EN BANC
[G.R. No. 28230. September 17, 1928. ]
SANTIAGO SY JUCO and JOSE DEL R. JEUQUECO, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DONATA MONTEMAYOR, CLODUALDO VITUG, AMBROSIA SALAO, JUAN SALAO and JOSEFA EVANGELISTA, Defendants-Appellants.
Paredes, Buencamino & Yulo, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Sumulong, Lavides & Hilado for defendants-appellants Montemayor and Vitug.
Francisco, Lualhati & Lopez and Pedro Pascual for defendants-appellants Salao and Evangelista.
SYLLABUS
1. LEASE; ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE; RIGHTS OF ASSIGNEE. — Where the lessee of a property has transferred, for a valuable consideration, his lease to another, with all his rights and obligations as such lessee, the transferee becomes the lessee of the property by assignment, and is entitled to all the rights of a lessee, and said rights are enforcible only against the owner of the property leased, and not against the assignor of the lease.
D E C I S I O N
JOHNSON, J.:
This action was commenced in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Rizal on October 11, 1922. Its purpose was (l) to recover from all of the defendants several sums of money aggregating P50,550 as damages for alleged noncompliance by the defendants with the provisions of certain contracts of lease and sublease of a fishery situated in the municipality of Lubao, Province of Pampanga, and for repairs made on said fishery by the plaintiffs; and (2) to recover from the defendants Ambrosia Salao, Juan Salao and Josefa Evangelista the sum of P7,833.90 as the unaccrued portion of the rental for said fishery paid to them in advance by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs prayed for a judgment in their favor and against the defendants for said amounts, and costs. They also prayed that the contract of sublease, under which they held possession of the fishery be rescinded.
The defendants Donata Montemayor and Clodualdo Vitug denied generally and specifically each and every allegation of the complaint.
The defendants Ambrosia Salao, Juan Salao and Josefa Evangelista, in their amended answer of May 20, 1927, denied generally and specifically each and every allegation of the complaint and set up a counterclaim for the sum of P2,000.
Upon the issue presented by the above pleadings the cause was brought on for trial. On the 31st day of May, 1927, the Honorable Antonio M. Opisso, judge, after a careful consideration of the evidence adduced during the trial of the cause, rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants Donata Montemayor and Clodualdo Vitug in the following sums: (a) P8,550 for reimbursement of expenses for repairs made by the plaintiffs on the fishery; (b) P12,000, the value of fish which escaped from the fishery for the failure of the defendants Montemayor and Vitug to make necessary repairs thereon and (c) P4,000, the value of fish contained in the portion of said fishery taken by one Simeon Blas, pursuant to the judgment rendered in a litigation between him and the defendants Montemayor and Vitug. The lower court further rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against the three defendants Ambrosia Salao, Juan Salao and Josefa Evangelista in the sum of P7,833.90, representing the unaccrued portion of the rental which had been paid to them in advance by the plaintiffs. The court allowed interest at 6 per cent on all of said sums from the 11th day of October, 1922, the date of the commencement of this action.
As to the rescission of the contract prayed for by the plaintiffs and the alleged damages resulting from said rescission, the lower court said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"En cuanto al quinto motivo de accion, no ha lugar a acceder a lo alli pedido, por no haber presentado pruebas respecto al mismo y por haber las partes, de mutuo acuerdo, rescindido el contrato y entregado la posesi6n de la pesquera el 1.
The defendants Donata Montemayor and Clodualdo Vitug denied generally and specifically each and every allegation of the complaint.
The defendants Ambrosia Salao, Juan Salao and Josefa Evangelista, in their amended answer of May 20, 1927, denied generally and specifically each and every allegation of the complaint and set up a counterclaim for the sum of P2,000.
Upon the issue presented by the above pleadings the cause was brought on for trial. On the 31st day of May, 1927, the Honorable Antonio M. Opisso, judge, after a careful consideration of the evidence adduced during the trial of the cause, rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants Donata Montemayor and Clodualdo Vitug in the following sums: (a) P8,550 for reimbursement of expenses for repairs made by the plaintiffs on the fishery; (b) P12,000, the value of fish which escaped from the fishery for the failure of the defendants Montemayor and Vitug to make necessary repairs thereon and (c) P4,000, the value of fish contained in the portion of said fishery taken by one Simeon Blas, pursuant to the judgment rendered in a litigation between him and the defendants Montemayor and Vitug. The lower court further rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against the three defendants Ambrosia Salao, Juan Salao and Josefa Evangelista in the sum of P7,833.90, representing the unaccrued portion of the rental which had been paid to them in advance by the plaintiffs. The court allowed interest at 6 per cent on all of said sums from the 11th day of October, 1922, the date of the commencement of this action.
As to the rescission of the contract prayed for by the plaintiffs and the alleged damages resulting from said rescission, the lower court said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"En cuanto al quinto motivo de accion, no ha lugar a acceder a lo alli pedido, por no haber presentado pruebas respecto al mismo y por haber las partes, de mutuo acuerdo, rescindido el contrato y entregado la posesi6n de la pesquera el 1.
