Title
Campbell vs. Behn, Meyer and Co.
Case
G.R. No. 1490
Decision Date
Apr 2, 1904
Plaintiffs contracted with defendants to build a house and fill a lot. Disputes arose over unpaid construction balances and alleged overpayment for filling materials. Court ruled plaintiffs substantially complied with construction, awarding unpaid balance, and rejected defendants' overpayment claim due to lack of evidence.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 1490)

Facts:

  1. Contract for Construction of a House:

    • On July 20, 1901, plaintiffs O.F. Campbell and Go-Tauco entered into a contract with defendants Behn, Meyer & Co. to construct a dwelling house in Manila for 13,000 Mexican pesos, payable in three installments. Additional sums were agreed upon for specific installations, bringing the total contract price to 15,000 pesos.
    • The contract included plans and specifications, but these were notably brief and lacked detailed descriptions of materials and workmanship.
  2. Contract for Filling a Lot:

    • On June 20, 1901, the plaintiffs also contracted with the defendants to fill a lot on the bank of the Pasig River with earth and sand at a rate of $1.30 per cubic meter. The contract stipulated weekly payments and an estimated delivery of over 15,000 cubic meters.
  3. Alterations and Extra Work:

    • During construction, the parties agreed to alterations and additions to the house, increasing the total cost to 22,750.62 pesos. The defendants paid 13,500 pesos, leaving a balance of 9,250.62 pesos, which the plaintiffs claimed in their lawsuit.
  4. Defendants’ Counterclaims:

    • The defendants disputed the plaintiffs’ claim, alleging defective construction of the house and overpayment for the filling of the lot. They claimed that only 31,000 cubic meters of sand and earth were delivered, despite paying for 62,690.50 cubic meters, and sought recovery of $52,000.
  5. Defects in Construction:

    • The house exhibited defects such as settling, shrinkage of floorboards, and sloping verandas. The defendants argued these defects were due to the plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the contract and specifications.
  6. Evidence on Filling the Lot:

    • The plaintiffs claimed to have delivered 64,444 cubic meters of sand and earth, while the defendants’ experts estimated only 20,965 cubic meters were delivered. The defendants’ experts based their estimates on measurements taken months after the delivery, allowing for settlement.

Issue:

  1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the unpaid balance of 9,250.62 pesos for the construction of the house, despite alleged defects in workmanship.
  2. Whether the defendants are entitled to recover $52,000 for overpayment of sand and earth delivered to fill the lot, based on their claim of mutual mistake.

Ruling:

  1. On the Construction of the House:

    • The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that they substantially complied with the contract, plans, and specifications. The defects in the house were attributed to the quality of materials specified in the contract and the directions of the defendants’ inspecting engineer. The court awarded the plaintiffs the unpaid balance of 9,250.62 pesos.
  2. On the Filling of the Lot:

    • The court rejected the defendants’ claim for recovery of $52,000. It held that the defendants’ measurements and receipts at the time of delivery were binding, and there was no evidence of fraud or mutual mistake. The plaintiffs’ claim for additional payment for 1,753.50 cubic meters of sand and earth was also disallowed due to insufficient proof.

Ratio:

  • (Unlock)

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.