G.R. No. L-8993; February 9, 1914
JOAQUIN LIM SOCO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CONSUELO ROXAS ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS:
Plaintiff Joaquin Lim Soco entered into a lease contract with defendant Consuelo Roxas on April 13, 1912, for a property on Calle Nueva, Binondo, Manila. The two-year lease was to commence on May 1, 1912, provided the then-current tenant, defendant Gan Siong, had vacated. The contract required the plaintiff to pay for improvements and deposit P500 as security. Gan Siong did not vacate by May 1. Subsequent promises by Roxas and Gan Siong to deliver possession in August and then by November 1, 1912, were not fulfilled. The plaintiff, relying on the promise of possession by November 1, hired personnel (a clerk, cashier, collector, weigher, outside man, two coolies, and a cook) in preparation for his business. Possession was not delivered until late January 1913, after an eviction case. The plaintiff dismissed his hired personnel in December 1912, incurring wages totaling P960. He then notified Roxas he would no longer require the premises and demanded damages for breach of contract.

ISSUE:
Whether the defendant Consuelo Roxas is liable for damages arising from her failure to deliver possession of the leased premises to the plaintiff on the agreed dates, and whether the damages awarded (including wages for personnel hired in anticipation of possession) are proper.

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance in favor of the plaintiff.
1. Breach of Contract: The Court found a clear breach of the lease contract by defendant Roxas. The plaintiff was entitled to possession on May 1, 1912, but was repeatedly promised and denied possession over several months. It is unreasonable to require a lessee to wait nearly nine months for possession under a lease where actual possession was promised. The defendant’s obligation was to deliver actual possession, not merely to provide a right to possession.

3. Evidentiary Rulings: The Supreme Court found that any error in the trial court’s exclusion of certain questions posed to the plaintiff was harmless, as it did not prejudice the appellants’ case or affect the outcome.

The judgment was affirmed, with costs against the appellants.