GR 411; (April, 1902) (Digest)
G.R. No. 411 : April 23, 1902
DONALDSON, SIM AND CO., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. SMITH, BELL AND CO., defendants-appellees.
FACTS:
The plaintiffs, Donaldson, Sim and Co., leased certain warehouses in Manila from the owner, Luis R. Yangco, for one year beginning May 1, 1900. Prior to this, the same warehouses had been leased by Yangco to the United States military government, which had sublet them to the defendants, Smith, Bell and Co. On April 11, 1900, the Chief Quartermaster of the Army, under a misapprehension, requested the defendants to vacate the premises. Yangco and the government mutually terminated their lease on April 30, 1900. On May 1, the plaintiffs notified the defendants of their new lease and demanded they vacate within 24 hours. The defendants refused and remained in occupancy, excluding the plaintiffs, until after May 14, 1900. The plaintiffs filed an action to recover damages for the defendants’ alleged wrongful occupancy from May 2 to May 14. The lower court ruled in favor of the defendants.
ISSUE:
Whether the defendants are liable for damages to the plaintiffs for occupying the warehouses during the period from May 2 to May 14, 1900, thereby preventing the plaintiffs from taking possession under their lease.
RULING:
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s judgment in favor of the defendants. The Court held that the plaintiffs’ rights during the period in question originated solely from their lease contract with Yangco. Since the plaintiffs had not yet entered into actual possession of the property, they had not acquired any rights in rem (real rights) against third parties. Consequently, the defendants owed no direct duty to the plaintiffs to vacate the premises. Article 1560 of the Civil Code, which allows a lessee a direct action against a trespasser, applies only when there is actual interference with the lessee’s use and possession, which was not the case here. Furthermore, Article 1902 on liability for fault or negligence could not apply because there was no legal obligation between the parties. The plaintiffs’ proper remedy, if any, was against their lessor, Yangco, under Articles 1554 and 1556 of the Civil Code, for failing to deliver the property.