Estanzuela." The said justice of the peace rendered judgment in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff appealed to the Court of First Instance of said province.

The complaint filed in the said cause alleged that the defendant was occupying and had occupied for some years, a parcel of land within the limits of saidhacienda, the superficial area of which was 20,400 square meters; that the defendant had been, prior to the month of May, 1902, paying 2 pesos per annum for the use and occupation of said land; that for the year commencing May, 1902, the defendant refused to pay said rental; that during the year 1902 the owner of said parcel of land notified the defendant the commencing with the month of May, 1903, the rental for said parcel of land would be increased to 50 pesos per annum.

The defendant presented her answer in the Court of First Instance admitting that she was the tenant of said land, that she had agreed to pay for the use and occupation of same the sum of 2 pesos per annum, and alleged further that she had made certain permanent improvements on said land and that the plaintiff had no right to increase the rental value of said land.

After hearing the evidence adduced in the lower court the judge thereof rendered a decision against the defendant and in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of 2 pesos for rent corresponding to the year 1902 ending May, 1903,. and for the sum of 50 pesos per annum for each year during which the defendant should occupy said land after the month of May, 1903, and also ordered that the possession of said land be delivered to the plaintiff with costs against the defendant. From this decision the defendant appealed to this court and made numerous assignments of error.

This court has decided (Jose Varelavs.J.E. Suttrell and S. Darley,¹G. R., No. 1617, and Iturraldevs.Evangelista,²G. R. No. 3406) that the owner of land has the right to fix the rental value of his land by increasing or diminishing such rental value. This new rental value fixed by the owner can not affect the contract of the tenant during the period of his contract. If, however, the tenancy is by the month of his year, and the owner of the land has the right to terminate such tenancy at the end of any month or any year, then such owner may, during the month or year covered by the contract, notify the tenant that the amount of rent will be increased or diminished for the month of year following the termination of tenant's contract. The tenant, under these conditions at the end of the month or the year had the option to accept the new terms imposed by the owner, to vacate the property, or if he continues in possession of the same, he is then obliged to pay what is a reasonable amount for the use and occupation of the same. The mere fact that the owner has fixed a certain price as rental value for said land for a new period does not of itself, necessarily, conclusively fix the reasonable value of the use and occupation of said land. The owner in fixing a new rental value for a new period has the right to insist that the tenant shall either agree to pay the new value fixed or give up the possession of the property. If the tenant refuses to pay the new rental value and continues in possession of the property, and later the owner brings an action of forcible entry and detainer to obtain possession of the land, and to recover damages for the use and occupation thereof, then the question is, What is the reasonable value of the use and occupation of said land? And it is one for the court to determine. The defendant in this action has a right to show that the actual value of the use and occupation of the said land is not that fixed by the owner. In the present case, however, the only defense which the defendant introduced in the lower court was the right of the owner of the land in question to increase the amount of the rent for the use and occupation of said land.

The lower court found from the evidence adduced during the trial (a) that the defendant had agreed to pay 2 pesos as rent for the year commencing May 2, 1902, and (b) that the rental value of said property for the years subsequent, commencing with the month of May, 1903, was 50 pesos per annum.

An examination of the evidence adduced during the trial in the court below shows clearly that this finding of fact was justified by such evidence.

It is the judgment of this court, therefore, that the plaintiff is entitled to the following remedy:

(a) To recover of the defendant the sum of 2 pesos as rent corresponding to the year commencing with May, 1902, and to recover the sum of 50 pesos for the year subsequent commencing with the month of May, 1903, until the possession of said property shall be delivered to the plaintiff;

(b) To recover of the defendant the possession of said land; and

(c) To recover his costs.

After expiration of twenty days let judgment be entered in accordance herewith and ten days thereafter the record remanded to the court from whence it came for proper action. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa and Tracey, JJ.,concur.
Carson, J.,reserves his vote.

Footnotes