Topic: Topic: Article 1279, Compensation SELWYN F. LAO an E!"A# $ANANSALA
. S%EC&AL %LANS, &NC
vs
.
Facts: Delfin Delfin Cruz, Cruz, presid president ent of Specia Speciall Plans, Plans, Inc and defendan defendants ts Lao and Manans Manansala ala entered entered into into a t'o()ear Contract o* Lease starting +anar) 1-, 199 ntil +anar) 1/, 199/, involving a lan at /0 eon A3ene, eon Cit). Defendants Cit). Defendants used the leased premises for their karaoke and restaurant usiness kno!n as Saporro "estaurant# $pon %e&piration of the lease', Lao re(uested in !riting or a rene!al of the contract of lease, ut SPI agreed onl) for an ei45t(mont5 e6tension o* t5e8 contract 'it5 all its terms an conitions on a mont5(to( mont5 asis at a mont5l) rental o* %2,. # *hile defendants paid the sum of P+,---#-- in .ugust /001 the) nevertheless failed to pa) the agreed rental since March /1, /001, thus the accumulated unpaid rentals shot up to P//2,---#--# P//2,---#--# Plaintiff3corporation demanded for pa)ment# 4n cross, Delfin Cruz admitted that SPI did not inform defendants that it !as not the o!ner of the leased premises during the signing of the contract of lease and that said defendants did not inform him of the structural defects of the su5ect premises, including the repair !orks conducted thereon# In their defense, 6im and petitioners proffered the follo!ing: Defendant Sel!)n Lao testified that the group !as not ale to inspect the leased premises since Delfin Cruz had no ke) thereon during the signing of the contract of lease on 6anuar) 7, /00# 8e stated that paragraph 1 of the said contract contract provides that the LESSEE LESSEE s5all maintain maintain t5e lease premises, premises, inclin4 inclin4 t5e par;in4 par;in4 lot, in 4oo, clean an sanitar) conition an s5all ma;e all necessar) repairs t5ereon at 5is o'n e6pense e6cept repairs o* strctral e*ects '5ic5 s5all e t5e responsiilit) o* t5e LESSO# # *hen the group took possession of the leased premises on 6anuar) /1, /00, the e(uipment and furniture, among others, !ere found to e not in good condition# T5e trsses, roo* an ceilin4 o* t5e premises 'ere alrea) ilapiate. "ain seeped through the floor# *hen the group talked !ith Delfin Cruz aout the condition of the leased propert), the latter !ould 5ust tell the former not to !orr) aout it# 9he group conducted structural and necessar) repairs thereon, thus incurring the sum of P;,---#--# P/+,---#-- of !hich !as spent on structural defects, as follo!s: "oofing repair 3 P;,---#-Ceiling repair 3 -,---#-Flooring repair 3 +-,---#-*aterproofing 3 /-,---#-Defendant Lao further testified that Delfin Cruz told him to proceed !ith the repair !ork !ithout informing him
regorio >regorio 9ama)o 9ama)o to repair the premises premises for P;,---#--# P;,---#--# >regorio >regorio 9ama)o 9ama)o admitted that defendant Lao sought his services to undertake oth structural and finishing !orks on the su5ect propert) at a cost of P;,--#--# ?8aC9. M9C: unpaid rentals rentals stood at onl) P0,---#--# It also found that SPI is solel) responsil responsile e for repairing repairing the structural defects of the leased premises, for !hich the petitioners spent P/+,---#--# Case !as dismissed "9C:
/# +# # ;# #
?ach one of the oligors e ound principall) and that he e at the same time a principal creditor of the otherB oth dets consist in a sum of mone), or if the things due are consumale, the) e of the same kind, and also of the same (ualit) if the latter has een statedB 9he t!o dets are due: 9he ets are li<iate an emanaleB 4ver neither of them e an) retention or controvers), commenced ) third parties and communicated in due time to the detor#
%etitioners *aile to properl) isc5ar4e t5eir ren to s5o' t5at t5e ets are li<iate an emanale. Conse<entl), le4al compensation is inapplicale. === . claim is li<iate !hen the amount and time of pa)ment is fi&ed# If ackno!ledged ) the detor, although not in !riting, the claim must e treated as li(uidated# *hen the defendant, !ho has an unli(uidated claim, sets it up ) !a) of counterclaim, and a 5udgment is rendered li(uidating such claim, it can e compensated against the plaintiffs claim from the moment it is li(uidated ) 5udgment#@@@ Paragraph 1 of the contract of lease et!een the petitioners and the respondent reads: 9he lessee shall maintain the leased premises including the parking lot in good, clean and sanitar) condition and shall make all the necessar) repairs thereon at their o!n e&pense except repairs of the structural defects !hich shall e the responsiilit) of t he lessor# # # # .s the contract contrastingl) treats necessar) repairs, !hich are on the account of the lessee, and repairs of structural defects, !hich are the responsiilit) of the lessor, the onus of the petitioners is t!o3fold: regorio 9ama)o petitioners? merel) smitte an estimate statement o* accont '5ic5 i not s5o' t5at t5ere 'ere actal e6penses mae *or t5e alle4e strctral e*ects. Aeither !ere the) ale to sumit proofs of actual e&penses made on the alleged structural defects# 9he petitioners attempted to prove that the) spent for the repair of the roofing, ceiling and flooring, as !ell as for !aterproofing# 8o!ever, t5e) *aile to appreciate t5at, as per t5eir lease contract, onl) strctral repairs are *or t5e accont o* t5e lessor, 5erein responent S%&. In !hich case, the) overlooked t5e nee to estalis5 t5at a*oresai repairs are strctral in natre, in t5e conte6t o* t5eir earlier a4reement # It !ould have een an altogether different matter if the lessor !as informed of the said structural repairs and he implicitl) or e&pressl) consented and agreed to take responsiilit) for the said e&penses# Such !ant of evidence on this respect is fatal to this appeal# Conse(uentl), their claim remains unli(uidated and, legal compensation is inapplicale#@@
