BONIFACIO NAKPIL, petitioner, vs.

MANILA TOWERS Filed another complaint for annulment of contract and damages-
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondent. likewise dismissed
G.R. No. 160867. September 20, 2006 HIBTAI appealed the decision also dismissed
HIBTAI assailed the decision before the SC - dismissed
Topic: Nature and Effects; Requisites/Elements of an Obligation; Not to HIBTAI 8 years later, new request was made for the an
do immediate ocular inspection of the building City Building Official
granted the request and scheduled an ocular inspection
Petitioner: Bonifacio Nakpil Tenants were illegally occupying the building
Respondent: MTDC Tenants were ordered to vacate and for the building to be
repaired
DOCTRINE: A Group of men entered the building and commenced the
Art. 1168. When the obligation consists in not doing, and the obligor does repairs and tore down some of the structure
what has been forbidden him, it shall also be undone at his expense.
At the time Atty. Nakpil was overseas and upon his return, he
discovered his room was destroyed, the walls were hammered
FACTS:
down, and his electricity was cut off
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision and
He then filed a complaint against MTDC
resolution of the Court of Appeals.
RTC dismissed the complaint and ruled in favor of MTDC
A 14-storey high rise building 777 Ongpin St., Sta. Cruz, Manila
Nakpil failed to prove that MTDC had anything to do with the
Owned by Cheon Kiao Ang Leased to 200 Filipino Chinese
demolition/repairs and the loss of his personal property
tenants
It was done by the employees of the cityengineer of manila not
Among those tenants was Atty. Bonifacio Nakpil (Petitioner)
the MTDC
Property was mortgaged to Government Service Insurance
Nakpil appealed to the CA which reversed the decision of the TC
System (GSIS) as security for loan Ang obtained
Ang failed to pay the loan, so the real estate mortgage was
RESPONDENTS MAIN ARGUMENT
foreclosed and sold at public auction where GSIS was the
Respondent in a separate civil action avers that it cannot be made liable
winning bidder GSIS sold the property to Centertown Marketing
for actual, moral and exemplary damages because it had not been
Corporation (CMC)
remiss in its duty to make the necessary repairs; it was prohibited from
CMC assigned all its rights to sister-corporation Manila Tower taking possession of the property by the tenants who had filed several
Development Corporation (MTDC) Tenants formed House suits against it. 32 It alleged that it acquired the building from the GSIS
International Building Tenants Association (HIBTAI) HIBTAI in 1981, and it was the HIBTAI that had been managing the affairs of the
protested the auction, claiming that they had priority to buy the said building and collected the rentals from the tenants. It pointed out
property that in CA-G.R. No. 04393, the CA ruled that the HIBTAI had no right to
Tenants refused to pay their rentals and instead remitted them collect the rentals. Moreover, HIBTAI did not use the rentals to make the
to HIBTAI necessary repairs but used it instead to pay its accounts and obligations.
City Engineer wrote to MTDC requesting that the defects of the By their own actions, the tenants of the subject building prevented
building be corrected MTDC from performing its duty to maintain them in their peaceful
City Engineer warned that the defects were serious and would possession and enjoyment of the property. Moreover, Nakpil failed to
endanger the lives of the tenants prove that it had anything to do with the demolition/repairs and the loss
Before MTDC could make the necessary repairs, HIBTAI filed a of his personal property.
complaint v. GSIS for injunction and damages it was
dismissed
ISSUES:
 Whether or not Nakpil is entitiled to damages distinguish the material fact, stripped of all legal form or reasons,
we understand it to be trespass in fact only (de mero hecho)."
HELD: Further, the obligation under Article 1654(3) arises only when
NO. acts, termed as legal trespass (perturbacion de derecho),
SC do not agree with the ruling of the CA that the MTDC disturb, dispute, object to, or place difficulties in the way of the
committed a breach of its lease contract with Nakpil when it lessee's peaceful enjoyment of the premises that in some
failed to comply with its obligation as lessor, and that the MTDC manner cast doubt upon the right of the lessor by virtue of which
is liable for nominal damages. the lessor himself executed the lease.
Breach of contract is the failure without legal reason to comply What is evident in the present case is that the disturbance on
with the terms of a contract. It is also defined as the failure, the leased premises on July 19, 1996 was actually done by the
without legal excuse, to perform any promise which forms the employees under the City Engineer of Manila and the City
whole or part of the contract. Building Official on orders of the City Mayor without the
There is no factual and legal basis for any award for damages to participation of the MTDC.
respondent.
The duty to maintain the lessee in the peaceful and adequate DISPOSITION
enjoyment of the lease for the duration of the contract is merely Petition Denied. Reversed the CA decision.
a warranty that the lessee shall not be disturbed in his legal, and
not physical, possession. In the early case of Goldstein v.
Roces, the court pointed out that the obligation to maintain the
lessee in the peaceful and adequate enjoyment of the leased
property seeks to protect the lessee not only from acts of third
persons but also from the acts of the lessor, thus:
The lessor must see that the enjoyment is not interrupted or
disturbed, either by others' acts [save in the case provided
for in the article 1560 (now Article 1664)], or by his own. By
his own acts, because, being the person principally
obligated by the contract, he would openly violate it if, in
going back on his agreement, he should attempt to render
ineffective in practice the right in the thing he had granted to
the lessee; and by others' acts, because he must guarantee
the right he created, for he is obliged to give warranty in the
manner we have set forth in our commentary on article
1553, and, in this sense, it is incumbent upon him to protect
the lessee in the latter's peaceful enjoyment.
When the act of trespass is done by third persons, it must be
distinguished whether it is trespass in fact or in law because the
lessor is not liable for a trespass in fact or a mere act of trespass
by a third person.
In the Goldstein case, trespass in fact was distinguished from
legal trespass, thus: "if the act of trespass is not accompanied or
preceded by anything which reveals a juridic intention on the
part of the trespasser, in such wise that the lessee can only