G.R. No. L-8697; March 30, 1916
M. GOLDSTEIN, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALEJANDRO ROCES, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS:
The defendants, owners of a building, leased the first floor to the plaintiff, M. Goldstein, who operated the “Luzon Cafe.” The rest of the building was leased to the proprietor of the Hotel de Francia. The hotel proprietor requested and obtained permission from the defendants to add another story to the building. The hotel proprietor contracted with a builder for the construction. During the work, holes were made in the roof for uprights, allowing rainwater to leak into the plaintiff’s leased premises. The water damaged the walls and furniture of the cafe, making it unattractive to customers, necessitated repairs, and caused a decline in business receipts. The plaintiff sued the defendants (his lessors) for damages. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff based on Article 1554 of the Civil Code.

ISSUE:
Whether the defendants-lessors are liable to the plaintiff-lessee for damages caused by the construction work undertaken by another tenant on the building, based on the lessor’s obligation to maintain the lessee in the peaceful enjoyment of the lease under Article 1554 of the Civil Code.

RULING:
NO. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision and dismissed the complaint against the defendant lessors.

The Court held that the obligation of the lessor under Article 1554 to maintain the lessee in the “peaceful enjoyment” of the lease refers to legal enjoyment and possession, not to immunity from all physical disturbances or inconveniences. The plaintiff’s peaceful enjoyment and quiet possession of the leased floor were not contested or opposed by anyone; therefore, the lessors did not violate this obligation.

The disturbance suffered by the plaintiff was a “trespass in fact only” (perturbacion de mero hecho) by a third person, as contemplated in Article 1560 of the Civil Code. For such a trespass, which is a mere material disturbance not involving a claim of right, the lessor is not obligated to answer. The lessee’s direct action for damages lies against the trespasserin this case, the hotel proprietor or the contractor who performed the workand not against the lessor. The lessor’s guarantee is against disturbances that cast doubt on the lessor’s own right to lease the property (trespass in law, or perturbacion de derecho), not against all material inconveniences caused by third parties.

The Court reserved to the plaintiff the right to bring a separate action against the responsible party under the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.

DISSENTING OPINION (Trent, J.):
Justice Trent dissented, arguing that the alterations were not necessary repairs but new construction undertaken by the lessors’ authority for their ultimate benefit. The lessors, having authorized work that was certain to cause injury if not properly managed, had a duty to see that reasonable care was taken to prevent damage to their tenant. By failing to take precautions or to stop the disturbance when informed, the lessors violated their covenant for peaceful possession under Article 1554 and should be held liable for the plaintiff’s damages.