Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1912 > August 1912 Decisions > G.R. No. 7313 August 9, 1912 - PRUDENCIO DE JESUS v. LA SOCIEDAD ARRENDATARIA DE GALLERAS DE PASAY, ET AL.

023 Phil 76:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 7313. August 9, 1912. ]

PRUDENCIO DE JESUS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LA SOCIEDAD ARRENDATARIA DE GALLERAS DE PASAY ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

Ariston Estrada for Appellant.

Chas. A McDonough for defendant Lucio Cuneta Cruz.

A. Cruz Herrera for defendant company.

SYLLABUS


1. LANDLORD AND TENANT; LEASE OF INTEREST IN A COCKPIT; RECOVERY OR RENT. — Defendant agreed to pay a stipulated monthly rental to the owner of a certain interest in a cockpit. The original owner of that interest executed a valid deed of sale of his interest to plaintiff. later a dispute arose, wherein the original owner denied plaintiff’s claim that the he had purchased his interest. Defendant, although duly notified by the plaintiff that he had purchased the original owner’s interest, and notwithstanding formal demand for rent due, declined to pay the plaintiff. Held, That plaintiff it entitled to recover the amount of the rent from defendant even though defendant may have paid the rent to the original owner.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; — If, under the facts just stated, the defendant company had any sufficient ground to be in doubt as to which of the claimants was entitled to the rent, it could have protected itself from the danger of making payments to the wrong person by paying the money into court and requiring the claimants to interplead, under the provisions of section 120 of the Code of Civil Procedure.


D E C I S I O N


CARSON, J. :


A partnership composed of Isidro Aragon, Lucio Cuneta Cruz and Modesto de la Cruz, owned a cockpit which it rented to the defendant company. On the 14th of December, 1908, Lucio Cuneta Cruz sold his interest in the partnership (two-fifths share) to the plaintiff, Reserving the right to repurchase under certain conditions. Plaintiff claims that the vendor having failed to exercise his right to repurchase, the sale became absolute on the 15th day of February, 1909, and that since that date he has been the sole owner of this two-fifths interest in the partnership. It appears also that plaintiff purchased the interest of Isidro Aragon in the partnership (also A two-fifths share), on the 21st of may, 1910, and that Modesto de la Cruz., one of the defendants in this action, continues to hold this original interest in the partnership (a one-fifth share).

Plaintiff in this action seeks (1) to recover of the defendant company the amount of the monthly rental which he claims be due him as the owner of Lucio Cuneta Cruz’ interest since the 15th day of February, 1909, and (2) to terminate the rental contract, on the ground that as the owner of a four-fifths share in the renting partnership he is entitled to exercise the right of control therein.

We think that the evidence of record fully establishes the claim of the plaintiff as to his purchase of the interest of Lucio Cuneta Cruz in the partnership which entered into the rental contract with the defendant company; and also that under the terms of the contract the defendant company obligated itself top pay to the owner of that interest the sum of P280 per month so long as the contract continued in force; that the contract continued in force up to the date of the entry of judgment in the court below; and that the plaintiff became the absolute owner of Cuneta Cruz’ interest on February 15, 1909.

The trial judge recognized the right of the plaintiff to recover this monthly rental from the defendant company from the date of the judgment entered by him but declined to give judgment for the monthly rental from the date when the purchase of Cuneta Cruz’ interest was perfected (February 15, 1909) to the date of the judgment. This on the ground that during that period Cuneta Cruz was contesting plaintiff’s that he had purchased this interest in the partnership. The trial judge appears to have been of opinion that since there had been no formal adjudication of plaintiff’s ownership of Cuneta Cruz’ interest prior to the date of the judgment, the defendant company was not obligated to pay the plaintiff the monthly rental corresponding to that interest pending the adjudication of this question, since as held, to have done so might have exposed it to the risk of having the contract terminated by Cuneta Cruz for failure to pay to him the stipulated rental, the event that it should later be judicially determined that Cuneta Cruz and not the plaintiff was the true owner, and that the purchase had been consummated on the 15th of February, 1909, a claimed by the plaintiff.

