361 Phil. 308; 96 OG No. 6, 833 (February 7, 2000)
MENDOZA, J.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:On appeal by both parties, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 59 of Makati ruled that the lease was for a fixed period of five (5) years and that, upon its expiration on January 1, 1990, petitioners’ continued stay in the premises became illegal. As provided in Art. 1687 of the Civil Code, the power of the courts to fix the period of lease is limited only to cases where the period has not been fixed by the parties themselves. The dispositive portion of the decision[3] states:SO ORDERED
1. The defendants (herein petitioners) are hereby given a period of two (2) years extension of occupancy of the subject premises starting the date of the filing of the instant complaint;
2. The defendants are hereby ordered to pay the plaintiff (herein private respondent) the sum of P188,806.00 representing back rentals as of the year 1991 and a monthly rental of P10,000.00 thereafter until the expiration of the aforesaid extension of their occupancy or until the subject premises is actually vacated.3. Defendants are hereby ordered to pay the plaintiff the amount of P15,000.00 as attorney’s fees; and4. Defendants are hereby ordered to pay the cost of suit.
Premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered modifying the appealed decision, as follows:Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the decision. In its decision, dated October 8, 1992, the Court of Appeals ordered:
1. Ordering the defendants (herein petitioners) and all persons claiming and/or acting for and in their behalf to vacate the premises known as door No. 3086 Redemptorist, corner G.C. Cruz Streets, Baclaran, Parañaque, Metro Manila and turn over possession thereof to the plaintiff (herein private respondent);
2. Ordering the defendants to pay the plaintiff the following:a) the amount of P42,306.00 representing accrued or back rentals from January 1, 1987 to December 31, 1989;
b) a monthly rental of P7,320.50 for the use or occupancy of the premises starting January 1, 1990 until July 24, 1990 and at Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) Pesos from July 24, 1990 until the defendants shall have vacated the same; c) the amount of P10,000.00 representing reasonable attorney’s fees; 3. Dismissing defendants’ counterclaim for lack of merit; and 4. With costs against the defendants.
WHEREFORE, except for the modification that the monthly rental that petitioners should pay private respondent from July 24, 1990 until the latter finally vacate the premises in question is reduced to P7,320.00, the decision of the respondent court in this case is AFFIRMED in all other respects, with costs against petitioners Jose L. Chua and Ko Sio Eng.[4]Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari. Petitioners assign several errors as having been allegedly committed by the Court of Appeals.
First of all, while it is true that there was no express demand in private respondent’s complaint for unlawful detainer against petitioners for the latter’s payment of rental arrearages, private respondent in a pleading dated December 17, 1990 filed with the MTC (by way of comment to petitioners’ motion to admit amended answer) stated:Indeed, any objection to the admissibility of evidence should be made at the time such evidence is offered or as soon thereafter as the objection to its admissibility becomes apparent,[6] otherwise the objection will be considered waived and such evidence will form part of the records of the case as competent and admissible evidence.[7] Rule 10, §5[8] of the Rules of Civil Procedure allows the amendment of the pleadings in order to make them conform to the evidence in the record.That moreover the unpaid rentals from January 1987 to December 31, 1989 amounts to FORTY TWO THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED SIX PESOS (P42,306.00), exclusive of rentals from January 1 to December 31, 1990 which would be one hundred eighty thousand pesos (P180,000.00) or a total of TWO HUNDRED TWENTY TWO THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED SIX PESOS (222,306.00)(p. 75, Orig. Rec).
Then, at the pre-trial of December 17, 1990, among the issues proposed by counsel for plaintiff (now private respondent) was whether:3. defendants are in arrears for the rentals from Dec. 31, 1987 to January 1989, in accordance with the contract;Counsel for defendants (herein petitioners) did not object to the statement of issues made by plaintiff’s counsel and instead simply stated as their own main issue whether plaintiff had a valid cause of action for ejectment against them as he is not the sole owner of the leased premises, and then averred that “based on this premise, the other issues raised by plaintiff could be dependent on the resolution of the stated issues” (id., p. 88, Orig. Rec.). Later, at the hearing of February 12, 1990, plaintiff Ramon Ibarra testified that although his lease contract (Exh. “A”) with petitioners stipulated an annual ten percent (10%) additional rental starting in 1986 (i.e., the monthly rental in 1986 was P5,500, in 1987, it was P6,050; in 1988, it was P6,655.00; and in 1989, it was P7,320.50), petitioners continued to pay only the original monthly rental of P5,000 stipulated in their contract (Exh. “A”), so that petitioners had incurred total rental arrearages at the end of 1989 of P42,306.00 (pp. 6-8, tsn, op. cit.; pp. 113-115, Orig. Rec.). . . .
(p. 8, tsn Dec. 17, 1990;
p. 87, id.)
Obviously, then, petitioners’ rental arrearages from 1986 to 1989 was an issue raised at the pre-trial and on which issue private respondent presented evidence without any objection from petitioners. And considering that the petitioners incurred said rental arrearages because they did not pay private respondent the automatic 10% increase in their monthly rental every year for the years 1986 to 1989 as agreed upon and stipulated in their lease contract (Exh. “A”,) which contract is the law between the parties, justice and good faith demand that petitioners should pay said rental arrearages. As correctly ruled by the respondent court, “to absolve the defendants from paying rentals in arrears while they continue occupying and enjoying the premises would be allowing the defendants to enrich themselves at the expense of the plaintiff. (p. 55, Rollo)
[8] Rule 10, §5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
SEC. 5. Amendment to conform to or authorize presentation of evidence. - When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried with the express or implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings. Such amendment of the pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence and to raise these issues may be made upon motion of any party at any time, even after judgment; but failure to amend does not affect the result of the trial of these issues. If evidence is objected to at the trial on the ground that it is not within the issues made by the pleadings, the court may allow the pleadings to be amended and shall do so with liberality if the presentation of the merits of the action and the ends of substantial justice will be subserved thereby. The court may grant a continuance to enable the amendment to be made.
[11] This article provides:
If the period for the lease has not been fixed, it is understood to be from year to year, if the rent agreed upon is annual; from month to month, if it is monthly; from week to week, if the rent is weekly; and from day to day, if the rent is to be paid daily. However, even though a monthly rent is paid, and no period for the lease has been set, the courts may fix a longer term for the lease after the lessee has occupied the premises for over one year. If the rent is weekly, the courts may likewise determine a longer period after the lessee has been in possession for over six months. In case of daily rent, the courts may also fix a longer period after the lessee has stayed in the place for over one month.
[14] Art. 2208 (2) of the Civil Code provides:
In the absence of stipulation, attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except:
. . . .
(2) when the defendant’s act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest;