GQ GARMENTS V

MIRANDA
GR No. 161722 (2006)

Presented by: Ferrer, R.

 GQ GARMENTS V
MIRANDA
PARTIES
A. PLAINTIFFS:
G.Q. GARMENTS, INC.
B. DEFENDANTS:
Angel Miranda and Florenda Miranda
 GQ GARMENTS V
MIRANDA
COMPLAINT:
Complaint for Damages and Recovery of Possession

RD:
The petition is DENIED.
 GQ GARMENTS V
MIRANDA
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
1. Angel Miranda owned a
9000sqm property in Niog,
Bacoor.
- His son, Angelito, verbally
leased the property and
established a factory.
- However, Angelito died and
the factory was totally razed
by fire.
 GQ GARMENTS V
MIRANDA
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
2. Florenda, the widow of
Angelito, offered to sub-lease the
property to GQ.
- GQ wished to meet the true
owner of the property, but
Florenda failed to do so.
- Later GQ met Angel in
Noveleta, and they entered in a
lease agreement.
- Construction of the new plant
commenced.
 GQ GARMENTS V
MIRANDA
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
3. However, Florenda together
with armed men forcibly
evicted GQ and looted the
properties.
- She claimed that she was
the owner of the place.
 GQ GARMENTS V
MIRANDA
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
4. GQ filed an action for damages against Angel and
Florenda.
- Angel argued:
- there is no cause of action against him. He did not
participate in the eviction and looting.
- He cannot be responsible for the tortious act of the
3rd person.
 GQ GARMENTS V
MIRANDA
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
5. The RTC dismissed the case
6. The CA absolved Angel of any liability
- CA reasoned that the warranty of the lessor in Art.
1654 extends only to legal possession and not to
physical possession.
7. Hence this petition.
- GQ maintained that Angel should pay P10M for
actual damages it sustained from the looting.
 GQ GARMENTS V
MIRANDA
II. ISSUE
WON Angel (the lessor) is liable for the actual
damage of P10M.
NO, because no proof was adduced to substantiate
the amount.
WON Angel (the lessor) is liable at all.
NO, because the lessor is not liable for the physical
trespass.
 GQ GARMENTS V
MIRANDA
III. RULING
Actual Damages is not presumed.
• The burden of proof is on the party who will be defeated if
no evidence is presented on either side. His burden is to
establish his case by preponderance of evidence which
means that the evidence, as whole, adduced by one side,
is superior to that of the other.
• The award of actual damages cannot be simply based on
the mere allegation of a witness without any tangible
claim, such as receipts or other documentary proofs to
support such claim.
• In this case the only evidence presented by GQ is the
testimony of a witness.
• 10M is merely speculative and a surmise.
 GQ GARMENTS V
MIRANDA
III. RULING
Angel is not liable for the trespass of Florenda
• The trespass referred to in Article 1654, paragraph 3, of the
New Civil Code, is legal trespass or perturbacion de mero
derecho. The lessor is not liable for the mere fact of a
trespass or trespass in fact (perturbacion de mero hecho)
made by a third person of the leased property.
• The lessee has the direct action against the trespasser.