050 - Villaroel vs. Manila Motor Co. 104 Phil 926
050 - Villaroel vs. Manila Motor Co. 104 Phil 926
The Manila Motor Co agreed to pay the lessors a monthly rental of P300.00 payable in
advance before the fifth day of each month and for the residential house of its branch
manager, a monthly rental not to exceed P50.00 pesos payable separately by the
Manager.
Manila Motor Co. occupied the premises until the property was held by the Japanese
forces from 1941 to March 29, 1945 and no payment was made during those time. The
American forces later occupied the properties and the rentals were paid by the
occupants at the same rate. When the American forces left, the branch manager
decided to extend the lease for another 5 years and they agreed that the 7-month
occupied by the American forces will not be counted as part of the extension of the
lease term.
Villaruel demanded payment for the period occupied by the Japanese forces. The
company refused to pay and a notice for recission of contract of lease was given to
them.
The lessors accepted payment of current rentals from October 1945 to June 1946. It
was only in July 1946 that they insisted upon collecting also the 1942-1945 rents, and
refused to accept further payments tendered by the lessee unless their right to collect
the occupation rental was recognized or reserved.
Grey offered to pay Villaruel the amount of P350.00 provided that it was without
prejudice to the latter’s previous demand for rent in arrears and for the recission of the
contract of lease.
The lessors commenced an action against the company. During the pendency of the
case, the leased property was burned down. As such, Villaruel demanded
reimbursement from the defendants who refused to pay.
ISSUE:
WON the defendant company is liable for the loss of the leased premises.
RULING:
No. The Court ruled that the improper refusal of the lessor to accept the current rents
tendered by the lessee placed them in default, thus, the former shall shoulder the
subsequent accidental loss of the premises leased.
Accordingly, the lessor' insistence upon collecting the occupation rentals for 1942-1945
was unwarranted in law. Hence, their refusal to accept the current rentals without
qualification placed them in default with the result that thereafter, they had to bear all
supervening risks of accidental injury or destruction of the leased premises.