G.R. No. 30112, September 9, 1929
THE MABALACAT SUGAR COMPANY, plaintiff-appellant, vs. JOSE V. RAMIREZ, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The Mabalacat Sugar Company (plaintiff) had been in possession of a strip of land for over seven years, using it for a railway to transport sugar cane. Its right to use the land originated from a lease granted to Dizon and Tiglao, which had expired. After the lease expired, negotiations for renewal failed. On September 45, 1927, the defendants, led by Tomasa C. Viuda de Pamintuan (guardian of minor defendants) and Manuel Lazatin, with a large group, forcibly destroyed the railwaytwisting rails, destroying bolts, ties, and other componentsrendering it unusable. The plaintiff sued for damages and injunctive relief. The trial court awarded damages to the plaintiff but held Tomasa liable only in her capacity as guardian. Both parties appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages for the destruction of its railway, given that its lease had expired.
2. Whether the defendants are liable for damages due to the manner in which they removed the railway.
3. Whether Tomasa C. Viuda de Pamintuan should be held personally liable for the damages.

RULING

1. On the plaintiff’s claim for damages due to the expiration of the lease: The Court held that the plaintiff’s lease had expired, and it had no legal right to possess or use the land at the time of the incident. Thus, the defendants had the right to terminate the lease and remove the railway. The plaintiff could not recover damages for the lawful termination of its possessory rights.
2. On liability for the manner of removal: Although the defendants had the right to remove the railway, they were obligated to do so without causing unnecessary damage to the plaintiff’s property. The evidence showed that the removal was done with force, violence, and haste, resulting in unnecessary destruction (e.g., bending rails, destroying components). Therefore, the defendants were liable for the actual damages caused by their wrongful acts. The trial court’s award of P2,083.99 in damages was affirmed as reasonable.
3. On the liability of Tomasa C. Viuda de Pamintuan: The Court ruled that Tomasa should be held personally liable, not in her capacity as guardian of the minors. The tortious act was committed by her, and minors are not liable for the torts of their guardian. The trial court’s judgment against her as guardian was reversed, and she was held personally liable for the damages.

The Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment in all other respects, with costs against the plaintiff.