Print Civil Law Case- Gist(1)

8/12/2019 Print Civil Law Case- Gist(1)

1/145

VICTORIA S. JARILLO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINESG.R. No. 164435, Septembe !", !##".

The subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of one's marriage to another cannot beconsidered a valid defense in the crime of bigamy. The moment the former contracted a

second marriage without the previous one having been judicially declared null and void, thecrime of bigamy was already consummated because at the time of the celebration of the

second marriage, the first marriage has not yet been declared null and void by a court ofcompetent jurisdiction, and is thus still deemed valid and subsisting.

FLORENCIA G. $IA% v. REP&'LIC OF THE PHILIPPINESG.R. No. 1(15#!, Feb)*+ !, !#1#

In registration cases filed under the provisions of the Public Land ct for the judicialconfirmation of an incomplete and imperfect title, an order dismissing an application forregistration and declaring the land as part of the public domain constitutes res judicata, notonly against the adverse claimant, but also against all persons.

n amicable settlement or a compromise agreement is in the nature of a contract andmust necessarily comply with the provisions of rticle !"!# of the $ew %ivil %ode which

provides that there is no contract unless the following requisites concur& !( %onsent of thecontracting parties) *( +bject certain which is the subject matter of the contract) "( %auseof the obligation which is established.

RA-&N$O S. $E LEON v. 'ENITA T. ONGG.R. No. 1#4#5, Feb)*+ !, !#1#.

In a contract of sale, the seller conveys ownership of the property to the buyer upon

the perfection of the contract. hould the buyer default in the payment of the purchase price,the seller may either sue for the collection thereof or have the contract judicially resolvedand set aside. The non-payment of the price is therefore a negative resolutory condition. +nthe other hand, a contract to sell is subject to a positive suspensive condition. The buyer doesnot acquire ownership of the property until he fully pays the purchase price. or this reason,if the buyer defaults in the payment thereof, the seller can only sue for damages.

There is a double sale where a property was sold validly on two separate occasionsby the same seller to the two different buyers in good faith. /nder rticle !011 of the %ivil

%ode, when neither buyer registered the sale of the properties with the registrar of deeds, theone who too2 prior possession of the properties shall be the lawful owner thereof.

THE CIT -AOR OF 'AG&IO */0 THE HEA$ OF THE $E-OLITION TEA- ENGR. NA%ITA 'A2E% v. ATT. 'RAIN -ASENG, Reo/* He*/ O778e,NCIP9CAR, THE HEIRS OF J&$ITH CARI2O, JAC:&ELINE CARI2O */0 t;e

HEIRS OF -ATEO CARI2O */0 'AOSA ORTEGAG.R. No. 165##3, Feb)*+ !, !#1#

3here one's ancestral land claims are still pending before the $ational %ommissionon Indigenous People $%IP( for the validation, his rights over said ancestral land, if any,are mere e4pectations. They are not the present and unmista2able right required for the grantof the provisional remedy of injunction.

$ORIS &. S&N'AN&N v. A&RORA '. GOG.R. No. 163!(#, Feb)*+ !, !#1#.


2/145

/nder rticle !501 of the %ivil %ode, the lessor is obliged to maintain the lessee in

the peaceful and adequate enjoyment of the lease for the duration of the contract. 6ence,where the lessor ejected the lodgers of the lessee without just cause and prior to thee4piration of contract of lease, the former is liable for breach of contract. ince said act wasalso done in bad faith, moral and e4emplary damages may be awarded.

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. v. CA */0 NATIVI$A$ */0 ENRI:&E AGANAG.R. No. 1!6!", Feb)*+ !, !#1#

3here an employment relationship e4ists, the hospital may be held vicariously liable

under rticle *!75 in relation to rticle *!#8 of the %ivil %ode or the principle of respondeatsuperior. 9ven when no employment relationship e4ists but it is shown that the hospital holdsout to the patient that the doctor is its agent, the hospital may still be vicariously liable under

rticle *!75 in relation to rticle !1"! and rticle !#5: of the %ivil %ode or the principle ofapparent authority. ;oreover, regardless of its relationship with the doctor, the hospital may

be held directly liable to the patient for its own negligence or failure to follow establishedstandard of conduct to which it should conform as a corporation.

SPO&SES -ORRIS CARPO */0 SOCORRO CARPO v. AALA LAN$,INCORPORATE$

G.R. No. 1665, Feb)*+ 3, !#1#.

Laches is the negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time,warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it ordeclined to assert it. It does not involve mere lapse or passage of time, but is principally an

impediment to the assertion or enforcement of a right, which has become under the

circumstances inequitable or unfair to permit.NORTHEST AIRLINES, INC. v. SPO&SES E$AR$ J. HESHAN AN$ NELIA L.HESHAN AN$ $ARA GANESSA L. HESHAN, REPRESENTE$ ' HER PARENTS

E$AR$ AN$ NELIA HESHANG.R. No. 1"11, Feb)*+ 3, !#1#.

;oral damages are neither intended to impose a penalty to the wrongdoer nor to

enrich the claimant. 3hile courts are given discretion to determine the amount of damagesto be awarded, it is limited by the principle that the amount awarded should not be palpablyand scandalously e4cessive.

SPO&SES E&LOGIO N. ANTA%O */0 NELIA C. ANTA%O v. LEONI$ES $O'LA$A,$IOS$A$O CELESTRA, LEOPOL$O CELESTRA, FER$INAN$ CELESTRA, */0

RO'ERTO $O'LA$AG.R. No. 1("#(, Feb)*+ 4, !#1#

Prior physical possession is the primary consideration in a forcible entry case. party who can prove prior possession can recover such possession even against the ownerhimself. 3hatever may be the character of his possession, if he has in his favor prior

possession in time, he has the security that entitles him to remain on the property until aperson with a better right lawfully ejects him. The party in peaceable quiet possession shallnot be thrown out by a strong hand, violence or terror.

FLOR -ARTINE%, epe


3/145

*/0 Atto/e+9/9F*8t v. ERNESTO G. GARCIA */0 E$IL'ERTO -. 'R&AG.R. No. 166536, Feb)*+ 4, !#1#

purchaser in good faith and for value is one who buys the property of anotherwithout notice that some other person has a right to or interest in such property and pays a

full and fair price for the same at the time of such purchase, or before he has notice of theclaims or interest of some other person in the property. 6ence, where a judgment creditor, inregistering a notice of attachment in her favor over the properties of his judgment debtor andnoticed that a third party has already annotated an adverse claim over the same, he cannotbe said to be a buyer in good faith when he later buys the property at a public auction. The

previous inscription must prevail over the former.

G.G. SPORTSEAR -AN&FACT&RING CORP. */0 NARESH >. GI$ANI v.'ANCO $E ORO &NI'AN>, INC., et *.

G.R. No. 1(4434. Feb)*+ (, !#1#

s grant or denial of an application for preliminary injunction

unless it gravely abused its discretion as when it lac2s jurisdiction over the action, ignoresrelevant considerations that stic2 out of the parties> pleadings, sees the facts with a blurredlens, ignores what is relevant, draws illogical conclusions, or simply acts in random

fashion.?

HEIRS OF ESTELITA '&RGOS9LIPAT v. HEIRS OF E&GENIO $. TRINI$A$G.R. No. 1(5644. -*8; !, !#1#


4/145

than that stated in the contract.

3here both the area and the boundaries of the immovable are declared, the areacovered within the boundaries of the immovable prevails over the stated area. In cases ofconflict between areas and boundaries, it is the latter which should prevail. 3hat reallydefines a piece of ground is not the area, calculated with more or less certainty, mentioned inits description, but the boundaries therein laid down, as enclosing the land and indicating itslimits.

-ARIA VIRGINIA V. RE-O v. THE HONORA'LE SECRETAR OF FOREIGNAFFAIRS, G.R. No. 16"!#!, -*8; 5, !#1#.

ection 0d( of = #*": . CERTE%A, JR. */0 -A. ROSANILA V. CERTE%A, A-A$AP. VILLA-AOR */0 HER-INIO VILLA-AOR, JR. v. PHILIPPINE SAVINGS'AN>

G.R. No. 1"##(, -*8; 5, !#1#.

The requirement for at least two participating bidders provided in the original version ofparagraph 0 of .;. $o. ::-!8-80-8 is not found in ct $o. "!"0. The two-bidder rule is providedunder P.@. $o. !0:1 and its implementing rules with respect to contracts for governmentinfrastructure projects because of the public interest involved. lthough there is a public interest inthe regularity of e4trajudicial foreclosure of mortgages, the private interest is predominant.

LEIGHTON CONTRACTORS PHILIPPINES, INC. v. CNP IN$&STRIES, INC.G.R. No. 16#"!, -*8; ", !#1#.

In a contract for a piece of wor2, a claim for the cost of additional wor2 arising fromchanges in the scope of wor2 can only be allowed upon the& !( written authority from thedeveloper or project owner ordering or allowing the written changes in wor2 and *( writtenagreement of parties with regard to the increase in price or cost due to the change in wor2 ordesign modification. The absence of one or the other condition bars the recovery ofadditional costs.

TEOFISTO O2O, PREC O. NA-'ATAC, VICTORIA O. -AN&GAS */0 POLOR O.

