Title
Sagrada Orden de Predicadores del Santisimo Rosario de Filipinas vs. National Coconut Corp.
Case
G.R. No. L-3756
Decision Date
Jun 30, 1952
Plaintiff sought rentals from defendant for property occupied post-WWII; SC ruled defendant liable only from Feb. 23, 1949, citing good faith possession under U.S. Alien Property Custodian's authority.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-3756)

Procedural History and Agreement

Plaintiff’s claim for annulment of the 1943 sale was first litigated before the CFI of Manila (Civil Case No. 5007), joined by the Philippine Alien Property Administrator and the Republic of the Philippines. The parties filed a joint petition: plaintiff alleged duress in the sale to Taiwan Tekkosho; they agreed to cancel the enemy‐title, reissue plaintiff’s original title, discharge APC’s claims upon payment of P140,000, and permit NCC to vacate by February 28, 1949. The court entered judgment in conformity and reserved plaintiff’s right to recover reasonable rentals from NCC.

Trial Court Ruling on Rentals

In the present suit, plaintiff sought rentals from August 1946 through NCC’s vacation. The trial court held (1) plaintiff’s title was never legally interrupted; (2) APC held in trust for plaintiff; (3) NCC stood in no better position than APC; and (4) NCC’s commercial use and sublease obligated it to pay P3,000 monthly from August 1946 until vacatur.

Issues on Appeal

  1. Whether APC’s lack of ownership rights invalidated its grant of possession to NCC.
  2. Whether the prior annulment judgment conclusively established plaintiff’s uninterrupted ownership.
  3. Whether plaintiff’s reservation of rental claims bound NCC.
  4. Whether mere commercial use of the property imposes rental liability.
  5. Whether NCC possessed in good faith and thus enjoyed usufructuary rights.

Analysis on Liability for Rentals

The Supreme Court observed that obligations must arise from law, contract or quasi-contract, crime, or negligence (Civil Code, Art. 1089). NCC entered under APC authority, which held absolute control as trustee of the U.S. Government, not of plaintiff. APC’s custody arose by statute (Trading with the Enemy Act) and did not create privity with Taiwan Tekkosho or a trust relationship with plaintiff.
• No Contractual Obligation: There was no express agreement between APC and NCC to pay rentals. The preceding custodian (Copra Export) paid none under its custodianship agreement, and it is improbable that the conservation‐minded Act would imply rent.
• No Quasi-Contract or Negligence: NCC acted in good faith with APC perm

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.