A.M. No. MTJ-08-1706 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 08-1984-MTJ) - MUTYA B. VICTORIO, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE MAXWELL S. ROSETE, PRESIDING JUDGE, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BRANCH 2, SANTIAGO CITY.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the MTCC quashed the writs of execution that it earlier issued. [Victorio] assailed the quashal of the writ of execution directly to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari . This petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court on procedural grounds. [Leonardo Chua and Heirs of Yong Tian] thus remained in possession of [Victorio's] properties. Subsequently, on October 10, 1998, [Victorio] wrote a letter to [Leonardo Chua and Heirs of Yong Tian] informing them of her intention to increase the monthly rentals effective November 1, 1998, from P6,551.25 per unit to a sum more than double that, namely, P15,000.00 per unit. [Leonardo Chua and Heirs of Yong Tian] refused to pay this amount, contending that it was beyond the allowable rental increase embodied in the compromise agreement. [Victorio] thus instituted Civil Cases Nos. [II-556 and 557] seeking the ejectment of [Leonardo Chua and Heirs of Yong Tian]. In a joint decision dated May 10, 1999, the MTCC, Branch II, Santiago City dismissed these complaints for lack of merit. On appeal [in Civil Cases Nos. 21-2761 and 21-2762], the RTC initially reversed the MTCC, but later reversed its earlier decision. On March 9, 2000, the RTC issued an order affirming the MTCC's dismissal of the complaints. [Victorio] filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. [59482]. On May 31, 2001, the Court of Appeals reversed the March 9, 2000 Order of the RTC affirming the MTCC's dismissal of the complaints. The Court of Appeals ruled that the compromise agreement, which set a definite period of four years for the lease contract, had been abrogated by [Leonardo Chua and Heirs of Yong Tian's] refusal to pay the increased rentals in 1994. Accordingly, in 1994, the juridical relation between the parties severed. When [Victorio] accepted payment of the increased monthly amount, an entirely new contract of lease was entered into between the parties. Since payment of rent was made on a monthly basis, and pursuant to Article 1687 of the Civil Code, the period of this lease contract was monthly. Upon expiration of every month, the lessor could increase the rents and demand that the lessee vacate the premises upon noncompliance with increased terms. In exercise of equity, however, the Court of Appeals granted [Leonardo Chua and Heirs of Yong Tian] an extension of one year from finality of the decision within which to vacate the premises. A motion for reconsideration [was filed but the same was denied] on 11 March 2003. [3] Aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 59482, Leonardo Chua and Heirs of Yong Tian filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before this Court, docketed as G.R. No. 157568, bearing the complete title Leonardo Chua and Heirs of Yong Tian v. Mutya B. Victorio. The Court rendered a Decision [4] in Chua v. Victorio on 18 May 2004, with the following fallo : Wherefore, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition