ChanRobles Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.

com

Like 0 Tweet Share

Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1905 > September 1905 Decisions > G.R. No. 1472 September 30, 1905 - E.J.
SMITH AND RAFAEL REYES v. JACINTA LOPEZ, ET AL.

005 Phil 78:

Custom Search
Search

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 1472. September 30, 1905. ]

E.J. SMITH AND RAFAEL REYES, proprietors of the Philippine Gas Light Company, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
JACINTA LOPEZ AND IGNACIA LOPEZ DE PINEDA, Defendants-Appellants.

Gregorio Pineda, for Appellants.

Lionel D. Hargis, for Appellees.

SYLLABUS

1. PERSONAL ACTION; COOWNERS; HEIRS; EXECUTORS; PARTIES IN INTEREST. A judgment in a personal

action against one or more defendants having a common interest in the same property shall not bind the
heirs of a deceased coowners, where such heirs or the executor of the testate or intestate estate of such
deceased coowners, who are parties in interest in the suit, were not joined as parties defendant. (Secs. 114
and 277 of the Code of Civil Procedure.)

2. ID.; ID.; PARTNERSHIP. Where two or more persons having a common interest in a certain business or
property bring an action in court it must be presumed that they prosecute the same in their individual capacity
as coowners and not in behalf of a partnership which does not exist juridically.

3. AGENCY; RECIPROCAL OBLIGATIONS; QUASI CONTRACTS. Where a person undertakes to act as agent
DebtKollect Company, Inc. for another, in conformity with the provisions of the civil law, reciprocal obligations are created between such
person and the owner of the property to which the agency relates, even where the owner has not previously
given his consent thereto, by virtue of a quasi contract.

4. IMPROVEMENTS; CONSENT; LIABILITY; JURIDICAL RELATIONS. The owner is liable for any
improvements made by a third person upon his property, for the reason that even where the parties have not
given their express consent thereto a juridical relation is created between them with the same force and
effect as though a mutual agreement existed.

5. SERVICES; COMPENSATION; CUSTOM AND USAGES; EXPERTS. It has been settled by our jurisprudence
that in contracts relating to the performance of services or labor it is to be presumed that a certain and
definite compensation was agreed upon, not only where there is an express stipulation to this effect but
where the same may be ascertained from the custom and usages of the place where such services or labor
were performed, except where the parties have agreed that such compensation be fixed by a third person or
where the same should be determined by the courts of Spain of October 18, 1899.)

DECISION

ChanRobles Intellectual Property Division

TORRES, J. :
 On November 19, 1902, Messrs. Smith and Reyes, as proprietors of the Philippine Gas Light Company,
brought this action against the defendant sisters, Jacinta and Ignacia Lopez de Pineda, to recover from them
the sum of 3,270 pesos, Mexican currency, with interest due thereon and costs of proceedings, for work
performed in connection with the installation of a water system, urinals, closets, shower baths, and drain
pipes in the house at No. 142 Calle Dulumbayan, district of Santa Cruz, the same being the property of the
defendants. The plaintiffs alleged that they had complied with the agreement made with the father of the
defendants, the administrator of the property, and that the labor performed and the material used were
reasonably worth the sum of 4,020 pesos, Mexican currency, of which sum they acknowledged having
received 750 pesos, and prayed that judgment be entered against the defendants and in favor of the plaintiffs
for the sum of 3,270 pesos, together with accrued interest and costs of proceedings, defendants having
refused to pay the same as agreed.

Attorney Gregorio Pineda appeared in behalf of the defendants, denied all the facts set out in the complaint,
and alleged that it did not appear from the pleadings that plaintiffs had ever entered into a mercantile
partnership under the aforesaid name and style, or that any such partnership legally existed; that Nicasio
Lopez was not the administrator nor was he empowered by the defendants to make any contract for repairs
and improvements to and in the said house; that there was no allegation as to the extent and importance of
the work performed on the premises nor as to the quality or quantity of the materials used; that the work was
not reasonably worth 4,020 pesos; and that, assuming that plaintiffs had performed work in the said house
pursuant to an agreement with Nicasio Lopez, without defendants authority, the defendants set up a
counterclaim for 600 pesos, Mexican currency, for damages caused to the house as a result of said work.
Defendants finally prayed that the complaint he dismissed and that plaintiffs be ordered to pay the costs of
proceedings and the amount of the counterclaim.

The court, after considering the allegations made and the evidence introduced by both parties, on April 3,
1903, entered judgment against the defendants and in favor of the complaints for the sum of 2,717.40 pesos,
local currency, and accrued interest thereon at the legal rate of 6 per cent per annum, from November 19,
1902, and costs of proceedings. to this judgment defendants duly excepted, having first moved for a new trial.

This is an action upon a contract to recover for labor performed on the premises, No. 142 Calle Dulumbayan,
district of Santa Cruz, in connection with the installation of a water system, urinals, water-closets, shower
September-1905 Jurisprudence baths, and drain pipes. The contract in question was entered into between one of the plaintiffs and Nicasio
Lopez, the father of the defendants, who was at the time in charge of the house and cared for the same for
the defendant sisters. There was no stipulation in the contract as to the specific cost of the work to be
G.R. No. 1572 September 1, 1905 - ENRIQUE F. SOMES v. WIFE performed.
AND SON OF IGNACIO GORRICHO
There is no doubt that the work was actually performed as alleged. It thus appears from the answer of the
004 Phil 713 defendants to plaintiffs complaint, and it was also admitted by the witness Nicasio Enrico Lopez, who among
G.R. No. 2738 September 1, 1906 other things, testified under oath, that if Mr. Smith had presented to him a bill for 1,500 or, at most, 2,000
pesos for the work performed he would have paid him with pleasure. In view of the foregoing the court made
UNITED STATES v. MORO SARIHUL the statement during the course of the trial that the only question was the reasonable value of the work.
004 Phil 716
One of the errors assigned by counsel for defendants and appellants in this court is that court below erred in
G.R. No. 1888 September 2, 1905 - PETRONILA VALERA v. recognizing plaintiffs capacity to sue as a partnership, there being evidence to show that they were legally
SEVERINO PURUGGANAN organized as such.
004 Phil 719
There was no such error. Messrs. Smith and Reyes executed the contract in their own individual capacity and
G.R. No. 1837 September 5, 1905 - ESTEBAN QUIROS v. D. M. not in the name of any partnership. They acted as coowners of the Philippine Gas Light Company. In their
CARMAN complaint they sought to enforce a legitime right which they had as such coowners. (Arts. 392 et seq., and
004 Phil 722 1669 of the Civil Code.)

G.R. No. 1889 September 5, 1906 The plaintiffs were not seeking to enforce a right pertaining to a legal entity. They were not obliged to register
JOHN B. EARLY v. SY GIANG
in the Mercantile Registry. They were merely merchants having a common interest in the business. They were
under no obligation to register. (Arts. 16 and 17 of the Code of Commerce.)
004 Phil 727
As to the second, third, and fourth errors, it must be borne in mind that Nicasio Lopez, the father of the
G.R. No. 2027 September 5, 1905 - JOHN B. EARLY v. SY-GIANG
defendants, was the administrator of the property; that having been notified of an order of the Board of Health
004 Phil 730 he took the necessary steps to comply with the same, calling upon one of the plaintiffs to do the work
required, and that he made certain payments on account. He, the father of the defendants, did all this as a
G.R. No. 1783 September 6, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. SILVINO voluntary agent of the actual owners of the house, and, although there is no proof of an express power of
ARCEO
attorney, it can not be denied that there was an implied power, because the defendants did not object to the
004 Phil 733 work being done on the house, which was really benefited and improved by such work. For this reason it is
evidently and improved by such work. For this reason it is evidently just that the owners be held liable for the
G.R. No. 1850 September 6, 1905 - NATIVIDAD AGUILAR v.
PLACIDO LAZARO
cost of the work and the value of the material used therein. They can not now allege that there was no
contract and that they did not agree to pay for such labor and material. There was a quasi contract which
004 Phil 735 created certain reciprocal obligations between them and the plaintiffs. (Arts. 1887, 1888, 1892, and 1893 of
the Civil Code.)
G.R. No. 1884 September 7, 1905 - PRESENTACION INFANTE v.
MANUEL T. FIGUERAS
At the request of Nicasio Lopez there were installed in the house of defendants a water-supply system, baths,
004 Phil 738 water-closets, and drain pipes pursuant to orders from the Board of Health, for the purpose of bettering the
sanitary condition of the premises, and the defendants never objected to the performance of the necessary

