Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1905 > November 1905 Decisions > G.R. No. 2121 November 15, 1905 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. ANTONIO IRIBAR

005 Phil 316:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 2121. November 15, 1905. ]

THE PHILIPPINE SUGAR ESTATES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LIMITED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ANTONIO IRIBAR, Defendant-Appellee.

Hartigan, Marple, Rohde & Gutierrez, for Appellant.

John B. Early, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. LEASE; OBLIGATIONS; RENT; DELIVERY OF THE THING LEASED. — The obligation imposed by article 1555 of the Civil Code upon the lessee to pay rent in the manner agreed upon arises only where the contract has been actually carried into effect by the delivery of the thing leased to the lessee for the purposes stipulated in the contract.

2. ID.; ACTION; PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT. — The rent agreed upon in the contract can not be demanded and recovered where nothing has been done toward its performance.


D E C I S I O N


MAPA, J. :


The plaintiff company raises several questions in this court. For the purposes of this decision it will not be necessary, however, to consider them all.

The action was brought to recover rent for the lease of the steam launch Erica, the property of the plaintiff. Against the contention of the defendant we find that, as a matter of fact, a contract of lease was entered into between the defendant, on the one hand, and Francisco Gutierrez, on the other, in behalf of the plaintiff company, with respect to the launch in question, under the terms and conditions set forth in a letter dated January 18, 1901, which is copied at length in the complaint. One of the conditions of the contract was that the launch should be at the service of the defendant from the 1st day of February until the 30th of June, 1901, at a rental of 70 pesos per day, payment to be made for 15 days in advance. We also find that the plaintiff anchored the launch in the Pasig River, and placed the same at the disposal of the defendant on the 1st day of February, 1901, keeping it there until the 30th of June of the same year, when the term agreed upon in the contract expired.

It appears also that the defendant refused to receive the launch when it was delivered to him by the plaintiff, and that at no time from February 1, 1901, to June 30, 1901, did the defendant take possession of the launch, or use it, or have anything whatever to do with it, for the reason, as he says, that the launch was not such as Gutierrez represented at the time the latter offered it to him for hire.

The contract of lease entered into between the parties was accordingly never consummated, the defendant refusing to receive the launch when it was delivered to him. It is not necessary to inquire into the defendant’s reason for refusing to accept the launch, or to consider whether or not he had a right to do so. We therefore make no finding in regard to this point. Whether rightly or wrongly, the fact is that the defendant refused to accept and did not accept the launch. The attempt on the part of the plaintiff to deliver the launch was not an actual delivery, and for this reason we hold that the contract was never consummated.

Under such circumstances, the plaintiff could have elected between accepting the fulfillment of the contract and its rescission, with indemnification for damages in either case. (Art. 1124 of the Civil Code.) The plaintiff claims that it decided to exact the fulfillment of the contract, and in accordance with the laws then in force cited the defendant to appear February 21, 1901, before the justice of the peace of Binondo for the purpose of arriving at an agreement. Having failed to come to an understanding, the plaintiff states that he then demanded of the defendant the fulfillment of the contract. This is all that plaintiff did in regard to the enforcement of the contract. The plaintiff never filed a formal complaint, and did nothing during the time covered by the contract or during the rest of the year 1901. It was until July, 1902, that he filed the complaint in this case. It was then to late to obtain the performance of the contract, the time covered by it having expired more than a year before.

The contract being impossible to perform, the plaintiff can not exact its performance. Cases of this character are provided for in article 1124, above referred to. If the contract can not be performed, the plaintiff can hardly demand the rent stipulated therein. The payment of the rent being an integral part of the contract, it must necessarily follow the terms and status of the contract. If such payment were made, it would not be a payment for a good consideration since the contract in which it was stipulated can not be performed.

The obligation imposed upon the lessee by article 1555 of the Civil Code to pay rent in the manner agreed arises where the contract has been actually carried into effect by the delivery to the lessee of the thing leased. That article does not cover cases where delivery has not been, or for any reason can not be, made. If for some unjust and unfounded reason the lessee should refuse to receive the thing which is the subject of the lease, there is no doubt that the lessor can compel him to take it under the terms of the contract; but in the present case it would be impossible to comply with the terms of the contract, and all that the lessor is entitled to is to recover damages from the lessee.

The plaintiff is not trying to recover such damages as may have been caused by the lessee’s refusal to receive the launch. He attempts in this suit to recover the 70 pesos per day stipulated in the lease as rent for the use of the launch, making a total of 10,500 pesos, as though the contract had been performed. Such being the case, this action can not, for the reasons above stated, be maintained.

The plaintiff says in its brief that "although the 10,500 pesos (claimed in the complaint) were not due for the use of the launch owing to the defendant’s refusal to take possession thereof from the day it became available, the amount would nevertheless be due, together with the interest accruing thereon, as damages resulting from the breach of the contract.

