Enriquez vs. A. S. Watson and Co. (22 Phil., 623)
Enriquez vs. A. S. Watson and Co. (22 Phil., 623)
3. The judgment is erroneous in finding that the lessee acted in good faith in ART. 1548. The husband can not give in lease the property of the wife, the father
beginning the destruction of the wall. believing that under the contract of lease it and guardian, that of the son or minor, and the administrator of property, not
had the right to do this. having a special power, for a period exceeding six years.
4. The judgment is erroneous in not finding that the building is weakened by the Article 398 of the same code provides:
destruction of the wall.
ART. 398. The decision of a majority of the coowners as to the management and
5. The judgment is erroneous is so far as it modifies the preliminary injunction. better enjoyment of the thing owned in common shall be obligatory.
6. The judgment is erroneous in not declaring perpetual the preliminary injunction. There shall be no majority, unless the resolution has been adopted by the
coowners representing a majority of the interests which constitute the object of the
community.
7. The judgment is erroneous in the dispositive part thereof relating to the form and
manner of making the modifications in the property because it does not relate to
anything at issue in the case. Should there be no majority, or the resolution of the latter is seriously prejudicial to
the parties interested in the thing owned in common, the judge, at the instance of a
party, shall decree what may be proper, including the appointment of an
8. The judgment is erroneous in the part relating to the form and manner of making administrator.
the modifications in the property because it does not dispose of anything judicially,
but, on the contrary, gives permission to the opposing parties without commanding
them to do anything. xxx xxx xxx
9. The judgment is erroneous because it does not order the repair of the Counsel for the plaintiffs do not claim that the contract of lease which was made for a period
destruction made in the wall. of more than six years is seriously prejudicial to the interests of the minor, nor do they claim
that said contract, of itself, prejudices in any way the minor's interest.
10. The judgment is erroneous because it declares valid the contract of lease.
The supreme court of Spain had under consideration this very question in its resolution of
April 26, 1907 (vol. 15 Jurisprudencia referente al Codigo Civil, p. 194). In this case, a
11. The court erred in denying the motion for a new trial. contract of lease for twelve years, executed by one of the coowners of a certain property,
one of whom was a minor, had been presented for registry. Registry was refused for the
reason, among others, the majority of the coowners lacked authority to execute said
contract of lease. It was argued that the majority of the coowners, in their enjoyment of the In the execution of the contract of lease under consideration, the minor was, as we have
control of the management and administration of the thing, acted in a representative or an said, represented by his judicial guardian, who not only asked the court for and obtained
administrative capacity in regard to the minority. In determining the questions presented in authority to execute this contract of lease on behalf of this ward, but his act, after the
this case, the court said: execution, was approved by the court. The interest of the minor has not been prejudiced by
reason of the fact that this contract of lease was executed for a term of more than six years.
That for the administration and better enjoyment of the thing, the decision of the Under the doctrine laid down by the supreme court of Spain, it would appear that this
majority of the coowners is obligatory, and that there is no majority, unless the contract of lease would be valid if the minor had not been represented by his guardian. The
decision is made by the coowners, that represent the majority of the interests that minor having been represented by his duly appointed guardian, there can be no question
constitute the object of the community, are general rules laid down in article 398 of about the validity of this contract of lease.
the Civil Code, governing community of property.
The principal question is whether or not the appellees have violated the terms of the
The contract of lease is by its nature and purpose one of the means of enjoyment contract of lease and thereby entitle appellants to have said contract of lease rescinded.
or development of nonfungible property, and, in this concept, may be agreed upon
by the coowners of a thing, provided always that they represent a majority of the Before considering the contract in question, it might be well to examine the right of the
interests of the community, the decision being obligatory for all by virtue of the lessee to make changes in the property leased, if there were no express stipulation therefor
powers that are expressly conferred upon them by virtue of said provisions. in the contract.
