ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 
 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
March-1916 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 10649 March 1, 1916 - BENITO AFRICA v. KURT W. GRONKE

    034 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. 10838 March 1, 1916 - ALFONSA CARLOS ET AL. v. MLA. ELECTRIC RAILROAD & LIGHT COMPANY

    034 Phil 55

  • G.R. No. 11148 March 1, 1916 - LIM BUN SU v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. 10563 March 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO BONIFACIO

    034 Phil 65

  • G.R. No. 11262 March 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO T. GIMENEZ

    034 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. 7676 March 3, 1916 - JOSE LINO LUNA v. ESTEBAN ARCENAS

    034 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. 10265 March 3, 1916 - EUTIQUIANO CUYUGAN v. ISIDORO SANTOS

    034 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. 10918 March 4, 1916 - WILLIAM FRESSEL ET AL. v. MARIANO UY CHACO SONS & COMPANY

    034 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 10971 March 4, 1916 - BEAUMONT & TENNEY v. BERNARD HERSTEIN

    034 Phil 127

  • G.R. No. 11216 March 6, 1916 - COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS

    034 Phil 136

  • G.R. No. 8473 March 7, 1916 - SANTIAGO YASON v. JULIO MAGSAKAY

    034 Phil 143

  • G.R. No. 10437 March 7, 1916 - JESUSA LAUREANO v. EUGENIO KILAYCO

    034 Phil 148

  • G.R. No. 10729 March 7, 1916 - UY PO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 153

  • G.R. No. 10793 March 17, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ILOILO

    034 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. 11196 March 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. EUSTAQUIO YUMUL

    034 Phil 169

  • G.R. No. 11321 March 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SY BUN KUE

    034 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 10051 March 9, 1916 - ERLANGER & GALINGER v. SWEDISH EAST ASIATIC CO.

    034 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 11115 March 10, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SILVESTRE YU TUICO

    034 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. 10297 March 11, 1916 - AGAPITO BONZON v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORK ET AL.

    034 Phil 211

  • G.R. No. 8135 March 13, 1916 - FRED J. LEGARE ET AL. v. ANTONIA CUERQUES

    034 Phil 221

  • G.R. No. 10449 March 13, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ACLEMANDOS BLEIBEL

    034 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 8092 March 14, 1916 - RUFINA BONDAD ET AL. v. VENANCIO BONDAD ET AL.

    034 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. 10578 March 14, 1916 - PACIFIC COMMERCIAL COMPANY v. MAURICIA SOTTO

    034 Phil 237

  • G.R. No. 11000 March 14, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VALERIO MENDIETA

    034 Phil 242

  • G.R. No. 9497 March 15, 1916 - SIMONA GALICIA v. TEODORA NAVARRO

    034 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 11467 March 15, 1916 - NG HIAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 248

  • G.R. No. 10462 March 16, 1916 - ANDREA DUMASUG v. FELIX MODELO

    034 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. 9164 March 17, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VY BO TEC

    034 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. 10354 March 17, 1916 - FELIPE DORADO v. AGRIPINO VIRIÑA

    034 Phil 264

  • G.R. No. 10718 March 17, 1916 - United States v. Ramon FERRER

    034 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. 11464 March 17, 1916 - VICTOR BIUNAS v. BENITO MORA

    034 Phil 282

  • G.R. No. 8954 March 21, 1916 - DOROTEA CABANG v. MARTIN DELFINADO

    034 Phil 291

  • G.R. No. 9340 March 21, 1916 - MARGARITO PENALOSA LO INTONG v. ISIDORA JAMITO ET AL.

    034 Phil 303

  • G.R. No. 10889 March 21, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VALERIO MARTINEZ

    034 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. 11098 March 21, 1916 - CO PAIN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. 11154 March 21, 1916 - E. MERRITT v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS

    034 Phil 311

  • G.R. No. 8979 March 22, 1916 - ADRIANO PANLILIO v. PROVICIAL BOARD OF PAMPANGA ET AL.