In this we held that the trial judge erred. The defendant company had due and sufficient notice of the sale at the time when the plaintiff perfected his purchase of Cuneta Cruz’ interest. Demand was formally and promptly made upon it for the payment of the rent to which plaintiff was thereafter entitled. Under its contract it was the defendant company’s duty to pay the stipulated rent top the owner of the interest originally held by Cuneta. If with due notice of the purchase of this interest by plaintiff, it paid any other person than the true owner, such payment in no wise relieved it of its obligations under the contract to pay the true owner. It must fulfill and comply with the terms of its contract, and the plaintiff is entitled to recover the stipulated rent from the 15th day of February, 1909, and so long as the rental contract between the partnership and the defendant company remains in force. Judgment for the rent in question from the 15th day of February, 1909, to the date of the judgment should have been rendered in favor of the plaintiff, together with interest at the rate of six per sentum per annum upon the amount of the rent for each month from the date when it fell due to the rate of payment.

We do not recognize the force of the contention that merely because the right of ownership was in dispute the defendant company lawfully refused to pay the rent to the plaintiff, on the ground that it could not be required to take the risk of paying the wrong person and suffering the consequences. Section 120 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for just such case. If the defendant company had any sufficient ground to be in doubt as to which of the claimants was entitled to the rent, it could have protected itself from the danger of making payment to the wrong person by requiring the contesting claimants to interplead, thus leaving the determination of the doubt to the courts. The defendant company not having exercised this right, it voluntarily assumed the risk of payment to the wrong person, and of course payment to the wrong person under such circumstances (even if it were actually made, which does not affirmatively appear from the record in the case), would not relieve it of liability to the person lawfully entitled to receive payment under the rental contract.

We agree with the trial court that the plaintiff’s prayer that the rental contract with the defendant company be terminated can not be granted in this action. W, however, place our denial of this prayer on a different ground from the that assigned in the court below. Plaintiff appears to rest his demand for the termination of the contract on the ground that as the owner of two of the three interests which originally constituted the partnership (a "sociedad colectiva" as defined in article 2 of title 1 of the Code of Commerce) that entered into the rental contract with the defendant company, these two interest constituting a four-fifths share in that partnership, he is entitle to control the operations of the partnership. But without discussing or deciding that question, we hold that even if it be admitted that plaintiff’s purchase of two of the three original interests representing a four-fifths share in the partnership gave him the right to control the operations of the partnerships, subject, of course, to the Code provisions in such cases, it does not necessarily follow that he can arbitrarily repudiate the rental contract entered into by the partnership before he purchased the majority interest therein.

The right to terminate the contractual relations between the parties, and the conditions upon which one or other of the contracting parties may exercise this right necessarily depends on the contract itself. It does not definitely appear from the record whether the contract was or was not reduced to writing; and while there does not seem to have been any question in the court below as to some of its terms, the contract itself is not before us. It is alleged that it contained a stipulation that the the contract was to continue in force so long as the defendant company continued in existence. Of course, if the contract was not in writing, this condition could not be enforced; but of the contract was executed in due form, and as such is enforceable in the courts, and if this was the only condition touching its duration contained therein, it would appear that the relation of landlord and tenant could not be terminated at the will of one of the parties so long at least as the other party lived up to its obligations, and the defendant company continued in existence. We reserve our opinion, however, on the question as to the precise conditions under which such a contract might be terminated, it not being necessary to go into that question in the absence of the contract itself.

Plaintiff having failed to established satisfactorily the terms and conditions of the rental contract, it is impossible for us to determine the conditions, if any, upon which he, acting for the partnership, may exercise his alleged right to terminate it; or to hold that under the contract, the society or partnership in which plaintiff holds a controlling interest has a right to have rescinded. So far therefore as the judgment of the court below denies the right of the plaintiff to have the rental contract in question terminated in this action it should be affirmed, reserving to the plaintiff, however, the right to institute a new action or to take such steps as he may deem proper, hereafter, with a view to the exercise of any right he may have, under the contract, to rescind or terminate the same.