CONSOLACION v. VICENTE N. LI-G.R. No. 154!#, -*8; ", !#1#.

Auieting of title is a common law remedy for the removal of any cloud, doubt, oruncertainty affecting title to real property. 3henever there is a cloud on title to real property

or any interest in real property by reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance, orproceeding that is apparently valid or effective, but is, in truth and in fact, invalid, ineffective,voidable, or unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title, an action may be brought toremove such cloud or to quiet the title.

Prescription, in general, is a mode of acquiring or losing ownership and other realrights through the lapse of time in the manner and under the conditions laid down by law.


5/145

JOCELN -. S&A%O v. ANGELITO S&A%O */0 REP&'LIC OF THEPHILIPPINESG.R. No. 1644"3, -*8; 1#, !#1#.

6abitual drun2enness, gambling and refusal to find a job, while indicative ofpsychological incapacity, do not, by themselves, show psychological incapacity. ll thesesimply indicate difficulty, neglect or mere refusal to perform marital obligations that, as thecited jurisprudence holds, cannot be considered to be constitutive of psychological incapacityin the absence of proof that these are manifestations of an incapacity rooted in somedebilitating psychological condition or illness.

TITAN CONSTR&CTION CORP. v. -AN&EL A. $AVI$, SR. */0 -ARTHA S. $AVI$G.R. No. 16"54(, -*8; 15, !#1#.

ll property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership,unless it be proved that it pertains e4clusively to the husband or to the wife. +ne is notrequired to prove that the property was acquired with funds of the partnership. =ather, the

presumption applies even when the manner in which the property was acquired does not

appear. ailure to overturn such presumption, the property is deemed to be part of theconjugal partnership. 6ence, in conveying the same, the consent of both spouses is required.

bsent the consent of one spouse would render the sale null and void.

'AN> OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLAN$S v. RENAL$ R. S&ARE%G.R. No. 165#, -*8; 15, !#1#.

$egligence is defined as


6/145

G.R. No. 15##", -*8; 1, !#1#.

s a general rule, moral damages are not recoverable in actions for damagespredicated on a breach of contract, unless there is fraud or bad faith. s an e4ception, moraldamages may be awarded in case of breach of contract of carriage that results in the death ofa passenger, in accordance with rticle !751, in relation to rticle **85 "(, of the %ivil%ode. The foregoing legal provisions set forth the persons entitled to moral damages. Theomission from rticle **85 "( of the brothers and sisters of the deceased passenger revealsthe legislative intent to e4clude them from the recovery of moral damages for mental anguishby reason of the death of the deceased. Inclusio unius est e4clusio alterius.

PAN PACIFIC SERVICE CONTRACTORS, INC. */0 RICAR$O F. $EL ROSARIO v.E:&ITA'LE PCI 'AN> ?7ome+ THE PHILIPPINE CO--ERCIAL

INTERNATIONAL 'AN>@ G.R. No. 16""5, -*8; 1(, !#1#.

rticle !:05 of the %ivil %ode, which refers to monetary interest, specificallymandates that no interest shall be due unless it has been e4pressly stipulated inwriting. Therefore, payment of monetary interest is allowed only if& !( there was an e4press

stipulation for the payment of interest) and *( the agreement for the payment of interest wasreduced in writing. The concurrence of the two conditions is required for the payment ofmonetary interest.

SPO&SES -ELCHOR */0 SAT&RNINA AL$E v. RONAL$ '. 'ERNAL, OL-PIA '.ERNAL, J&ANITO '. 'ERNAL, */0 -RNA $. 'ERNAL

G.R. No. 16"336, -*8; 1(, !#1#.

=egistration is not the equivalent of title, but is only the best evidence thereof. Titleas a concept of ownership should not be confused with the certificate of title as evidence of

such ownership.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. -ARCELO '&STA-ANTE, NEIL 'AL&OT,RICHAR$ $ELOS TRINO, HER-INIO JOSE, E$IN SORIANO */0 EL-ER

SALVA$OR ?*ppeee OF


7/145

CO&RT E9OFFICIO SHERIFF OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL CO&RT o7 '&LACAN*/0 ;< $EP&TIESB */0 E-IL ROSE GO >O LI- CHAO, $OING '&SINESS

&N$ER THE NA-E AN$ STLE >$ S&RPL&< G.R. No. 16(!(", -*8; !!, !#1#.

The tatute of rauds found in paragraph *(, rticle !18" of the %ivil %ode,requires for enforceability certain contracts enumerated therein to be evidenced by some noteor memorandum. The effect of noncompliance with this requirement is simply that no actioncan be enforced under the given contracts. If an action is nevertheless filed in court, it shallwarrant a dismissal, unless there has been, among others, total or partial performance of theobligation on the part of either party. In the latter case, the case is e4cluded from thecoverage of the rule on dismissals based on unenforceability under the statute of frauds, andeither party may then enforce its claims against the other.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANTHON RANTE REESG.R. No. 1(4(#", -*8; !", !#1#.

There are two legal bases for awarding e4emplary damages& rticles **"8 and ***:of the %ivil %ode. lso 2nown as Cpunitive> or Cvindictive> damages, e4emplary or correctivedamages are intended to serve as a deterrent to serious wrong doings, and as a vindication of

undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an injured or a punishment for thoseguilty of outrageous conduct.

L&CITA A. CANTOJA v. HARR S. LI-G.R. No. 16(3(6, -*8; !", !#1#.

The owner of the property adjoining foreshore lands, marshy lands or lands coveredwith water bordering upon shores or ban2s of navigable la2es or rivers, shall be given

preference to apply for such lands adjoining his property as may not be needed for the public

service, subject to the laws and regulations governing lands of this nature. The reason forthat preferential right is the same as the justification for giving accretions to the riparianowner, which is that accretion compensates the riparian owner for the diminutions which hisland suffers by reason of the destructive force of the waters. o, in the case of littoral lands,he who loses by the encroachments of the sea should gain by its recession.

FLOR$ELI%A E-ILIO v. 'IL-A RAPALG.R. No. 1(1(55, -*8; 3#, !#1#.

or an action for reformation of instrument to prosper, the following requisites mustconcur& !( there must have been a meeting of the minds of the parties to the contract) *(the instrument does not e4press the true intention of the parties) and "( the failure of

the instrument to e4press the true intention of the parties is due to mista2e, fraud, inequitableconduct or accident.

PEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINES v. $ANTE JA$APG.R. No. 1"(3, -*8; 3#, !#1#.

%ivil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need ofproof other than the commission of the crime. In cases of murder and homicide, moraldamages may be awarded without need of allegation and proof of the emotional suffering ofthe heirs, other than the death of the victim, since the emotional wounds from the vicious2illing of the victim cannot be denied. rticle **"8 of the %ivil %ode states that e4emplarydamages may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravatingcircumstances. s to actual damages, the rule is that only receipted e4penses can be the basis

of actual damages arising from medical and funeral e4penditures.


8/145

s a rule, documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate the claim for

damages for loss of earning capacity. Dy way of e4ception, damages for loss of earningcapacity may be awarded despite the absence of documentary evidence when !( thedeceased is self-employed and earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws,in which case judicial notice may be ta2en of the fact that in the deceased's line of wor2 nodocumentary evidence is available) or *( the deceased is employed as a daily wage wor2erearning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws.

PEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINES v. $O-INGO PANITERCEG.R. No. 1(63(!, Ap 5, !#1#.

@eath of the accused pending appeal of his conviction e4tinguishes his criminalliability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. %orollarily, the claim for civilliability survives notwithstanding the death of the accused, if the same may also be predicatedon a source of obligation other than delict. rticle !!07 of the %ivil %ode enumerates theseother sources of obligation from which the civil liability may arise as a result of the same act

or omission& law) contracts) quasi-contracts) and quasi-delicts.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JONJIE ESOG.R. No. 1(5(4", Ap , !#1#.

/nder rticle *!:: of the %ivil %ode, e4cept as provided by law or by stipulation,one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him ashe has duly proved. uch compensation is referred to as actual or compensatory damages.

6ence, where it was stipulated during the trial that actual damages was incurred, thestipulated amount may be rewarded without documentary proof. uch may be dispensed with.

$ANIEL T. SO v. FOO$ FEST LAN$, INC.

G.R. No. 1(36!(, G.R. No. 1(36#, Ap , !#1#.

The cause or essential purpose in a contract of lease is the use or enjoyment of athing. party>s motive or particular purpose in entering into a contract does not affect thevalidity or e4istence of the contract) an e4ception is when the realiEation of such motive or

particular purpose has been made a condition upon which the contract is made to depend.

SPO&SES 'ASILIO */0 NOR-A HILAGA v. R&RAL 'AN> OF IS&LAN?Cot*b*to, I/8., *< epe


9/145

SILVINO A. LIGERAL$E v. -A ASCENSION A. PATALINGH&G */0 t;eREP&'LIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 16("6, Ap 15, !#1#.

ome of the guidelines in resolving petitions for declaration of nullity of marriageare the following& !( The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the

plaintiff) *( the root cause of the psychological incapacity must be medically or clinicallyidentified, alleged in the complaint, sufficiently proven by e4perts and clearly e4plained in thedecision) "( the incapacity must be proven to be e4isting at the Ftime of the celebrationF ofthe marriage) 1( such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanentor incurable) and 0( such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the

party to assume the essential obligations of marriage.

