G.R. No. C.A. No. 482; April 25, 1946
Pedro C. Relativo, plaintiff-appellant, vs. Sinforosa Castro, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

From 1938 to 1941, plaintiff-appellant Pedro C. Relativo, a practicing attorney, rented and occupied two rooms in the Castro Building in Naga, Camarines Sur, owned by defendants-appellees. He evacuated to Bula, Camarines Sur, after the war broke out in December 1941, owing six months’ rent (P108, allegedly reduced to P100). On May 1, 1942, the Castro Building was destroyed by a fire of unknown origin. On February 25, 1943, Relativo filed an action to recover P1,433 for his law books and office equipment burned in the fire and P5,000 as consequential damages for lost professional earnings. His theory was that in February 1942, fearing fire, he sent an agent with a truck and an offer to pay P50 on account to retrieve his property, but defendant Sinforosa Castro refused the partial payment, demanded full payment of back rents, and would not permit removal of the property. Relativo contended the defendants, by retaining his property, acted as tortfeasors under Articles 1902 and 1903 of the Civil Code and were possessors in bad faith liable for loss even by force majeure under Article 457. The defendants denied refusing the removal, alleging Relativo had already taken most of his law books and equipment to Bula before the fire, leaving only some furniture, and that they had previously urged him to vacate due to arrears. They counterclaimed for P500 in damages for a malicious suit. The trial court found the factual issue in favor of Relativo, ruling the defendants did refuse partial payment and retained the property as security. However, on the legal issue, it ruled in favor of the defendants, holding they were not possessors in bad faith but acted under an honest belief in their right based on custom, committing at most an error in good faith. It absolved the defendants from the complaint. Only Relativo appealed. The defendants, without perfecting an appeal, filed a brief as appellants solely to assail the factual findings but also prayed for affirmation of the judgment and an order for Relativo to pay the P108 in unpaid rent.

ISSUE

1. Whether the defendants-appellees, as landlords, acted lawfully in retaining the plaintiff-appellant’s personal property located on the leased premises as security for unpaid rent.
2. Whether the defendants-appellees, not having appealed, can seek affirmative relief (payment of unpaid rent) in their brief.
3. The procedural propriety of the defendants-appellees filing a brief as appellants to challenge factual findings when the judgment was in their favor.

RULING

1. Yes, the defendants-appellees acted lawfully. The Court held that Article 1922(7) of the Civil Code grants landlords a legal privilege or tacit pledge (a jus retentionis or right of retention) over the determinate personal property of the lessee on the leased estate to secure the payment of one year’s rent. This right is implied from the nature of the privilege as a pledge by operation of law and from the last paragraph of Article 1922, which allows the creditor to retrieve removed property within thirty days. Consequently, the defendants’ retention of Relativo’s property for six months’ unpaid rent was lawful. They were neither tortfeasors under Articles 1902 and 1903 nor possessors in bad faith under Article 457. The attorney’s exemption from execution under procedural rules was not involved as no levy was attempted.
2. No, the defendants-appellees cannot be granted the affirmative relief of payment for unpaid rent. The Court refused to order Relativo to pay the P108 for two reasons: (a) the defendants did not allege this claim by way of a counterclaim in the lower court, and (b) they did not appeal from the trial court’s judgment and therefore were not in a position to seek any affirmative relief from the appellate court.
3. The defendants-appellees’ filing of a brief as appellants was unnecessary. An appellee who prevails below and seeks no affirmative relief is not required to make assignments of error. It is sufficient for an appellee to point out in their brief any errors against themselves that the court may have made. The appellate court may base its decision on grounds other than those relied upon by the trial court.
The judgment of the trial court absolving the defendants-appellees from the complaint was AFFIRMED, with costs against the plaintiff-appellant.