This contention can not be sustained for two reasons:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

First. Because the plaintiff, in its complaint, and throughout the trial in the Court of First Instance, based its action upon the contract to recover the stipulated rent. It would not be proper for the plaintiff to change its position in this court and attempt to recover damages - an entirely different remedy.

Second. Because in any event, the plaintiff has not shown that the damages alleged to have been caused by the breach of the contract amounted to the sum claimed for the lease of the launch.

For the foregoing reasons the judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs to the Appellant. After the expiration of twenty days from the date hereof let judgment be entered in accordance herewith, and let the case be remanded to the Court of First Instance for such action as may be proper. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson and Carson, 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






November-1905 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. 1207. November 2, 1905.] PIA BASA, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. JOSE CLARO ARQUIZA, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. 1497. November 2, 1905.] TOMANA VERA MOGUER, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. RITA JUAN CARBALLO, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. 2206. November 2, 1905.] MANUEL GASPAR, Plaintiff-Appellees, vs. JUAN B. MOLINA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 2263. November 2, 1905.] CIPRIANO SANIDAD, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. SIMON CABOTAJE, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 2304. November 3, 1905.] EL BANCO ESPA�OL-FILIPINO, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. FULGENCIO TAN-TONGCO, ET AL., Defendant-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. 1078. November 7, 1905.] JOHN W. HOEY, Petitioner, vs. R.C. BALDWIN, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. 1791. November 7, 1905.] EMILIO BUENO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. LA COMPANIA MINAS DE CARBON DE BATAN, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 2089. November 7, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ENRIQUE RIJANO, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 2297. November 7, 1905.] CONSTANCIO JOAQUIN, administrator of the estate of Teodoro Patricio, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. MANUEL G. ESPINOSA, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. 1341. November 8, 1905.] URSULA LIQUETE, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. EULALIO DARIO, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 1528. November 10, 1905.] JOSE ENRIQUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. AURORA BARRIO, guardian of her minor children, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. 1975. November 10, 1905.] THE CITY OF MANILA, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. EL MONTE DE PIEDAD Y CAJA DE AHORROS DE MANILA, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. 2296. November 10, 1905.] J.F. WRIGHT, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. LA COMPANIA DE TRANVIAS, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 2322. November 10, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BASILISO BASTAS and DIONISIO DE LA SERNA, Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 2332. November 10, 1905.] MIGUEL EVANGELISTA, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. TRANQUILINO BASCOS, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. 1308. November 11, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. PEDRO GIRON, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 1642. November 11, 1905.] JUAN NOEL, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MARIANO LASALA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 2008. November 11, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. EUGENIO PAGDAYUMAN ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 2184. November 11, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. APOLONIO PALANCA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 2371. November 11, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MAXIMO AUSTRIA, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 2425. November 11, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff and Appellees, vs. The Chinaman UN CHE SAT, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 2444. November 11, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MAXIMO CAGARA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 1440. November 14, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, complainant-Appellee, vs. C.M. JENKINS, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 2773. November 14, 1905.] HARRY J. COLLINS, Petitioner-Appellee, vs. G.N. WOLFE, Warden of Bilibid Prison, Respondent-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 1898. November 15, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. WILLIAM B. BALLENTINE, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. 2121. November 15, 1905.] THE PHILIPPINE SUGAR ESTATES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LIMITED, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. ANTONIO IRIBAR, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. 1465. November 17, 1905.] ALFREDO CHANCO, administrator of the estate of Maximo Madrilejos, et al., Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. ANACLETA MADRILEJOS, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. 1789. November 17, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. APOLONIO DE OCAMPO, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 2125. November 15, 1905.] PEDRO IBA�EZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ANA ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 2631. October 21, 1905.] EDWIN H. WARNER, Petitioner-Appellee, vs. 771 OBJECTORS, Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 2019. November 20, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ANTONIO FORMENTOS, ET AL, Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 1165. November 21, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. RUFINO FELIPE, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 1261. November 21, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. PACIANO ANONUEVO, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 1647. November 21, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ADAUCTO OCAMPO, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 2289. November 21, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOE HUTCHINSON, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 1693. November 22, 1905.] FRANCISCO MARTINEZ GARCIA, Petitioner, vs. JOHN S. SWEENEY, judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. 2436. November 22, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. GUILLERMO MAZA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 2153. November 23, 1905.] H. FRANKEL AND W.L. WRIGHT, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. M.A. CLARKE, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. 1036. November 25, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. REGINO VALENCIA, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 1696. November 27, 1905.] VICENTA RODRIGUEZ, administratrix of the estate of Lorenza Rodriguez, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MARIANO LANALA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 1207 November 2, 1905 - PIA BASA v. JOSE CLARO ARQUIZA, ET AL.

