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. 11068   March 29, 1916 - FERNANDEZ HERMANOS v. HAROLD M. PITT<br /><br />034 Phil 549

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 11068. March 29, 1916. ]

    FERNANDEZ HERMANOS, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. HAROLD M. PITT, Defendant-Appellant.

    Crossfield & O’Brien for Appellant.

    Gregorio Araneta for Appellees.

    SYLLABUS


    1. LANDLORD AND TENANT; LEASE; RESCISSION. — A party to a lease cannot take advantage of his own wrong to rescind the lease.

    2. ID.; ID.; ID. — A party to a lease who agrees therein to occupy the premises leased for a period of four years and to pay a stated monthly rental therefor during said term cannot refuse to pay rent and then declare the lease rescinded by virtue of such refusal.

    3. ID.; ID.; CONSTRUCTION OF LEASE. — A clause in a lease providing that the "failure on the part of the lessee to comply with all or any of the terms of this lease, and more particularly of that set forth in paragraph first (referring to payment of rent) of this agreement will cause the rescission of this lease on the part of the lessor, the lessee being thereby obliged to immediately vacate the premises" cannot be construed to mean that the lessee may refuse to pay rent and thereby produce an abrogation of the lease.


    D E C I S I O N


    MORELAND, J. :


    This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila in favor of the plaintiffs requiring:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Wherefore, it is hereby ordered and adjudged that the plaintiff have and recover judgment against the defendant for the sum of P1,106.45, with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the 21st day of October, 1914, the date of the filing of the complaint in this case, and for the further sum of P350, with interest at the same rate, from the 5th day of November, 1914.

    "It is further ordered and adjudged that the defendant pay to the plaintiff the sum of P50 for each and every month during the period beginning November 1, 1914, and ending June 30, 1917, both dates inclusive, the monthly payment to be made on or before the 5th day of the next succeeding month, and to draw interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from that date until paid. Upon the occurrence of any fortuitous event which under existing laws would have extinguished the obligation on the part of the defendant to pay rent under the lease here in question this judgment shall be regarded as satisfied as to the payment not yet due at the time of the occurrence of the event."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The case comes to this court on a stipulation of facts in which it appears that, on the 1st day of July, 1913, plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract whereby the plaintiff leased to the defendant the premises described therein for a period of four years from the date of said lease for a monthly rent of P350 payable by the lessee "within the first five days of each following month." The lessee entered into possession of the premises and occupied the same until the 8th day of August, 1914 when he served on the lessor notice in the form of a letter addressed to him that he had elected to terminate the lease and that the premises were at the disposal of the lessor thenceforth. The lessee turned the premises over the lessor’s caretaker notwithstanding the fact "that plaintiff did not wish the surrender of the premises and desired that defendant should continue to occupy them under the lease." The letter of the lessee to the lessor is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "GENTLEMEN: By the terms of agreement entered into between us on July 19, 193, for lease of building No. 53-55 Plaza McKinley, district of Intramuros, Manila, the same has, under the provisions of the first and tenth sections thereof, automatically lapsed.

    "You are hereby notified that I am now prepared to pay the rental of said building for the month of July, 1914, and for that part of the month of August during which above-named lease was in force and effect, viz., from the first to fifth day inclusive."cralaw virtua1aw library

    On the 25th of August, 1914, the attorney for the lessor called the attention of the lessee to what he termed the latter’s breach of the provisions of the lease asking him to reconsider his determination to vacate the premises and warning him that, in case he continued in his present attitude, the plaintiff would attempt to rent the premises to some other tenant and would hold the lessee responsible for all resulting damage. On the 27th of August the lessee replied to this letter stating:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Your favor of the 25th inst., with reference to the contract of lease between the Sres. Fernandez Hermanos and me, is received.