    034 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. 10978 March 22, 1916 - SIXTO MANLAGNIT v. ALFONSO SANCHEZ DY PUICO

    034 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. 11315 March 22, 1916 - DIONISION CHANCO v. CARLOS IMPERIAL

    034 Phil 329

  • G.R. No. 8941 March 23, 1916 - GUILLERMO VELOSO v. LORENZO BECERRA

    034 Phil 334

  • G.R. No. 9984 March 23, 1916 - PETRONA JAVIER v. LAZARO OSMEÑA

    034 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 10769 March 23, 1916 - RAYMUNDO MELLIZA v. F. W. TOWLE

    034 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. 11119 March 23, 1916 - JUANA RIVERA v. RICHARD CAMPBELL

    034 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. 8642 March 24, 1916 - STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORK v. ANTONIO BABASA ET AL.

    034 Phil 354

  • G.R. Nos. 8765 & 10920 March 24, 1916 - PEDRO DIMAGIBA v. ANSELMO DIMAGIBA

    034 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. 8806 March 24, 1916 - ALEJANDRO BALDEMOR v. EUSEBIA MALANGYAON

    034 Phil 367

  • G.R. No. 9919 March 24, 1916 - ELISA TORRES DE VILLANUEVA v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORD ET AL.

    034 Phil 370

  • G.R. No. 9974 March 24, 1916 - CANG YUI v. HENRY GARDENER

    034 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. 10560 March 24, 1916 - IN RE: Tan Po Pic v. JUAN L. JAVIER

    034 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. 10624 March 24, 1916 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 385

  • G.R. No. 10663 March 24, 1916 - JOSEPH E. FOX v. MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD AND LIGHT COMPANY

    034 Phil 389

  • G.R. No. 11384 March 24, 1916 - ANTONIO GUEVARA v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. 10045 March 25, 1916 - PHIL. RAILWAY COMPANY v. WILLIAM T. NOLTING

    034 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 10777 March 25, 1916 - ALEJANDRA v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF PANGASINAN

    034 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. 11157 March 25, 1916 - POLICARPIO RAMIREZ v. FRANCISCO DE OROZCO

    034 Phil 412

  • G.R. No. 10510 March 27, 1916 - LEONCIO ZARATE v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS ET AL.

    034 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. 10580 March 27, 1916 - TEODORO DE LOS REYES v. MAXIMINO PATERNO

    034 Phil 420

  • G.R. No. 11607 March 27, 1916 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATES DEV. CO. (LTD.) v. ARMANDO CAMPS Y CAMPS

    034 Phil 426

  • G.R. No. 9845 March 28, 1916 - J. C. RUYMANN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    034 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. 10054 March 28, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ATANASIO CLARAVALL

    034 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 10264 March 28, 1916 - CHOA TEK HEE v. PHIL. PUBLISHING CO.

    034 Phil 447

  • G.R. No. 10595 March 28, 1916 - TEODORO KALAMBAKAL v. VICENTE PAMATMAT ET AL.

    034 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. 10810 March 28, 1916 - MUNICIPALITY OF AGOO v. GABRIEL TAVORA

    034 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 10902 March 28, 1916 - SERAPIA DE JESUS v. PABLO PALMA

    034 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. 11156 March 28, 1916 - IN RE: DU TEC CHUAN. M. G. VELOSO

    034 Phil 488

  • G.R. No. 11363 March 28, 1916 - BERNARDO MOLDEN v. INSULAR COLLETOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. 11366 March 28, 1916 - INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS v. GOERGE R. HARVEY

    034 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 9550 March 29, 1916 - BACHRACH GARAGE v. HOTCHKISS & CO.

    034 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 10019 March 29, 1916 - THOMAS A. WALLACE v. PUJALTE & CO.

    034 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. 10202 March 29, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS Ex Rel. MUN. OF CARDONA v. MUN. OF BINANGONAN ET AL.

    034 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. 10474 March 29, 1916 - FRANCISCO OSORIO Y GARCIA v. SOLEDAD OSORIO

    034 Phil 522

  • G.R. No. 10493 March 29, 1916 - FREDERICK L. COHEN v. BENGUET COMMERCIAL CO. (Ltd.)

