Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 30112 September 9, 1929
THE MABALACAT SUGAR COMPANY, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
JOSE V. RAMIREZ, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
Alfonso Ponce Enrile for plaintiff-appellant.
Marcadia & Ocampo and Jose Ma. Cavanna for defendants-appellants.
STATEMENT
Plaintiff alleges that it is a domestic corporation and for more than seven years has been in the quiet and peaceful possession of a strip of land 2,664 meters long and 5 meters wide across the land of the minor defendants in the barrio of Dolores, municipality of Mabalacat, province of Pampanga, which is specifically described in the complaint.
That it built a railway and made permanent improvements on the land in the nature of embankments, bridges, sewers and telephone lines for the proper transportation of sugar cane from the Hacienda Concepcion to its sugar central in the municipality of Mabalacat, and that it has been in the peaceful use, possession and enjoyment of the railway for about seven years. That on the 4th and 5th of September, 1927, the defendants jointly and mutually, with the aid of more than one hundred other persons acting for and with them, raised and destroyed the rails of plaintiff's railway, a large portion of which were twisted, and destroyed the bolts and ties, and left the railway a wreck as a means of transportation for the plaintiff. That by reason of such wrongful acts plaintiff was damaged in the sum of P32,000.
It is then alleged that the defendants by means of violence threatened to, and will, dispossess plaintiff of the strip of the land in question, and it prays that pending the action, the court issue a writ of preliminary injunction against the defendants prohibiting them from in any manner disturbing plaintiff's possession of a strip of land, and that upon final hearing, plaintiff have judgment against the defendants jointly and severally for P32,000, and that the injunction be made permanent.
For answer the defendants made a general and specific denial, and as a counterclaim alleged that by reason of the injunction, which was granted by the court on motion of the plaintiff, the defendants were damaged in the sum of P2,000, for which they pray for a corresponding judgment against the plaintiff.
Upon such issues the lower court rendered judgments against the defendants Manuel Lazatin and Tomasa C. Viuda de Pamintuan, as guardian of her sons, to jointly and severally pay the plaintiff P2,083.99 and costs, and absolved Jose V. Ramirez from the complaint.
From this judgment both parties appealed, and the plaintiff assigns the following errors:
I. The lower court erred in not adjudging to the plaintiff damages caused by the necessary delay in its milling operations due to the destruction of its railway by the defendants, in the sum of P20,760.
II. The lower court erred in not adjudging to the plaintiff the sum of P6,739.53 as damages sustained by it due to the forcible removal and destruction of its railway by the defendants.
The defendant as appellants, assign the following errors:
I. The trial court erred in not dismissing the complaint for damages upon the dismissal of the principal action of injunction.
II. The trial court erred in condemning the defendants-appellants, Manuel Lazatin and Tomasa Vda. de Pamintuan, as guardian of the minor children Pamintuan to pay jointly and severally the plaintiff company the sum of P2,083.99 as damages, and in not absolving the same defendants-appellants to the payment thereof.
III. The trial court erred in not adjudicating to the defendants-appellants their counterclaim for P2,000 by way of damages and in not condemning the plaintiff company to pay thereof.
IV. The trial court erred in admitting Exhibits C and C-1 against the objection of defendants and without their proper identification by the plaintiff.
V. The trial court erred in overruling defendant's demurrer to the plaintiff's complaint and in not sustaining the same.
JOHNS, J.:
It must be conceded that any lease, right, title or interest which the plaintiff ever had to the use or possession of the strip of land in question had expired, and that the plaintiff was nothing more than a tenant at will or sufferance. That is to say, at the time of the alleged acts of which plaintiff complains, it had no legal right to the use or possession of the land, and that any right which it ever did have had expired with the contract for the lease of the land by the defendants to Dizon and Tiglao. In this situation, the defendants had the legal right to remove plaintiff's railway from their land, and plaintiff cannot recover damages from the defendants for the doing of that which they had the legal right to do. It is true that after the lease had expired by the terms there were negotiations between the parties for a renewal or extension of the lease. It is also true that such negotiations fell through, and that the lease was never renewed or extended. Hence, it follows that the defendants are not liable for any damages which the plaintiff may have sustained from growing out of the failure to renew the lease, and for such reasons the plaintiff's first assignment of error is not well taken.
Be that as it may, the railway track in question has lawfully been on the defendants' land and in the use and possession of the plaintiff for about seven years, and while it is true that after the expiration of the lease, the defendant, upon notice to the plaintiff, had the legal right to terminate the lease and remove the track, yet they had no right to do so in the manner in which it was done. In its removal it was the duty of the defendant to remove the track without any unnecessary damage to the plaintiff. That is to say, in such removal the defendants had no legal right to bend or twist the rails or to destroy the railway ties, fishplates, bolts and nuts and spikes, and that such removal should have been made without any serious injury or damage to the materials of which the railway was constructed. For such wrongful acts, the lower court awarded damages to the plaintiff the sum of P2,083.99.
In the opinion of the writer the amount of such damages is about P4,000. Be that as it may, my associates are all of the opinion that the amount awarded by the lower court is reasonable, and that its judgment in that respect should be affirmed.
From what has been said, it follows that there is no merit in the defendant's appeal. If the defendants had torn up and removed the track in a peaceful and orderly manner and without any unnecessary destruction to plaintiff's property, they would not then be liable for any damages. But the proof is conclusive that it was done with a large body of men and in a hasty manner, and with force and violence, and that the whole track was torn up and removed in about two days' time and without any regard to plaintiff's rights.
The evidence is conclusive that the track was removed at the instance and request of Tomasa C. Vda. de Pamintuan, the guardian of minor defendants, and the lower court rendered judgment against her as such guardian. That was error. The judgment for the amount of damages awarded to plaintiff should be against Tomasa C. Vda. de Pamintuan personally and in person, and not as guardian, for the simple reason that the minor are not legally liable for a tort committed by their guardian. That is to say, the judgment of the lower court for damages against Tomasa C. Vda. de Pamintuan, as guardian of the minors, is reversed, and in lieu thereof a corresponding judgment will be entered against Tomasa C. Vda. de Pamintuan personally and in person, and that in all other things and respects, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed, with costs against the plaintiff. So ordered.
Avanceña, C. J., Johnson, Street, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