Ten days hereafter let judgment be entered reversing the judgment of the court below without costs in this instance, and twenty days thereafter let the record be returned to the court wherein it originated, which will enter final judgment, in accordance with the principles herein laid down. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson and Trent, 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






August-1912 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. 7311. August 5, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. NALUA and KADAYUM, Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 7313. August 9, 1912.] PRUDENCIO DE JESUS, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. LA SOCIEDAD ARRENDATARIA DE GALLERAS DE PASAY ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 7443. August 12, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MACARIO DOMINGO ET AL., Defendants. CELESTINO RAMIREZ and REGINA DOMINGO, Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 6784. August 15, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. VICENTA LICARTE, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 6940. August 15, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ROGACIANO R. RIMON, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 7337. August 16, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. LEONARDO BANDOC, Defendant-Appellant

  • [G.R. No. 7454. August 16, 1912.] PLACIDO LOZANO, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. IGNACIO ALVARADO TAN SUICO, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. 7459. August 16, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOSE FIGUEROA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 7123. August 17, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ROSALINO RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 7194. August 17, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CRISPIN PERALTA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 6984. August 19, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. GENOVEVA DESTRITO and GREGORIO DE OCAMPO, Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 7015. August 19, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOSE BENGSON, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 7260. August 21, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. EMILIO SANTOS REYES ET AL., Defendants. EMILIO SANTOS REYES, Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 7422. August 22, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. TELESFORO FRIAS, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 7284. August 23, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOSE BATALLONES ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 6610. August 24, 1912.] ELEUTERIA VILLANUEVA ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. VALERIANO CLAUSTRO, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 6999. August 24, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CIRILO MARTIN, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 7226. August 24, 1912.] HE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. LIO TEAM, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 6968. August 27, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BASILIO CASTRO ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 7953. August 28, 1912.] CHAN-SUANGCO, Petitioner, vs. CHARLES S. LOBIGIER, Judge, ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 6942. August 30, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. GIL GAMAO ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 6992. August 30, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. AGUSTIN JUEVES ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 6612. August 31, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CHAN GUY JUAN (alias Chino Aua), Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 6866. August 31, 1912.] AMADA and CARMEN MESTRES Y YANGCO, Petitioners-Appellees, vs. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, Opponent-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 7225. August 31, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MANUEL ZABALA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 7311 August 5, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. NALUA, ET AL

    023 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 7443 August 12, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. MACARIO DOMINGO, ET AL.

    023 Phil 5

  • G.R. No. 6784 August 15, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTA LICARTE

    023 Phil 10

  • G.R. No. 6940 August 15, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. ROGACIANO R. RIMON

    023 Phil 13

  • G.R. No. 7337 August 16, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. LEONARDO BANDOC

    023 Phil 14

  • G.R. No. 7454 August 16, 1912 - PLACIDO LOZANO v. IGNACIO ALVARADO TAN SUICO

    023 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. 7459 August 16, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE FIGUEROA

    023 Phil 19

  • G.R. No. 7123 August 17, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. ROSALINO RODRIGUEZ

    023 Phil 22

  • G.R. No. 7194 August 17, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. CRISPIN PERALTA

    023 Phil 26

  • G.R. No. 6984 August 19, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. GENOVEVA DESTRITO, ET AL

    023 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. 7015 August 19, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE BENGSON

    023 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. 7260 August 21, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. EMILIO SANTOS REYES, ET AL

    023 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. 7422 August 22, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. TELESFORO FRIAS

    023 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. 7284 August 23, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE BATALLONES, ET AL

    023 Phil 46

  • G.R. No. 6610 August 24, 1912 - ELEUTERIA VILLANUEVA, ET AL. v. VALERIANO CLAUSTRO

    023 Phil 54

  • G.R. No. 6999 August 24, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. CIRILO MARTIN

    023 Phil 58

  • G.R. No. 7226 August 24, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. LIO TEAM

    023 Phil 64

  • G.R. No. 6968 August 27, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. BASILIO CASTRO, ET AL.

    023 Phil 67

  • G.R. No. 7953 August 28, 1912 - CHAN-SUANGCO v. CHARLES S. LOBIGIER

    023 Phil 71

  • G.R. No. 7313 August 9, 1912 - PRUDENCIO DE JESUS v. LA SOCIEDAD ARRENDATARIA DE GALLERAS DE PASAY, ET AL.

    023 Phil 76

  • G.R. No. 6942 August 30, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. GIL GAMAO, ET AL

    023 Phil 81

  • G.R. No. 6992 August 30, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. AGUSTIN JUEVES, ET AL.

    023 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. 6612 August 31, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. CHAN GUY JUAN

    023 Phil 105

  • G.R. No. 6866 August 31, 1912 - AMADA, v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    023 Phil 108

  • G.R. No. 7225 August 31, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL ZABALA

    023 Phil 117