If, indeed, the contract of lease of real property for a period exceeding six years, or Article 1573 of the Civil Code provides:
in which the rents are advanced for more than three years, constitutes a real right
inasmuch as it is subject to registry, according to the decision of this court in A lessee shall have, with regard to the useful and voluntary improvements, the
various resolutions, this principle of law, which has been applied in the sense of not same rights which are granted the usufructuary.
permitting the execution of such a contract to those who administer the goods of
others, and especially to prevent agents from executing such a contract without
special authority for the same, in accordance with the provisions of article 1713 of Article 487 of the same code reads:
the said code, is not opposed to the principle of law laid down in said article 398;
taking into consideration the legal character and peculiar attributes of community of The usufructuary may make on the property which is the object of the usufruct any
property, which makes it convenient and necessary that those who have less improvements, useful or for recreation, which he may deem proper, provided he
interest therein should submit to those who have a greater participation therein, in does not change its form or substance; but he shall have no right to be indemnified
all that refers to the exploitation and ordinary enjoyment of the same, the rule is therefor. He may, however, remove said improvements, should it be possible to do
established that the enjoyment of the common thing must be subject to the will of so without injury to the property.
the majority, without distinguishing and limiting the period or the form of the
enjoyment; therefore, the contract of lease being the same in essence whatever The result is that the lessee may make any improvements, useful or for recreation, in the
the term for which it is constituted, such a contract must be considered as an act of property leased that he may deem proper, provided that he does not change its form or
mere administration, and subject to contract by the decision of the majority of substance. The same obligation is expressed in articles 487 and 489, and in so far as the
coowners, the other interested parties always having the right to appeal to the form of the thing is concerned, in article 1557. According to article 487 and 1557, the
court when the decision is gravely prejudicial to them according to the provisions of obligations of the lessee and the lessor are the same in the absence of any agreement to
the same article 398. the contrary, in so far as the conservation of the form of the thing leased is concerned. This
question of conserving the form and substance of the thing leased or the object of the
This doctrine was recognized by the supreme court in its decision of June 30, usufruct has been passed upon at various times by the courts.
1897, and of the 8th of July, 1902, and by this court in its resolution of May 29,
1906, considering as included in the powers conferred in said article, leases In the case of the Manila Building and Loan Association and Pealosa (13 Phil. Rep., 575),
exceeding a period of six years, decided upon by a majority of the coowners of a this court said:
property possessed in common.
If the object leased were a house, it is evident that the lessee might effect such
The contract of lease of the property referred to in these proceedings, having been improvements for use, recreation or comfort as would not change its form or
agreed upon by the coowners representing the majority of the interests in the substance as he deemed fit; he could build a tower or luxurious pavilion more
same, they were possessed of sufficient legal capacity by virtue of what is already expensive than the house itself, to which, at the expiration of the lease, the owner
said, and it is, therefore, subject to registry. of the house would have no right whatever, unless the lessee could not remove the
same without injury to the house to which it was attached as an improvement, changes made in the same, and these do not involve, as has already been said,
excepting of course the right to cause the same to be demolished so that the any variation or change of form or any interruption of the peaceable enjoyment of
house might be returned to him in the same condition that the lessee received it; . . the lease and because it does not appear from the facts that the trial court
.. accepted as proven that the appellant suffered disturbance of his rights for which
he had been compelled to become responsible to the lessor, and he, not having
The supreme court of Spain, in its judgment of June 24, 1905, volume 14 of the done so, there is no legal reason to apply, as is attempted, the provisions of article
Jurisprudencia referente al Codigo Civil, page 38, had under consideration the interpretation 1560 of the code referred to.