    034 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. 10751 March 29, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. MARIA CABALLERO Y APARICI

    034 Phil 540

  • G.R. No. 10778 March 29, 1916 - MUNICIPALITY OF DUMANGAS v. ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO

    034 Phil 541

  • G.R. No. 11008 March 29, 1916 - MARIANO REAL ET AL. v. CESAREO MALLARI

    034 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 11068 March 29, 1916 - FERNANDEZ HERMANOS v. HAROLD M. PITT

    034 Phil 549

  • G.R. No. 11274 March 29, 1916 - RAFAELA DALMACIO v. ALBERTO BARRETTO

    034 Phil 554

  • G.R. No. 11585 March 29, 1916 - PABLO PERLAS v. PEDRO CONCEPCION

    034 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 8697 March 30, 1916 - M. GOLDSTEIN v. ALIJANDRO ROCES ET AL.

    034 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. 8988 March 30, 1916 - HARTFORD BEAUMONT v. MAURO PRIETO, ET AL.

    041 Phil 670

  •  




     
     

    G.R. No. 10595   March 28, 1916 - TEODORO KALAMBAKAL v. VICENTE PAMATMAT ET AL. <br /><br />034 Phil 465

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 10595. March 28, 1916. ]

    TEODORO KALAMBAKAL and PANTALEON DELGADO, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. VICENTE PAMATMAT ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

    Pedro Guevarra for Appellants.

    Ramon Diokno for Appellees.

    SYLLABUS


    1. PRIVATE CONTRACT OF LEASE; FORCE AND EFFECT; VALUE AS EVIDENCE. — A contract of lease contained in a private documentary obligates only the persons who sign it. As documentary evidence it is wholly valueless and ineffective with respect of third persons, except only from the date on which it was certified before a notary public and acquired the character of a public documents. (Arts. 1225 and 1227, Civil Code.)

    2. RECEIVERS; MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY. — When a receiver, by virtue of an order of court, has taken charge of certain property, no person other than the said receiver may dispose of it, nor enter into any contract with relation thereto without permission of the court that ordered the receivership, as the said property is in custodia legis. (Art. 175, Code of Civil Procedure.)


    D E C I S I O N


    TORRES, J. :


    This appeal by bill of exceptions was filed by counsel for defendants from the judgment of April 18, 1913, wherein the judge of the Court of First Instance of Laguna directed that a writ of permanent injunction issue against defendants, their attorneys, agents or mandatories, enjoining them from impeding or preventing plaintiffs from holding mains in the cockpit of the Samahang Umu-unlad Association; from impeding the use by plaintiffs of the said cockpit and the personal property contained therein for such other purposes as plaintiffs deemed necessary and suitable for the proper management of the aforementioned association, and enjoying them from performing any acts whatever tending to molest plaintiffs in the management of the property of said association. Defendants were ordered to pay to plaintiffs, for the use and occupation of the cockpit and other property of the Samahang Umu-unlad Association, as indemnity, the sum of P20 monthly, from May 20, 1912, until the date on which plaintiffs should recover possession of said cockpit and other property of the association, now in the hands of the defendants. It was further ordered that, from the total of such indemnity the sum P15 should be deducted for the three days of the month of June, 1912, when mains were allowed but could not be held by defendants in the cockpit in question, for the reason that the preliminary injunction issued in the present case was then in force. The costs of the case were assessed against defendants.

    By a writing of May 31, 1912, counsel for the plaintiff receivers of the property of the Umu-unlad Association (in liquidation) filed suit in the court of First Instance of Laguna against Vicente Pamatmat, Licerio de Leon, and Romualdo Sarmiento, alleging as a cause of action that on May 20, 1912, plaintiffs, as such receivers of the property of the aforementioned association took possession of this property, among which was a building that was erected for use as a cockpit, situated in the barrio of Santo Angel, municipality of Santa Cruz, and certain furniture and fixtures necessary for the use of said cockpit; that, on the 26th and 30th of May, 1912, plaintiffs were unable to conduct mains therein as they were prevented from so doing by defendants, who claimed that they had leased said cockpit and the property contained therein belonging to the Samahang Umu-unlad Association, from one Martin Angeles, who had been the managing director of the aforementioned association; plaintiffs alleged that the Martin Angeles mentioned had no authority, as such managing director, to lease to any person or company the building, furniture and fixtures of the Samahang Umu-unlad Association; that plaintiffs believed defendants would continue to prevent them from holding mains in said cockpit, and that such action on the part of defendants would render the management of the association ineffective and cause great damage to the latter company, unless the court issue a writ of injunction restraining defendants from impeding plaintiffs from holding mains in the disputed building. Counsel therefore prayed the court that upon the deposit of a proper bond, a preliminary injunction issue against defendants, and that after the trial, judgment be rendered making permanent said injunction, with the costs against defendants.

