Case Digest (Cases 5-8)

7/25/2019 Case Digest (Cases 5-8)

1/5

Case #5:RULE 2 section 2:Cause of Action, Dened.

Title:DBP vs Roe!oPonente:Justice Villarama Jr.

"ACT:Corazon Zarate Romero and Gonzalo Zarate co-owned a propertylocated in Dagupan, Pangasinan. In !"#, Gonzalo, upon Corazon$s consent,o%tained & million 'rom D(P w)erein as collateral* a real estate mortgagewas e+ecuted oer t)e said property in 'aor o' D(P. Due to t)e alleged'ailure o' t)e two %orrowers to pay amortizations, t)e su%ect property was'oreclosed and since, purportedly, t)ere was no redemption wit)in year,D(P consolidated partners)ip oer t)e su%ect property.

In !!, Corazon died, leaing Cristina Romero as t)e sole )eir. /)easserted owners)ip o' t)e property o' t)e one-)al' t)ereo', %ut s)ediscoered t)at t)e property was registered under t)e name o' D(P. /)e 0led

in t)e R1C complaint o' reconeyance, 2uieting o' title and damages witprayer o' temporary restraining order. Respondent claimed t)at )er uncleand D(P conspired in committing 'raudulent acts relatie to t)eir truetransaction and concealed t)e same 'rom )er mot)er, t)ere%y depriing )ero' )er rig)t o' redemption. R1C granted t)e 1R3 in !!4 w)ic) D(P countered %y 0ling a motion'or reconsideration and at t)e same time soug)t 'or t)e dismissal o'respondent$s complaint on t)e sole ground t)at it states no cause o' action.

5urt)er, D(P claims t)at respondent )as no legal rig)t oer t)e su%ectproperty as s)e did not in)erit t)e same in t)e 0rst place. 6t t)e time o'deat) o' respondents mot)er, t)e property was not anymore owned %y t)e

latter and t)ere'ore not part o' )er estate. 1)us, respondent )as no legalrig)t oer t)e property and )as no cause o' action against D(P. 6nd %ecauses)e )ad no rig)t to t)e property t)e issuance o' t)e 1R3 and inunctie writwere li7ewise improper.

R1C denied t)e 8otion 'or Reconsideration 'or t)e petition was 0led%eyond t)e 9: day reglementary period and since D(P 0led an answer%e'ore t)e R1C could resole t)e motion to dismiss, it was li7ewise denied 'or%eing moot and academic. C6 a;rmed t)e decision o' R1C, )ence t)ispetition.

$UE:


2/5

the plaintiff. f any of these elements is absent! the complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion to

dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action. =idently, all t)e a%oeelements o' a cause o' action are alleged in t)e complaint> ?@ t)e legal rig)to' t)e respondent oer t)e su%ect property 'oreclosed premised on t)e 'actt)at s)e is t)e sole )eir o' one o' t)e owners w)o is entitled to t)e rig)t o'

redemption* ?&@ t)e correlatie o%ligation o' de'endant D(P, as t)e'oreclosing entity, to respect suc) rig)t o' redemption* and ?@ t)e act oromission o' t)e de'endant in iolation o' t)e legal rig)t, i.e., t)e act o' D(Pand its co-de'endant Zarate to cause t)e ostensi%le 'oreclosure o' t)esu%ect property and t)e su%se2uent e+ecution o' a deed o' conditional sale%etween t)e de'endants een prior to t)e lapse o' redemption period todeprie respondents mot)er o' )er rig)t oer t)e property.

