Encarnacion v.

Baldomar Digest

PETITIONER : Vicente Singson Encarnacion


RESPONDENT : Jacinta Baldomar, et al.

SUMMARY :

Vicente Singson Encarnacion leased his house in Manila to Jacinta Baldomar and her
son, Lefrado Fernando, upon a month-to-month basis. In the aftermath of the last war,
plaintiff Singson Encarnacion notified the defendants, the said mother and son, to
vacate the house as the former needed it for his offices. Notwithstanding the demand,
defendants insisted on continuing their occupancy. Proper action was then filed with
Municipal Court of Manila; meanwhile defendants were behind in making the payment
of the rental for that month (agreed rental being payable within the first five days of
each month). That rental was then paid prior to the hearing of the case in the municipal
court. As a consequence, the said court entered judgment for restitution and payment of
rentals from the subsequent month until defendants completely vacate the premises.
When the case reached the Court of First Instance (CFI) upon appeal, defendant
Fernando averred that the contract which they had celebrated with plaintiff since the
beginning authorized them to continue occupying the house indefinitely and while
they should faithfully fulfill their obligations with respect to the payment of the rentals,
and that this agreement had been ratified. The CFI gave more credit to plaintiff's
witness, Vicente Singson Encarnacion, Jr., who testified that the lease had always and
since the beginning been upon a month-to-month basis as the defendant’s answer was
indicative of an eleventh-hour theory (something made at the last moment) . The
Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the lower courts which was in favor of the
plaintiff as the defense set up would leave to the sole and exclusive will of one of the
contracting parties (defendants in this case) the validity and fulfillment of the contract
of lease.