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&