SPO&SES JOSELINA ALCANTARA */0 ANTONIO ALCANTARA, */0 SPO&SESJOSEFINO R&'I */0 ANNIE $ISTOR9 R&'I v. 'RIGI$A L. NI$O, *< *tto/e+9/97*8t

o7 REVELEN N. SRIVASTAVA

G.R. No. 165133, Ap 1", !#1#.rticle !#71 of the %ivil %ode e4plicitly requires a written authority before an agent

can sell an immovable property. 6ence, where no such written authority e4ists, the saleconducted by the supposed agent covering the property of his principal is void. voidcontract produces no effect either against or in favor of anyone and cannot be ratified.

PHILIPPINE SAVINGS 'AN> v. SPO&SES $IONISIO GERONI-O */0CARI$A$ GERONI-O

G.R. No. 1#!41. APRIL 1", !#1#

The questioned e4trajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage and sale are voidfor failure to comply faithfully with the statutory requirements of foreclosure. Petitionerfailed to establish its compliance with the publication requirement under ection " of ct $o."!"0. ng Pinoy is a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in ;anila, notin %aloocan %ity where the mortgaged property is located. This is contrary to therequirement under ection " of ct $o. "!"0 pertaining to the publication of the notice of

sale in a newspaper of general circulation in the city where the property is situated. lso, the

invocation of the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty on the part ofthe sheriff is misplaced. 3hile posting the notice of sale is part of a sheriff>s official

functions, the actual publication of the notice of sale cannot be considered as such, since this

concerns the publisher>s business. imply put, the sheriff is incompetent to prove that thenotice of sale was actually published in a newspaper of general circulation.

FRANCISCO ALONSO,


10/145

G.R. No. 1416#, Ap !#, !#1#.

s a general rule in forcible entry cases, ownership or title is inconsequential) theprimordial issue is possession de facto and not possession de jure. The court, however, maytac2le the issue of ownership or title, if raised, if this issue is indispensable in resolving theissue of possession.

ll lands of the public domain are owned by the tate G the =epublic. Thus,

all attributes of ownership, including the right to possess and use these lands, accrueto the =epublic. The registration of lands of the public domain under

the Torrens system, by itself, cannot convert public lands into private lands.

NISSAN NORTH E$SA ope*t/ )/0e t;e /*me -OTOR CARRIAGE, INC. v.&NITE$ PHILIPPINE SCO&T VETERANS $ETECTIVE AN$ PROTECTIVE

AGENCG.R. No. 1"4#, Ap !#, !#1#.

The unilateral act of terminating a contract constitutes a breach thereof and entitlesthe other party to collect damages.

-AN&EL O. F&ENTES */0 LETICIA L. F&ENTES v. CONRA$O G. ROCA,ANNA'ELLE R. JOSON, ROSE -ARIE R. CRISTO'AL */0 PILAR -ALCA-PO

G.R. No. 1("#!, Ap !1, !#1#.

rticle !*1 of the amily %ode, where one spouse sold a conjugal property withoutthe consent of the other spouse, does not provide for a period within which the latter mayassail the sale. It simply provides that without the other spouse>s written consent or a court

order allowing the sale, the same would be void. /nder the provisions of the %ivil %odegoverning contracts, a void or ine4istent contract has no force and effect from the verybeginning. It cannot be validated either by ratification or prescription. Dut, although a voidcontract has no legal effects even if no action is ta2en to set it aside, when any of its termshave been performed, an action to declare its ine4istence is necessary to allow restitution ofwhat has been given under it. This action, according to rticle !1!8 of the %ivil %ode doesnot prescribe.

SPO&SES FA&STINO AN$ JOSEFINA GARCIA, SPO&SES -ELITON GALVE% AN$HELEN GALVE%, */0 CONSTANCIA ARCAIRA epe


11/145

REINA CO-AN$ANTE */0 SPO&SES 'IENVENI$O PANGAN */0 ELI%A'ETHPANGAN

G.R. No. 1653##, Ap !3, !#1#.

Pursuant to the second paragraph of rticle !"17 of the %ivil %ode, no

contract may be entered into upon a future inheritance e4cept in cases e4presslyauthoriEed by law. or the inheritance to be considered

PHILIPPINES, INC. ?Fome+ /o/ *< '*/ o7 So)t;e* OF PA-PLONA, INC.epe


12/145

property, such constitutes sufficient notice to the world that the mortgage secures not only the first loanbut also future loans the mortgagor may obtain. The second loan need not be separately annotated on

the said T%T in order to bind third parties.

OFFICE OF THE CIT -AOR OF PARA2A:&E CIT, OFFICE OF THE CITA$-INISTRATOR OF PARA2A:&E CIT, OFFICE OF THE CIT ENGINEER OF

PARA2A:&E CIT, OFFICE OF THE CIT PLANNING AN$ $EVELOP-ENTCOOR$INATOR, OFFICE OF THE 'ARANGA CAPTAIN AN$ SANGG&NIANGPA-'ARANGA OF 'ARANGA VITALE%, PARA2A:&E CIT, TERESITA A.

GATCHALIAN, et. * v. -ARIO $. E'IO AN$ HIS CHIL$RENHEIRSG.R. No. 1(411, J)/e !3, !#1#.

lluvial deposits along the ban2s of a cree2 do not form part of the public domain as thealluvial property automatically belongs to the owner of the estate to which it may have been added.The only restriction provided for by law is that the owner of the adjoining property must register the

same under the Torrens system) otherwise, the alluvial property may be subject to acquisition through

prescription by third persons.

ST. JOSEPHS COLLEGE, SR. JOSEPHINI A-'ATALI, SFIC, */0 ROSALIN$A TA'&GOv. JASON -IRAN$A, epe


13/145

ANTHON OR$&2A, $ENNIS OR$&2A, */0 ANTONITA OR$&2A v. E$&AR$O J.F&ENTE'ELLA, -ARCOS S. CI$, 'ENJA-IN F. CI$, 'ERNAR$ G. 'ANTA, */0

AR-AN$O GA'RIEL, JR.G.R. No. 16(41, J)/e !", !#1#.

The tatute of rauds e4pressed in rticle !18", par. *(, of the %ivil %ode appliesonly to e4ecutory contracts, i.e., those where no performance has yet been made. tated a bitdifferently, the legal consequence of non-compliance with the tatute does not come into play

where the contract in question is completed, e4ecuted, or partially consummated.

The general rule is that one dealing with a parcel of land registered under the Torrens ystemmay safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title issued therefor and is not obliged to gobeyond the certificate. 3here, in other words, the certificate of title is in the name of the seller, the

innocent purchaser for value has the right to rely on what appears on the certificate, as he is chargedwith notice only of burdens or claims on the res as noted in the certificate. 6owever, a buyer of a pieceof land which is in the actual possession of persons other than the seller must be wary and should

investigate the rights of those in possession. +therwise, without such inquiry, the buyer can hardly beregarded as a buyer in good faith.

rt. !011 of the %ivil %ode prescribed the rules on preference in case of double sales ofimmovable property& !( 2nowledge by the first buyer of the second sale cannot defeat the first buyer>srights e4cept when the second buyer first register in good faith the second sale) and *( 2nowledge

gained by the second buyer of the first sale defeats his rights even if he is first to register, since such2nowledge taints his registration with bad faith.

SELN F. LAO AN$ E$GAR -ANANSALA v. SPECIAL PLANS, INC.G.R. No. 164"1, J)/e !", !#1#.

In order for compensation to be proper, it is necessary that& !. 9ach one of the obligors bebound principally and that he be at the same time a principal creditor of the other) *. Doth debtsconsist in a sum of money, or if the things due are consumable, they be of the same 2ind, and also ofthe same quality if the latter has been stated) ". The two debts are due) 1. The debts are liquidated anddemandable) 0. +ver neither of them be any retention or controversy, commenced by third parties and

communicated in due time to the debtor.

HEIRS OF PE$RO $E G&%-AN v. ANGELINA PERONA */0

HEIRS OF ROSA&RO $E G&%-AN, et *G.R. No. 15!!66, J)+ !, !#1#

=espondent D@ ban2, through its appraiser +scar ;. =onquillo, conducted aninspection and appraisal of the property covered by T%T $o. 7#!#!, together with the

e4isting improvements thereon. fter the said inspection and appraisal of the property,respondent D@ Dan2 approved the loan in favor of the spouses =osauro and ngelina and,thereafter, e4ecuted a =eal 9state ;ortgage with the said spouses. %learly, respondent ban2was able to present sufficient evidence that the mortgage contract emanated from a valid andregular transaction. =espondent ban2, before it accepted the collateral, e4ercised duediligence in verifying the ownership and status of the land and the improvements e4isting inthe property mortgaged.

O-C CARRIERS, INC. */0 JERR A2AL&CAS + PITALINO v.


14/145

SPO&SES RO'ERTO C. NA'&A */0 ROSARIO T. NA'&AG.R. No. 14("4, J)+ !, !#1#

3hen an injury is caused by the negligence of an employee, there instantly arises apresumption of the law that there was negligence on the part of the employer, either in theselection of his employee or in the supervision over him after such selection. 6owever, thepresumption may be overcome by a clear showing on the part of the employer that he hase4ercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervisionof his employee.

