8/11/2019 Encarnacion vs. Baldomar

1/2

Encarnacion vs. Baldomar, No. L-264, 77 Phil. 470 , October 04, 146

G.R. No. L-264 October 4, 1946VICENTE SINGSON ENCARNACION,plaintif-appellee,vs.JACINTA BALDOMAR, ET AL.,deendants-appellants.Bausa and Ampil for appellants.

Tolentino and Aguas for appellee.ILADO, J.:Vicente Singson Encarnacion, owner o the house numbered 589 egarda Street, !anila, some si"#ears ago leased said house to $acinto %aldomar and her son, erado &ernando, upon a month-to-month basis or the monthl# rental o '(5. )ter !anila was liberated in the last war, speci*call# on!arch +, +95, and on )pril , o the same #ear, plaintif Singson Encarnacion noti*ed deendants,the said mother and son, to vacate the house above-mentioned on or beore )pril +5, +95, becauseplaintif needed it or his o/ces as a result o the destruction o the building where said plaintif hadsaid o/ces beore. 0espite this demand, deendants insisted on continuing their occupanc#. 1hen theoriginal action was lodged with the !unicipal 2ourt o !anila on )pril 34, +95, deendants were inarrears in the pa#ment o the rental corresponding to said month, the agrees rental being pa#ablewithin the *rst *ve da#s o each month. hat rental was paid prior to the hearing o the case in themunicipal court, as a conse6uence o which said court entered 7udgment or restitution and pa#ment orentals at the rate o '(5 a month rom !a# +, +95, until deendants completel# vacate the premises.)lthough plaintif included in said original complaint a claim or '544 damages per month, that claimwas waived b# him beore the hearing in the municipal court, on account o which nothing was saidregarding said damages in the municipal courts decision.1hen the case reached the 2ourt o &irst nstance o !anila upon appeal, deendants *led therein amotion to dismiss :which was similar to a motion to dismiss *led b# them in the municipal court; basedupon the ground that the municipal court had no 7urisdiction over the sub7ect matter due to theaoresaid claim or damages and that, thereore, the 2ourt o &irst nstance had no appellate7urisdiction over the sub7ect matter o the action. hat motion to dismiss was denied b#

8/11/2019 Encarnacion vs. Baldomar

2/2

Bpon the whole, we are clearl# o opinion that the 7udgment appealed rom should be, as it is hereb#,a/rmed, with the costs o the three instances to appellants. So ordered.Paras, Pablo, Perfecto and Padilla, JJ., concur.