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

Please log in to request a case brief.

4 Phil. 489

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




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 having 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 on 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 with March,
1900, to reimburse himself for the said sum of 245 pesos, since after
eight months and some days, or, at most, in nine months—that is to say,
November, 1900, he was reimbursed in full—and 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 he 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.

Date created: April 24, 2014


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Apply Filters