Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    VDA de Villaruel Vs Manila Motor

    Uploaded by

    Arthur Archie Tiu
    This case involves a dispute over a commercial lease agreement between Villaruel and Manila Motor Company. The key facts are that Manila Motor leased commercial property from Villaruel from 1940-1945, when the property was occupied by Japanese forces during WWII. When the war ended, a dispute arose over payment of rent during the occupation. The trial court ruled in favor of Villaruel, but the defendant appealed. The court found that Villaruel improperly refused current rental payments unless back rent was also paid, placing them in default. As such, they bore the risk of loss when the buildings later burned down, not Manila Motor. The court held Manila Motor was not liable for the loss of the leased premises.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    VDA de Villaruel Vs Manila Motor

    Uploaded by

    Arthur Archie Tiu
    1K views2 pages
    This case involves a dispute over a commercial lease agreement between Villaruel and Manila Motor Company. The key facts are that Manila Motor leased commercial property from Villaruel from 1940-1945, when the property was occupied by Japanese forces during WWII. When the war ended, a dispute arose over payment of rent during the occupation. The trial court ruled in favor of Villaruel, but the defendant appealed. The court found that Villaruel improperly refused current rental payments unless back rent was also paid, placing them in default. As such, they bore the risk of loss when the buildings later burned down, not Manila Motor. The court held Manila Motor was not liable for the loss of the leased premises.

    Original Description:

    Case digest

    Original Title

    VDA de Villaruel vs Manila Motor

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute over a commercial lease agreement between Villaruel and Manila Motor Company. The key facts are that Manila Motor leased commercial property from Villaruel from 1940-1945, when the property was occupied by Japanese forces during WWII. When the war ended, a dispute arose over payment of rent during the occupation. The trial court ruled in favor of Villaruel, but the defendant appealed. The court found that Villaruel improperly refused current rental payments unless back rent was also paid, placing them in default. As such, they bore the risk of loss when the buildings later burned down, not Manila Motor. The court held Manila Motor was not liable for the loss of the leased premises.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views2 pages

    VDA de Villaruel Vs Manila Motor

    Uploaded by

    Arthur Archie Tiu
    This case involves a dispute over a commercial lease agreement between Villaruel and Manila Motor Company. The key facts are that Manila Motor leased commercial property from Villaruel from 1940-1945, when the property was occupied by Japanese forces during WWII. When the war ended, a dispute arose over payment of rent during the occupation. The trial court ruled in favor of Villaruel, but the defendant appealed. The court found that Villaruel improperly refused current rental payments unless back rent was also paid, placing them in default. As such, they bore the risk of loss when the buildings later burned down, not Manila Motor. The court held Manila Motor was not liable for the loss of the leased premises.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    VDA De Villaruel vs Manila Motor

    December 13, 1958


    Facts:
    Plaintiffs Villaruel and Defendant Manila Motors Co. entered into a contract in which
    the plaintiff agreed to lease to defendant a 500sqm space of a building for
    automobile showroom, office, and storage. Another building for a repairshop and a 5
    bedroom residence for the Bacolod branch manager.
    The term of lease was for 5 years (and renewable for another 5 years) starting from
    the time that the building was to be delivered to the lessee. Manila Motor company
    then agreed to pay Plaintiifs 300 pesos as monthly rental payable on the 5th of each
    month and 50 pesos for the residential house. The premises were in their
    possession on October 31, 1940. This continued until 1941 after which the property
    was held by the Japanese forces until March 29, 1945. No payment was made
    during those time.
    The American forces later occupied the same and rentals were paid by the
    occupants at the same rate that the defendant paid plaintiffs. When the American
    forces left the premises, the branch manager decided to extend the lease for
    another 5 years and they agreed that the 7 month occupancy of the US forces
    would not be counted as part of the new 5 year lease, the residential part would be
    used to Arturo Colmanares.
    Before resuming the collection of the rentals, Dr. Viallruel with the advice of Atty
    Hilado, demanded payment for the period occupied by the Japanese forces.
    Defendant refused to pay and Plaintiff gave a notice for recession of the contract of
    lease and payment of the rentals from June 1, 1942 to March 31, 1941 (P11,900)
    which was also rejected by the Defendant in a letter dated July 27, 1946
    On the same month, Rafael Frey offered to pay the Paintiff P350 for the full month of
    July. Plaintiff accepted the payment provided that it was without prejudice to their
    previous demand and increased rentals until the bldgs. Are returned to them. Dr.
    Villaruel indicated his willingness to limit the condition of his acceptance to be that
    "neither the lessee nor the lessors admit the contention of the other by the mere
    fact of payment". As no accord could still be reached between the parties as to the
    context of the receipt, no payment was thereafter tendered until the end of
    November, 1946.
    The plaintiff commenced an action before the CFC of Neg. Occidental against
    defendant company. During the pendency of the case, the leased building was
    burned down. Because of the occurrence, plaintiffs demanded reimbursement from
    the defendants, but having been refused, they filed a supplemental complaint to
    include a 3rd cause of action, the recovery of the value of the burned building. The
    trial court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Hence the defendants appeal.
    Issue: WON Manila Motors Co. is liable for the loss of the leased premises
    Held: No

    Ratio:
    Clearly, the lessor's insistence upon collecting the occupation rentals for 19421945 was unwarranted in law. Hence, their refusal to accept the current rentals
    without qualification placed them in default (mora creditoris or accipiendi) with the
    result that thereafter, they had to bear all supervening risks of accidental injury or
    destruction of the leased premises. While not expressly declared by the Code of
    1889, this result is clearly inferable from the nature and effects of mora. In other
    words, the only effect of the failure to consign the rentals in court was that the
    obligation to pay them subsisted and the lessee remained liable for the amount of
    the unpaid contract rent, corresponding to the period from July to November, 1946;
    it being undisputed that, from December 1946 up to March 2, 1948, when the
    commercial buildings were burned, the defendants appellants have paid the
    contract rentals at the rate of P350 per month. But the failure to consign did not
    eradicate the default (mora) of the lessors nor the risk of loss that lay upon them.
    The pertinent articles of the Civil Code of Spain of 1889 provide:
    ART. 1554.
    1.
    contract;

    It shall be the duty of the lessor;


    To deliver to the lessee the thing which is the subject matter of the

    2.
    To make thereon, during the lease, all repairs necessary in order to
    keep it in serviceable condition for the purpose for which it was intended;
    3.
    To maintain the lessee in the peaceful enjoyment of the lease during
    the entire term of the contract.
    ART. 1560.
    The lessor shall not be liable for any act of mere disturbance of a
    third person of the use of the leased property; but the lessee shall have a direct
    action against the trespasser.
    It the third person, be it the Government or a private individual, has acted in
    reliance upon a right, such action shall not be deemed a mere act of disturbance.

    You might also like