ESPIRITU vs.

CIPRIANO AND THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE, RIZAL, BRANCH XV

55 SCRA 533, G.R. No. L-32743, February 15, 1974
Petitioner : Primitivo Espiritu and Leonora A. De Espiritu
Respondent : Ricardo Cipriano and The Court of First Instance, Rizal, Branch XV
Ponente : Esguerra, J.

FACTS:

On May 30, 1969, petitioners filed a case against the private respondent for the latters alleged failure
to pay rentals. The petitioners were then the owners of the property in question, leased to Cipriano
since 1954. The petitioners increased the rentals to P30.00 per month which private respondent did
not agree. Since January 1969, respondent has not yet paid rental at the present monthly rate.

The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint by invoking RA 6126 which took effect on June 17,
1970stating rhat no increase in rental should be imposed so as the monthly rental shall not exceed
P300.00 per month. The change of mode of payment imposed by the petitioners happened before
the enactment of RA 6126. Private respondent alleges that the new contract was not a contract at all
since he did not give his consent.

A petition for review by certiorari was submitted be petitioners to seek review and nullification of the
two orders of the Court of First Instance. The first dates August 4, 1970 sustaining private
respondents motion to dismiss on the authority of Republic Act 6126 and second dated October 16,
1970 denying the motion for reconsideration of the first order.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or Not Republic Act 6126 is applicable or will have a retroactive effect to the case
at bar.
2. Whether or Not the consent of Cipriano is essential to the validity of the increase in rentals
imposed by the petitioner-owner.

HELD:
1. Republic Act 6126 entitled An Act To Regulate Rentals of Dwelling Units or of Land On
Which Anothers Dwelling Is Located For One Year And Penalizing Violations Thereof
and also know n the Rental Law is not applicable to the case at bar. As the provision of
the act provide, No lessor of a dwelling unit or land X X X shall, during the period of one year
from March 31, 1970, increase the monthly rental agreed upon between the lessor and lessee
prior to the approval of this Act.

The law shall also have no retroactive effect in the case at bar. The provision was effective
only from March 31, 1970 to March 31, 1971 which does not cover the day when the
increase in rental was made. As previously stated, effective January 1969, the lease was
converted to a month-to-month basis rental, before the approval of such act, which was
after one year and a half after the increase of rentals became effective.
 2. No. the consent of Cipriano was not essential to the validity of the increase in rentals
imposed by the petitioner-owner and cannot invoke such lack of consent. Private
respondents allegation that the new contract of lease was not a contract for not giving his
consent is devoid of merit. The lessor was free to fix a higher amount than that previously
paid by the lessee and if the latter happened to disagree with the increased amount, he could
have been vacated the premises and freed himself from the liability to pay.

WHEREFORE, the two assailed orders were nullified and set aside. Costs against respondent.