Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1929 > September 1929 Decisions > G.R. No. 30112 September 9, 1929 - MABALACAT SUGAR CO. v. JOSE V. RAMIREZ ET AL.

053 Phil 496:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 30112. September 9, 1929.]

THE MABALACAT SUGAR COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOSE V. RAMIREZ ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

Alfonso Ponce Enrile, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Marcaida & Ocampo and Jose Ma. Cavanna, for Defendants-Appellants.

SYLLABUS


1. WHEN LANDLORD MAY ENTER. — Where it appears that the plaintiff with their permission constructed a railway track over the land of the defendants, of which it had been in the use and possession for about seven years, and that its lease had expired and the plaintiff was a tenant at will or sufferance, the defendants upon notice to the plaintiff had the legal right to terminate the lease and remove plaintiff’s track, without the doing of any unnecessary damage to the materials of which the railway was constructed.

2. PLAINTIFF’S RIGHTS. — In such a case, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of any unreasonable or unnecessary damage which it sustained in the removal of its track.

3. WHERE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AGAINST GUARDIAN IN PERSON. — Where it appears that minors were the owner of the land over which the track was laid, and that it was their guardian who caused the track to be removed, the judgment for the damages for such removal should be rendered against the guardian in person.

STATEMENT

Plaintiff alleges that it is a domestic corporation and for more than seven years has been in the quiet and peaceful possession of a strip of land 2,664 meters long and 5 meters wide across the land of the minor defendants in the barrio of Dolores, municipality of Mabalacat, Province of Pampanga, which is specifically described in the complaint.

That it built a railway and made permanent improvements on the land in the nature of embankments, bridges, sewers and telephone lines for the proper transportation of sugar cane from the Hacienda Concepcion to its sugar central in the municipality of Mabalacat, and that it has been in the peaceful use, possession and enjoyment of the railway for about seven years. That on the 4th and 5th of September, 1927, the defendants jointly and mutually, with the aid of more than one hundred other persons acting for and with them, raised and destroyed the rails of plaintiff’s railway, a large portion of which were twisted, and destroyed the bolts and ties, and left the railway a wreck as a means of transportation for the plaintiff. That by reason of such wrongful acts plaintiff was damaged in the sum of P32,000.

It is then alleged that the defendants by means of violence threatened to, and will, dispossess plaintiff of the strip of the land in question, and it prays that pending the action, the court issue a writ of preliminary injunction against the defendants prohibiting them from in any manner disturbing plaintiff’s possession of the strip of land, and that upon final hearing, plaintiff have judgment against the defendants jointly and severally for P32,000, and that the injunction be made permanent.

For answer the defendants made a general and specific denial, and as a counterclaim alleged that by reason of the injunction, which was granted by the court on motion of the plaintiff, the defendants were damaged in the sum of P2,000, for which they pray for a corresponding judgment against the plaintiff.

Upon such issues the lower court rendered judgment against the defendants Manuel Lazatin and Tomasa C. Viuda de Pamintuan, as guardian of her sons, to jointly and severally pay the plaintiff P2,083.99 and costs, and absolved Jose V. Ramirez from the complaint.

From this judgment both parties appealed, and the plaintiff assigns the following errors:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"I. The lower court erred in not adjudging to the plaintiff damages caused by the necessary delay in its milling operations due to the destruction of its railway by the defendants in the sum of P20,760.

"II. The lower court erred in not adjudging to the plaintiff the sum of P6,739.53 as damages sustained by it due to the forcible removal and destruction of its railway by the defendants."cralaw virtua1aw library

The defendants, as appellants, assign the following errors:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"I. The trial court erred in not dismissing the complaint for damages upon the dismissal of the principal action of injunction.

"II. The trial court erred in condemning the defendants-appellants, Manuel Lazatin and Tomasa Vda. de Pamintuan, as guardian of the minor children Pamintuan to pay jointly and severally the plaintiff company the sum of P2,083.99 as damages, and in not absolving the same defendants-appellants to the payment thereof.

"III. The trial court erred in not adjudicating to the defendants-appellants their counterclaim for P2,000 by way of damages and in not condemning the plaintiff company to pay thereof.

"IV. The trial court erred in admitting Exhibits C and C-1 against the objection of defendants and without their proper identification by the plaintiff.

"V. The trial court erred in overruling defendants’ demurrer to the plaintiff’s complaint and in not sustaining the same."


D E C I S I O N


JOHNS, J.:


It must be conceded that any lease, right, title or interest which the plaintiff ever had to the use or possession of the strip of land in question had expired, and that the plaintiff was nothing more than a tenant at will or sufferance. That is to say, at the time of the alleged acts of which plaintiff complains, it had no legal right to the use or possession of the land, and that any right which it ever did have had expired with the contract for the lease of the land by the defendants to Dizon and Tiglao. In this situation, the defendants had the legal right to remove plaintiff’s railway from their land, and plaintiff cannot recover damages from the defendants for the doing of that which they had a legal right to do. It is true that after the lease had expired by the terms there were negotiations between the parties for a renewal or extension of the lease. It is also true that such negotiations fell through, and that the lease was never renewed or extended. Hence, it follows that the defendants are not liable for any damages which the plaintiff may have sustained growing out of the failure to renew the lease, and for such reasons plaintiff’s first assignment of error is not well taken.