    005 Phil 187

  • G.R. No. 1497 November 2, 1905 - TOMANA VERA MOGUER v. RITA JUAN CARBALLO, ET AL.

    005 Phil 195

  • G.R. No. 2206 November 2, 1905 - MANUEL GASPAR v. JUAN B. MOLINA

    005 Phil 197

  • G.R. No. 2263 November 2, 1905 - CIPRIANO SANIDAD v. SIMON CABOTAJE

    005 Phil 204

  • G.R. No. 2304 November 3, 1905 - EL BANCO ESPAÑOL-FILIPINO v. FULGENCIO TAN-TONGCO, ET AL.

    005 Phil 208

  • G.R. No. 1078 November 7, 1905 - JOHN W. HOEY v. R.C. BALDWIN

    005 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. 1791 November 7, 1905 - EMILIO BUENO v. LA COMPAÑIA MINAS DE CARBON DE BATAN

    005 Phil 210

  • G.R. No. 2089 November 7, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ENRIQUE RIJANO

    005 Phil 215

  • G.R. No. 2297 November 7, 1905 - CONSTANCIO JOAQUIN v. MANUEL G. ESPINOSA

    005 Phil 219

  • G.R. No. 1341 November 8, 1905 - URSULA LIQUETE v. EULALIO DARIO

    005 Phil 221

  • G.R. No. 1284 November 10, 1905 - CITY OF MANILA v. JACINTO DEL ROSARIO

    005 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 1528 November 10, 1905 - JOSE ENRIQUEZ v. AURORA BARRIO

    005 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. 1975 November 10, 1905 - CITY OF MANILA v. EL MONTE DE PIEDAD Y CAJA DE AHORROS DE MANILA

    005 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. 2296 November 10, 1905 - J.F. WRIGHT v. LA COMPAÑIA DE TRANVIAS, ET AL.

    005 Phil 242

  • G.R. No. 2322 November 10, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. BASILISO BASTAS, ET AL.

    005 Phil 251

  • G.R. No. 2332 November 10, 1905 - MIGUEL EVANGELISTA v. TRANQUILINO BASCOS, ET AL.

    005 Phil 255

  • G.R. No. 1308 November 11, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO GIRON

    005 Phil 257

  • G.R. No. 1642 November 11, 1905 - JUAN NOEL v. MARIANO LASALA

    005 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. 2008 November 11, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. EUGENIO PAGDAYUMAN, ET AL.

    005 Phil 265

  • G.R. No. 2184 November 11, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. APOLONIO PALANCA

    005 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. 2371 November 11, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. MAXIMO AUSTRIA, ET AL.

    005 Phil 272

  • G.R. No. 2425 November 11, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. UN CHE SAT

    005 Phil 274

  • G.R. No. 2444 November 11, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. MAXIMO CAGARA

    005 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. 1440 November 14, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. C.M. JENKINS, ET AL.

    005 Phil 278

  • G.R. No. 2773 November 14, 1905 - HARRY J. COLLINS v. G.N. WOLFE

    005 Phil 285

  • G.R. No. 1898 November 15, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. WILLIAM B. BALLENTINE

    005 Phil 312

  • G.R. No. 2121 November 15, 1905 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. ANTONIO IRIBAR

    005 Phil 316

  • G.R. No. 1465 November 17, 1905 - ALFREDO CHANCO v. ANACLETA MADRILEJOS, ET AL.

    005 Phil 319

  • G.R. No. 1789 November 17, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. APOLONIO DE OCAMPO, ET AL.

    005 Phil 324

  • G.R. No. 2125 November 15, 1905 - PEDRO IBAÑEZ v. ANA ORTIZ

    005 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. 2019 November 20, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO FORMENTOS, ET AL

    005 Phil 332

  • G.R. No. 1165 November 21, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. RUFINO FELIPE

    005 Phil 333

  • G.R. No. 1261 November 21, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. PACIANO ANONUEVO

    005 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 1647 November 21, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ADAUCTO OCAMPO

    005 Phil 339

  • G.R. No. 2289 November 21, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JOE HUTCHINSON

    005 Phil 343

  • G.R. No. 1693 November 22, 1905 - FRANCISCO MARTINEZ GARCIA v. JOHN S. SWEENEY

    005 Phil 344

  • G.R. No. 2436 November 22, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. GUILLERMO MAZA

    005 Phil 346

  • G.R. No. 2153 November 23, 1905 - H. FRANKEL, ET AL. v. M.A. CLARKE

    005 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. 1036 November 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. REGINO VALENCIA

    005 Phil 352

  • G.R. No. 1696 November 27, 1905 - VICENTA RODRIGUEZ v. MARIANO LANALA

    005 Phil 357