REP&'LIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v.HANOVER ORLI$E TRA$ING CORPORATION

G.R. No. 1!1#!, J)+ !, !#1#

pplicants for registration of title must prove& !( that the subject land forms part of

the disposable and alienable lands of the public domain, and *( that they have been in open,continuous, e4clusive and notorious possession and occupation of the same under a bona fideclaim of ownership since Hune !*, !:10, or earlier.

ettled is the rule that the burden of proof in land registration cases rests on the

applicant who must show by clear, positive and convincing evidence that his allegedpossession and occupation of the land is of the nature and duration required by law./nfortunately, as petitioner contends, the pieces of evidence presented by respondent do notconstitute the Fwell-nigh incontrovertibleF proof necessary in cases of this nature.

-ETROPOLITAN 'AN> AN$ TR&ST CO-PAN v. R&RAL 'AN> OF GERONA,INC.

G.R. No. 15"#", J)+ 5, !#1#

rticle !"8* *( of the %ivil %ode provides that it is presumed that there is legalsubrogation when a third person, not interested in the obligation, pays with the e4press ortacit approval of the debtor. rticle !"8" of the %ivil %ode further states that subrogationtransfers to the person subrogated the credit with all the rights thereto appertaining, eitheragainst the debtor or against third persons. s the entity against which the collection wasenforced, ;etroban2 was subrogated to the rights of %entral Dan2 and has a cause of action

to recover from =D the amounts it paid to the %entral Dan2, plus !1J per annum interest.

HEIRS OF SPO&SES CRISP&LO FERRER */0 ENGRACIA P&HAAN v.HONORA'LE CO&RT OF APPEALS, et *

G.R. NO. 1"#3(4, J)+ 5, !#1#

It is not the mere lapse of time that vests title over the land to the claimant) it is alsonecessary that the land be an alienable and disposable land of the public domain and that theclaimant be in open, continuous, e4clusive, and notorious possession of the land. Listed

down, the acquisition through adverse possession of public lands requires the following& !(the land applied for must be an alienable and disposable public land) and *( the claimants,

by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest, have been in open, continuous,e4clusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the land since Hune !*, !:10 or


15/145

earlier.VICENTE A$RIANO v. ALICE TANCO, et *

G.R. No. 16(164, J)+ 5, !#1#

The e4istence of a tenancy relationship cannot be presumed and allegations that oneis a tenant do not automatically give rise to security of tenure. or tenancy relationship toe4ist, the following essential requisites must be present& !( the parties are the landowner andthe tenant) *( the subject matter is agricultural land) "( there is consent between the

parties) 1( the purpose is agricultural production) 0( there is personal cultivation by thetenant) and, 5( there is sharing of the harvests between the parties. ll the requisites mustconcur in order to establish the e4istence of tenancy relationship, and the absence of one ormore requisites is fatal. In the instant case, the essential requisites of consent and sharing are

lac2ing.The essential element of consent is sorely missing because there is no proof that thelandowners recogniEed Kicente, or that they hired him, as their legitimate tenant. Li2ewise,the essential requisite of sharing of harvests is lac2ing. Independent evidence, such asreceipts, must be presented to show that there was sharing of the harvest between the

landowner and the tenant. elf-serving statements are not sufficient.

ASIAN CATHA FINANCE AN$ LEASING CORPORATION ?ACFLC@v. SPO&SESCESARIO GRAVA$OR */0 NOR-A $E VERA */0 SPO&SES E--A CONCEPCION

G. $&-IGPI */0 FE$ERICO L. $&-IGPIG.R. No. 1(655#, J)+ 5, !#1#

tipulations authoriEing the imposition of iniquitous or unconscionable interest arecontrary to morals, if not against the law. /nder rticle !18: of the %ivil %ode, thesecontracts are ine4istent and void from the beginning. They cannot be ratified nor the right to

set up their illegality as a defense be waived. The nullity of the stipulation on the usuriousinterest does not, however, affect the lender>s right to recover the principal of the loan. $or

would it affect the terms of the real estate mortgage. legal interest of !*J per annum willbe added in place of the e4cessive interest formerly imposed.

ettled is the rule that for a waiver to be valid and effective, it must, in the first place,be couched in clear and unequivocal terms which will leave no doubt as to the intention of a

party to give up a right or benefit which legally pertains to him. dditionally, the intention towaive a right or an advantage must be shown clearly and convincingly.

PENTACAPITAL INVEST-ENT CORPORATION v. -A>ILITO '. -AHINA

G.R. No. 1136, J)+ 5, !#1#

/nder rticle !"01 of the %ivil %ode, it is presumed that consideration e4ists and islawful unless the debtor proves the contrary. The presumption that a contract has sufficientconsideration cannot be overthrown by the bare, uncorroborated and self-serving assertionof respondent that it has no consideration. The alleged lac2 of consideration must be shown

by preponderance of evidence.

penalty clause Is an accessory obligation which the parties attach to a principalobligation for the purpose of ensuring the performance thereof by imposing on the debtor a

special prestation generally consisting of the payment of a sum of money( in case the

obligation is not fulfilled or is irregularly or inadequately fulfilled. 6owever, a penaltycharge of "J per month is unconscionable) hence, it should be reduced to !J per month or!*J per annum, pursuant to rticle !**: of the %ivil %ode


16/145

A-ELIA '. HE'RON v. FRANCO L. LOOLA, et *G.R. No. 16("6#, J)+ 5, !#1#

Laches is the failure of or neglect for an unreasonable and une4plained length oftime to do that which by e4ercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier, orto assert a right within reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitledthereto has either abandoned it or declined to assert it. 6ence, where the parties are closelyrelated to each other and considering also that the parties are many different heirs, some ofwhom reside outside the Philippines, the passage of si4 years before the respondents as2ed

for partition through the court is not unreasonable. The respondents, then, are not guilty oflaches.

SARGASSO CONSTR&CTION $EVELOP-ENT CORPORATIONPIC> SHOVEL,INC.,ATLANTIC ERECTORS, INC. ?JOINT VENT&RE@ v.

PHILIPPINE PORTS A&THORITG.R. NO. 1#53#, J)+ 5, !#1#

/nder rticle !##! of the %ivil %ode, the agent must act within the scope of hisauthority to bind his principal. o long as the agent has authority, e4press or implied, the

principal is bound by the acts of the agent on his behalf, 369T69= += $+T or not the thirdperson dealing with the agent believes that the agent has actual authority. Thus, allsignatories in a contract should be clothed with authority to bind the parties they represent.In relation, the authority of government officials to represent the government in any contractmust proceed from an e4press provision of law or valid delegation of authority. 6ence, wherethe petitioner failed to present competent evidence to prove that the respondent>s generalmanager possessed such actual authority delegated either by the Doard of @irectors, or by

statutory provision, there could be no real consent, much less a perfected contract, to spea2

of.

THE HEIRS OF RE$ENTOR CO-PLETO */0 ELPI$IO A'IA$ v.SGT. A-AN$O C. AL'A$A, JR.

G.R. No. 1!!##, J)+ 6, !#1#

/nder rticle *!#8 of the %ivil %ode, the obligation imposed by rticle *!75 isdemandable not only for one>s own acts or omissions, but also for those persons for whomone is responsible. 9mployers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees, butthe employers> responsibility shall cease upon proof that they observed all the diligence of a

good father of the family in the selection and supervision of their employees.

In the selection of prospective employees, employers are required to e4amine them as

to their qualifications, e4perience, and service records. +n the other hand, with respect to thesupervision of employees, employers should formulate standard operating procedures,monitor their implementation, and impose disciplinary measures for breaches thereof. Toestablish these factors in a trial involving the issue of vicarious liability, employers must

submit concrete proof, including documentary evidence.

REP&'LIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROSILA ROCHEG.R. No. 15(46, J)+ 6, !#1#

n application for registration of title must, under ection !1!(, P.@. !0*:, meetthree requirements& a( that the property is alienable and disposable land of the publicdomain) b( that the applicants by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest havebeen in open, continuous, e4clusive and notorious possession and occupation of the land) and

c( that such possession is under a bona fide claim of ownership since Hune !*, !:10 or


17/145

earlier.

In the instant case, =oche did not present evidence that the land she applied for hasbeen classified as alienable or disposable land of the public domain. Thus, it cannot be saidthat she complied with all requisites for registration of title under ection !1!( of P.@. !0*:.ince =oche was unable to overcome the presumption that the land she applied for isinalienable land that belongs to the tate, the overnment did not have to adduce evidence to

prove it.

ELPI$IO S. &, 0o/ b)s birth falls under ct $o. "70", otherwise 2nown as the %ivil

=egistry Law, which too2 effect on *7 ebruary !:"! and is implemented by $ational %ensustatistics +ffice $%+( dministrative +rder $o. !, eries of !:#"!" governs theimplementation of ct $o. "70" in this case.

