In  this cause  both the  plaintiff  and  defendants have appealed from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila, Hon. Charles S. Lobingier presiding, denying  relief  to  both parties, and  have each presented separate bills of exceptions, with their  corresponding assignments of error.  Tha$ judgment (omitting the findings of fact and the discussion of the law)  is as follows: 

"The  court finds that plaintiff is not entitled  to recover in this action and that defendants are not entitled  to recover on their counterclaim,  but  this finding is  without prejudice to a future action on the contract in question. 

"It is, therefore, considered and adjudged that the plaintiff take nothing by his complaint and the defendants nothing by  their counterclaim, but  that they recover their costs."

On the 30th day of October, 1904, by a public  instrument, executed by the plaintiff and defendants, the latter leased from the former for a term of five years, to begin on November 15, 1904, at a monthly  rental of P600, payable  semiannually, a building in the city of Manila.   The building at the time of the execution  of the lease was in process of construction and was to be completed at the time fixed for the  beginning of the term.  The building was to consist of three floors, the  first to be used by the defendants for the storage and sale of meats and provisions,  and the second and  third to be  divided into rooms suitable for offices or living rooms.  In January,  1907, by agreement of the parties, the rental was reduced from P600 to P500 a  month.  The defendants occupied the building from  November 15,  1904, up to and including  February 15,  1908, and paid the rents in accordance with the contract.   Under the original lease, no provision was made for the making of necessary  repairs by the landlord, but on  the 16th of May, 1905,  a modification  of the lease  was  executed in writing whereby the rent was to be paid monthly and  the landlord  undertook to make all necessary repairs not  due to the fault of the tenants.

The complaint sets up the  original lease  executed by the parties, and alleges that the defendants,  on the 15th of February, 1908, vacated the leased property  and refused to continue the performance of their contract; that defendants have failed to pay the rent for the month of February, 1908; that plaintiff has been damaged by the vacation of the property by the defendants in the sum of P12,600, consisting of the rent which under the lease would  have accrued to the plaintiff, less whatever plaintiff might receive from the building in case he should be able to rent it to others; and that defendants, on demand,  have failed and refused to perform their obligation under  the lease and to pay the  rent due.   The prayer is for the recovery of P12,600, as damages for the breach of the contract, with interest and costs.

The defendants demurred to the complaint on the ground that the same stated no cause of action, and to the overruling of this  demurrer they duly excepted.  Thereafter defendants answered, setting up as a special defense that plaintiff had consented to the termination of the lease, and that plaintiff had himself violated the contract by failure to make the necessary repairs, and setting up by way of counterclaim, the damages caused them by plaintiff's breach of the contract.

Whether this  case be treated as an action for  damages for breach of contract or one to recover rents, the result will be the same. If,  as contended by the defendants, the breach of this contract of lease was committed by  the plaintiff, then he is entitled to no recovery whatever from the time defendants vacated the building and rescinded said contract  The trial court made no findings of fact on this point.

There is  no  doubt that the plaintiff  was under contractual obligation to make the necessary repairs upon the building not due to the fault  of the defendants.   The following supplemental contract, executed May 16,1905, clearly establishes this fact: 

"This is to certify that the owner of the above-mentioned property and the lessors thereof have agreed that payments after  November  16, of this year shall be made monthly in advance. 

"The parties concerned have also agreed that the repairs it needs, which are  not  made necessary through fault of the tenants, shall be made  at the expense of the owner of the property and paid for by him. 

"In witness whereof, we affix our names.

"MANL. DONATO.
  "LACK & DAVIS.
  "BY J. L.  DAVIS."

Within  a few  months after the  defendants began  to occupy the building  in question it became  apparent  that same was in bad condition and constantly deteriorating. It had been built of  green  lumber and the  shrinkage  of the  material opened seams so that  in every storm the  rain entered  the rooms, rendering practically all of them unfit for  occupancy.  At this  time nearly every  room in the building was occupied by the tenants  of  the defendants, but  said tenants were forced to move out on account of the  discomfort and damage due to the entrance of the  rain and  the  lack of privacy occasioned by the opening of the inner partitions and the warping of the doors so that they could not be closed.

Notwithstanding the numerous demands made upon the plaintiff  by the defendants  to comply with the provisions of the supplemental  contract by  repairing  the  building, he refused to do so.   The record clearly and conclusively establishes the breach of  the contract on the part of the plaintiff.

With reference to the defendants' counterclaim, the trial court found that the evidence was  not sufficiently definite to justify a judgment in their favor.  We can not say that this  finding of fact is openly and  manifestly against  the weight of the evidence.

The judgment appealed from in so far as it authorizes either of the parties to bring another action upon the same contract  is reversed;  in all other  respects it is affirmed, without cost.   So ordered.

Johnson, Carson, and Moreland, JJ., concur.
 
 
 

---

 

DISSENTING

 

TORRES, J.,

With due respect for the opinion of the majority, the undersigned, in compliance with the duty his position imposes, believes that the contract of lease, violation whereof is the basis of the complaint entered by  the plaintiff, Manuel Donato, is an established fact, unmooted by the  parties,  and that in the absence of plain  proof that the defendants had a just reason for leaving the leased house before the expiration of the time stipulated, thereby breaking the agreement, the terms binding the contracting parties should be observed, with damages to the owner of the property.

If the property became uninhabitable through the fault of the owner, the plaintiff, because he did not make the repairs requested by the tenants, this  fact should be investigated and duly proved.  The defectiveness and bad condition of said house and the repairs made on it are not fully established, with a detailed statement in such terms that the abandonment of the property by the  tenants, who remained in it for more than three years, can  be held to be justified.

The reasons inducing the abandonment of the house which the tenants occupied, and which they used for their business for three  years should be fully proved in this suit, so that it may appear that the contract recognized and  admitted by both parties  was not violated.

The judgment of  the  lower  court dismissing the cross-complaint of the defendants, which has been affirmed by the majority,  demonstrates the  groundlessness of this counter-claim, which was doubtless made for the purpose of offsetting the complaint of the owner of the property, as well as the baselessness of their allegations.  Amid the incompleteness of the evidence adduced in the attempt to justify the violation of  the contract by the lessor, the existence  of the contract itself, the source of the mutual rights and obligations of the lessor and the lessees, stands out as the only plain and undeniable fact.

It does not, therefore, appear to be  made dear and demonstrated in the suit that the property was rendered uninhabitable by the lessor's failure to make the necessary and timely repairs, and that thus the terms of the contract were violated in such manner that the lessees had to leave the  property through fault of the owner.

It accordingly appears proper to the undersigned that the judgment appealed from should be annulled and the case remanded to the lower court for a new hearing to make plain the facts alleged by the lessees.  Evidence should be taken to determine wherein the property was defective and incomplete, from what parts of the house the leakages came when it rained, showing the rooms and floors into which they made their way, whether there were leaks in the roof of the house, how long since the same were noticed, and what kinds of repairs the  lessor made at the request of the tenants. With the evidence already taken and the new evidence thus gathered, the suit should then be decided in  accordance with law.