G.R. No. 2078 September 7, 1905 - VICENTE BENEDICTO v.
ESTEBAN DE LA RAMA, ET AL. work. It therefore must be presumed that they, the defendants, approved of the work done upon the house
and ratified the action of their father in the premises as though he acted under an express power from them.
004 Phil 746 (Art. 1892 of the Civil Code.)
G.R. No. 2205 September 7, 1905 - EMILIO BUENAVENTURA v.
JUANA URBANO, ET AL. But, even assuming that the defendants did not expressly ratify or approve the action of their father, Nicasio
Lopez, the fact remains that the house was improved by said work, and, for this reason, the owners of the
005 Phil 1 premises are liable for the obligations incurred by their agent, Lopez, for their benefit and advantage.
G.R. No. 1875 September 9, 1905 - RUDOLPH WAHL v.
DONALDSON SIM & CO. Furthermore, if the work had not been done as required by the Board of Health, it would have been to the
disadvantage of the defendants because the work would have been eventually undertaken by the authorities
005 Phil 11 and at the expense of the said defendants. (Art. 1893 of the Civil Code.)
G.R. No. 2026 September 13, 1905 - ALEJANDRO A. SANTOS v.
ANGEL LIMUCO, ET AL. As to the second error relating to the price of the work fixed by the court in the judgment, it should be noticed
that when no price has been expressly stipulated in a contract of this nature, it is understood that the
005 Phil 15 contracting parties have impliedly agreed to pay and receive the usual and reasonable value of the services
G.R. No. 2122 September 13, 1905 - PEDRO T. ACOSTA v. DAVID rendered. Otherwise it must be presumed that the parties intended that the price be fixed by experts in case
FLOR they fail to agree as to the same.
005 Phil 18
The rule as laid down by the authorities is to the effect that in a contract for services it shall be presumed that
G.R. No. 2100 September 15, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. MATIAS a certain compensation was intended to be fixed, although there may not be any express stipulation in regard
DE LA CRUZ, ET AL. thereto; taking into consideration the law in force and the customs of the country where the contract was
executed, except where such compensation is to be fixed by a third person or by a competent court upon the
005 Phil 24
 testimony of experts.
G.R. No. 2028 September 16, 1905 - C. HEINSZEN & CO. v. HENRY
M. JONES
A contract for services or work to be performed exists not only where a certain and definite compensation
005 Phil 27 has been expressly agreed upon, but also where the same can be ascertained from the customs and usages
of the place in which such services were rendered. (Judgment of the supreme court of Spain of October 18,
G.R. No. 2036 September 18, 1905 - MARIA MANONA v. DIONISIO
OBLERO 1899.)

005 Phil 29 The foregoing disposes of the second, third, and fourth assignments of error.
G.R. No. 2033 September 19, 1905 - RUFINA CAUSIN v.
FORTUNATO RICAMORA It appears from the bill of exceptions that the defendants were the owners of one-half of the house in
question, the other half belonging to the heirs of the deceased, Vicente Faustino Cruz. The action, however,
005 Phil 31 was brought solely against these defendants. Neither the executor of the deceased coowner of the house nor
G.R. No. 2045 September 20, 1905 - ADRIANO MORTIGA v. his surviving heirs having an interest in the property were joined as parties defendant in this case.
VICENTE SERRA, ET AL.
Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides, among other things, that every must be prosecuted in the
005 Phil 34 name of the real party in interest and that an executor or administrator of a deceased person may sue or be
G.R. No. 1746 September 21, 1905 - TOMAS OSMEA v. JOSE used without joining with him the person for whose benefit the action is prosecuted or defended.
GORORDO
This action was prosecuted without the intervention of the executor or legal representatives of the deceased
005 Phil 37 Vicente F. Cruz, one of the coowners of the house in question. Therefore this decision can not, under section
G.R. No. 2275 September 21, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. IGNACIO 277 of the Code of Civil Procedure, affect, the rights of the successors or legal heirs of the said deceased.
DALASAY
For this reason, which is a perfectly legal one, a judgment against the defendants in this case enforcing the
005 Phil 41
obligation incurred by them under article 1893 of the Civil Code would be of no effect as to the successors or
G.R. No. 1890 September 22, 1905 - JOHN B. EARLY v. SY-GIANG heirs of the deceased Vicente F. Cruz, but a separate action must be commenced against such successors or
legal heirs. It would not be just or proper that the defendants should pay the whole amount of the claim but
005 Phil 42 only one-half thereof, since they only owned half of the house wherein the work was done; the recovery of the
G.R. No. 2126 September 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. SY VINCO cost of such work being the subject-matter of this action.

