Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1905 > April 1905 Decisions > G.R. No. 1633 April 29, 1905 - NICOLAS CEPILLO CRUZ v. CHINAMAN CO-CUACO

004 Phil 489:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 1633. April 29, 1905. ]

NICOLAS CEPILLO CRUZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THE CHINAMAN CO-CUACO, Defendant-Appellant.

Federico Olbes, for Appellant.

Gabriel & Borbon, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CIVIL LAW; CONTRACT OF LEASE; TERM OF EXPIRATION OF A LEASE; OUSTER. — The term of a lease stipulated in a contract between plaintiff and defendant having expired, and this fact not being denied but, on the contrary, expressly acknowledged by the defendant the latter having been furthermore advised to leave the premises on account of the expiration of the term agreed upon, he has no right to continue in the use and enjoyment of the premises and can be ousted judicially.

2. ID.; ID.; ID. — RIGHT OF POSSESSION. — It is no excuse to remain in possession of the premises after the lease has expired, to say that the lessor owned the lessee for the value of some repairs done therein, when it appears that in the contract of lease it was stipulated that the lessee should retain a certain sum from the monthly rent to reimburse himself of a liquidated amount of money spent in those repairs, and there is nothing in the record showing that the lessee had not thus reimbursed himself of that amount.


D E C I S I O N


TORRES, J. :


On March 12, 1900, a contract of lease for a warehouse with four doors situated on Calle Santo Cristo, No. 43, district of Binondo, was entered into between Nicolas Cepillo Cruz and the Chinaman Co-Cuaco, the latter as lessee and the former as husband and legal representative of Maria Casas, owner of said warehouse, as lessor. The stipulations contained in the lease were as follows: The term of the lease was for three years beginning with January 1 of said year, the tenant being already in possession of said warehouse; the rent was 60 pesos per month; the tenant, Co-Cuaco, was to pay the expenses of cleaning the vault; that the tenant would not require of the owner, for any repairs he might make as a result of a fire which had occurred in the building, any reimbursement in excess of 400 pesos, and on this amount the plaintiff, Cepillo, had already paid 155 pesos, and of the balance of 245 pesos the tenant was to be reimbursed in partial payments by retaining 30 pesos per month of the 60 pesos he was obligated to pay per month as rental, beginning with the month of March, and until said sum of 245 pesos, the balance due of the said indemnification of 400 pesos, had been retained from the rent.

The term of the lease expired on January 1, 1903, the plaintiff, Nicolas Cepillo Cruz, instituted an action against Co-Cuaco for the recovery of the possession of the premises and the rent due and unpaid, together with the costs.

The case having come on for hearing in the justice of the peace court and the defendant being present at same on February 12 of that year, judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff. This judgment was appealed to the Court of First Instance, where, after a new hearing having been had of the case on August 22, 1903, judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, declaring that the defendant be ousted from the premises and ordering him to pay the rent due and unpaid at the rate of 60 pesos per month until such time as he should leave the premises, together with the costs. The term of the lease stipulated in the contract having expired and this fact not being denied, but, on the contrary, expressly acknowledged by the defendant, the latter having been furthermore advised to leave the premises on account of the expiration of the term agreed upon, he has no right to legitimately continue in the use and enjoyment of the premises and can be ousted judicially (art. 1569, Civil Code). Article 1565 of the Civil Code states that if the lease has been made for a definite period it ends on the appointed day without the necessity of demanding possession, and in the second paragraph of article 1581 of the same code it is furthermore stated that at any rate the lease ceases without need of special notice after the expiration of the term. The lessor, as it has been stated, asked the lessee, at the expiration of the term of three years stipulated, to leave the premises according to the agreement, and, the defendant not having done so immediately gave cause for suit. The lessee, Co-Cuaco, having acknowledged that the term of the lease expired on January 1, 1903, the obligation or duty he had to quit the storehouse from that day, or at least from the time he was required to do so, arose, and he had no right to retain the premises on the ground that he had not reimbursed himself in the sum of 245 pesos, the balance of what he had spent for repairs of the storehouse.

Nothing appears proven or even alleged by the defendant in the Court of First Instance that the contract was not complied with as regards this special stipulation, and under the agreement he should have ceased to retain the 30 pesos from the monthly rent, having begun this March, 1900, to reimburse himself for the said sum of 245 pesos, since after eight months an some days, or, at most, in nine months — that is to say, November, 1900, he was reimbursed in full — an therefore from the month of December following, the lessor began to receive the rent for the house in full.

The appellant not having asked that the judgment be reversed and not having asked for a new trial, this court is not in a position to review the evidence adduced at the trial, and by virtue of the recourse through the bill of exceptions we should only limit ourselves to the present case to decide the questions of law raised in the case and decided in the judgment appealed from.

The lessor, the representative of the owner of the premises, never refused and never could have refused to pay the sums stipulated, and which the lessee has already reimbursed himself from the rent, and therefore the defendant never had nor could have any right to retain the premises relying on article 502 of the Civil Code.

This case has already been passed upon definitely and there is no legal reason to require from the defendant the increase of the bond as asked by the plaintiff, since the only thing that remains to be done at present is to execute the judgment.

By virtue, then, of the reasons stated, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, with the costs in this instance, and the motion presented by the plaintiff is overruled.

After the term of twenty days have expired from the date of the filing of this decision let judgment be rendered in accordance herewith and the case returned to the court of origin for the execution thereof.