SPS. FE$ERICO VALEN%&ELA */0 L&% '&ENA9VALEN%&ELAv.SPS. JOSE -ANO, JR. */0 ROSANNA REES9-ANO

G.R. No. 1!611, J)+ ", !#1#

ettled is the rule that a person, whose certificate of title included by mista2e oroversight the land owned by another, does not become the owner of such land by virtue of the

certificate alone. The Torrens ystem is intended to guarantee the integrity andconclusiveness of the certificate of registration but is not intended to perpetrate fraud againstthe real owner of the land. The certificate of title cannot be used to protect a usurper from the

true owner.


18/145

VIOLETA T&$T&$ 'ANATE, -AR -ELGRI$ -. CORTEL, 'ONIFACIO CORTEL,ROSEN$O -AGLASANG, */0 PATROCINIA -ONILAR v. PHILIPPINE

CO&NTRSI$E R&RAL 'AN> ?LILOAN, CE'&@, INC. */0 TEOFILO SOON, JR.G.R. No. 163(!5, J)+ 13, !#1#

s a general rule, a mortgage liability is usually limited to the amount mentioned inthe contract. 6owever, the amounts named as consideration in a contract of mortgage do notlimit the amount for which the mortgage may stand as security if, from the four corners of theinstrument, the intent to secure future and other indebtedness can be gathered. This

stipulation is valid and binding between the parties and is 2nown as the


19/145

is not sufficient that the person claiming e4emption merely alleges that such property is afamily home. This claim for e4emption must be set up and proved. In the present case, since

petitioners claim that the family home was constituted prior to ugust ", !:##, or as early as!:11, they must comply with the procedure mandated by the %ivil %ode. There beingabsolutely no proof that the Pandacan property was judicially or e4trajudicially constitutedas the =amos> family home, the law>s protective mantle cannot be availed of by petitioners.

ALI$A -ORESv. SHIRLE -. &9GO, et *G.R. No. 1!!"!, J)+ !3, !#1#

If the lessee ma2es, in good faith, useful improvements which are suitable to the usefor which the lease is intended, without altering the form or substance of the property leased,the lessor upon the termination of the lease shall pay the lessee one-half of the value of theimprovements at that time. hould the lessor refuse to reimburse said amount, the lessee may

remove the improvements, even though the principal thing may suffer damage thereby. 6e

shall not, however, cause any more impairment upon the property leased than is necessary.3ith regard to the ornamental e4penses, the lessee shall not be entitled to anyreimbursement, but he may remove the ornamental objects, provided no damage is caused tothe principal thing, and the lessor does not choose to retain them by paying their value at thetime the lease is e4tinguished.

SOLI$'AN> CORPORATION v. ER-ANENT HO-ES, INCORPORATE$G.R. No. 11"!5, J)+ !3, !#1#

In order that obligations arising from contracts may have the force of law betweenthe parties, there must be mutuality between the parties based on their essential equality.

contract containing a condition which ma2es its fulfillment dependent e4clusively upon theuncontrolled will of one of the contracting parties is void. In the instant case, there was no

showing that either olidban2 or Permanent coerced each other to enter into the loan

agreements. The terms of the +mnibus Line greement and the promissory notes weremutually and freely agreed upon by the parties. The stipulations on interest rate repricing arevalid because !( the parties mutually agreed on said stipulations) *( repricing ta2es effectonly upon olidban2>s written notice to Permanent of the new interest rate) and "(

Permanent has the option to prepay its loan if Permanent and olidban2 do not agree on thenew interest rate.

SPO&SES E$-&N$O */0 LO&R$ES SARROSA v. ILL O. $I%ONG.R. No. 1(3#!, J)+ !6, !#1#

The right of the purchaser to the possession of the foreclosed property becomesabsolute upon the e4piration of the redemption period. The basis of this right to possession isthe purchaser's ownership of the property. fter the consolidation of title in the buyer's name

for failure of the mortgagor to redeem, the writ of possession becomes a matter of right andits issuance to a purchaser in an e4trajudicial foreclosure is merely a ministerial function.

SOLAR HARVEST, INC. v. $AVAO CORR&GATE$ CARTON CORPORATIONG.R. No. 16(6(, J)+ !6, !#1#

rticle !!:! of the $ew %ivil %ode provides that


20/145

implied in reciprocal ones, in case one of the obligors should not comply with what isincumbent upon him.? In reciprocal obligations, as in a contract of sale, the general rule is

that the fulfillment of the parties> respective obligations should be simultaneous. 6ence, nodemand is generally necessary because, once a party fulfills his obligation and the other

party does not fulfill his, the latter automatically incurs in delay. Dut when different dates forperformance of the obligations are fi4ed, the default for each obligation must be determinedby the rules given in the first paragraph of the present article, that is, the other party wouldincur in delay only from the moment the other party demands fulfillment of the former>sobligation. In the instant case, without a previous demand for the fulfillment of the obligation,

petitioner would not have a cause of action for rescission against respondent as the latterwould not yet be considered in breach of its contractual obligation.

A$RIAN ILSON INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATES, INC. v. T- PHILIPPINES,INC.,

G.R. No. 16!6#(, J)+ !6, !#1#

ctual damages puts the claimant in the position in which he had been before he wasinjured. The award thereof must be based on the evidence presented, not on the personal2nowledge of the court) and certainly not on flimsy, remote, speculative and nonsubstantial

proof. /nder the %ivil %ode, one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for suchpecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. 3hile T;N failed to prove the e4act

amount of the salaries it had paid, as a matter of equity, the court accorded T;N a relief inthe form of temperate damages.

LA%ARO PASCO */0 LA&RO PASCOv. HEIRS OF FILO-ENA $E G&%-AN,epe


21/145

to ell and the @eeds of bsolute ale which would eventually tend to prove that the sametransactions were indeed suspicious as the said contracts were antedated, simulated and

fraudulent. uch phrase did not refer to any particular provision of a law, hence, the generaland ordinary meaning of the phrase prevails.

ATI-A GAG&IL -AGOAG, HA$JI HASAN -A$LAI -AGOAG v.HA$JI A'&'ACAR -AR&HO-

G.R. No. 1"43, A))


22/145

them without a protracted litigation. In the instant case, no right can arise from thecompromise agreement because the parties e4ecuted the same only to buy peace and to write

finis to the controversy) it did not create or transmit ownership rights over the subjectproperty.

=oberto cannot claim that he acted in good faith under the belief that there was nodefect or dispute in the title of the vendor, Delacho. $ot being a possessor in good faith andwith just title, the ten-year period required for ordinary acquisitive prescription cannot applyin =oberto>s favor. 9ven the thirty-year period under e4traordinary acquisitive prescriptionhas not been met because of the respondents> claim to have been in possession, in the conceptof owner, of the subject property for only twenty-four years, from the time the subject

property was ta4 declared in !:71 to the time of the filing of the complaint in !::#.

RICAR$O P. TORINGv. TERESITA -. TORING */0 REP&'LIC OF THEPHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 1653!1, A)) action for reconveyance as an action to quiet title.

JA HI$ALGO &, epe


23/145

registration which gives validity to transfer or liens created upon land registered under theTorrens ystem.

GA&$ENCIO LA'RA$OR, epe


24/145

person is considered an innocent purchaser in good faith when he buys theproperty of another, without notice that some other person has a right or an interest in suchproperty, and pays a full price for the same at the time of such purchase, or before he has

notice of the claims or interest of some other person in the property. In the instant case,petitioners live in the vicinity of the land which was fenced and planted to fruit bearing trees.s such, they were put on notice that the land was possessed by someone. 3here the landsubject of sale is in possession of a person other than the vendor, prudence dictates that thevendee should go beyond the certificate of title. bsent such investigation, good faith cannotbe presumed.

'ONIFACIO SAN% -ACE$A, JR. v.$EVELOP-ENT 'AN> OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 14""

$EVELOP-ENT 'AN> OF THE PHILIPPINES v. 'ONIFACIO SAN% -ACE$A, JR.G.R. No. 15#1#, A))


25/145

GER'ERT R. CORP&% v. $AISLN TIROL STO. TO-AS */0T;e SOLICITOR GENERAL

G.R. No. 1(651, A))s full payment of the price is a positive suspensive condition tothe coming into effect of the agreement. In the first case, the seller has lost and cannot

recover the ownership of the property unless he ta2es action to set aside the contract ofsale. In the second case, the title simply remains in the seller if the buyer does not comply

with the condition precedent of ma2ing payment at the time specified in the contract.

REP&'LIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. %ENAI$A G&INTO9AL$ANAG.R. No. 155(, A))


26/145

heir of lejandra, being only her son-in-law as the husband of %iriaca, one of lejandra>stwo daughters(.

or res judicata to bar the institution of a subsequent action, the following requisites

must concur& !( the former judgment must be final) *( it must have been rendered by a courthaving jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties) "( it must be a judgment on themerits) and 1( there must be between the first and second actions a( identity of parties, b(identity of the subject matter, and c( identity of cause of action. The doctrine of res judicatahas two aspects& the first, 2nown as bar by prior judgment, or estoppel by verdict, is the effectof a judgment as a bar to the prosecution of a second action upon the same claim, demand, orcause of action) the second, 2nown as conclusiveness of judgment, also 2nown as the rule ofauter action pendant, ordains that issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit

cannot again be raised in any future case between the same parties involving a differentcause of action and has the effect of preclusion of issues only.

