Claudina Vda de Villaruel v Manila Motor Company Inc.

• Court: Supreme Court (Philippines)
• Date: 13 December 1958

Philippines, Supreme Court.

Claudina Vda. de Villaruel et al

and

Manila Motor Co Inc and Arturo Colmenares

War and armed conflict Occupation of territory Respect for private property Requisitions and contributions Requisition of private land and buildings for billeting forces Whether trespass The law of the Philippines

Summary: The facts:In May 1940, the defendant agreed to lease from the plaintiff, pursuant to a five-year lease renewable for the same period, certain property to be used as an automobile showroom and repair shop, as well as a residence for the branch manager of the defendant company. The defendant company took possession of the property on 31 October 1940, the lease running from that date. On 1 June 1942 the Japanese military forces took possession of the property and remained in possession until 29 March 1945. United States military forces then took possession of the property until 31 October 1945. No payments under the lease were made by the defendant company during the period of the Japanese occupation; United States authorities paid the established rental to the plaintiff during the period of their occupancy. Following the release of the property by United States authorities, the defendant company exercised its right to renew the lease and regularly paid the plaintiff the rent until June 1946. In June 1946 the plaintiff demanded payment of rent for the period of Japanese occupation; upon the defendant's refusal, the plaintiff declined to accept further rent payments. In December 1946, the plaintiff agreed to accept rent payments without prejudice to his demand for back rents; upon the continued refusal of the defendants to pay these rents, the plaintiff sought recission of the lease and eventually brought an action seeking rent for the period indicated.

The property was subsequently destroyed by fire, whereupon the plaintiff amended his complaint, seeking to recover the value of the property from the defendant on the ground that the defendant had been wrongfully in possession at the time of its destruction. Judgment was given for the plaintiff. The defendants appealed.

Held:The appeal was dismissed. The defendants were liable only for the rent for the period from June to November 1946, when rental payments under the new lease were not made to the plaintiff.

The following is the text of the judgment of the Court:

The appellees contend, and the court below has held, that the ouster of the lessee company by the Japanese occupation...