ISIDRO P. SIBUG, AND MAXIMA SY-JUECO, PLAINTIFF’S AND APPELLANTS, VS. MUNICIPALITY OF HAGONOY; PROVINCE OF BULACAN, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

After public hearing the defendant-appellee  (Municipality of Hagonoy, Province of Bulacan) leased to the plaintiff-appellant (Isidro P. Sibug)  two fishponds located in barrio Pugad,  identified in the contract of lease as lots Nos. 3  and 6, and  described  as having, respectively  an area of 86 and 74 hectares.  The stipulated annual rentals are Pll.000 for lot No. 8 and P12.500 for lot No.  6, the term being five  years from July 1,  1950.  The appellant duly paid the rentals for the first two years.  Instead of paying the rental  for the third  year,  he  filed on August 4, 1952 an action in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan against the appellee, praying that  the  annual rentals be reduced to the total sum of P10,000, retroactive to the first year, and that the appellee be ordered to pay the sum of P28,000 representing expenses incurred by the appellant for repairs of the dikes of the fishponds  in the years 1950 and 1951 as a result of typhoons and the waves of the Manila Bay, plus attorney’s fees in the  sum of P10,000.  The appellee filed an answer,  with a  counterclaim  for damages  in the sum of P150,000.  After trial the court rendered a decision dismissing appellant’s complaint,  and  ordering the  appellant to pay to the appellee the amount of P23,500, unpaid rental from July 1, 1952 to June 30, 1953, plus  a surcharge of twenty-five per cent and the costs.   The decision  also ordered that, upon failure of the  appellant to pay within 90 days, the properties mortgaged under the performance bond executed by Maxima Sy Jueco (co-plaintiff-appellant) be sold at public auction to satisfy the judgment.  Appellee’s counter-claim was dismissed.  Both  Isidro  P.  Sibug (plaintiff)  and Maxima  Sy-Jueco (co-plaintiff) appealed.

The contentions made by appellant Isidro P.  Sibug in support of his action are  (1)  that the appellee was guilty of misrepresentation  as to the areas of  the  fishponds, because while lot No. 3 was described  as having 86 hectares and lot No.  6,  74 hectares, they  actually contain upon a resurvey only 40 and 31 hectares respectively, and (2) that the appellant incurred expenses in the sum  of P14,000 in 1950 and P6,000 in  1951  for  repairs of  the dikes of the fishponds resulting from typhoons  and action of the Manila Bay, which were fortuitous events.   These contentions were overruled by the  court,  and  in  our opinion correctly.

The evidence shows that the notice  of bid expressly stated that the  bidding was by lot and not by the hectares; and that just  before the bidding, the  mayor made the announcement that the bidding was by lot (not by unit) and in “as is” condition.   It is furthermore admitted that the appellant had gone to and investigated the fishponds before the public bidding,  and his findings  undoubtedly led him to offer a higher rental for the  smaller lot and a lower rental for  the larger lot, a strong indication that the areas were  not the principal  consideration for his.bids. The areas  mentioned in  the contract of lease and in the notice of bid were merely descriptive of  the fishponds and not intended as a unit measure for computing the rentals; and said areas  had to be  given in the absence as yet of a resurvey or new title.  The resurvey relied upon  by the, appellant, showing new reduced areas of the-fishponds in question,  has  never been  verified  or approved  by the Bureau of Lands.  Even  as late as January,  1952, when the appellant invited the new mayor and other town  officials to the fishponds,  he only  talked of his plan to improve: the fishponds by using adobe  stones, provided his lease be extended without necessity of any  bidding, and  this, is rather inconsistent with appellant’s alleged dissatisfaction. With reference to the  claim for reimbursement of the expenses incurred by the  appellant for repairing the dikes due’to damage resulting from typhoons  and waves of the Manila Bay,  it is sufficient to point  out  that  in the contract of lease it is expressly  provided that  the appellant obligates himself to make  all the necessary repairs and to  maintain the  dikes at any and  all times  at his own expense during the existence of the contract in good order and condition.   The fishponds are along the Manila Bay; and it  is  of common knowledge that dikes  are  usually damaged or destroyed by typhoons and  action of the sea. These considerations must have  prompted  the insertion of the aforsaid comprehensive condition.   That there was an awareness on the part of the contracting parties as to the common  causes of  destruction  of fishponds, is further shown by condition No. 6 of the contract of lease, which provides that  “the lessee  has  the fight  to  gather  nipa leaves  except the  young  ibos and to  cut  firewood trees except the bakawan and those which serve as shields and protection of the fishponds from the action  of the sea.”

Wherefore, the  appealed judgment is affirmed, and it is so ordered with costs against the appellants.

Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angela, Labrador, Concepcion,  Reyes, J. B. L., and Endencia, JJ., concur.