Be that as it may, the railway track in question has lawfully been on the defendants’ land and in the use and possession of the plaintiff for about seven years, and while it is true that after the expiration of the lease, the defendant, upon notice to the plaintiff, had the legal right to terminate the lease and remove the track, yet they had no right to do so in the manner in which it was done. In its removal it was the duty of the defendants to remove the track without any unnecessary damage to the plaintiff. That is to say, in such removal the defendants had no legal right to bend or twist the rails or to destroy the railway ties, fishplates, bolts and nuts and spikes, and that such removal should have been made without any serious injury or damage to the materials of which the railway was constructed. For such wrongful acts, the lower court awarded damages to the plaintiff in the sum of P2,083.99.

In the opinion of the writer the amount of such damages is about P4,000. Be that as it may, my associates are all of the opinion that the amount awarded by the lower court is reasonable, and that its judgment in that respect should also be affirmed.

From what has been said, it follows that there is no merit in the defendants’ appeal. If the defendants had torn up and removed the track in a peaceful and orderly manner and without any unnecessary destruction to plaintiff’s property, they would not then be liable for any damages. But the proof is conclusive that it was done with a large body of men and in a hasty manner, and with force and violence, and that the whole track was torn up and removed in about two days’ time and without any regard to plaintiff’s rights.

The evidence is conclusive that the track was removed at the instance and request of Tomasa C. Vda. de Pamintuan, the guardian of the minor defendants, and the lower court rendered judgment against her as such guardian. That was error. The judgment for the amount of damages awarded to plaintiff should be against Tomasa C. Vda. de Pamintuan personally and in person, and not as guardian, for the simple reason that the minors are not legally liable for a tort committed by their guardian. That is to say, the judgment of the lower court for damages against Tomasa C. Vda. de Pamintuan, as guardian of the minors, is reversed, and in lieu thereof a corresponding judgment will be entered against Tomasa C. Vda. de Pamintuan personally and in person, and that in all other things and respects, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed, with costs against the plaintiff. So ordered.

Avanceña, C.J., Johnson, Street, Romualdez and Villa-Real, 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






September-1929 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 30826 September 2, 1929 - VIDAL CRISOSTOMO v. FRANCISCO VIRI ET AL.,

    053 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. 30831 September 2, 1929 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. TAN ONG SZE

    053 Phil 451

  • G.R. No. 31951 September 4, 1929 - PHIL. TRUST CO. v. FRANCISCO SANTAMARIA

    053 Phil 463

  • G.R. No. 31310 September 5, 1929 - G. C. JAVIER v. CAYETANO ORLANES

    053 Phil 468

  • G.R. No. 30850 September 6, 1929 - CASIMIRO MANUEL v. JOSE CASTILLO

    053 Phil 476

  • G.R. No. 31851 September 6, 1929 - H. E. HEACOCK CO. v. AMERICAN TRADING CO.

    053 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. 31057 September 7, 1929 - ADRIANO ARBES ET AL. v. VICENTE POLISTICO ET AL.

    053 Phil 489

  • G.R. No. 30112 September 9, 1929 - MABALACAT SUGAR CO. v. JOSE V. RAMIREZ ET AL.

    053 Phil 496

  • G.R. No. 31150 September 10, 1929 - GETTY MONITZ DE MILLER v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    053 Phil 501

  • G.R. No. 30286 September 12, 1929 - M. TEAGUE v. H. MARTIN

    053 Phil 504

  • G.R. No. 31063 September 13, 1929 - CITY OF MANILA v. THE RIZAL PARK CO.

    053 Phil 515

  • G.R. No. 31464 September 13, 1929 - RESTITUTO VILLEGAS v. ATILANO VILLEGAS

    053 Phil 532

  • G.R. No. 31067 September 14, 1929 - MANILA PUBLISHING COMPANY v. HONORABLE JOSE BERNABE

    053 Phil 534

  • G.R. No. 31058 September 16, 1929 - SAN MIGUEL BREWERY v. FORTUNATO G. LAPID

    053 Phil 539

  • G.R. No. 30991 September 17, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ONG ENG

    053 Phil 544

  • G.R. No. 30992 September 17, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. UY TIAM SU

    053 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 31801 September 19, 1929 - F. BASTIDA v. CITY COUNCIL OF BAGUIO ET AL.,

    053 Phil 553

  • G.R. No. 31244 September 23, 1929 - BOHOL LAND TRANSPORTATION CO. v. NAZARIO S. JUREIDINI

    053 Phil 560

  • G.R. No. 32025 September 23, 1929 - FRANCISCO BELTRAN v. FELIX SAMSON

    053 Phil 570

  • G.R. No. 30903 September 24, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CIRILO MONTIL

    053 Phil 580

  • G.R. No. 31013 September 24, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CIRILO K. ALAFRIZ

    053 Phil 582

  • G.R. No. 31254 September 25, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TRANQUILINO CABALLERO ET AL.

    053 Phil 585

  • G.R. No. 30342 September 26, 1929 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATES DEV’T. CO. v. CIPRIANO E. UNSON

    053 Phil 599

  • G.R. No. 30711 September 26, 1929 - PABLO PERLAS v. ALFRED EHRMAN ET AL.

    053 Phil 607

  • G.R. No. 31010 September 26, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMBROSIO GUTIERREZ

    053 Phil 609

  • G.R. No. 30591 September 27, 1929 - GENEROSO AVELLANOSA v. BERNARDO VEROY

    053 Phil 611

  • G.R. No. 30888 September 28, 1929 - VIUDA E HIJOS DE CRISPULO ZAMORA v. BEN F. WRIGHT

    053 Phil 613