HEIRS OF JOSE REES, JR.v. A-AN$A S. REES, et *G.R. No. 15(3, A))


27/145

forfeiture clause in a contract of sale, which in a sense is punitive and confiscatory,is to be construed strictissimi juris and, in resolving a controversy involving it, the principlesof equity must apply to the end that e4act justice is achieved.

CE'& A&TO-ATIC -OTORS, INC. */0 TIRSO &TENGS& III v.GENERAL -ILLING CORPORATION

G.R. No. 15116(, A))


28/145

bro2er or salesman) and c( cases involving specific performance of contractual andstatutory obligations filed by buyers of subdivision lot or condominium unit against the

owner, developer, dealer, bro2er or salesman.

HEIRS */0o ESTATE OF ATT. ROLAN$O P. SIAPIAN, epeA *A */0 ENGR. ELVIN -AC>AG.R. No. 1(4"", Septembe 1, !#1#

It is settled that a claim for attorney>s fees may be asserted either in the very actionin which a lawyer rendered his services or in a separate action. Dut enforcing it in the main

case bodes well as it forestalls multiplicity of suits. The intestate court in this case, therefore,correctly allowed tty. iapian to interject his claim for attorney>s fees in the estate

proceedings against some of the heirs and, after hearing, adjudicate the same on pril ",!::7 with an order for rturo, et. al to pay tty. iapian the fees of P" million due him. lso,

since the award of P" million in attorney>s fees in favor of tty. iapian had already become

final and e4ecutory, the intestate court was within its powers to order the =egister of @eedsto annotate his lien on the 9state>s titles to its properties. The 9state has no cause forcomplaint since the lien was neither a claim nor a burden against the 9state itself. It was not

enforceable against the 9state but only against rturo, et. al, who constituted the majority ofthe heirs.

E&GENIO FELICIANO,


29/145

rticle !550 of the %ivil %ode provides that Fthe lessee shall return the thing leased,upon the termination of the lease, just as he received it, save what has been lost or impairedby the lapse of time, or by ordinary wear and tear, or from an inevitable cause.F rticle !557

li2ewise states that Fthe lessee is responsible for the deterioration or loss of the thing leased,unless he proves that it too2 place without his fault.F In other words, by law, a lessee isobliged to return the things( leased and be responsible for any deterioration or loss of the

properties, e4cept for those that were not his fault.

JOSELITO R. PI-ENTEL v. -ARIA CHRSANTINE L. PI-ENTEL */0PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 1!#6#, Septembe 13, !#1#

t the time of the commission of the alleged crime, petitioner and respondent weremarried. The subsequent dissolution of their marriage, in case the petition in %ivil %ase $o.81-7":* is granted, will have no effect on the alleged crime that was committed at the time ofthe subsistence of the marriage. In short, even if the marriage between petitioner and

respondent is annulled, petitioner could still be held criminally liable since at the time of thecommission of the alleged crime, he was still married to respondent.

HEIRS OF J&ANITA PA$ILLA, epes possession may be deemedadverse to the cestui que trust or other co-owners, the following requisites must concur& !(that he has performed unequivocal acts of repudiation amounting to an ouster of the cestuique trust or other co-owners, *( that such positive acts of repudiation have been made2nown to the cestui que trust or other co-owners, and "( that the evidence thereon must beclear and convincing.

In the present case, the prescriptive period began to run only from 0 Hune !::#, the

date petitioners received notice of =icardo>s repudiation of their claims to the land. incepetitioners filed an action for recovery of ownership and possession, partition and damageswith the =T% on *5 +ctober *88!, only a mere three years had lapsed. This three-year period

falls short of the !8-year or "8-year acquisitive prescription period required by law in orderto be entitled to claim legal ownership over the land. Thus, @ominador cannot invo2eacquisitive prescription.CELESTINO SANTIAGO


30/145

retain, directly or indirectly, any public or private agricultural land, the siEe of which shallvary according to factors governing a viable family-siEe, such as commodity produced,

terrain, infrastructure, and soil fertility as determined by the Presidential grarian =eform%ouncil P=%( created hereunder, but in no case shall retention by the landowner e4ceed

five 0( hectares. Three "( hectares may be awarded to each child of the landowner, subjectto the following qualifications& !( that he is at least fifteen !0( years of age) and *( that heis actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm) Provided, That landowners whoseland have been covered by Presidential @ecree $o. *7 shall be allowed to 2eep the areaoriginally retained by them thereunder, Provided further, That the original homestead

grantees or direct compulsory heirs who still own the original homestead at the time of theapproval of this ct shall retain the same areas as long as they continue to cultivate saidhomestead.

The right to choose the area to be retained, which shall be compact or contiguous,shall pertain to the landowner.Provided, however, That in case the area selected for retentionby the landowner is tenanted, the tenant shall have the option to choose 369T69= += $+Tto remain therein or be a beneficiary in the same or another agricultural land with similar or

comparable features. In case the tenant chooses to remain in the retained area, he shall beconsidered a leaseholder and shall lose his right to be a beneficiary under this ct. In casethe tenant chooses to be a beneficiary in another agricultural land, he loses his right as a

lease-holder to the land retained by the landowner. The tenant must e4ercise this optionwithin a period of one !( year from the time the landowner manifests his choice of the area

for retention.

SPS. ANTONIO LETICIA VEGA v. SOCIAL SEC&RIT SSTE- ?SSS@ PILAR$EVELOP-ENT CORPORATIONG.R. No. 1(16!, Septembe !#, !#1#

rticle !5*0 of the %ivil %ode provides that an assignment of a credit, right or action

shall produce no effect as against third persons, unless it appears in a public instrument, orthe instrument is recorded in the =egistry of Property in case the assignment involves real

property. aid provision merely applies to assignment of credits and other incorporeal rightsand not to conveyances of, for instance, a house and lot.

JARA'INI G. $EL ROSARIO v. AS&NCION G. FERRER, AN$ TR&ST CO-PAN ?/o 'AN> OF THE PHILIPPINEISLAN$S v. LIAA A'ASOLOG.R. No. 1(63( Septembe !, !#1#

/nder rt. !"!! contracts ta2e effect only between the parties, their assigns and

heirs, e4cept in case where the rights and obligations arising from the contract are nottransmissible by their nature, or by stipulation or by provision of law. The heir is not liable


31/145

beyond the value of the property he received from the decedent.

If a contract should contain some stipulation in favor of a third person, he maydemand its fulfillment provided he communicated his acceptance to the obligor before itsrevocation. mere incidental benefit or interest of a person is not sufficient. The contracting

parties must have clearly and deliberately conferred a favor upon a third person.

HEIRS OF ENRI:&E TORING, epe


32/145

G.R. No. 1(5#!#, O8tobe #6, !#1#

/nder rticle 11#, a landowner is given the option to either appropriate theimprovement as his own upon payment of the proper amount of indemnity, or sell the land tothe possessor in good faith. =elatedly, rticle 015 provides that a builder in good faith isentitled to full reimbursement for all the necessary and useful e4penses incurred) it also giveshim right of retention until full reimbursement is made.

It is settled that the award of attorney's fees is the e4ception rather than the generalrule) counsel's fees are not awarded every time a party prevails in a suit because of the policythat no premium should be placed on the right to litigate.

COCA9COLA 'OTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC. v. RO$RIGO -ERCA$O, et *.G.R. No. 1"#3(1, O8tobe #6, !#1#

/nder the %ivil %ode of the Philippines, contracting parties may establish such

stipulations, clauses, terms, and conditions, as they deem convenient, so long as they are notcontrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. compromiseagreement is a contract whereby the parties underta2e reciprocal obligations to resolve their

differences in order to avoid litigation or put an end to one already instituted. It is a judicialcovenant having the force and effect of a judgment, subject to e4ecution in accordance withthe =ules of %ourt, and having the effect and authority of res judicata upon its approval bythe court where the litigation is pending.

THE HEIRS OF RO-ANA SAVES v. THE HEIRS OF ESCOLASTICO SAVES,NA-EL RE-E$IOS SAVES9A$A-OS, L&% SAVES9HERNAN$E% AN$ $O$ONG

SAVES, AN$ ENRI:&ETA CHAVES9A'ELLA

G.R. No. 15!(66, O8tobe #6, !#1#

It is a well-settled doctrine that one who deals with property registered under theTorrens system need not go beyond the same, but only has to rely on the certificates of title.

6e is charged with notice only of such burdens and claims as are annotated on thecertificates.

Laches is defined as the failure to assert a right for an unreasonable and une4plainedlength of time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it has either

abandoned or declined to assert it.

ER-ELIN$A C. -ANALOTO, A&RORA J. CIFRA, FLOR$ELI%A J. ARCILLA,LO&R$ES J. CATALAN, ETHELIN$A J. HOLT, 'IENVENI$O R. JONGCO,

ARTE-IO R. JONGCO, JR. AN$ JOEL JONGCO v. IS-AEL VELOSO IIIG.R. No. 11365, O8tobe #6, !#1#

s rticle !: of the %ivil %ode requires, Fevery person must, in the e4ercise of hisrights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, andobserve honesty and good faith.F violation of such principle constitutes an abuse of rights,a tortuous conduct.