    After the issuance of said preliminary injunction, defendants prayed by written motion that it be dissolved upon the deposit of a proper bond. The court granted the motion, on condition that a bond for P500 be filed and ordered that there be included as defendants the 29 person interested in the present suit, to wit; Martin Angeles, Jose Angeles, Bernardino Delgado, Froilan Magpili, Melecio Pambuan, Victor Cordova, Valentin Policarpio, Andrea Albay, Antonio Garcia, Hugo Ponce, Apolinario Cambel, Castor Garcia, Cornelio Talabis, Tiburcio Bonifacio, Crespin Tovias, Flora Villanueva, Manuel Comandante, Geronimo Ramirez, Julian Sottomayor, Vicente Lolote, Vicente Limpanco, Licerio A. de Leon (already included in the original complaint), Maria Catdula, Jorge Escuaras, Telesfora Rubias, Cenon Papa, Espiridion Daran, Mariano Padua, Silvina Agus, and Fructuoso Angeles.

    On July 9, 1912, counsel for defendants answered the aforementioned complaint, admitted Paragraphs I, II, III, and IV, and denied generally and specifically all the rest thereof. In special defense he set forth that defendants were in lawful possession of the cockpit and likewise of the fixtures thereof, all belonging of the Samahang Umu-unlad Association, on account of having leased them since the 1st of May, 1912, from Martin Angeles, the director who was managing the aforesaid association and a person duly authorized to grant a lease of said property, as plaintiffs were aware; that defendants had never attempted to infringe the rights, or curtial the interest of the plaintiffs, but on the contrary, the plaintiffs are the ones who had tried to prevent the holding of mains in said cockpit, their object being to close it and to favor the cockpit of the municipality, in which plaintiffs were not entirely uninterested. In counterclaim he alleged besides that through the false and unfounded accusations of and malicious acts performed by plaintiffs in order to molest and injure defendants rather than to protect the interests of the Samahang Umu-unlad Association, thereby causing the arrest and deprivation of liberty of said defendants and their caretaker Eulogio Medina, plaintiffs had injured defendants to the amount of P250; and that by said acts, and by plaintiffs having prevented from conducting mains in the cockpit in question on the 2d, 9th, and 16th of June, 1912, and on the afternoon of the 7th of the same month and year by seizing all the chairs and other furniture of the cockpit, and also by their having prevented the mains that were to have been held on the 23d and 30th of June of the same year, plaintiffs caused damage to defendants to the amount of P765. Defendants’ counsel therefore prayed that his clients be absolved from the complaint and that plaintiffs be ordered to pay defendants the sum of P250 for the damage caused the later, besides the sum of P765 as indemnity for the profits defendants failed to obtain by reason of plaintiffs’ acts, and that the costs be assessed against the latter.

    The case came to trial, evidence was introduced by both parties, and the court rendered the judgment aforementioned, to which counsel for defendants excepted and in writing moved for a reopening of the case and a new trial. The motion was denied, exception was taken by defendants, and the bill of exceptions was presented, approved, and forwarded to the clerk of this court.

    The issues raised in these proceedings consist of whether the plaintiffs Teodoro Kalambakal and Pantaleon Delgado, as receivers of the property of the Samahang Umu-unlad Association, were or were not entitled to take possession of the cockpit belonging to said association and situated in the barrio of Santo Angel, municipality of Santa Cruz, for the purpose of managing it as might best suit the interests of said association in liquidation; and whether, on this account, they were entitled to a writ of injunction against the lessees of the cockpit restraining the latter from preventing the holding of mains therein by the said receivers.

