G.R. No. 1879. August 26, 1905

On February 17, 1904, the plaintiff, Julian Gonzalez Parrado, filed
an amended complaint in the above-entitled action praying that judgment
be rendered in his favor, and against the defendant for the sum of 960
pesos, Mexican currency, for rent due him from the latter; that the
defendant be directed to pay the damages sustained by him by reason of
the destruction of his camarin, as well as the corresponding
legal interest on the aforesaid sum and the costs of these proceedings.
He also prayed for such other and further relief as the court deemed
just and equitable.

The defendant in his answer, filed February 18, 1904, denied each
and all of the allegations contained in the various paragraphs of the
amended complaint.

The court, after due consideration of the evidence introduced by
both parties during the trial, rendered judgment on the 20th of the
same month directing: (1) that defendant pay to the plaintiff the sum
of 260 pesos and accrued interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent per
annum, from the date of said judgment until paid, and (2) that
defendant pay the costs; holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to
recover any damages at all, nor even the value of the camarin destroyed, but had a right to recover the rent due him for the use of his camarin during the period of one year and two months that defendant was in possession of the same at the rate of 20 pesos per month.

The plaintiff did not except to that part of the judgment of the
court below favorable to the defendant which relates to the question of
damages, etc. The appeal was taken from that part of the judgment
relating to the right of the plaintiff to recover the rent due for the
use of his camarin for the period of one year and two months
at the rate of 20 pesos per month. This is the only question raised by
defendant’s appeal and by the bill of exceptions certified to this
court. This decision, therefore, shall only deal with the question
whether there was any lease executed with respect to the “camarin” in question, and whether or not the defendant should pay rent as contended by the plaintiff.

It is the duty of the party seeking to enforce a right to prove that
the right actually exists. The testimony of witnesses is one of the
means prescribed by law for this purpose, except in cases where the law
itself expressly prohibits its admission as evidence of such fact.
(Arts. 1214, 1215, and 1244 of the Civil Code.)

It appears from the testimony of record, and the Court of First
Instance so found, that the defendant Jo-Juayco y Juaya occupied the
plaintiff’s camarin on Calle Sevilla, Iligan, from March,
1901, until May, 1902, under the terms of a lease entered into between
the defendant and another Chinaman by the name of Co-Guanco, the person
in charge of the premises.

The defendant denied the existence of the lease. He failed, however,
t6 prove that he occupied the premises in question by the mere
tolerance of the plaintiff or otherwise except as a tenant.

The appellant further failed to show that he had paid the rent
stipulated in the lease, except for one month. The facts are therefore
sufficient to support the judgment of the court below, which is
accordingly hereby affirmed. It is the duty of the lessee to pay the
rent in the manner stipulated in the lease. (Art. 1555 of the Civil
Code.)

The defendant failed to pay the rent due and has, without any
justification, allowed this action to proceed, therefore he should also
pay the legal interest due on the sum awarded the plaintiff by the
court below and the costs of this action. (Art. 1108 of the Civil Code
and sec. 487 of the Code of Civil Procedure.)

We are of the opinion that the judgment of the lower court, dated
February 20, 1904, should be affirmed. The appellant shall pay the
costs. After the expiration of twenty days let judgment be entered
accordingly, and let the case be remanded to the court below for action
in accordance herewith.

Arellano, C. J., Mapa, Johnson, and Carson, JJ., concur.
Willard, J., did not sit in this case.