CA-PER REALT CORP. v. -ARIA NENA PAJO9REES REPRESENTE$ ' HERATTORNE9IN9FACT ELISEO '. 'ALLAO, A&G&STO P. 'AJA$O, RO$OLFO PAJO

AN$ GO$OFRE$O PAJO, JR.


33/145

G.R. No. 1"543, O8tobe #6, !#1#

In sales involving real property or any interest therein, a written authority in favor ofthe agent is necessary, otherwise the sale is void. ince the property was subjected to ensuingtransfers, it is necessary to establish the rights, if any, of the transferees vis-Q-vis that of

$ena's.

RI%AL CO--ERCIAL 'AN>ING CORPORATION v. PE$RO P. '&ENAVENT&RAG.R. No. 164", O8tobe #6, !#1#

oreclosure is valid only when the debtor is in default in the payment of hisobligation. It is a necessary consequence of non-payment of mortgage indebtedness. s arule, the mortgage can be foreclosed only when the debt remains unpaid at the time it is due.

In a real estate mortgage, when the principal obligation is not paid when due, the mortgageehas the right to foreclose on the mortgage, to have the property seiEed and sold, and to applythe proceeds to the obligation.

SPO&SES VICTORIANO CH&NG AN$ $E''IE CH&NG v.&LAN$A CONSTR&CTION, INC.G.R. No. 156#3(, O8tobe 11, !#1#

In contractual relations, the law allows the parties leeway and considers theiragreement as the law between them. %ontract stipulations that are not contrary to law,morals, good customs, public order or public policy shall be binding and should be compliedwith in good faith. $o party is permitted to change his mind or disavow and go bac2 upon hisown acts, or to proceed contrary thereto, to the prejudice of the other party.

It is a requisite in the grant of e4emplary damages that the act of the offender must beaccompanied by bad faith or done in a wanton, fraudulent, or malevolent manner. +n theother hand, attorney's fees may be awarded only when a party is compelled to litigate or toincur e4penses to protect his interest by reason of an unjustified act of the other party, aswhen the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing the plaintiff's plainlyvalid, just and demandable claim.

-IN$ANAO SAVINGS AN$ LOAN ASSOCIATION, INC., REPRESENTE$ ' ITSLI:&I$ATOR, THE PHILIPPINE $EPOSIT INS&RANCE CORPORATION v.

E$AR$ ILL>O-B GIL$A GOB RE-E$IOS &B -ALAO 'ANT&AS, IN HISCAPACIT AS THE $EP&T SHERIFF OF REGIONAL TRIAL CO&RT, 'RANCH 3,

ILIGAN CITB AN$ THE REGISTER OF $EE$S OF CAGAAN $E ORO CITG.R. No. 1(61(, O8tobe 11, !#1#

There being no merger between ILI and @LI now ;LI(, for third partiessuch as respondents, the two corporations shall not be considered as one but two separatecorporations. corporation is an artificial being created by operation of law. It possesses

the right of succession and such powers, attributes, and properties e4pressly authoriEed bylaw or incident to its e4istence. It has a personality separate and distinct from the personscomposing it, as well as from any other legal entity to which it may be related. Deing

separate entities, the property of one cannot be considered the property of the other.

It is a rule that novation by substitution of debtor must always be made with theconsent of the creditor. rticle !*:" of the %ivil %ode is e4plicit, thus& novation whichconsists in substituting a new debtor in the place of the original one, may be made even


34/145

without the 2nowledge or against the will of the latter, but not without the consent of thecreditor. Payment by the new debtor gives him the rights mentioned in rticles !*"5 and

!*"7.

-AN&EL A. ECHAVE% v. $O%EN CONSTR&CTION AN$ $EVELOP-ENTCORPORATION AN$ THE REGISTER OF $EE$S OF CE'& CIT

G.R. No. 1"!"16, O8tobe 11, !#1#

donation mortis causa must comply with the formalities prescribed by law for thevalidity of wills, Fotherwise, the donation is void and would produce no effect.F rticles #80and #85 of the %ivil %ode should have been applied.

CALI'RE TRA$ERS, INC., -ARIO SISON SE'ASTIAN, AN$ -IN$A 'LANCOSE'ASTIAN v. 'AER PHILIPPINES, INC.

G.R. No. 161431, O8tobe 13, !#1#

To justify a grant of actual or compensatory damages, the amount of loss must beproved with a reasonable degree of certainty, based upon competent proof and the best

evidence obtainable by the injured party.

PACIFIC REHO&SE CORPORATION, PACIFIC CONCOR$E CORPORATION,-I%PAH HOL$INGS, INC., FOR&- HOL$INGS CORPORATION, AN$ EAST ASIA

OIL CO-PAN, INC. v. EI' SEC&RITIES, INC.G.R. No. 1(4#36, O8tobe 13, !#1#

rticle !##! of the %ivil %ode provides that Fthe agent must act within the scope of

his authority.F Pursuant to the authority given by the principal, the agent is granted the rightFto affect the legal relations of his principal by the performance of acts effectuated inaccordance with the principal's manifestation of consent.F

ANICETO G. SAL&$O, JR. v. SEC&RIT 'AN> CORPORATIONG.R. No. 1(4#41, O8tobe 13, !#1#

%omprehensive or continuing surety agreements are, in fact, quite commonplace inpresent day financial and commercial practice. ban2 or financing company whichanticipates entering into a series of credit transactions with a particular company, normally

requires the projected principal debtor to e4ecute a continuing surety agreement along withits sureties. Dy e4ecuting such an agreement, the principal places itself in a position to enterinto the projected series of transactions with its creditor) with such suretyship agreement,there would be no need to e4ecute a separate surety contract or bond for each financing orcredit accommodation e4tended to the principal debtor.

'.E. SAN $IEGO, INC. v. CO&RT OF APPEALS AN$ JOVITA -ATIASG.R. No. 15"!3#, O8tobe 1(, !#1#

The settled doctrine in property law is that no title to register land in derogation ofthat of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession.


35/145

SPO&SES RA- AN$ %ENAI$A P&$A$ERA v. IRENEO -AGALLANES AN$ THELATE $AIS TERESA CORTEL -AGALLANES S&'STIT&TE$ ' HERCHIL$REN, NELL -. -AR:&E%, ELISEO -AGALLANES AN$ ANGEL

-AGALLANESG.R. No. 1##3, O8tobe 1(, !#1#

+ne is considered a buyer in bad faith not only when he purchases real estate with2nowledge of a defect or lac2 of title in his seller but also when he has 2nowledge of factswhich should have alerted him to conduct further inquiry or investigation.

PIO -O$ESTO AN$ CIRILA RIVERA9-O$ESTO v. CARLOS &R'INA,S&'STIT&TE$ ' THE HEIRS OF OL-PIA -IG&EL V$A. $E &R'INA

?S&RVIVING SPO&SE@ AN$ CHIL$REN, NA-EL ESCOLASTICA -. &R'INA, ET.AL

G.R. No. 1("(5", O8tobe 1(, !#1#

/nless a public land is shown to have been reclassified as alienable or actuallyalienated by the tate to a private person, that piece of land remains part of the publicdomain, and its occupation in the concept of owner, no matter how long, cannot confer

ownership or possessory rights. It is only after the property has been declared alienable anddisposable that private persons can legally claim possessory rights over it.

ASSET '&IL$ERS CORPORATION, v. STRONGHOL$ INS&RANCE CO-PAN,INCORPORATE$

G.R. No. 1(116, O8tobe 1(, !#1#

s provided in rticle *817, the surety underta2es to be bound solidarily with the

principal obligor. That underta2ing ma2es a surety agreement an ancillary contract as itpresupposes the e4istence of a principal contract. lthough the contract of a surety is inessence secondary only to a valid principal obligation, the surety becomes liable for the debtor duty of another although it possesses no direct or personal interest over the obligationsnor does it receive any benefit therefrom. Let it be stressed that notwithstanding the fact thatthe surety contract is secondary to the principal obligation, the surety assumes liability as aregular party to the underta2ing.

CAR-ELA 'RO'IO -ANGAHAS v. E&FROCINA A. 'RO'IOG.R. No. 1(3(5!, O8tobe !#, !#1#

%ontracts are voidable where consent thereto is given through mista2e, violence,intimidation, undue influence, or fraud. In determining 369T69= += $+T consent isvitiated by any of these circumstances, courts are given a wide latitude in weighing the factsor circumstances in a given case and in deciding in favor of what they believe actuallyoccurred, considering the age, physical infirmity, intelligence, relationship, and conduct of

the parties at the time of the e4ecution of the contract and subsequent thereto, irrespective of369T69= += $+T the contract is in a public or private writing.

SHINRO ?PHILIPPINES@ CO-PAN, INC. v. RRN INCORPORATE$G.R. No. 1!5!5, O8tobe !#, !#1#

/njust enrichment claims do not lie simply because one party benefits from the


36/145

efforts or obligations of others, but instead it must be shown that a party was unjustlyenriched in the sense that the term unjustly could mean illegally or unlawfully.

