SOFIA, MARIA ELOISA, ANGEL, AND JUAN O’FARREL Y PATIÑO, REPRESENTED BY FERNANDEZ HERMANOS, PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEES, VS. FLORENCIA VICTORIA, WIDOW OF MORENO LACALLE, DEFENDANT A…

The purpose of the present action was to recover rents due and unpaid for the
use and occupation of certain property described in the complaint, together with
a certain sum due as taxes, which, it is claimed, the defendant promised to pay
under the contract of rent. The action was commenced in the Court of First
Instance of the city of Manila in the month of March, 1908. On the 25th day of
November, 1909, the respective parties entered into an agreement or stipulation
of facts. Upon said stipulation of facts the case was finally submitted to the
court, and a judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the
defendant for the sum of P3,063.65, with interest at 6 per cent from the 15th
day of March, 1908, and costs. From that judgment the defendant appealed.

The record was received in the Supreme Court upon the 4th day of October,
1912, and the case was finally submitted for decision upon the 6th day of
August, 1917.

The amount mentioned in the judgment of the trial court was composed of two
items: (a) the sum of P1,900, the balance of the rent due and unpaid,
(b) the sum of P1,163.65, an amount alleged to be due as a portion of
the taxes which the defendant promised to pay upon the rented property.

An examination of the facts agreed upon and upon which the decision was
finally based, shows that the defendant acknowledged that there was still due
and unpaid under the contract of rent the sum of P1,900 as rent. Said agreement
further shows that the defendant promised to pay a proportional amount of the
taxes on said property. Said agreement fails, however, to show what was the
amount of said taxes which the defendant agreed to pay. Said agreement as to the
facts is the only proof presented to the court below. There being no proof of
the amount of said taxes due and payable, we are unable to render a judgment for
any amount covering that item.

In view, therefore, of the admission of the defendant that she owed to the
plaintiff the sum of P1,900, and in view of the fact that there was no proof
adduced during the trial of the cause showing the amount of the taxes which she
promised to pay, the judgment of the lower court must be modified and the sum of
P1,163.65 must be eliminated from said judgment. With that modification, the
judgment of the lower court is hereby affirmed, with- out any finding of costs
in this instance. So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Carson, Araullo, Street, and Malcolm, JJ.,
concur.