You're currently signed in as:
User
Add TAGS to your cases to easily locate them or to build your SYLLABUS.
Please SIGN IN to use this feature.
https://www.lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c26eb?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09
[MANUEL ERNESTO GONZALES v. VICENTE MATEO ET AL.](https://www.lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c26eb?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09)
{case:c26eb}
Highlight text as FACTS, ISSUES, RULING, PRINCIPLES to generate case DIGESTS and REVIEWERS.
Please LOGIN use this feature.
Show printable version with highlights
74 Phil. 573

[ G.R. No. 49020, February 28, 1944 ]

MANUEL ERNESTO GONZALES, PETITIONER, VS. VICENTE MATEO ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

D E C I S I O N

OZAETA, J.:

Respondents, doing business as an unregistered partnership  under the  name  and style "Samahang Sabuñgang Malaya," leased to the  petitioner their cockpit situated  in Malolos, Bulacan, under a written contract  entered into on January 5, 1937, for the period of six years ending December 31, 1942, at the agreed yearly rental of  P100, upon the following conditions:
"a. Ang lahat ng kailangan na gagawin sa bahay-sabungan  ay ipagagawang  lahat  ni G.  Ernesto Gonzales  sa kanyang sariling gugol na ang samahan ay walang sinasagot.

"b. Kung makaraan na ang anim  (6) na taong pagkabuwis o pagkaupa,  ang lahat  ng mejora  na nailagay  ni G. Gonzales ay maiiwan sa samahan na di na pagbabayaran nito.

"c. Ang  bahay-sabungan  at ang  lupang kinatitirikan nito, ay ang samahan ang magbabayad ng buwis, at ang bayad ng arrendamiento ng lupa ang samahan din ang magbabayad."
Before using said cockpit the petitioner  as lessee made some improvements thereon.  He placed the posts on slabs of stone, without cementing them and without using jointpins to brace them up in spite of respondent Isidro Bautista's advertence thereto.

On September 12,  1937, a cockfight was held in said cockpit with a large attendance.  The building broke down and was thereafter never used by the petitioner.

The respondent lessors demanded of the petitioner that he either  reconstruct the cockpit or pay them  the sum of P3,000 as damages in addition to the unpaid rentals.   Petitioner  refused to comply  with such demand, alleging that under his contract he was  not obligated to make repairs, but only improvements, on the building and that its collapse was due to hidden defects which the lessors had concealed from him.  Hence this suit was brought by the lessors against the lessee,  which was sustained by the Court of First, Instance of  Bulacan,  by which the lessee  was  ordered  to reconstruct the  cockpit or pay to the lessors  its value in the sum of P3,000 plus the rentals for  the last five years amounting to 1N500 and the costs. Upon appeal to the Court of Appeals the latter modified that judgment  by reducing the  damages from  P3,000  to P1,000.   Not contented with that  reduction, and insisting on complete absolution from any  liability,  the defendant lessee  appealed  to this Court by certiorari.

Upon  the stipulations of the contract in relation to the facts found by the Court  of Appeals as above set forth,  we find no reason to disturb  the  conclusions of that court and reverse its judgment.  It  is evident that petitioner accepted the cockpit in question from respondents  in the condition in which it was found at that time under the express agreement that  all that was necessary to put it in use had to be done by the petitioner at his own  expense without  any obligation  on the part of  the respondents to reimburse him or pay for the improvements thus made upon the expiration of the lease. While it is true that under the law (paragraph 2, article 1554 of the Civil Code) it is the duty of the lessor to make on the building leased all repairs necessary in order to keep it in serviceable condition for the purpose for which it was intended, the parties were at liberty to stipulate the contrary;  and in the instant case it is obvious that the lessors  were  relieved  of that  duty and the lessee assumed it in their  stead,  considering the  very moderate, if not nominal, rent he was to pay, with the obligation on the part of the. lessors to pay the real estate taxes, and the relatively big profits the lessee was to  realize from  the  operation of the cockpit, netting P30  to P40 a  week and P800 on days of pintakasi (special holidays for cockfights),  according to the Court of Appeals.  We cannot accept the interpretation urged by the petitioner, that he was not obligated to make repairs, but only improvements, on the building.  He was clearly obligated to  do all that was  necessary to put  the building in serviceable condition, at his own expense.  Of course, any work done by the lessee on the building for that purpose was necessarily an improvement thereof; and that was the reason why in condition (b) above quoted  it was stated that all improvements shall be for the benefit of  the lessors without any obligation on their part to pay therefor upon the expiration of the lease.

The  collapse of the building  in question on the occasion of the heavily attended cockfight of September 12, 1937, was not due to any hidden defect but to the fact that thru petitioner's negligence in making the repairs he failed to place the posts on firm, solid, and sound foundation in spite of one of the lessors' advertence to him on the matter.

Under article 1563 of the Civil Code, "the lessee is liable for any deterioration or loss suffered by the thing leased, unless he proves that it took place without his fault."  And under  article 1101  of the same Code,  any person  guilty of  negligence in the fulfilment of his  obligations, or who in any manner whatsoever  shall fail to comply with  the terms thereof, shall be liable for any damage caused thereby.

The judgment appealed from, being in  accordance with law, is hereby affirmed, with costs.

Yulo, C. J., Horrilleno, Paras, and Bocobo, JJ., concur.

tags