    The Samahang Umu-unlad Association was organized by a number of persons for the purpose of conducting the cockpit business in the barrio of Santo Angel, municipality of Santa Cruz. Its managing director, or president, as he was called by some of the witnesses, was the defendant Martin Angeles, although it is to be noted that the association was not governed by any articles of incorporation or by-laws. For certain reasons connected with the business, a man named Bandoy, one of the partners, filed suit in the Court of First Instance of Laguna against the director, Martin Angeles, requesting the dissolution of the association and an accounting by said managing director; he further asked for he appointment of two receivers who should assume charge of all the property of the association during the period of the liquidation and rendering of accounts (Exhibit C, p. 22. of the file of documentary evidence), and the plaintiffs Kalambakal and Delgado were duly appointed as such receivers. For these reasons, by an order of May 20, 1912, the court ordered the manager, Martin Angeles, immediately to deliver to the appointed receivers all the property belonging to the Samahang Umu-unlad Association. This order was complied with by Angeles on the same day by delivering to the receivers, on receipt, the property specified in his report to the court, in which report Angeles stated that he had complied with said order of May 20, 1912, and that the receivers had taken over all the property of the association, with the exception of the contract of lease of the cockpit executed by and between himself and defendants Licerio de Leon, Bernardo (or Romualdo) Sarmiento and Vicente Pamatmat, which they did not accept as valid (Exhibit 3, p. 22, and the certificate, p. 17).

    The plaintiff receivers did not recognize as valid said contract of lease executed by Martin Angeles in behalf of Licerio de Leon and his partners, because of the smallness of the amount of rental stipulated therein, viz., P10, claiming that it was to the prejudice of the management as a larger rental could have been obtained; and as defendants continued to hold mains in the cockpit subsequent to May 20, 1912 (the date when the receivers took possession of all the real and personal property belonging to the association), on the authority of the contract executed in their behalf by Martin Angeles, and, at the same time, prevented the receivers from taking possession of the cockpit building, these latter filed the complaint aforementioned.

    The contract to which defendants refer and on which they base the defense that they are in lawful possession of the cockpit in questions, is the documentary Exhibit 2 (pp. 18 to 20 of the evidence), dated May 1, 1912, by which Martin Angeles leased to Licerio de Leon and his two partners the said cock pit belonging to the Samahang Umu-unlad Association for an indeterminate period. This contract was not executed by Angeles in the name of or in representation of the association, of which he styles himself the president or managing director, for the name of the association Samahang Umu-unlad, does not appear in his capacity as representative of the association which owned the cockpit, but as a private party. Said lease was to commence to take effect in May, but from that month until September, 1912, inclusive, the lessees were not to pay any rent, for the reason that they were to make repairs on the cockpit building, but at the expiration of said five months the lessees were to pay P5 per month as rental for the cockpit and another P5 per month to the owner of the land on which the cockpit stood, that is, the lessee himself, Licerio de Leon. This contract executed on May 1, 1912, was not certified before a notary until the 22d of the same month and year. (Exhibit 2, p. 19.)

    The plaintiff receivers are not obliged to respect the contract of lease executed by Martin Angeles on May 1, 1912, for the reason that it was not ratified before a notary until the 22d of May of that year, that is, two days after the receivers had taken possession of the property belonging to the association in liquidation, and because the contract of lease, Exhibit 2, ratified before a notary on May 22, 1912, cannot affect the receivers — third persons, who by judicial order taken possession, on May 20, 1912, of all the property of the Samahang Umu-unlad Association, among which was the cockpit, together with its furniture and fixtures, leased to defendants. Furthermore, Martin Angeles had no authority to lease the said building.

    According to article 1225 of the Civil Code, the contract of lease drawn up in a private document of the date of May 1, 1912, creates an obligation that affects the persons who signed it, Martin Angeles and the lessee Licerio de Leon and associates, but, as documentary evidence, it has no force or value except from the date of May 22, 1912, when it was certified before a notary public and acquired the character of a public document, for, pursuant to the provisions of article 1227 of the Civil Code:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "The date of a private instrument shall be considered, with regard to third persons, only from the date on which it may have been filed or entered in a public registry, from the death of any of those who signed it, or from the date on which it may have been delivered to a public official by virtue of his office."cralaw virtua1aw library

    As the plaintiff receivers, on May 20, 1912, assumed charge and took possession of the property of said association, among which was the cockpit in question, with its furniture and fixtures, it is undeniable that, form that date on May 20, 1912, the said receivers were the only persons empowered to contract in regard to and dispose of the cockpit, and no other person, even though a member of the association, could have given a lease on the cockpit as did Manuel Angeles, because, pursuant to section 175 of the Code of Civil Procedure, said property was in custodia legis and could not be the subject of contract without permission of the court that appointed the receivers.

