Sagrada Orden vs.

National Coconut Corporation

91 SCRA 503
FACTS
Petitioner, Sagrada Orden owned a land which was acquired by a Japanese corporation
during the Japanese military occupation. After the liberation, the Alien Property Custodian took
possession, control and custody of the land. The Copra Export Management Company occupied
the property and when it vacated, the respondent, National Coconut Corporation occupied it
through the representation made by the Philippine Government to the Alien Property Custodian.
The property was returned to Sagrada Orden upon judgment that the contract of sale of the
property in favour of the Japanese corporation was null and void and upon payment of the
consideration it received for the property to the Philippine Alien Property Administration.
Sagrada Orden was also given the right to recover from National Coconut Corporation
reasonable rentals for the use and occupation of the premises. Sagrada Orden filed an action to
recover rentals from National Coconut Corporation from the time it used and occupied the
premises. National Coconut Corporation claimed that it was willing to pay only from the time the
property was returned to Sagrada Orden and not before, for it occupied the property in good
faith, under no obligation to pay the rentals.
ISSUE
Was National Coconut Corporation liable for rentals prior to the date the property was
returned to Sagrada Orden?
RULING
No. National Coconut Corporation was not liable for the rentals prior to the date the
property was returned to Sagrada Orden. For National Coconut Corporation to be liable, its
obligation must arise from the law, contract or quasi- contract, crime or negligence as provided
by Article 1157 of the Civil Code which was taken from Article 1089 of the old Civil Code. As
none of these sources were present, National Coconut Corporation cannot be held liable. There
was also no express agreement between the entity which had legal control and administration of
the property and the National Coconut Corporation for the latter to pay rentals on the property so
there was no obligation.

Picart vs Smith
In December 1912, Amado Picart was riding his horse and while they were on a 75 meter long
bridge, he saw Frank Smith Jr.s car approaching. Smith blew his horn thrice while he was still at
a distance away because Picart and his horse were on Smiths lane. But Picart did not move his
horse to the other lane, instead he moved his horse closer to the railing. Smith continued driving
towards Picart without slowing down and when he wasalready so near the horse he swerved to
the other lane. But the horse got scared so it turned its body across the bridge; the horse struck
the car and its limb got broken. Picart suffered injuries which required several days of medical
attention while the horse eventually died.
ISSUE: Whether or not Smith is negligent.
HELD: Yes. And so was Picart for planting himself on the wrong side of the road. But Smiths
negligence succeeded that of Picart. Smith saw at a distance when he blew his horn that Picart
and his horse did not move to the other lane so he should have steered his car to the other lane at
that point instead of swerving at the last minute. He therefore had the last clear chance to avoid
the unfortunate incident. When Smiths car has approached the horse at such proximity it left no
chance for Picart extricate himself and vigilance on his part will not avert injury. Picart can
therefore recover damages from Smith but such should be proportioned by reason of his
contributory negligence.

US vs Barias
Facts: This is an appeal from a sentence imposed by the Court of First Instance of Manila, for
homicide resulting from reckless negligence. On November 2, 1911, Segundo Barias, a
motorman of Manila Electric Railroad and Light Company, was driving his vehicle car along
Rizal Avenue and stopped in near the interserction of Calle Requesen Street, upon stopping, he
took some passengers and looked backward presumably to take not whether all the passengers
were aboard. At that moment, Fermina Jose, a child about 3 years old, walked or ranin front of
the car. She was knocked down and dragged some little distance underneath the car, which
caused her death. Barias proceeded with his car some distance from the place of the accident,
and apparently knew nothing of it until his return, when he was informed of what happened. One
witness testified that Barias started the car without turning his head over the track immediately in
front of the car. After which, a case was filed against him in the Trial Court of Manila, holding
him guilty of Reckless Negligence.
Issue: Whether or not the evidence shows such carelessness or want of ordinary care on the part
of the defendant as to amount to Reckless Negligence
Ruling: The place on which the incident occurred was a public street in a densely populated
section of the city at about six in the morning, the time when the residents of such streets begins
to move about. Under such conditions a motorman of an electric street car was clearly charged
with a high degree of diligence in the performance of his duties. Barias did not exercise
that degree of diligence required of him. Having brought his car to a standstill it was his bounden
duty to keep his eyes directed to the front. It was his duty to satisfy himself that the track was
clear, and, for that purpose, to look and to see the track just in front of his car. This the defendant
did not do, and the result of his negligence was the death of the child. Wherefore, the judgment
of the lower court convicting and sentencing the appellant is affirmed. The penalty should be
reduced. So ordered.