The document summarizes a court case regarding a leased property where the lessee's goods were damaged due to leaks in the roof. The lessee sued the owner for damages. The majority held that the owner was not liable as the heavy rainfall was considered an unforeseeable fortuitous event. However, in dissent, two justices argued that: 1) Owners should be required to build structures that can withstand heavy rain. 2) The civil code has specific provisions for lease contracts that were not properly applied. 3) The trial court incorrectly found that the owner did not promise to pay damages.
The document summarizes a court case regarding a leased property where the lessee's goods were damaged due to leaks in the roof. The lessee sued the owner for damages. The majority held that the owner was not liable as the heavy rainfall was considered an unforeseeable fortuitous event. However, in dissent, two justices argued that: 1) Owners should be required to build structures that can withstand heavy rain. 2) The civil code has specific provisions for lease contracts that were not properly applied. 3) The trial court incorrectly found that the owner did not promise to pay damages.
The document summarizes a court case regarding a leased property where the lessee's goods were damaged due to leaks in the roof. The lessee sued the owner for damages. The majority held that the owner was not liable as the heavy rainfall was considered an unforeseeable fortuitous event. However, in dissent, two justices argued that: 1) Owners should be required to build structures that can withstand heavy rain. 2) The civil code has specific provisions for lease contracts that were not properly applied. 3) The trial court incorrectly found that the owner did not promise to pay damages.
The document summarizes a court case regarding a leased property where the lessee's goods were damaged due to leaks in the roof. The lessee sued the owner for damages. The majority held that the owner was not liable as the heavy rainfall was considered an unforeseeable fortuitous event. However, in dissent, two justices argued that: 1) Owners should be required to build structures that can withstand heavy rain. 2) The civil code has specific provisions for lease contracts that were not properly applied. 3) The trial court incorrectly found that the owner did not promise to pay damages.
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as doc, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
Yap Kim Chuan v.
Tiaoqui GR 10006 | September 18, 1915 TOPIC: Warranty against hidden defect over a eased property !"rtices 1560, 1561, 1566# FACTS: Plaintif Yap Kim Chuan eased the b$iding o%ned by defendant Alfonso Tiaoqui& 'n "pri 1(, 191), beca$se of the leaks in the oof of the stoeoom of said b$iding, some of the painti*+s me!handise stoed in the said storeroom became "et and dama#ed as to ca$se him a loss amountin# to P $% $&'& S$bse,$ent to this occ$rrence, a ist of the damaged goods %as made o$t %here the defendant aegedy a$thori-ed the painti* to se the damaged goods at any price and promised to pay the di*erence bet%een the seing price and the reg$ar price of the artices in good condition& .ainti* accordingy disposed of a the damaged goods and, not%ithstanding the repeated demands made $pon him to pay the amo$nt of oss, the defendant ref$sed to pay& /$dgment is prayed against the defendant sentencing him to pay to the painti* the s$m of .1, 169& 0he defendant 1ed his ans%er and denied, among others, that he promised to ma2e good to the painti* any oss s$stained, beca$se the defendant+s intervention %as not a tacit acceptance of any iabiity b$t %as merey to determine the ca$se and the manner in %hich the %ater got into the b$iding& 0he co$rt rendered 3$dgment sentencing the defendant to pay the painti* the s$m of . 1,019 %ith ega interest& ISS(): Whether the o%ner of the tenement is responsibe for the deterioration of the coth and other goods as a res$t of the torrentia and e4traordinary rain %hich fe $pon the city& *)+,: 0he 5o$rt hed in the negative& "rtice 155) of the 5ivi 5ode !165), 655# decares that the povisions elatin# to "aant- contained in the tite of p$rchase and sae ae appli!a.le to leases& 7n connection %ith a ease, %arranty is the obigation to repair or correct the error $nder %hich the essee too2 over the property eased, b$t %hen the a% decares that the essor m$st %arrant the thing eased, it is not to be $nderstood that he m$st aso indemnify the essee& +ia.ilit- fo the "aant- is not equivalent to lia.ilit- in dama#es, as the atter is an obigation distinct from the former& 8ence, %hie the essor is obigated to %arranty the thing eased, he is ony iabe for an indemnity for damages in addition to the %arranty %hen he 2ne% of the defects in the thing eased and had not reveaed them to the essee, a proced$re %hich ind$ces the pres$mption that he acted %ith fra$d and in bad faith& 8o%ever, the painti*s have set $p a direct caim for indemnity for osses and damages from the essor and yet contin$ed to occ$py the property %itho$t having so$ght rescission of the contract9 therefore, they %ere not entited to caim for osses and damages beca$se they in fact %aived the indemnity& 7n addition, according to estabished 3$rispr$dence, indemnity for osses and damages cannot be caimed %hen they are ca$sed by a fort$ito$s event& "s hed by the 5o$rt, the occ$rrence %as $ndo$btedy d$e to force majeure !"rtice 11:(# and that being a fort$ito$s event %hich co$d not have been foreseen by the o%ner or the painti*;tenants, the o%ner cannot be iabe for the indemnity& "so, it has not been d$y proven in the case that the defendant 0iao,$i agreed to pay the amo$nt of the osses and damages s$stained by the painti*s, for the decarations of the atter do not constit$te s$<cient proof to o*set the positive denia of the former& 0herefore, 3$dgment appeaed from is /)0)/S), and the defendant 0iao,$i is A1SO+0), from the payment of indemnity for osses and damages to the painti*s& =issenting opinion of /$stice 0rent %ith %hom conc$rs /$stice 5arson> 1& 0hat the rainfa %as considered a fort$ito$s event and the essor is therefore reieved from iabiity& .artic$ary, it %as hed that (6&5 miimeters of rain in one ho$r is a fort$ito$s event& 0his hoding a$tomaticay bars a actions see2ing redress from b$iders or o%ners of b$idings %hose non;performance of their contracts is ca$sed by a precipitation e,$aing (6&5 miimeters in one ho$r& " they have to do to escape iabiity is to pead the rainfa as a fort$ito$s event& It is "ell kno"n that heav- ains% ston# "inds and eathquakes ae to .e e2pe!ted in this !ount-& 0herefore, o%ners and b$iders of b$idings sho$d be re,$ired to constr$ct their b$idings to %ithstand m$ch more than (6&5 miimeters of rain in one ho$r& ?& Whie it is tr$e that "rtice 155) !165), 655# provides that provisions of the 5ode reating to %arranty as a covenant of the contract of sae are appicabe to contracts of ease, it is to be lo#i!all- applied "hen thee ae no spe!i3! povisions in that portion of the 5ode for the contract of ease& "side from the inconvenience and di<c$ty in appying "rtice 1(86 !156:, 655#, thee is a!tuall- a spe!i3! ati!le of the !ode reating to ease contracts %hich provides for the case at bar& @oreover, Ati!le $44& !1659, 655# allo"s a lessee% at his option, 1&# to rescind the contract of ease and maintain an action for damages ?&# to adhere to the contract of ease and maintain an action for damages, %hen the covenant of peacef$ en3oyment is bro2en& 0he atter co$rse %as that p$rs$ed by the painti* in the case at bar& )& 'n the iss$e of fact of %hether the defendant promised to pay the damages s$*ered by the painti*& 0he tria co$rt hed that s$ch promise has been made by the defendant, b$t the co$rt 1nds other%ise from an e4amination of the record&
