SAGRADA Vs NATIONAL COCONUT CORP

SAGRADA ORDEN DE PREDICADORES DEL SANTISMO ROSARIO DE FILIPINAS
vs. NATIONAL COCONUT CORPORATION
G.R. No. L-3756 June 30, 1952
LABRADOR, J.
Facts:
A piece of land and warehouses situated in Pandacan Manila belongs to the

plaintiff, in whose name the title was registered before the war. On January 4, 1943,
during the Japanese military occupation, the land was acquired by a Japanese
corporation, Taiwan Tekkosho and a title was issued in its name. After liberation, on
April 4, 1946, the Alien Property Custodian of the United States of America took
possession, control, and custody of the subject property because it belonged to an
enemy national.
In 1946 the property was occupied by the Copra Export Management Company
under a custodianship agreement with United States Alien Property Custodian, and
when it vacated the property it was occupied by the defendant. In 1948, defendant
leased one-third of the warehouse to one Dioscoro Sarile.
Plaintiff made claim to the property before the Alien Property Custodian of the
United States, but this was denied. An action was brought to the Court of First Instance
of Manila to annul the sale of property of Taiwan Tekkosho and recover its possession.
The Republic of the Philippines was allowed to intervene in the action.
The parties presented a joint petition claiming that the sale in favor of the Taiwan
Tekkosho was null and void because it was executed under threats, duress, and
intimidation. It was agreed that (1) the title issued in the name of the Taiwan Tekkosho
be cancelled and the original title of plaintiff re-issued (2) the claims, rights, title, and
interest of the Alien Property Custodian be cancelled and held for naught (3) the
occupant National Coconut Corporation has until February 28, 1949, to recover its
equipment from the property and vacate the premises (4) plaintiff, upon entry of
judgment, pay to the Philippine Alien Property Administration the sum of P140,000 and
(5) the Philippine Alien Property Administration be free from responsibility or liability for
any act of the National Coconut Corporation, etc.
Pursuant to the agreement the court rendered judgment releasing the defendant
and the intervenor from liability but reversing to the plaintiff the right to recover from the
National Coconut Corporation reasonable rentals for the use and occupation of the
premises. The present action is to recover the reasonable rentals from August, 1946,
the date when the defendant began to occupy the premises, to the date it vacated it.
The defendant does not contest its liability for the rentals at the rate of P3,000
per month from February 28, 1949 (date in the judgment in civil case No. 5007) but
resists the claim therefor prior to this date. It interposes the defense that it occupied the
property in good faith, under no obligation whatsoever to pay rentals for the use and
occupation of the warehouse.
The judgment declares that plaintiff has always been the owner, as the sale of
Japanese purchaser was void ab initio; that the Alien Property Administration never
acquired any right to the property, but that it held the same in trust until the
determination as to whether or not the owner is an enemy citizen. The trial court
declares that defendant cannot claim any better rights than its predecessor and that as
defendant has used the property and had subleased portion thereof, it must pay
reasonable rentals for its occupation.
An appeal claiming that the trial court erred in holding the defendant liable for
rentals or compensation for the use and occupation of the property from the middle of
August 1946, to December 14, 1948.has been made. In reply, plaintiff-appellee's
counsel contends that the Philippine Alien Property Administration (PAPA) was a mere
administrator of the owner (who ultimately was decided to be plaintiff), and that as
defendant has used it for commercial purposes and has leased portion of it, it should be
responsible therefore to the owner, who had been deprived of the possession for so
many years.
Issue:
Whether or not defendant-appellant is liable for the value of such use and
occupation of the subject property?
Ruling:
No. The mere fact that plaintiff-appellee was the owner of the property and the
defendant-appellant the occupant, which used for its own benefit but by the express
permission of the Alien Property Custodian of the United States, cannot lead to the
conclusion that the occupant is liable for the value of such use and occupation. If
defendant-appellant is liable at all, its obligations, must arise from any of the four
sources of obligations, namely, law, contract or quasi-contract, crime, or negligence.
Defendant-appellant is not guilty of any offense at all, because it entered the premises
and occupied it with the permission of the entity which had the legal control and
administration thereof, the Alien Property Administration.

SAGRADA Vs NATIONAL COCONUT CORP

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SAGRADA Vs NATIONAL COCONUT CORP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SAGRADA ORDEN DE PREDICADORES DEL SANTISMO ROSARIO DE FILIPINAS

vs. NATIONAL COCONUT CORPORATION

G.R. No. L-3756 June 30, 1952

A piece of land and warehouses situated in Pandacan Manila belongs to the

You might also like