Sagrada Orden v.

NACOCO From August, 1946, when NACOCO took possession, to the late of judgment on February 28,
G.R. No. L-3756 1949, APC had the absolute control of the property, with power to dispose of it by sale or
June 30, 1952 otherwise, as though it were the absolute owner.
Topic: Sources of Civil Obligations – Art. 1157
Petitioner: SAGRADA ORDEN DE PREDICADORES DEL SANTISMO ROSARIO DE FILIPINAS, Additionally, there was no agreement between APC and NACOCO for NACOCO to pay rentals.
Respondent: NATIONAL COCONUT CORPORATION (NACOCO)
Ponente: Labrador, J. DISPOSITIVE: Wherefore, the part of the judgment appealed from, which sentences
defendant-appellant to pay rentals from August, 1946, to February 28, 1949, is hereby
DOCTRINE: Obligations must arise from the five sources of obligations: 1) law, 2) contract, 3) reversed. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed. Costs of this appeal shall be against
quasi-contract, 4) delict (crime), 5) quasi-delict (negligence). The enumeration is exclusive. the plaintiff-appellee.
FACTS:
 Sagrada owned land and warehouses in Manila which was forcibly taken/sold to a
Japanese corporation, Taiwan Tekkosho during the Japanese occupation. It was
taken in 1943.
 After the war, sometime in 1946, the Alien Property Custodian (APC) of the United
States of America took over the property under the Trading with Enemy Act.
 The APC which had control and custody over the property, then entered into a
custodianship agreement with Copra Export Management Company.
 When Copra Export vacated the property, NACOCO occupied it.
 Sagrada filed an action to recover the property from NACOCO. But before the court
could hear the case, the parties entered into an agreement whereby the property
was given back to the Plaintiff. The CFI approved this agreement but in its order of
judgment ordered NACOCO to pay rentals beginning August 1946.
 NACOCO argues that it should not be liable to pay rent for the period when APC to
control up to when NACOCO first took possession of the property (Aug 1946 to
December 14, 1948). But NACOCO agreed that it should pay rent beginning
February 28, 1949 – the date of judgment of the CFI.

ISSUE: W/N NACOCO is liable to pay rent from August 1946 to December 14, 1948 or the
period when APC took control up to when NACOCO first took possession over the property.

RULING: NO.

First, in order for there to be liability there must be an obligation. . Obligations must arise
from the five sources of obligations: 1) law, 2) contract, 3) quasi-contract, 4) delict (crime), 5)
quasi-delict (negligence). The enumeration is exclusive.

The liability for rental payment does not stem from any of those 5 sources of obligations.
There was no an offense (delict or crime) because NACOCO entered the premises with the
permission of the entity which had the legal control and administration thereof (the APC).

There was also no negligence whatsoever.

Re: Contract. There was no privity of contract or obligation between APC and Taiwan
Tekkosho. Taiwan Tekkosho took possession by use of duress. APC took possession by virtue
of an Act or expression provision of law. APC is a trustee of the US Government and not of
Plaintiff.