1. LANDLORD AND TENANT; LEASE; FORFEITURE; ACTION. — E. entered into a contract with F. to lease to the latter a certain building for a term of five years. F. deposited with E. the sum of 1,800 pesos as a guaranty of said contract. On a later date F. deposited with E. the further sum of 3,905 pesos, in consideration of the transfer by the latter to the former of all the furniture in the said leased building and as a further guaranty for the payment of the rent and the performance of the obligations of the contract on the part of the former. Subsequently the rights which F. had under said lease were transferred to H. & Co. One of the terms of the original contract was that F. should comply with any obligation which might be imposed upon him by competent authority on account of the Board of Health or for any other reason. The Board of Health, by proper notice, required certain sanitary improvements to be made in said building within a fixed period. This period was extended from time to time. E., by reason of an alleged failure to comply with the orders of the said Board of Health, was arrested and fined for a failure to comply therewith. H. & Co., actually complied with the orders of the Board of Health within the extensions of time. At the time of the trial of E. for a violation of said orders of the Board of Health, H. & Co., were present and ready and willing to testify, but were given no opportunity. Held, That E. was not entitled to a forfeiture of the lease nor to a forfeiture of the said different sums deposited.

TORRES, J., with whom concurs MAPA, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

2. LANDLORD AND TENANT; REPAIRS. — The Board of Health in August, 1903, ordered certain repairs to be made to a rented house. By the terms of the contract of lease said repairs were to be performed at the expense of the lessees, but they failed to comply with said order, notwithstanding the fact that the time for the execution was extended to December 15. There was no proof of a further extension until the 31st of the following January.

3. ID.; ID. — The fine imposed by the municipal court upon the representative of the owners of the property for failing to comply with the orders of the Board of Health, incumbent exclusively upon the defendants, of the Board of Health, incumbent exclusively upon the defendants, is the best evidence of the violation on the part of said defendants of the contract of lease, which has the force of law between landlord and tenant.

4. ID.; ID. — The new extension of fifteen days, obtained on January 13 by the representative of the owners of the property for the compliance with the order of the Board of Health, can not be considered as an extension of the former period, as that had entirely expired.

5. ID.; ID. — The defendants and tenants, whose rights were acquired by the subtenants, having consented to the complaint filed herein, even considering the obligation contracted by then as a penal clause, the most the court below could have done under article 1154 of the Civil Code would have been to mitigate the penalty.

This was an action brought originally in the court of the justice of the peace of the city of Manila to recover the possession of the hotel building situated at the corner of Calle Palacio and Calle Victoria in the city of Manila; to forfeit the sum of 5,705 pesos, which sum had been deposited with the plaintiffs as security for the performance of the conditions of a certain contract of lease, and for damages alleged to have been sustained by reason of the violation of said contract of lease on the part of the defendants.

After hearing the evidence adduced in the trial of said cause in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila, the judge thereof made the following finding of facts:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) On the 9th day of April, 1900, the plaintiffs, by their duly authorized agents, entered into a contract of lease with Ricardo Flores and Jose Flores, whereby the former leased to the latter the building in question for a term of five years and the plaintiffs made a conditional sale to the said Flores of the furniture therein.

(2) By the terms of the said lease the sum of 1,800 pesos was deposited with the plaintiffs by the said Flores to secure the rent, the said lease providing that at its termination, provided that all the terms thereof had been performed faithfully, the title to the furniture therein would go to the lessee.

(3) The clauses of said lease which plaintiffs contended had been violated were as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Paragraph 6 of said contract provided that the following obligations should be on account of the tenants:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"(a) The claiming of the closets and canals; the painting of the inside and outside of the house, and any other obligations which may be imposed upon him by competent authority on account of the public health or for any other reason;

"(b) The payment of the water account and the electric fluid;

"(c) The payment of the difference between the tax now paid on said house and any after tax which may be levied by the legal authorities;

"(d) The payment of excess over 1