Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1902 > April 1902 Decisions > G.R. No. 411 April 23, 1902 - DONALDSON v. SMITH

002 Phil 766:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 411. April 23, 1902. ]

DONALDSON, SIM & Co., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SMITH, BELL, & Co., Defendants-Appellees.

F . de la Cantera for Appellants.

Alfredo Chicote for Appellees.

SYLLABUS


1. REAL PROPERTY; ILLEGAL DETENTION; ACTION BY LESSEE. — An action for damages against an occupant of buildings who unlawfully detains the same will not lie in favor of a lessee of said buildings who has never entered into possession under his lease, because there is no privity between the parties.


D E C I S I O N


LADD, J. :


This is an action to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff’s by reason of the defendants’ wrongful occupancy of certain warehouses in Manila from the 2d to the 14th of May, 1900, inclusive. The buildings in question were the property of Luis R. Yangco, and had been leased by him in July, 1899, to the military government of the United States, by which they had been subject to the defendants under an arrangement the details ’of which it is not necessary to state. Yangco objected to the occupancy of the buildings by the defendants, and on the 11th of April, 1900, the Chief Quartermaster of the Army, acting apparently under a misapprehension as to the facts respecting the defendants’ arrangement with the Government, addressed a letter to them, stating that the records of the office failed to show that they had any right to the occupancy of the buildings, and requesting that they be vacated at once. On the 30th of April the lease from Yangco to the Government was terminated by mutual consent. On the 1st of May, Yangco leased the buildings to the plaintiffs for one year. On the same day the plaintiffs notified the defendants of the lease, and requested them to vacate the buildings within twenty-four hours. This the defendants declined to do, and continued’ in the occupancy of the warehouses, or some of them, to the exclusion of the plaintiffs, till subsequently to the 14th of May. The judgment in the court below was in favor of the defendants, and the plaintiffs appealed.

The decision of this case does not involve the determination of the character of the defendants’ occupancy of the warehouses, whether wrongful or otherwise, as between them and the Government, or as between them and Yangco. The only question is whether the defendants have failed to perform any duty which they owed to the plaintiffs. Whatever rights the plaintiffs had in the premises during the period in question, viz, from the 2d to the 14th of May, originated in and depended upon their contract with Yangco for the lease of the buildings. Not having entered into possession under their lease, they had acquired no rights in the leased property in the nature of rights in rem, and which third persons were therefore bound not to infringe. Article 1560 of the Civil Code, which gives the lessee a direct action against a trespasser, is confined to the case of an actual interference with the lessee’s use of the property. Here such use by the plaintiffs had not begun when the alleged wrongs were committed.

Article 1902 of the Civil Code, relied upon by the plaintiffs, established the general principle of liability for damage caused by fault or negligence, but there can be no fault or negligence where, as in the present case, there was no obligation resting upon the person causing the damage to exercise diligence as respects the injured person.

The failure to establish any legal relation between the parties, giving rise to rights in the plaintiffs and corresponding duties on the part of the defendants, as respects the occupancy of the buildings in question, is fatal to the plaintiffs’ recovery in this action. Their remedy, if they have any, is against the lessor, under articles 1554 and 1556 of the Civil Code.

The judgment must be affirmed, with costs. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Cooper, Willard and Mapa, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






April-1902 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 534 April 1, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. CUSTODIO PAYOG ET AL.

    001 Phil 185

  • G.R. No. 521 April 1, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO DE LEON ET AL.

    001 Phil 188

  • G.R. No. 542 April 1, 1902 - JOSE GONZAGA v. CARMEN CAÑETE

    001 Phil 189

  • G.R. No. 539 April 1, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN RAMOS ET AL.

    001 Phil 192

  • G.R. No. 488 April 5, 1902 - GREGORIA MARTINEZ v. HOLLIDAY

    001 Phil 194

  • G.R. No. 505 April 8, 1902 - FRANCISCO GUTIERREZ REPIDE v. MARTIN ASTUAR, ET AL.

    002 Phil 757

  • G.R. No. 108 April 8, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN ESCOBAR

    001 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. 537 April 9, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. HIPOLITO HILARIO ET AL.

    001 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. 441 April 9, 1902 - UNITED STATES, ET AL. v. MATEO PEREZ

    001 Phil 203

  • G.R. No. 238 April 12, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. LEON BALLESTEROS

    001 Phil 208

  • G.R. No. 427 April 15, 1902 - CO-TIONGCO v. CO-GUIA

    001 Phil 210

  • G.R. No. 597 April 15, 1902 - JUANA MORENO FRANCISCO v. JOSE MANUEL GRUET

    001 Phil 217

  • G.R. No. 530 April 16, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. BERNABE SANTOS

    001 Phil 222

  • G.R. No. 567 April 16, 1902 - PIO ESPIRITU v. MARIANO DESEO

    001 Phil 225

  • G.R. No. 544 April 19, 1902 - EDWIN H. WARNER v. MUNICIPALITY OF PASAY

    001 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 555 April 19, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. PANTALEON GIMENO

    001 Phil 236

  • G.R. No. 104 April 22, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. ALEJANDRO VALDEZ, ET AL.

    001 Phil 238

  • G.R. No. 411 April 23, 1902 - DONALDSON v. SMITH

    002 Phil 766

  • G.R. No. 113 April 24, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. SAMARIN

    001 Phil 239

  • G.R. No. 408 April 24, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO ENRIQUEZ

    001 Phil 241

  • G.R. No. 472 March 28, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE REYES

    001 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. 852 April 28, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. PATRICIO ANTONIO

    001 Phil 251

  • G.R. No. 524 April 29, 1902 - RAMON MORTERA v. LI CHING-TING ET AL.

    001 Phil 253

  • G.R. No. 428 April 30, 1902 - JOSE ZULUETA v. FRANCISCA ZULUETA

    001 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 452 April 30, 1902 - GAUDENCIO SIMPAO v. JOAQUIN DIZON

    001 Phil 261

  • G.R. No. 568 April 30, 1902 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO CABE ET AL.

    001 Phil 265

  • G.R. No. 586 April 30, 1902 - MARTINIANO VELOSO, ET AL. v. BENITA PACHECO

    001 Phil 271