VICTORIA N.

RACELIS, IN HER CAPACITY to remove such obstacles as impede said

AS ADMINISTRATOR, Petitioner, -versus- enjoyment; but, as in warranty in a case of
SPOUSES GERMIL JAVIER and REBECCA eviction (to which doctrine the one we are now
JAVIER, Respondents. examining is very similar, since it is necessary,
G.R. No. 189609, THIRD DIVISION, January as we have explained, that the cause of eviction
29, 2018, LEONEN, J. be in a certain manner imputable to the
vendor, which must be understood as saying
In Goldstein v. Roces: that it must be prior to the sale), the obstacles
to enjoyment which the lessor must remove are
Nobody has in any manner disputed, objected those that in some manner or other cast doubt
to, or placed any difficulties in the way of upon the right by virtue of which the lessor
plaintiff's peaceful enjoyment, or his quiet and himself executed the lease and, strictly
peaceable possession of the floor he occupies. speaking, it is this right that the lessor should
The lessors, therefore, have not failed to guarantee to the lessee.
maintain him in the peaceful enjoyment of the
floor leased to him and he continues to enjoy Lessees are entitled to suspend the payment of
this status without the slightest change, rent under Article 1658 of the Civil Code if
without the least opposition on the part of any their legal possession is disturbed. Acts of
one. That there was a disturbance of the peace physical disturbance that do not affect legal
or order in which he maintained his things in possession is beyond the scope of this rule.
the leased story does not mean that he lost the Lessees who exercise their right under Article
peaceful enjoyment of the thing rented. The 1658 of the Civil Code are not freed from the
peace would likewise have been disturbed or obligations imposed by law or contract.
lost had some tenant of the Hotel de Francia, Assuming that parties were entitled to invoke
living above the floor leased by plaintiff, their right under Article 1658 of the Civil Code,
continually poured water on the latter's bar this does exonerate them from their obligation
and sprinkled his bar-tender and his customers under Article 1657 of the civil Code "to pay the
and tarnished his furniture; or had some gay price of the lease according to the terms
patrons of the hotel gone down into his saloon stipulated."
and broken his crockery or glassware, or
stunned him with deafening noises. Numerous FACTS:
examples could be given to show how the
lessee might fail peacefully to enjoy the floor Before his death, the late Pedro Nacu, Sr.
leased by him, in all of which cases he would, of (Nacu) appointed his daughter, Racelis, to
course, have a right of action for the recovery administer his properties, among which was a
of damages from those who disturbed his residential house and lot located in Marikina
peace, but he would have no action against the City. Nacu requested his heirs to sell this
lessor to compel the latter to maintain him in property first. Acting on this request, Racelis
his peaceful enjoyment of the thing rented. The immediately advertised it for sale.
lessor can do nothing, nor is it incumbent upon
him to do anything, in the examples or cases In August 2001, the Spouses Javier offered to
mentioned, to restore his lessees peace. purchase the Marikina property. However,
they could not afford to pay the price of
True it is that, pursuant to paragraph 3, of P3,500,000.00. The parties agreed on a
article 1554, the lessor must maintain the month-to-month lease and rent of P11,000.00
lessee in the peaceful enjoyment of the lease per month. The Spouses Javier used the
during all of the time covered by the contract, property as their residence and as the site of
and that, in consequence thereof, he is obliged
their tutorial school, the Niñ o Good Shepherd On May 12, 2004, Racelis caused the
Tutorial Center. disconnection of the electrical service over
the property forcing the Spouses Javier to
Sometime in July 2002, Racelis inquired purchase a generator. This matter became the
whether the Spouses Javier were still subject of a complaint for damages filed by
interested to purchase the property. The the Spouses Javier against Racelis. Racelis was
Spouses Javier reassured her of their absolved from liability.
commitment and even promised to pay
P100,000.00 to buy them more time within Meanwhile, Racelis filed a complaint for
which to pay the purchase price. On July 26, ejectment against the Spouses Javier before
2002, the Spouses Javier tendered the sum of the Metropolitan Trial Court in Marikina City.
P65,000.00 representing "initial payment or The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 04-
goodwill money." On several occasions, they 7710. Racelis alleged that she agreed to lease
tendered small sums of money to complete the property to the Spouses Javier based on
the promised P100,000.00, but by the end of the understanding that they would eventually
2003, they only delivered a total of purchase it. Spouses Javier averred that they
P78,000.00. never agreed to purchase the property from
Racelis because they found a more affordable
Meanwhile, they continued to lease the property at Greenheights Subdivision in
property. They consistently paid rent but Marikina City. They claimed that the amount
started to fall behind by February 2004. of P78,000.00 was actually advanced rent.