    "I regret my inability to agree with the construction of the contract as expressed by you, and am constrained to maintain that under its terms as specifically stated, the contract lapsed on August 5, 1914."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The stipulation of facts states:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "That since the defendant left the premises in question to the disposition of the plaintiffs, they tried to lease the same under the most advantageous conditions possible, and advertised them for rent by notice posted on the premises and by publication in the daily newspaper, the Daily Bulletin and El Comercio from the month of August to the month of October, 1914, and paid for the publication of notice the sum of thirty-seven pesos and ninety centavos (P37.90).

    "That notwithstanding the efforts made by the plaintiff to lease the premises under the most advantageous conditions possible, they only succeeded in leasing them to Don Mariano Lim on the 10th day of October, 1914, the contract of lease to take effect on the 1st day of November of the same year and copy of the contract of lease is attached hereto marked Exhibit E and made a part hereof, and is the best lease which the plaintiff succeeded in making."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The stipulation further says:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "That the defendant has not paid the rent beginning with the month of July, 1914, nor the cost of water used upon the premises during the third quarter of the year 1914, which amounts to the sum of eighteen pesos and fifty-five centavos (P18.55).

    "That the premises were unoccupied from the time that the defendant gave notice of termination of lease on the 8th day of August until the 1st day of November, 1914, at which time they were occupied by the present tenant, Don Mariano Lim, and that the plaintiff has received no rent for the premises during that period.

    "Parties further agree that the court may enter judgment upon the foregoing statement of facts without further trial of the issue raised by the pleadings, the parties reserving only the privilege of presenting briefs — the plaintiff, fifteen (15) days from the date hereof and the defendant, fifteen (15) days after the receipt of plaintiff’s brief."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The appellant bases his whole contention on paragraph 10 of the lease which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Tenth. Failure on the part of the lessee to comply with all or any of the terms of this lease, and more particularly of that set forth in paragraph first of this agreement will cause the rescission of this lease on the part of the lessor and lessee being thereby obliged to immediately vacate the premises."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Placing himself upon this paragraph appellant maintains that his failure to pay rent for the month of July, 1914, automatically produced under paragraph 10 the rescission of the contract, and released him from the obligation thereby imposed; and that he was accordingly at liberty to leave the premises any moment thereafter. We cannot agree with this interpretation of paragraph 10; but are constrained to accept the construction placed thereon by the trial court. Appellant has overlooked not only certain important words in the paragraph referred to but also the general principles of law which, in the absence of express stipulation to the contrary, prohibit a party from taking advantage of his own wrong. Appellant seems to have forgotten that the very first paragraph of the lease imposes upon him the obligation to occupy the premises and pay rent for a period of four years form the date of the lease. This obligation cannot be avoided without the consent of the lessor. In the absence of a stipulation by the terms of which the lessee could terminate the lease, the provision fixing the duration of the lease at four years in binding on the lessee and he cannot legally escape therefrom. Paragraph 10 is not a provision by which the lessee may terminate the lease; it is rather a provision whereby the lessor may rescind the contract and collect from the lessee damages resulting from the acts of the lessee which gave the lessor the right to rescind. The paragraph itself provides that the only rescission which can take place will be one which proceeds from the lessor himself and to that end it disposes that the lease shall continue in full force and effect until the performance of some act on the part of the lessee which "will cause the recession of this lease on the part of the lessor." The lease containing no provision by which the lessee may release himself from the obligation imposed thereby, any act performed by the lessee which is in violation of its terms is a wrong against the lessor. Being a wrong the wrongdoer can take no advantage therefrom. If a person could rescind an obligation by the simple act of refusing to fulfill it then contracts would be worthless things; and if one may take advantage of his own wrong then there is no inducement to do right.

    There being no objection by either party to the form of the judgment it is hereby affirmed, with costs against the appellant. So ordered.

    Torres, Trent and Araullo, JJ., concur.

    Johnson, J., dissents.

    G.R. No. 11068   March 29, 1916 - FERNANDEZ HERMANOS v. HAROLD M. PITT<br /><br />034 Phil 549




    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