Stipulation Pour Autrui - Marmont Resort Hotel v Sps. Guiang and CA

MARMONT RESORT HOTEL v. Sps. Guiang and CA “water supply”  Art. 1131: Stipulation Pour Autrui

•

•

•

•

•

A Memorandum of Agreement was executed between Maris Trading and petitioner Marmont Resort Hotel nterprises! "nc. #$Marmont$%! a corporation engaged in &otel and resort business. 'nder t&e agreement! Maris Trading undertoo( to drill for water and to pro)ide all e*uipment necessar+ necessar+ to install and complete a water suppl+ facilit+ to ser)ice t&e Marmont Resort Resort Hotel for a stipulated fee of P,-!---.--. "n fulllment of its contract! Maris Trading installed a water pump on a portion of a parcel of land situated in /longapo 0it+! t&en occupied b+ respondent spouses ederico and Aurora 2uiang i)e #% mont&s later! a second Memorandum of Agreement was executed between Maris Trading and Aurora 2uiang! wit& ederico 2uiang signing as witness. After some time! t&e water suppl+ of t&e Marmont Resort Hotel became inade*uate to meet t&e &otel4s water re*uirements. Petitioner Marmont secured t&e ser)ices of anot&er contractor! w&ic& suggested t&at in addition to t&e existing water pump! a submersible pump be installed to increase t&e pressure and impro)e t&e 5ow of water to t&e &otel. Accordingl+! 6uan Montelibano! 6r.! manager of t&e Marmont Resort Hotel! soug&t permission from t&e 2uiang spouses to inspect t&e water pump w&ic& &ad been installed on t&e portion of t&e land pre)iousl+ occupied b+ t&e spouses and to ma(e t&e necessar+additional installations t&ereon. 7o suc& permission! &owe)er! was granted. Petitioner Marmont Marmont led a 0omplaint 8 against t&e 2uiang spouses for damages resulting from t&eir refusal to allow representati)es of petitioner and t&e second contractor rm entr+ into t&e water facilit+ site. T&e 2uiang spouses #defendants below% denied &a)ing &ad an+ pre)ious (nowledge of t&e rst Memorandum of Agreement and asserted t&at t&e second Memorandum of Agreement was in)alid for not &a)ing been executed in accordance wit& law.

ISSUE:  "s t&e case at a bar a case of stipulation pour autrui autrui under 1311 of t&e 0i)il 0ode9  S 

RULING: •

A closer scrutin+ of t&e second and t&ird paragrap&s of t&e second Memorandum of Agreement discloses t&at t&e rst Memorandum of Agreement! including t&e obligations imposed t&ereunder upon Maris Trading!

•

•

•

•

•

&ad been ac(nowledged. T&e abo)e paragrap&s establis&! among ot&er t&ings! t&at construction wor( &ad been performed b+ Maris trading on t&e land occupied b+ respondent spouses; t&at suc& construction wor( &ad been performed in accordance wit& terms and conditions stipulated in t&e rst Memorandum of Agreement and t&at t&e purpose of t&e wor( was to build a water suppl+ facilit+ for petitioner Marmont. T&e same excerpts also s&ow t&at the wo! so pe"o#ed was with the !now$edge and %onsent o" the Guiang spouses ! w&o were t&en occup+ing t&e land. "t is clear from t&e foregoing stipulations t&at petitioner Marmont was to benet from t&e second Memorandum of Agreement. In "a%t& said stipu$ations appea to have 'een designed pe%ise$( to 'ene)t petitione and& thus& pata!e o" the natue o" stipu$ations pou autui& %onte#p$ated in Ati%$e *+** o" the Civi$ Code . A stipu$ation pou autui is a stipu$ation in "avo o" a thid peson %on"eing a %$ea and de$i'eate "avo upon hi#&whi%h stipu$ation is "ound in a %onta%t enteed into '( paties neithe o" who# a%ted as agent o" the 'ene)%ia(. "n t&e case at bar t&e purpose and intent of t&e stipulating parties #Maris  Trading and respondent spouses% to benet t&e t&ird person #petitioner Marmont% is su and

81 of t&e 0i)il 0ode w&en t&e+ refused petitioner Marmont access to t&e water facilit+ to inspect and repair t&e same and to increase its capacit+ and t&ereb+ to benet doing! respondent spouses forced petitioner Marmont to locate an alternati)e source of water for its &otel w&ic& of course in)ol)ed expenditure of mone+ and per&aps loss of &otel re)enues. ?e belie)e t&e+ s&ould respond in damages.