of this phrase in a case in which the lessee asked for the rescission of the lease because
the lessor had altered the form of the thing leased. The facts were that the lessee had Manresa, in volume 10 of his commentaries on the Civil Code, pages 534, 535, [488, 489]
leased the house for the period of ten years, and at the time of the execution of the contract says:
of lease, there was a vacant lot next to the house and 13 windows of the house lease
overlooked this lot. Thereafter the owner of the adjacent lot constructed an edifice thereon The question was discussed very energetically as to whether the lessee of a city
which gave rise to litigation between the lessor and the owner of the adjacent lot, which property leased for a stated industrial purpose, could install machinery propelled by
litigation was settled by the lessor and the owner of the said lot, the latter being permitted to steam in substitution for the utilities, implements, and contrivances which were
cover the windows of the leased property, and the former allowed to open in the partition used before the general adoption of such machinery. The installation of modern
wall of the latter's garden two large and two small windows of specified dimensions, under machinery and its ordinary operation, at once caused a deterioration to the estate
certain conditions. The construction was continued, with the result that such construction much greater than the use of the former apparatus, besides the accidents which
effectually closed and covered the 13 windows and the balcony, depriving the property might occur and which produce very great damage to the thing leased. Therefore,
leased of the light previously received by the same. For the purpose of obtaining better light, based upon this consideration, it was said that the lessee could not make this
many changes were made and much work done in the interior of the leased house, the final substitution because it implied a bad and prejudicial use of the thing and therefore
result being that some of the rooms of the house were darkened completely, others very different from that diligence of a good father in its use to which he had
receiving poor and indirect ventilation. The court, in refusing to rescind the contract of lease, obligated himself.
said:
As Laurent says, there arise here two contrary interests and two diverse
It does not appear that there is error committed by the trial court in its decision as set out in tendencies. The owner has in view the stability of the structure and fears every
the first assignment of error, because, even though the noncompliance by the lessor of his innovation which may compromise its preservation. The manufacturer finds himself
obligations, among which was that of maintaining the lessee in the peaceable enjoyment of obliged to keep abreast of the development of his industry, to make changes, if he
the lease during the period of the contract, and the prohibition to change the form of the does not wish to perish, and his interests demand that he put into practice the
thing leased, confers upon the lessee the right to ask for the rescission of the contract, such inventions which increase his profits, even though the edifice may suffer. The
circumstances are not found in the present case since the trial court says that the appellant owner commences to resist, adds this writer, but competition forces the
was not disturbed in the possession of the house, the object of the lease, nor was he manufacturer, and the owner ends by yielding, if he does not wish to remain
impeded from using the premises as a tavern, for which use he had intended the same, and unproductive.
these findings of fact have not been legally impugned.
This is the essence of the policy pursued by foreign decisions, where the question
The decision also states that the changes made in the property did not change the form of has been so much more important than in our own country. Until the year 1860,
the same in the sense and concept covered by article 1557 of the Civil Code. judicial decisions were inclined to favor the owner of the property. But from that
Notwithstanding that the findings on the point contain legal reasoning now corresponding to year the rights of industry have been recognized with ever increasing clearness. It
this court, the interpretation of this article can not be made in general and absolute terms has been considered that from the moment the lease is drawn up, in which is
not defined by law, because as a circumstantial fact depending in each case on the peculiar stated the industrial use to which the lessee desires to put the thing leased, the
conditions of the thing leased, there exists no reason in the case at bar upon which to base claims of the industry to which the object of the lease is to be devoted have been
the conclusion that the trial court erred, having in mind that the particular use of the same as determined, and the lessee can not be condemned to a stagnation which would be
a tavern was not interfered with, as held in its decision, and also the fact set out in its uneconomical, and, these facts admitted, the logical consequences must
decision, and not contradicted in any manner, namely, that the changes and alterations necessarily follow: the lessor can not prevent the lessee from adopting the
made were beneficial, tolerated by Sabay, and consented to by the person to whom Sabay improvements of his industry; the acts of the parties in making the stipulations in
transferred his rights under the contract of sublease. the lease will do the rest.
The two last reasons given for the rescission of the contract lack force and weight, The lessee may make on the property which is the object of the lease any improvements,
because, in accordance with the sense and concept of article 1561 of the said Civil useful or for recreation, which may be deem proper, provided he does not change its form or
Code, the property must be returned at the expiration of the term of lease with the
substance. He is obligated to use the thing leased as a diligent father of a family would, and All the expenditures for cleaning, painting, and repairs which the building may
to return the thing leased at the expiration of the lease in the same condition in which he require and all that is ordered done by the Board of Health, will be at the expense
received it, except what may have been destroyed or impaired by time or unavoidable of the lessee, A. S. Watson and Company, Limited.
reasons. (Arts. 1573, 487, 1555, and 1561, Civil Code.)
