Nakpil v.

Manila
Towers Development
Corporation
Magsino, Patricia Marie C.
11481196

Facts

Petition for review on certiorari of the decision

and resolution of the Court of Appeals

14-storey
building

high

rise

777 Ongpin St., Sta.

Cruz, Manila

Owned by Cheon Kiao

Ang

Leased to 200 Filipino

Chinese tenants

Among those tenants

was
Atty.
Bonifacio
Nakpil (Petitioner)

Property was mortgaged to

Government Service Insurance
System (GSIS) as security for
loan Ang obtained

Ang failed to pay the loan, so

the real estate mortgage was
foreclosed and sold at public
auction where GSIS was the
winning bidder

GSIS sold the property to

Centertown
Marketing
Corporation (CMC)

CMC assigned all its rights to

sister-corporation Manila Tower
Development
Corporation
(MTDC)

Tenants formed House

International Building
Tenants
Association
(HIBTAI)

HIBTAI protested the

auction, claiming that
they had priority to
buy the property

Tenants refused to pay

their
rentals
and
instead remitted them
to HIBTAI

City Engineer wrote to

MTDC requesting that
the defects of the
building be corrected

City Engineer warned

that the defects were
serious
and
would
endanger the lives of
the tenants

HIBTAI

Before MTDC could make the

necessary repairs, HIBTAI filed
a complaint v. GSIS for
injunction and damages
dismissed

Filed another complaint for

annulment of contract and
damages dismissed

HIBTAI appealed the decision

dismissed

HIBTAI assailed the decision

before the SC - dismissed

8 years later, new request

was made for the an
immediate
ocular
inspection of the building

City
Building
Official
granted the request and
scheduled
an
ocular
inspection

Tenants
were
illegally
occupying the building

Tenants were ordered to

vacate
and
for
the
building to be repaired

Group of men entered the

building and commenced
the repairs and tore down
some of the structure

At the time Atty. Nakpil

was overseas

Upon
his
return,
he
discovered his room was
destroyed, the walls were
hammered down, and his
electricity was cut of

He then filed a complaint

against MTDC

He had been a lessee of

Room 204 for 30 years
He was unaware of the
demolition and was only
informed through phone
Because
of
the
demolition,
he
lost
valuable items and could
not resume his practice
MTDC
committed
a
breach of contract
failing to maintain the
peaceful
adequate
enjoyment of the lease
for the duration of the
contract

Nakpil failed to prove

that
MTDC
had
anything to do with the
demolition/repairs and
the loss of his personal
property
Demolition/repairs
were done by the
employees under the
City engineer of Manila
and not MTDC

MTDC

Atty. Bonifacio Nakpil

Arguments

Doctrine

Lessor has an obligation to maintain the

lessee in peaceful and adequate enjoyment of
the leased property, this seeks to protect the
lessee from the acts of third persons and the
lessor himself

Doctrine

When trespass is done by third persons, it must be

distinguished whether it is trespass in fact or in law

Lessor is not liable for trespass in fact or a mere

act of trespass by a third person

Art. 1664. The lessor is not obliged to answer for a

mere act of trespass which a third person may cause
on the use of the thing leased; but the lessee shall
have a direct action against the intruder. There is a
mere act of trespass when the third person claims
no right whatever.

Doctrine

Trespass in fact

Act of trespass is not accompanied or preceded

by anything which reveals a juridic intention on
the part of the trespasser, in such wise that the
lessee can only distinguish the material fact,
stripped of all legal form or reasons, we
understand it to be trespass in fact only (de
mero hecho) (Goldstein v. Roces)

Decision
Disturbance (demolition/repairs) were done
by the employees under the City Engineer
of Manila and the City Building Official on
orders of the City Mayor and WITHOUT the
participation of the MTDC
Repairs and demolition was
done with authority (Sec. 214 of
the National Building Code)

MTDC is
not liable to Atty.
Nakpil

Question

What is trespass in fact? Is the lessor liable in

trespass in fact?

Answer

Trespass in fact

Act of trespass is not accompanied or preceded

by anything which reveals a juridic intention on
the part of the trespasser, in such wise that the
lessee can only distinguish the material fact,
stripped of all legal form or reasons, we
understand it to be trespass in fact only (de
mero hecho) (Goldstein v. Roces)

Lessor is not liable for trespass in fact or a

mere act of trespass by a third person