Case A9

RULE 2 section ': E(ect of s)littin* a sin*le cause of actionTitle: C+u et al. vs Cunanan et al.Ponente:Justice (ersamin

"ACT:Catalina C)u ?endor@ entered into a deed o' sale wit) assumption o'

mortgage wit) 1rinidad Cunanan ?Vendee@ 'or # parcels o' land in Pampanga.1)e price 'or t)e sale is #. 8 . Bnder t)e side agreement, Cunanan only paid8 %ut t)e C)u$s ac7nowledge t)at t)ey )ae receied #. 8* .9 8 will %epaid to t)e %an7 to 'ree it 'rom mortgage* and t)e remaining %alance o' &.#8to %e paid in mont)s wit) mont) grace period. 1)e parties 'urt)er

stipulated t)at t)e owners)ip o' t)e lots would remain wit) t)e C)us as t)eendors and would %e trans'erred to Cunanan only upon complete paymento' t)e total consideration and compliance wit) t)e terms o' t)e deed of salewith assumption of mortgage.

Cunanan did not pay t)e %alance, %ut was a%le to trans'er t)e title o't)e lots to )er name wit)out t)e latter$s consent. Cunanan t)en sold & lots toCarlos ?w)ic) Carlos su%se2uently sold to (enelda =state@ and t)e lots toCool 1own Realty.

C)u 0led a complaint to recoer t)e %alance against t)e Cunanan,w)ic) was amended to a complaint 'or annulment o' t)e deed o' sale.oweer, 1rial did not pus) t)roug) as t)ey entered into a Compromise

6greement w)ere%y Cunanan trans'erred to CB #: o' t)eir s)are in allparcels o' land in Pampanga registered under t)e Cool 1own Realty 'or 'ullsettlement o' t)eir case. 6 year later, C)u 0led anot)er complaint 'or t)ecancellation o' t)e 1C1 against Carlos, (enelda Realty and Cunanans 'or t)eot)er & lots. 6ll parties moed to dismiss t)e complaint on t)e ground o' resudicata. (ot) motion to dismiss was denied. 1)e Cunanans 0led 8R %ut wasli7ewise denied. 1)e decision o' R1C was reersed in 'aor o' t)e Cunanans.C)u t)en 0led a petition 'or certiorari wit) t)e /C.


3/5

$UE


4/5

RULING:&here is no dispute that properties sub$ect to the levy on attachment belong to Arc

%uisine! nc. alone! not to the %uenca*s and &ayactac in their own rights. &hey were onlystoc+holders of Arc %uisine.! which had a personality separate and distinct from that of any or all

of them. &he damages occasioned to the properties by the levy on attachment! wrongful or not!

pre$udice Arc %uisine had the right under the substantive law to claim or recover such damages.

Case A4RULE /: Re)!esentatives as Pa!ties

Title: An* vs An*Ponente:Justice Reyes

5acts>

3n /eptem%er &, !!&, spouses 6llan and =m 6ng ?respondents@o%tained a 1)ree undred 1)ousand Dollar ?::,:::.::@ loan 'rom1)eodore and Eancy 6ng ?petitioners@. 1)e respondents e+ecuted apromissory note in 'aor o' t)e petitioners w)erein t)ey promised to pay t)epetitioners t)e said amount, wit) t)e interest rate o' : per annum upondemand. oweer, despite repeated demands, respondents 'ailed to pay.

3n 6ugust &4, &::9, t)e petitioners sent t)e respondents a demandletter as7ing t)em to pay t)e outstanding de%t w)ic), at t)at time, alreadyamounted to /een undred Eineteen 1)ousand ?"!,9&.&@.Eotwit)standing t)e receipt o' suc) demand letter, t)e respondent still 'ailedto pay t)eir o%ligation.

3n 6ugust 9, &::9, t)e petitioners, w)o were t)en residing in os6ngeles, C6, B/6, e+ecuted a respectie /P6 in 'aor o' 6tty. =ldrige 6ceron'or t)e purpose o' 0ling an action in court against t)e respondents. 3n/eptem%er #, &::9, 6tty. 6ceron 0led a a complaint 'or t)e collection o'sum o' money wit) t)e R1C o' KC on %e)al' o' t)e petitioners.

I//B=>


5/5

respondents. 1)e rig)t soug)t to %e en'orced in t)is case %elongs to t)epetitioners not to 6tty. 6ceron.

Documents

Case Digest (Cases 5-8)