M. Goldstein v. Roces, et al.

G.R. No. L-8697, March 30, 1916

Arellano, C. J.

Facts:

Alejandro Roces leased to M. Goldstein, who is the proprietor of a saloon named Luzon
Caf, the first floor of a building belonging to them. They leased the rest of the premises to the
proprietor of the Hotel de Francia. The proprietor of the hotel requested that another story be
added to the building. Roces acceded to the request. The proprietor then hired the services of a
contractor to do the work. The contractor deemed it necessary to open holes for the insertion of
the uprights. When it rained, water leaked through these holes. It stained the walls and furniture.
M. Goldstein incurred expenses for the repairs. Thus he suffered losses. He sued Roces based on
Article 1654 which provides that the lessor is obliged to maintain the lessee in the peaceful
enjoyment of the lease during all the time covered by the contract. The trial court ruled in favor
of Roces.

Issue:

Did the act of the lessor, in allowing another to introduce improvements in the leased
premises, thereby causing damage to another lessee, a violation of his obligation to maintain the
lessee in the peaceful enjoyment of the leased premises?

Held:

No. The lessor must see to it that the enjoyment is not interrupted or disturbed, either by
others' acts, save in the case provided for in the Article 1664, or by his own. In this case, it is not
disputed that M. Goldstein maintained his peaceful enjoyment, or his quiet and peaceable
possession of the floor he occupies. That there was a disturbance of the peace or order in which
he maintained his things in the leased story does not mean that he lost the peaceful enjoyment of
the thing rented. Had the lessor attempted to render ineffective the right of the lessee to use the
thing leased as agreed upon, then he could have been liable. That was not present in this case.
Therefore, the action should have not been brought against the lessor, but against the contractor,
the tort feasor, who disturbed his enjoyment of the leased premises. Also, the distinction between
legal trespass and trespass in fact must be emphasized. To the latter, the lessor is not liable.
Article 1664 speaks of trespass in fact only in the use of the property leased. If such trespass is
translated into anything material which affects the property itself, such as when a third person
claims a legal right to the property, then it becomes a trespass in law in which the lessor shall
become liable.