Clause M:
The supreme court of Spain recognizes the fact that no ironclad rules for the interpretation
of these articles can be laid down which would govern all cases. These provisions must be The lessee may make such works on the building as the business which it has
applied according to the facts and circumstances of each case. Manresa is inclined to the established therein requires, provided always that neither the strength nor the
view that industrial development should be taken into consideration in the determination of value of the said building is impaired.
questions involved in the application of said articles. The provisions of these articles are
general rules of law, and, like most general propositions, are not to be accepted without
limitation or reserve, under any and all circumstances. They must be interpreted in the light It will be noted that the word "reparaciones" is used in Clause K, and the word "obras" in
of the growth of civilization and varying conditions. Certain obligations are placed upon the Clause M. Counsel for the appellants insist that the word "obras" as thus used means the
lessee to prevent lawless acts which would result in waste or destruction. The importance of same as "reparaciones." The Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Castilian Language
these obligations to the lessor cannot be denied. Especially are they valuable and essential (Diccionario Enciclopedico de la Lengua Castellana) defines these words as follows:
to the protection of a landlord who rents his premises for a short time. Suppose he has fitted
his premises for certain uses and leases them for such uses for a short term. He would then OBRA:
be entitled to receive them back at the end of the term still fitted for those same uses, and
he may well say that he does not choose to have a different property returned to him from 1. A thing made or produce by an agent.
that which he leased, even if it be found to be of greater value of reason of the change. But
suppose that a usufructuary who has a life interest in an estate should receive as such a
hemp hacienda, and that in a short time this hacienda should become permanently xxx xxx xxx
unproductive through disease or death of the plants, or by change of the market conditions,
and the land to have become far more valuable, by reason of new conditions, as rice or 4. A building in course of construction.
sugar land. Is the usufructuary to be compelled to preserve or renew the useless hemp
fields and forego the advantages to be derived from a different use? Or, suppose a life
REPARACION:
tenant should change warehouses into dwelling houses on the ground that by change of
conditions the demand for warehouses had ceased and the property had become worthless,
whereas it would be very valuable when fitted for dwelling houses. Would this be such a 1. The action an effect of repair. (Reparar-verb: To mend, to straighten, or correct
change in the form or substance of the thing leased as to forfeit the interest of the tenant? the damage suffered by something.)
Again, a lessee for a long term received, during very prosperous times, a hemp hacienda
upon which were constructed large and valuable storehouses in which were the old style The New Dictionary of the Castilian Language (Nuevo Diccionario de la Lengua Castellana)
hand-presses, but new. Later, on account of a complete change in conditions due to the defines the same words as follows:
market and the method of pressing hemp by steam, the lessee allowed the buildings and
presses, which had become useless, to fall into decay rather than incur the expense of
OBRA:
repair. Would a prudent owner of the fee, if in possession, have done the same? These
questions naturally suggest their own answer. The radical and permanent changes of
surrounding conditions must always be an important consideration in the determination of Anything made, created, or produced by the some power or agent. Any
such questions. The interpretation that "if the man is too long for the bed his head should be construction of architecture, masonry, or carpentry, applied especially to buildings
chopped off rather than enlarge the old bed or purchase a new one" should not be given in course of construction or repair, as: "There are three jobs in Calle Hortaleza.
those provisions of the Civil Code regarding the obligations of lessees. Everything in my house is disordered and topsy-turvy because of the work."
Let us now turn to the contract of lease and the evidence presented. In this contract of lease REPARACION:
there are two clauses which deserve careful consideration.
The act or effect of repairing or of being repaired. The fact of the repairing, in the
Clause K: sense of renewing or improving something.
The plaintiffs contend that a contract is only binding on the parties thereto as
provided in article 1257 of the Civil Code and that, although a sublessee is bound
to the lessor as provided in articles 1551 and 1552 yet this is not an obligation
arising out of contract but one founded in law and the relation of the parties to
property, and that the lessor has no obligation towards the sublessee as such at all
either legal or of contract and that therefore even if by clause (m) of the lease of
the plaintiffs had the obligation to permit the defendant to take out the wall to suit
the convenience of its own business, that such an obligation was purely personal
between the parties to the lease and since the contract of lease is not assignable
this right could not be transferred by the defendant or made use of by the
defendant for the benefit of other persons.