case digests - Sagrada Orden vs. National Coconut Corporation
Sagrada Orden vs. National
Coconut Corporation
91 PHIL. 503
FACTS
Plaintiff Sagrada Orden owned a piece
of real property in Pandacan, Manila . During the
Japanese occupation, the land was acquired by a Japanese corporation Taiwan
Tekkoshho. After the liberation, the Alien Property Custodian of the United States took possession, control, and custody of the real property. During
the year 1946, the property was occupied by the Copra Export Management Company
under the custodianship agreement with United States Alien Property Custodian,
and when it vacated, the property
occupied by defendant National
Coconut Corporation. Sagrada Orden made claim to the property before the Alien Property
Custodian of the United
States but was denied.
So plaintiff brought an action in court to annul the sale of property of Taiwan
Tekkosho, and recover its possession. The case did not come for trial because the
parties presented a joint petition in which it is claimed by Sagrada Orden that
the sale in favor of Taiwan Tekkosho was null and void because it was executed
under threats, duress, and intimidation, and that the title be re-issued to
Sagrada Orden. The court rendered judgment releasing the defendant from
liability, but reversing to the plaintiff the right to recover from the
defendant reasonable rentals for the use and occupation of the premises. The
present action to recover the reasonable rentals from August 1946, the date
when defendant began to occupy, to the date it vacated it. The defendant did
not contest its liability for the rentals at the rate of P3, 000 per month from
February 28,
1949 , but resisted the claim therefore
prior to that date. Defendant contends that it occupied the property in good
faith, under no obligation to pay rentals for the use and occupation. Judgment
rendered for the plaintiff to recover from the defendant the sum of P3, 000 a
month, from August, 1946, to the date the defendant vacates the premises. Thus
this appeal made by defendant.
ISSUE
Can the defendant company be held
liable to pay rentals from August 1946 to the date it vacated?
RULING
No. If defendant-appellant is liable
at all, its obligations, must arise from any of the four sources of obligations,
namely, law, contract or quasi-contract, crime, or negligence.
Defendant-appellant is not guilty of any offense at all, because it entered the
premises and occupied it with the permission of the entity which had the legal control
and administration thereof, the Alien Property Administration. Neither was
there any negligence on its part. There was also no privity between the Alien
Property Custodian and the Taiwan Tekkosho, which had secured the possession of
the property from the plaintiff-appellee by the use of duress, such that the
Alien Property Custodian or its permittee (defendant-appellant) may be held
responsible for the supposed illegality of the occupation of the property by
the said Taiwan Tekkosho. The Alien Property Administration had the control and
administration of the property not as successor to the interests of the enemy
holder of the title, the Taiwan Tekkosho. Neither is it a trustee of the former
owner, the plaintiff-appellee herein, but a trustee of then Government of the United States , in its own right, to the exclusion of, and against the claim or
title of, the enemy owner. From August, 1946, when defendant-appellant took
possession, to the late of judgment on February 28, 1948, Alien Property Administration
had the absolute control of the property as trustee of the Government of the
United States, with power to dispose of it by sale or otherwise, as though it
were the absolute owner. Therefore, even if defendant-appellant were liable to
the Alien Property Administration for rentals, these would not accrue to the
benefit of the plaintiff-appellee, the owner, but to the United States Government.
0 comments: