Fabie v. David

 

JOSEFA FABIE, petitioner, vs. JOSE GUTIERREZ DAVID, Judge of First Instance of Manila, NGO Boo Soo and JUAN GREY, respondents
G.R. No. L-123                    |              December 12, 1945

FACTS:

Josefa Fabie is the usufructuary of the income of certain houses located at 372-376 Santo Cristo, Binondo, and 950-956 Ongpin, Santa Cruz, Manila. Respondent Juan Grey is the owner of the said Ongpin property.

In June 1945 Josefa Fabie commenced an action of unlawful detainer against the herein respondent Ngo Boo Soo for subleasing the house without her consent and contrary to their agreement.

The defendant answere that he has been a tenant of the premises in question since 1908 and that he was renting it from its owner and administrator Juan Grey. He argued that plaintiff is merely the usufructuary of the income therefrom, and her only right as usufructuary of the income is to receive the whole of such income; that she has no right or authority to eject tenants.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a usufructuary has the right to choose her tenants

RULING:

The usufructuary has the right to administer the property in question. All the acts of administration—to collect the rents for herself, and to conserve the property by making all necessary repairs and paying all the taxes, special assessments, and insurance premiums thereon—were by said judgment vested in the usufructuary. The pretension of the respondent Juan Grey that he is the administrator of the property with the right to choose the tenants and to dictate the conditions of the lease is contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the said clause of the will, the stipulation of the parties, and the judgment of the court. He cannot manage or administer the property after all the acts of management or administration have been vested by the court, with his consent, in the usufructuary.

As long as the property is properly conserved and insured he can have no cause for complaint, and his right in that regard is fully protected by the terms of the stipulation and the judgment of the court above mentioned. To permit him to arrogate to himself the privilege to choose the tenant, to dictate the conditions of the lease, and to sue when the lessee fails to comply therewith, would be to place the usufructuary entirely at his mercy. It would place her in the absurd situation of having a certain indisputable right without the power to protect, enforce, and fully enjoy it.

As a corollary to her right to all the rent, to choose the tenant, and to fix the amount of the rent, she necessarily has the right to choose herself as the tenant thereof, if she wishes to; and, as long as she fulfills her obligation to pay the taxes and insure and conserve the property properly, the owner has no legitimate cause to complain.