Nakpil v. Manila Towers Development Corporation

Nakpil v. Manila Towers Development CorporationMagsino, Patricia Marie C.11481196FactsPetition for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals14-storey high rise building777 Ongpin St., Sta. Cruz, ManilaOwned by Cheon Kiao AngLeased to 200 Filipino Chinese tenantsAmong those tenants was Atty. Bonifacio Nakpil (Petitioner)

14-storey high rise building

777 Ongpin St., Sta. Cruz, Manila

Owned by Cheon Kiao Ang

Leased to 200 Filipino Chinese tenants

Among those tenants was Atty. Bonifacio Nakpil (Petitioner)

3Property was mortgaged to Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) as security for loan Ang obtainedAng failed to pay the loan, so the real estate mortgage was foreclosed and sold at public auction where GSIS was the winning bidderGSIS sold the property to Centertown Marketing Corporation (CMC)CMC assigned all its rights to sister-corporation Manila Tower Development Corporation (MTDC)Tenants formed House International Building Tenants Association (HIBTAI)HIBTAI protested the auction, claiming that they had priority to buy the propertyTenants refused to pay their rentals and instead remitted them to HIBTAICity Engineer wrote to MTDC requesting that the defects of the building be correctedCity Engineer warned that the defects were serious and would endanger the lives of the tenants

Before MTDC could make the necessary repairs, HIBTAI filed a complaint v. GSIS for injunction and damages dismissedFiled another complaint for annulment of contract and damages dismissedHIBTAI appealed the decision dismissedHIBTAI assailed the decision before the SC - dismissedHIBTAI8 years later, new request was made for the an immediate ocular inspection of the buildingCity Building Official granted the request and scheduled an ocular inspectionTenants were illegally occupying the buildingTenants were ordered to vacate and for the building to be repairedGroup of men entered the building and commenced the repairs and tore down some of the structureAt the time Atty. Nakpil was overseasUpon his return, he discovered his room was destroyed, the walls were hammered down, and his electricity was cut offHe then filed a complaint against MTDCArgumentsDoctrineLessor has an obligation to maintain the lessee in peaceful and adequate enjoyment of the leased property, this seeks to protect the lessee from the acts of third persons and the lessor himselfDoctrineWhen trespass is done by third persons, it must be distinguished whether it is trespass in fact or in lawLessor is not liable for trespass in fact or a mere act of trespass by a third person

Art. 1664. The lessor is not obliged to answer for a mere act of trespass which a third person may cause on the use of the thing leased; but the lessee shall have a direct action against the intruder. There is a mere act of trespass when the third person claims no right whatever.

DoctrineTrespass in fact

Act of trespass is not accompanied or preceded by anything which reveals a juridic intention on the part of the trespasser, in such wise that the lessee can only distinguish the material fact, stripped of all legal form or reasons, we understand it to be trespass in fact only (de mero hecho) (Goldstein v. Roces)

DecisionMTDC is not liable to Atty. Nakpil

Repairs and demolition was done with authority (Sec. 214 of the National Building Code)

QuestionWhat is trespass in fact? Is the lessor liable in trespass in fact?The easement of right of way shall be established at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate, and, insofar as consistent with this rule, where the distance from the dominant estate to a public highway may be the shortest.(565)

15AnswerTrespass in fact Act of trespass is not accompanied or preceded by anything which reveals a juridic intention on the part of the trespasser, in such wise that the lessee can only distinguish the material fact, stripped of all legal form or reasons, we understand it to be trespass in fact only (de mero hecho) (Goldstein v. Roces)

Lessor is not liable for trespass in fact or a mere act of trespass by a third person