P. Espiritu & L. De Espiritu VS R. Cipriano & CFI Rizal Branch XV, G.R. No. L-32743 February 15, 1974

PRIMITIVO ESPIRITU and LEONORA A. DE ESPIRITU, petitioners,

vs.

RICARDO CIPRIANO and THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE, RIZAL, BRANCH XV, respondents. 

Concepcion, Victorino, Sanchez and Associates for petitioners. 

Jose G. Ricardo for respondent Ricardo Cipriano. 

TOPIC: CC, Art. 4. Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided.

ESGUERRA, J.:

FACTS:

1. The plaintiffs, owners of the property in question, instituted a case against Ricardo Cipriano for his alleged failure to pay rent; property was leased to him since 1954. It was decided in favor of Espiritu. Cipriano appealed to CFI Rizal. He sought to amend his answer was denied by the Court.

Additional facts: 

2. The house of the defendant was built on the property with the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff pursuant to an oral contract of the lease; 

3. For the years1954 - 1969, the arrangement of payments was on a yearly basis. Effective January 1969, the plaintiffs imposed monthly payments of Php. 30.00 Since then, Ciprano has not paid rental at the present monthly rate. He was then sent a formal notice to vacate.

4. CFR Rizal judge gave respondent Cipriano 7 days to file his motion to dismiss. The respondent moved to dismiss petitioner's complaint, invoking the prohibitory provision of Republic Act 6126, entitled "An Act To Regulate Rentals of Dwelling Units or of Land On Which Another's Dwelling Is Located For One Year And Penalizing Violations Thereof. It states:

Section 1. No lessor of a dwelling unit or of land on which another's dwelling is located shall, during the period of one year from March 31, 1970, increase the monthly rental agreed upon between the lessor and the lessee prior to the approval of this Act when said rental does not exceed three hundred pesos (P300.00) a month. 

Section 6. This Act shall take effect upon its approval. 

Approved June 17, 1970. 

3. Respondent Cipriano argued that his consent was not sought prior to the implementation of the increased monthly rental. The trial court ruled that the case at bar is covered by the aforecited law. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

W/N the provisions Republic Act 6126, otherwise known as the Rental Law can be retroactively applied. 

RULING:

NO. Republic Act 6126 is not applicable to the case at bar. It was clearly stated that the act shall take effect on its approval which was approved on 17 June 1970, or a year and a half after the imposed increase of his monthly lease. The covered date wherein no lessor shall increase the monthly rental agreed upon was from 31 March 1970 up to 31 March 1971. A quick review of the said law's legislation would reveal that there is no retroactive operation ever intended.

Cipriano's contention that his consent was not sought is immaterial since it is not a requirement prior to the rental increase. If he didn't agree, he could simply vacate the premises.

Thus, the assailed orders are hereby nullified and set aside.