G.R. No. L-1923

FACTS:
The plaintiffs, represented by their guardian Miguel Velasco, are the owners of a building leased to the defendant, Mateo Perez y Ortega, under a contract executed on November 19, 1901. The lease contract contained a clause (d) stipulating that the lessee shall bear the cost of “the work required on the building in order to keep it, at least in the condition in which it was at the time of the contract.” In March 1902, the Manila Board of Health ordered necessary repairs to make the building habitable. The defendant refused to perform or pay for these repairs. Consequently, the plaintiffs’ representative undertook the repairs at a cost of P2,030.70 (Mexican currency) and subsequently filed this action to recover said amount from the defendant-lessee.

ISSUE:
Whether, under clause (d) of the lease contract, the defendant-lessee is obligated to perform and pay for the repairs ordered by the Board of Health.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment absolving the defendant from liability. The Court held that the repairs ordered by the Board of Health were not encompassed by the contractual clause in question. Clause (d) only obligated the lessee to perform work necessary to maintain the building in the same condition it was in at the commencement of the lease. The evidence indicated the building’s defective sanitary condition existed at the time the lease was executed. The required health repairs were therefore not for maintenance of the status quo but were improvements to remedy a pre-existing defect. The contract contained no express stipulation placing the burden of such government-ordered improvements on the tenant. In the absence of a special agreement, and following Article 1580 of the Civil Code and local custom, repairs of this nature are for the account of the owner. The written contract, being the best evidence of the parties’ agreement and not having been impeached, was deemed to contain all their stipulations.