005 Phil 47 As to the fifth and sixth assignments of error, it must be said that the bill tendered by the plaintiffs for
G.R. No. 2879 September 25, 1905 - EDWIN CASE v. METROPOLE
material furnished and labor performed on the premises in question, was made up from the books kept by the
HOTEL AND RESTAURANT plaintiffs, and was admitted in evidence by the court for what it might be worth, as shown by the bill of
exceptions, and that notwithstanding defendants objection, the fact is that they introduced no evidence
005 Phil 49 tending to prove (1) that less material was used in the work than that stated in the bill; (2) that the work done
G.R. No. 1698 September 26, 1905 - JULIAN BORROMEO v. JOSE
was worth less than the amount charged in the bill. Therefore, after a consideration of the evidence of record
F. FRANCO, ET AL. in this case, we find that 3,467.40 pesos and not 4,020 pesos, Mexican currency, as alleged in the complaint
was the reasonable value of the work performed, plaintiffs having agreed that the 552.60 pesos claimed by
005 Phil 49 them as interest be deducted from the latter amount. They have expressly waived any right to the recovery of
G.R. No. 862 September 27, 1905 - JOSE VASQUEZ v. BENITO such amount.
SANCHEZ
From the sum of 3,467 pesos and 40 cents there should be deducted 750 pesos paid to the plaintiffs on
005 Phil 56
account of their claim, thus leaving a balance of 2,717 pesos and 40 cents. One-half of this latter amount, to
G.R. No. 2288 September 27, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. FELIX wit, 1,358 pesos and 70 cents, Mexican currency, plus interest due thereon at the rate of 6 per cent per annum
GARCIA from the 19th of November, 1902, is the total sum which the plaintiffs are entitled to recover from the
defendants in this case.
005 Phil 58

G.R. No. 2805 September 27, 1905 - MARIANO ANDRES v. For the foregoing reasons it is hereby adjudged and decreed that the defendants, Jacinta Lopez and Ignacia
GEORGE N. WOLFE Lopez de Pineda, pay to the plaintiffs in this case the sum of 1,358 pesos and 70 cents, Mexican currency, or
its equivalent in Philippine currency, said amount representing one-half of the total sum awarded by the
005 Phil 60
judgment of the court below. The defendants shall further pay to the plaintiffs whatever interest may have
G.R. No. 2781 September 28, 1905 - VICTOR LOPEZ v. W. accrued from the 19th of November, 1902, at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on the said sum. Defendants
MORGAN SHUSTER, ET AL. shall also pay the costs of proceedings in both instances. The judgment appealed from, thus modified, is in
005 Phil 65
all other respects hereby affirmed, without prejudice to the right of the plaintiffs to institute a separate action
against the heirs and successors of the deceased Vicente F. Cruz for the recovery of the other half of the
G.R. No. 1913 September 29, 1905 - FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ v. value of the work performed in and upon the premises No. 142 Calle Dulumbayan. After the expiration of
FRANCISCO MARTINEZ twenty days let judgment be entered in accordance herewith and the case be remanded to the Court of First
005 Phil 67
Instance for action in accordance with the law. So ordered.

G.R. No. 2086 September 29, 1905 - P. ELADIO ALONSO v. Arellano, C.J., Mapa, Johnson, Carson and Willard, JJ., concur.
MUNICIPALITY OF PLACER

005 Phil 71

G.R. No. 2366 September 29, 1905 - PATRICIA ABOLENCIA v.

GUILLERMO MAAO
Back to Home | Back to Main
005 Phil 76

G.R. No. 1472 September 30, 1905 - E.J. SMITH AND RAFAEL

REYES v. JACINTA LOPEZ, ET AL.
QUICK SEARCH
005 Phil 78

G.R. No. 1876 September 30, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. SMITH

BELL & COMPANY
1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908
005 Phil 85 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
G.R. No. 2808 September 30, 1905 - FELIX BARCELONA v. DAVID 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
J. BAKER, ET AL.
1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
005 Phil 87 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
2013 2014 2015 2016
 Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!

Copyright 1998 - 2017 ChanRobles Publishing Company |Disclaimer|E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com RED