Realizing that the Spouses Javier had no During trial, the Spouses Javier vacated the
genuine intention of purchasing the property, property and moved to their new residence at
Racelis wrote to inform them that her family Greenheights Subdivision
had decided to terminate the lease agreement
and to offer the property to other interested On August 19, 2005, the Metropolitan Trial
buyers. In the same letter, Racelis Court rendered a Decision dismissing the
demanded that they vacate the property complaint. It ruled that the Spouses Javier
by May 30, 2004. were entitled to suspend the payment of rent
under Article 1658 of the Civil Code due to
The Spouses Javier refused to vacate due to Racelis' act of disconnecting electric service
the ongoing operation of their tutorial over the property.
business. They insisted that the sum of
P78,000.00 was advanced rent and proposed The Metropolitan Trial Court declared that
that this amount be applied to their the Spouses Javier's obligation had been
outstanding liability until they vacate the extinguished. Their advanced rent and
premises. Disagreeing on the application of deposit were sufficient to cover their unpaid
the P78,000.00, Racelis and the Spouses rent. The Metropolitan Trial Court, however,
Javier brought the matter to the barangay for did not characterize the P78,000.00 as
conciliation. Unfortunately, the parties failed advanced rent but as earnest money.
to reach a settlement. During the proceedings,
Racelis demanded the Spouses Javier to On appeal, the Regional Trial Court rendered
vacate the premises by the end of April 30, a Decision reversing the Metropolitan Trial
2004. However, the Spouses Javier refused to Court
give up possession of the property and even August 19, 2005 Decision. The Regional Trial
refused to pay rent for the succeeding Court held that the Spouses Javier were not
months. justified in suspending rental payments.
However, their liability could not be offset by
the P78,000.00. The Regional Trial Court lessee in peaceful and adequate enjoyment of
explained that the parties entered into two the property leased." This provision
(2) separate and distinct contracts—a lease implements the obligation imposed on lessors
contract and a contract of sale. Based on the under Article 1654(3) of the Civil Code.
evidence presented, the P78,000.00 was not
intended as advanced rent, but as part of the The failure to maintain the lessee in the
purchase price of the property. The Spouses peaceful and adequate enjoyment of the
Javier moved for reconsideration. The property leased does not contemplate all acts
Regional Trial Court reduced the Spouses of disturbance. Lessees may suspend the
Javier's unpaid rentals by their advanced payment of rent under Article 1658 of the
rental deposit. They were ordered to pay Civil Code only if their legal possession is
P54,000.00 instead. The Spouses Javier disrupted.
appeal.
In this case, the disconnection of electrical
On January 13, 2009, the Court of Appeals service over the leased premises on May 14,
rendered a Decision declaring the Spouses 2004 was not just an act of physical
Javier justified in withholding rental disturbance but one that is meant to remove
payments due to the disconnection of respondents from the leased premises and
electrical service over the property. disturb their legal possession as lessees.
Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals stated that Ordinarily, this would have entitled
they were not exonerated from their respondents to invoke the right accorded by
obligation to pay accrued rent. On the other Article 1658 of the Civil Code.
hand, Racelis was bound to return the sum of
P78,000.00 in view of her waiver. Racelis However, this rule will not apply in the
moved for reconsideration but her motion present case because the lease had already
was denied in the Court of Appeals. On expired when petitioner requested for the
November 25, 2009, Racelis filed a Petition temporary disconnection of electrical service.
for Review Petitioner demanded respondents to vacate
the premises by May 30, 2004. Instead of
ISSUE: surrendering the premises to petitioner,
respondents unlawfully withheld possession
Whether respondents Spouses Germil and of the property. Respondents continued to
Rebecca Javier can invoke their right to stay in the premises until they moved to their
suspend the payment of rent under Article new residence on September 26, 2004. At that
1658 of the Civil Code. (NO) point, petitioner was no longer obligated to
maintain respondents in the "peaceful and
RULING: adequate enjoyment of the lease for the entire
duration of the contract." Therefore,
A contract of lease is a "consensual, bilateral, respondents cannot use the disconnection of
onerous and commutative contract by which electrical service as justification to suspend
the owner temporarily grants the use of his the payment of rent.
property to another who undertakes to pay
rent therefor." Assuming that respondents were entitled to
invoke their right under Article 1658 of
Article 1658 of the Civil Code allows a lessee the Civil Code, this does exonerate them
to postpone the payment of rent if the lessor from their obligation under Article 1657
fails to either (1) "make the necessary of the civil Code "to pay the price of the
repairs" on the property or (2) "maintain the lease according to the terms stipulated."
Lessees who exercise their right under
Article 1658 of the Civil Code are not freed
from the obligations imposed by law or
contract. Moreover, respondents' obligation
to pay rent was not extinguished when they
transferred to their new residence.
Respondents are liable for a reasonable
amount of rent for the use and continued
occupation of the property upon the
expiration of the lease. To hold otherwise
would unjustly enrich respondents at
petitioner's expense.