Arellano, C.J., Mapa, 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






April-1905 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 1375 April 1, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. PACIFICO GONZAGA

    004 Phil 364

  • G.R. No. 1703 April 1, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. EUSEBIO CAPADUCIA

    004 Phil 365

  • G.R. No. 1760 April 3, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. IRINEO BIBAL

    004 Phil 369

  • G.R. No. 1988 April 3, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELO CAPARAS

    004 Phil 370

  • G.R. No. 1530 April 4, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. VENANCIO SANTOS

    004 Phil 373

  • G.R. No. 1683 April 5, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO VIZQUERA

    004 Phil 380

  • G.R. No. 1487 April 6, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ISMAEL TAN-SECO

    004 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. 1504 April 8, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ROBERT L. HIGHFILL

    004 Phil 384

  • G.R. No. 1540 April 8, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. VICTOR RAMOS, ET AL.

    004 Phil 389

  • G.R. No. 1537 April 8, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. GERONIMO MILLA

    004 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. 1862 April 8, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JULIAN DAGALEA

    004 Phil 398

  • G.R. No. 1647 April 11, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ADAUSTO OCAMPO

    004 Phil 400

  • G.R. No. 1897 April 11, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. POLICARPO AQUINO

    004 Phil 402

  • G.R. No. 1953 April 11, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. PAULINO FUENTES, ET AL.

    004 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. 1588 April 12, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO SAN PEDRO

    004 Phil 405

  • G.R. No. 1939 April 13, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. GUILLERMO MACALINAO

    004 Phil 407

  • G.R. No. 1714 April 14, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ESTEBAN LOGARIO, ET AL.

    004 Phil 411

  • G.R. No. 1899 April 14, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. RUFINO MAGSAMBOL

    004 Phil 413

  • G.R. No. 2092 April 15, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. GONZALEZ ET AL.

    004 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. 2200 April 15, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. PANTALEON CANTIL

    004 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. 1557 April 17, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. AMADO SANTOS

    004 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. 1943 April 17, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. BENITO SANTA ANA

    004 Phil 421

  • G.R. No. 2134 April 17, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. CAGAYAN ET AL.

    004 Phil 424

  • G.R. No. 1486 April 18, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. FLORENCIO RACINES, ET AL.

    004 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. 1727 April 18, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JULIO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    004 Phil 430

  • G.R. No. 2170 April 18, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN CADAY

    004 Phil 431

  • G.R. No. 2176 April 18, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. CANDIDO FULGUERAS

    004 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. 1661 April 19, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. FELICIANO VILLAROSA

    004 Phil 434

  • G.R. No. 1755 April 19, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. SANTIAGO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    004 Phil 438

  • G.R. No. 1773 April 19, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. HILARIO SANTIAGO, ET AL.

    004 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. 2000 April 19, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE LIM TICO, ET AL.

    004 Phil 440

  • G.R. No. 2198 April 19, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. SILVERIO NUÑEZ

    004 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 1800 April 24, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. FERMIN GREGORIO

    004 Phil 443

  • G.R. No. 1871 April 24, 1905 - UNTIED STATES v. FLORENTINO RALLOS

    004 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. 1881 April 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. EUSEBIO DE LA SERNA, ET AL.

    004 Phil 448

  • G.R. No. 1925 April 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. TOMAS CANETA

    004 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. 2029 April 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. CHAUNCEY MCGOVERN

    004 Phil 451

  • G.R. No. 2032 April 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO NUBLA

    004 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. 2052 April 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES vs LICAS

    004 Phil 458

  • G.R. No. 2062 April 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES ET AL. v. AGUSTINA BARRERA

    004 Phil 461

  • G.R. No. 2139 April 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ENRICO ILAO

    004 Phil 463

  • G.R. No. 2245 April 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO JAVATE

    004 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. 1910 April 26, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ROMAN GUSTILO

    004 Phil 466

  • G.R. No. 1930 April 26, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. MARGARITO ACABAL, ET AL.

    004 Phil 467

  • G.R. No. 2118 April 26, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. PABLO VALDEHUEZA

    004 Phil 470

  • G.R. No. 2231 April 26, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. EVARISTO PAYNAGA

    004 Phil 472

  • G.R. No. 2374 April 26, 1905 - RUBERT & GUAMIS v. JOHN C. SWEENEY

    004 Phil 473

  • G.R. No. 1181 April 27, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ENGRACIO VILLAFUERTE

    004 Phil 476

  • G.R. No. 1612 April 27, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. GEORGE GRAY

    004 Phil 479

  • G.R. No. 1707 April 27, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN QUILATAN, ET AL.

    004 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. 1932 April 27, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. MARIANO PANGANIBAN, ET AL.

    004 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. 1650 April 28, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. LINO LITONJUA, ET AL.

    004 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. 1090 April 29, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. TORIBIO GONZALEZ

    004 Phil 487

  • G.R. No. 1633 April 29, 1905 - NICOLAS CEPILLO CRUZ v. CHINAMAN CO-CUACO

    004 Phil 489

  • G.R. No. 1766 April 29, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN ANGEL MICHELENA

    004 Phil 492

  • G.R. No. 1877 April 29, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. RICARDO GUTIERREZ

    004 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. 1934 April 29, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN DE LEON, ET AL.

    004 Phil 496

  • G.R. No. 1981 April 29, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ANSELMO DIRIS, ET AL.

    004 Phil 498

  • G.R. No. 1984 April 29, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO HERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    004 Phil 499

  • G.R. No. 1998 April 29, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ANASTASIO REDION

    004 Phil 500

  • G.R. No. 2057 April 29, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ADRIANO CONCEPCION

    004 Phil 501

  • G.R. No. 2158 April 29, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JULIAN BUDIAO, ET AL.

    004 Phil 502