    Defendants have vigorously striven to prove that Martin Angeles, as president or managing director of said association, had been duly authorized and empowered by vote of the members to enter into any contract and take any action with regard to said cockpit; that he, Angeles increased the number of the shares of the association to 400; that he admitted two shareholders, and obtained the lease of Licerio de Leon’s lot for the purpose of building the cockpit thereon, all without prior authorization of the other partners, and that power was duly conferred upon him by the association to lease the cockpit to any person.

    The Samahang Umu-unlad Association was organized without any sort of articles of incorporation and consequently ther were no by-laws to govern the acts of its members and employees; and, as it not shown that the association was organized in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Commerce, it must be considered to be a civil association (Code of Commerce, art. 1).

    In view of the fact, then, that the association possession no articles of incorporation or by-laws for its government, the decision of all questions of moment that may arise must always depend upon the majority of the votes of the members assembled at a meeting called for the purpose. Francisco Talabis, who acted as secretary of the association, testified that whenever it was necessary to make any contract in regard to the operation or the lease of the cockpit, all the members of the association were called together to decide the matter. In illustration, he said that when the manager Martin Angeles executed the lease in October, 1909, with Emilio Elchico, this contract had already been decided upon in the meeting of members, called for the purpose by said Angeles, as proven by the notice of meeting Exhibit A. This testimony was corroborated by the witness Vicente Bandoy.

    Notwithstanding the statement made by Martin Angeles, that he was authorized by the association to lease the cockpit, he said (p. 20, record) that he had only been granted power "to confer with Emilio Elchico;" and the secretary, Talabis, explained that the vote of confidence that had been given to Angeles was to enable the latter to take charge of the management and repair of the cockpit building, and that the vote did not include the power to lease the cockpit without the consent of the members of the association.

    The fact of Angeles having leased the cockpit to Simeon Pambuan and subsequently, after the expiration of the term of two years of the contract with Emilio Elchico, to defendants, cannot be considered as an implicit grant of that edge of the leases executed subsequent to Elchico’s, because Martin Angeles executed them without the agreement and consent of his fellow members being first had or their taking part in the matter.

    So that the acts of Martin Angeles in calling the members of the association to general meetings to adopt resolutions concerning the association virtually supplied the lack of articles of incorporation and formed rules for the government of the affairs to association and of the members among themselves; and as it was not proven that, after that period of meeting and convocations of the members for the purpose of adopting resolutions on matters pertaining to the association, the latter had authorized Martin Angeles to act for it in business matters, it cannot be held that the contract executed by him with defendants on May 1, 1912, by which he leased the cockpit to them, was valid and binding, inasmuch as the act performed by Angeles was not previously nor subsequently sanctioned by a majority of the members of the Samahang Umu-unlad Association.

    The cockpit rented for P20 per month; therefore, by Martin Angeles’ having leased it to defendants for the sum of P10, it is evident that the association suffered damage in its interests, and, consequently, is entitled to have defendants, who benefited by the low rental, pay to said receivers an indemnity of P10 per month, one-half of the sum first mentioned, counting from May 20, 1912, the date when the receivers took charge of the property of the association, but from the aggregate resultant sum there shall be deducted the amount of P15 for the three days of the month of June, during which the lessees could not hold mains on account of the injunction which was issued at plaintiffs’ request.

    Considering that the contract of the lease on which defendants rely in order to hold the cockpit of the Samahang Umu-unlad Association is totally valueless and unenforcible with respect to said judicial receivers, because it was executed after the plaintiff receivers took possession of the property of the association; and as these latter had a right, by virtue of their official position, to take charge of the property of the association, it is evident that said receivers are entitled to ask that a writ of permanent injunction issue against the defendant lessees (sec. 164, Code of Civ. Proc.) restraining them from continuing in their occupancy of the cockpit in question and directing them to deliver the possession thereof to said receivers.

    For the foregoing reasons, whereby the errors assigned are deemed to have been refuted, and as the judgment is in accordance with the law and merits of the case as disclosed by the evidence, said judgment should be, as it is hereby, affirmed, with the costs against appellants. So ordered.

    Arellano, C.J., Johnson and Trent, JJ., concur.

    Moreland, J., concurs in the result.

    G.R. No. 10595   March 28, 1916 - TEODORO KALAMBAKAL v. VICENTE PAMATMAT ET AL. <br /><br />034 Phil 465




    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED