ManilaFIRST
DIVISION
AGUSTIN ASENCIO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
G.
R.
No. 100
September
9, 1901
-versus-
FRANCISCO
GUTIERREZ,
Defendant-Appellee.
D E C I S I
O N
WILLARD, J:
It has been
plainly proven
that at the time this Declarative Action was initiated the defendant
resided
at Manila, P. I. He left Iloilo with his family November 19, 1898, and
his family has never since returned to Iloilo. The defendant was at
this
latter place from February 17, 1899, until March 16 of the same year
with
the object, as alleged by him, of recovering the possession of his
printing
machine, which the American authorities refused to deliver. With this
exception
the defendant and family have resided permanently at Manila since they
left Iloilo in November, 1898.
On April
1, 1899, a
Registration Certificate was issued to him as a resident citizen of
Manila.
On January 1, 1900, his name was registered in the books of the
Internal
Revenue Collector as a resident of Manila. On April 11, 1900, he
presented
a declaration to the Spanish consulate under article 9 of the treaty of
Paris, in which he also stated that he was a resident of Manila. The
plaintiff
alleges in his complaint that the defendant is a resident of Manila; he
also affirms this in his petition of November 20, 1900. It appears from
the foregoing facts that it was the deliberate intention of the
defendant
to change the place of his residence.
No law
has been cited,
in force of this Islands, which requires citizens to announce their
intention
of changing their residence in a more public manner.
It is expressly
alleged
in the complaint that the original lease expired on the 1st of April,
1899.
The right alleged by the plaintiff in his complaint is based
exclusively
upon two facts. The first is, that after the aforesaid lease had
expired
and after all rent due thereunder had been paid according to the terms
thereof, the printing machine, the property of the defendant, still
remained
in the basement of the house, which basement was only a part of the
house
described in the original contract of lease. The plaintiff in hid
complaint
admits that the upper floor of his house was in use by him at the time
he presented the complaint. The second is that a letter was written to
the defendant May 17, 1899, advising him that the rent of the premises
would be 150 pesos until the time the printing machine was removed from
the building. The defendant did not answer this letter, but receipted
for
it at the post-office, as the letter was registered.
This
action has been
instituted with the object of collecting rent at the rate of 150 pesos
per month from May 1, 1899, to the same month in 1900. The only
question
arising is this; Should this case be decided at Iloilo, where it
originated,
or at Manila? If there was a contract in this case it related only to
the
ground floor of the building and arises from the presence of the
printing
machine therein and from the letter of the plaintiff dated May 17,
1899.
It was not stipulated in this letter where the payment should be made.
In accordance with Article 1574 of the Civil Code, Article 1171 of the
same Code is applicable, and the place of residence of the debtor is
the
place of payment. This personal action is, as affirmed by the plaintiff
himself in his complaint, entirely distinct from and independent of an
action of forcible entry and detainer. The rules which regulate the
jurisdiction
in such actions are not applicable to this case, which is governed by
Article
46, rule l, of the Law of Civil Procedure now in force.
The
order appealed
from the Court of First Instance of Iloilo is in accordance with law
and
must be affirmed with the costs against the appellant. It so ordered.
Arellano, C.J.,
Torres, Cooper, Mapa and Ladd, JJ., concur. |