|
ManilaFIRST
DIVISION
RAFAEL
ENRIQUEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.
R.
No. 455
October
26, 1901
-versus-
A. S.
WATSON &
CO.,
Defendants-Appellants.
D
E C I S I
O N
WILLARD,
J :
It appears from the record
that the appellants in this case occupied the building at No. 14
Escolta
Street, known by the name of the English Dispensary and being a part of
the property of the Enriquez estate, under a lease thereof, from
January,
1900, was paid twice; first to the administrator of the estate and
later
deposited in court. The appellee seeks now to evict the appellants from
said property, alleging as his ground therefor the nonpayment of the
amount
of rent corresponding to said period.
The situation in which
Messrs. Watson & Co. are found in this case is due principally, in
our opinion, to the litigation between the Enriquez brothers over the
estate
of their deceased parents. During the first period abovementioned the
administration
of said property passed three times from the hands of one to those of
the
other of the brothers, Francisco and Rafael. The claim made by Don
Rafael
does not refer to the failure to pay the said rents but to the fact
that
these were paid improperly to his brother. It is not surprising that
with
these frequent changes of administrators the tenants of the properties
of the estate have committed mistakes in the payments.
The judgment, whose
execution is sought in this case, was rendered by default on June 20,
1900.
The summons was served upon the person in charge of the establishment,
who was denied an extension of some days which he applied for by reason
of the absence of the attorney in fact of the house. this judgment
became
final, and although it is not proper for us, perhaps, to inquire into
the
merits of said judgment for the purpose of determining its annulment,
we
can take into consideration the antecedents of the case so far as they
serve to make clear the succeeding acts of Don Francisco as well as of
Don Rafael. If the rents whose alleged nonpayment gave rise to said
action
have been actually received by the Enriquez estate the abandonment of
the
judgment could be more readily deduced from the succeeding facts than
if
they had not been paid at any time.
After the 1st day of
September, 1900, it was Don Francisco who had charge of the
administration
of the estate. The court notified the appellants that they should
recognize
him as such. After the said date the said Francisco recognized the
appellants
as the tenants of the estate and continued to receive from them the
amount
of the rents until January 25, 1901, when a new lease for twelve years
was entered into. Although said lease may have been void it is true
that
the contracting parties conformed to its terms, paying the amount of
the
stipulated rent to Don Francisco from January 25, 1901 to April 1. the
latter likewise had previously received the rents corresponding to the
months from January to May, 1900, which, according to the allegations
of
Don Rafael, were not paid. As a result of these allegations the
judgment
referred to was entered. The facts related disclose to us conclusively
that Don Francisco never intended to ask the execution of this judgment
nor considered Messrs. Watson & Co. evicted, but rather as actual
tenants.
As for Don Rafael,
his attorney stated before this court that upon assuming charge of the
property in February, 1901, he demanded of the appellants the amount of
the rents. The statements of his attorney would contradict and be
inconsistent
with any theory other than that the rents thus demanded were those
accrued
under the new lease of January 25, 1901. The appellants paid to him the
rents from April, but refused to pay that corresponding to the month of
March, stating that they had already paid the same to Don Francisco. As
a result of this refusal proceedings were had for the purpose of
reviving
the old judgment of the previous year. It appears to us that the true
reason
which prompted this action was not the nonpayment of the rents from
January
to May, 1900, but the fact of the nonpayment to Don Rafael of those
corresponding
to the month of March, 1901. The original judgment can not be utilized
for such purpose. If there has been such failure to pay the rent
corresponding
to the month last named, Don Rafael ought to have presented the proper
complaint, basing it upon that fact. It is not the contract above
referred
to entered into with the administrator Don Francisco which gives rise
to
the re-leasing of the property, but the successive acts of
administration
of the latter, recognizing it in the name of the estate whose
representative
he alone was - acts neither impugned nor declared void until now, by
virtue
of which he has accepted the agreements of the tenant which until now
have
likewise not been rejected by the estate or objected to in any way.
In view of the
established
facts above related we are of the opinion and decide that there have
been
subsequent juridical acts between the appellants on one side and on the
other the Enriquez estate, represented either by Don Francisco or by
Don
Rafael, by virtue of which the said appellants must have continued as
such
tenants of the estate, notwithstanding the judgment given on June 20,
1900,
which by reason of the very acts of the plaintiff estate has become
ineffective
and has lost its executory force.
WHEREFORE, the judgment
appealed from is reversed with costs taxed to the appellee, and it is
so
ordered.
Arellano, C.J.,
Torres, Cooper, Mapa and Ladd, JJ., concur. |
