G.R. No.

2285
FREDERICK GARFIELD WAITE, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
WILLIAMS, CHANDLER & CO., defendants-appellants.
Del-Pan, Ortigas and Fisher for appellants.
Frederick G. Waite, in his own behalf.
WILLARD, J.:
By the final judgment of this court, entered on the 2st of !ay, "#$, in the case of %a &unta
'dministradora de ()ras *ias vs. Regidor
1
+ (ff. Ga,., 2-./, the ()ras *ias 0ere declared to
)e the o0ners of certain houses in 1alle !agallanes, in !anila, formerly o0ned and possessed
)y the defendant in that suit, Ricardo Regidor. (n the day last mentioned that case 0as
remanded to the court )elo0, an order for the e2ecution of the sentence 0as there made, a 0rit
of e2ecution 0as issued, placed in the hands of the sheriff, and on the same day the ()ras *ias
0ere )y him put in actual possession of the property.
3or more than t0enty years prior to this date Regidor had )een in possession of this property,
and at some date 0hich does not appear he had leased the same )y a 0ritten contract to
4illiams, 1handler 5 1o., the defendants, 0ho 0ere in possession thereof as such tenants on
the 2st of !ay, "#$. By the terms of this contract the rent 0as paya)le in advance 0ithin the
first five days of the month, so that the rent for the month of !ay, "#$, 0as paya)le )y the
terms of the contract )efore the 5th of !ay. (n the $th of !ay Regidor assigned to the plaintiff
the rent for the month of !ay, amounting to 6$25, 7nited 8tates money, and on the 9th day of
may the defendants 0ere notified of this assignment, and demand 0as made on them )y the
plaintiff for the payment to him of said amount of 6$25, 0hich payment they refused to ma:e.
(n the 2st day of !ay the defendants 0ere notified )y the sheriff that the ()ras *ias had )een
placed in possession of the property, and that the rent from that date should )e paid to them. ;he
defendant paid the ()ras *ias that part of the rent corresponding to the time from the 2st of
!ay to the end of the month, and have in their hands the )alance of the sum of 6$25, to 0it, the
sum of 629.99, 0hich they have not paid to anyone. *laintiff )rought this action against the
defendants to recover the full sum of 6$25. <e had judgment )elo0, and the defendants moved
for a ne0 trial, 0hich 0as denied, and they have )rought the case here )y )ill of e2ceptions.
=n their )rief in this court they claim that the judgment should )e reversed, )ecause the ()ras
*ias 0as a necessary party in the suit. ;his o)jection 0as not made in the court )elo0, either )y
demurrer or ans0er, and 0as accordingly 0aived. +8ec. "$, 1ode 1iv. *ro.> ;an ?iangseng ;an
8iu *ic vs. %ucio @chau,,
2
No. "-$, . (ff. Ga,., .$/.
;he rents in Auestion in this case 0ere civil products according to the provisions of article $55
of the 1ivil 1ode. *art of article .5 of the 1ivil 1ode is as follo0sB
Civil fruits are considered as daily proceeds, and belong to the
possessor in good faith in this proportion.
;he same rule is announced in article .-. relating to usufruct. 3or the first t0enty days of the
month of !ay Regidor 0as the o0ner and entitled to the possession of this property, and laying
aside, for the present, the Auestion of good or )ad faith, he 0as entitled to the rent produced
there)y for that time. 3rom the 2#th of the month to the end of the month the ()ras *ias 0ere
the o0ners of the property, and entitled to the rent produced )y it during that time. By the
provisions of the articles of the 1ivil 1ode a)ove Auoted this rent is considered as produced day
)y day, and conseAuently the rent for the 0hole month of !ay must )e divided in proportion to
the time during 0hich each one of said parties 0as the o0ner of the property. ;he ()ras *ias
0ere, therefore, entitled to the rent for the last ten days, and Regidor to the rent for the first
t0enty days. ;his right 0hich Regidor had he assigned to the plaintiff, 0ho )ecame entitled to
receive from the defendants the rent for that period.
;he rent 0as )y the terms of the contract )et0een Regidor and the defendants paya)le in
advance, )ut this contract )et0een these parties could not affect the rights of the ()ras *ias.
Regidor had no right to rent the property for any period after the 2#th of !ay, and he could not
deprive the ()ras *ias of the rent of the property for the period from the 2#th of !ay to the end
of the month )y inserting in the contract 0ith his tenants a provision that the rent should )e
paya)le in advance.
;his court, in the decision a)ove referred to, held, as a matter of fact and la0, that Regidor 0as
not a possessor in good faith, and 0as )ound to account to the plaintiff in that case for all rents
received )y him for some years prior to the entry of judgment. 4e do not see ho0 this finding
can affect the a)ove declaration. 's to 4illiams, 1handler 5 1o., the Auestion of RegidorCs good
or )ad faith is not important.
;he plaintiff is entitled to the rent no0 in the hands of the defendants, and the payment made )y
them to the ()ras *ias of the )alance of the rent for the month of !ay 0as properly made.
;he judgment of the court )elo0 is modified so as to provide that the plaintiff recover of the
defendants the sum of 629.99, money of the 7nited 8tates, 0ith interest at the rate of 9 per cent
per annum form the 9th day of !ay, "#$, and the costs of this action. No costs 0ill )e allo0ed
in this court. 'fter the e2piration of t0enty days let judgment )e entered in accordance here0ith,
and the case remanded to the court of its origin for e2ecution thereof. 8o ordered.