$ELFIN LA-SIS, -ANAR$ -ON$IG&ING, JOSE VAL$E%, JR. AN$ HEIRS OFAG&STIN >IT-A, REPRESENTE$ ' E&GENE >IT-A v. -ARGARITA SE-ON

$ONG9EG.R. No. 13#!1, O8tobe !#, !#1#

There is laches when a party is aware, even in the early stages of the proceedings, ofa possible jurisdictional objection, and has every opportunity to raise said objection, but failsto do so, even on appeal.

REP&'LIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE T. CHING REPRESENTE$ ' HISATTORNE9IN9FACT, ANTONIO V. CHING

G.R. No. 1(6166, O8tobe !#, !#1#

pplicants for registration of title under ection !1!( must sufficiently establish& !(that the subject land forms part of the disposable and alienable lands of the public domain)

*( that the applicant and his predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous,e4clusive and notorious possession and occupation of the same) and "( that it is under abona fide claim of ownership since Hune !*, !:10, or earlier.

-AN&EL AL-AGRO JOINE$ ' HIS SPO&SE, ELI%A'ETH AL-AGRO v.SALVACION C. >AN, ILLIA- C. >AN, VICTORIA C. >AN, ASSISTE$ '

HER H&S'AN$, JOSE A. AR'AS, AN$ CECILIA C. >ANG.R. NoIS>IS, ELSA 'I2AL'ER, NOELA T&'AT, ELSA T&'AT, AN$

ROGELIO $&RAN v. ILLIA- C. >AN, SALVACION C. >AN, VICTORIA C.>AN, ASSISTE$ ' HER H&S'AN$, JOSE A. AR'AS, AN$ CECILIA C. >AN

G.R. No. 15(4"

To qualify as foreshore land, it must be shown that the land lies between the high andlow water mar2s and is alternately wet and dry according to the flow of the tide. The land's

pro4imity to the waters alone does not automatically ma2e it a foreshore land.

CENT&R SAVINGS 'AN>, PETITIONER v. SPO&SES $ANILO T. SA-ONTE AN$ROSALIN$A -. SA-ONTE

G.R. No. 16!1!, O8tobe !#, !#1#

The object of a notice of sale is to inform the public of the nature and condition of theproperty to be sold, and of the time, place and terms of the sale. $otices are given for thepurpose of securing bidders and to prevent a sacrifice of the property. If these objects areattained, immaterial errors and mista2es will not affect the sufficiency of the notice) but if

mista2es or omissions occur in the notices of sale, which are calculated to deter or mislead


37/145

bidders, to depreciate the value of the property, or to prevent it from bringing a fair price,such mista2es or omissions will be fatal to the validity of the notice, and also to the sale made

pursuant thereto.

JOSE PONCE $E LEON v. SANTIAGO SJ&CO, INC., $EFEN$ANT AN$APPELLANT, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL 'AN>

G. R. No. 33169P** */0 THE SHERIFF OF -ANILA

G.R. No. 1((4(# Novembe 15, !#1#

Title and ownership to the property is consolidated upon the lapse of the period of

redemption. It is automatic upon the failure of the judgment obligor to e4ercise his right ofredemption within the period allowed by law. Title may be consolidated in the name of the

purchaser even without a new title issued in his name. The term


38/145

personally or through their duly authoriEed representatives, one of which are those who bythemselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, e4clusive

and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the publicdomain under a bona fide claim of ownership since Hune !*, !:10, or earlier.

SPO&SES -ARIANO ?*..*. :&A>@ */0 E--A 'OLA2OS v. ROSCEF %&2IGA'ERNARTE, CLARO %&2IGA, PERFECTO %&2IGA, */0 CEFERINA %&2IGA9

GARCIAG.R. No. 1(#"" Novembe 1, !#1#

/nder rt. :7:. Legitimate children and their descendants succeed the parents and

other ascendants, without distinction as to se4 or age, and even if they should come fromdifferent marriages.

/nder rt. :#8. The children of the deceased shall always inherit from him in their

own right, dividing the inheritance in equal shares.

FILINVEST $EVELOP-ENT CORPORATION v. GOL$EN HAVEN -E-ORIALPAR>, INC. G.R. No. 1((!4

GOL$EN HAVEN -E-ORIAL PAR>, INC. v. FILINVEST $EVELOP-ENTCORPORATION

G.R. No. 1((!65 Novembe 1, !#1#

To prove good faith, the rule is that the buyer of registered land needs only show thathe relied on the title that covers the property. Dut this is true only when, at the time of the

sale, the buyer was unaware of any adverse claim to the property. +therwise, the law

requires the buyer to e4ercise a higher degree of diligence before proceeding with hispurchase. 6e must e4amine not only the certificate of title, but also the seller>s right andcapacity to transfer any interest in the property. In such a situation, the buyer must show thathe e4ercised reasonable precaution by inquiring beyond the four corners of the title. ailingin these, he may be deemed a buyer in bad faith.

HONG>ONG AN$ SHANGHAI 'AN>ING CORP., LT$. STAFF RETIRE-ENT

PLAN, Reteme/t T)


39/145


40/145

additional qualifying circumstances, to wit& !( that all three required acts must be completed

within a specific rec2oning period within si4 5( months from the signing of the Project and

;ar2eting greement() and *( that the contract price of such sales totals at least

Php"8,888,888.88.

LAN$ 'AN> OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALFRE$O ONGG.R. No. 1"#55 Novembe !4, !#1#

rt. !*"5 provides& the creditor is not bound to accept payment or performance by athird person who has no interest in the fulfillment of the obligation, unless there is a

stipulation to the contrary. 3hoever pays for another may demand from the debtor what he

has paid, e4cept that if he paid without the 2nowledge or against the will of the debtor, he canrecover only insofar as the payment has been beneficial to the debtor.

$ovation, in its broad concept, may either be e4tinctive or modificatory. It is

e4tinctive when an old obligation is terminated by the creation of a new obligation that ta2esthe place of the former) it is merely modificatory when the old obligation subsists to thee4tent it remains compatible with the amendatory agreement. n e4tinctive novation resultseither by changing the object or principal conditions objective or real(, or by substituting the

person of the debtor or subrogating a third person in the rights of the creditor subjective orpersonal(. /nder this mode, novation would have dual functions R one to e4tinguish an

e4isting obligation, the other to substitute a new one in its place R requiring a conflu4 of fouressential requisites& !( a previous valid obligation) *( an agreement of all partiesconcerned to a new contract) "( the e4tinguishment of the old obligation) and 1( the birth ofa valid new obligation.

rt. !*:" of the %ivil %ode states& $ovation which consists in substituting a new

debtor in the place of the original one, may be made even without the 2nowledge or againstthe will of the latter, but not without the consent of the creditor. Payment by the new debtor

gives him rights mentioned in articles !*"5 and !*"7.

/njust enrichment e4ists


41/145

HATT ELEVATORS */0 ESCALATORS CORPORATION v. CATHE$RAL HEIGHTS'&IL$ING CO-PLE ASSOCIATION, INC.

G.R. No. 13((1 $e8embe 1, !#1#

Dy the contract of sale, one of the contracting parties obligates himself to transfer theownership of and deliver a determinate thing, and the other to pay therefor a price certain inmoney or its equivalent. The absence of any of the essential elements will negate the e4istenceof a perfected contract of sale.

FE$ERICO JARANTILLA, JR. v. ANTONIETA JARANTILLA, '&ENAVENT&RARE-OTIG&E, S&'STIT&TE$ ' CNTHIA RE-OTIG&E, $OROTEO JARANTILLA

*/0 TO-AS JARANTILLAG.R. No. 1544(6 $e8embe 1, !#1#

There is a co-ownership when an undivided thing or right belongs to different

persons. It is a partnership when two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money,property, or industry to a common fund, with the intention of dividing the profits amongthemselves.

rticle !75: of the new %ivil %ode lays down the rule for determining when atransaction should be deemed a partnership or a co-ownership. aid article paragraphs *and ", provides) *( %o-ownership or co-possession does not itself establish a partnership,369T69= += $+T such co-owners or co-possessors do or do not share any profits madeby the use of the property) "( The sharing of gross returns does not of itself establish a

partnership, 369T69= += $+T or not the persons sharing them have a joint or commonright or interest in any property from which the returns are derived.

/nder rticle !757 of the %ivil %ode, there are two essential elements in a contractof partnership& a( an agreement to contribute money, property or industry to a common

fund) and b( intent to divide the profits among the contracting parties.

rticle !7:7 of the %ivil %ode provides& The losses and profits shall be distributed inconformity with the agreement. If only the share of each partner in the profits has beenagreed upon, the share of each in the losses shall be in the same proportion. In the absence of

stipulation, the share of each partner in the profits and losses shall be in proportion to what

he may have contributed, but the industrial partner shall not be liable for the losses. s forthe profits, the industrial partner shall receive such share as may be just and equitable under

the circumstances. If besides his services he has contributed capital, he shall also receive a

share in the profits in proportion to his capital.

94press trusts are created by the intention of the trustor or of the parties, whileimplied trusts come into being by operation of law, either through implication of an intentionto create a trust as a matter of law or through the imposition of the trust irrespective of, andeven contrary to, any such intention. In turn, implied trusts are either resulting orconstructive trusts. =esulting trusts are based on the equitable doctrine that valuable

consideration and not legal title determines the equitable title or interest and are presumedalways to have been contemplated by the parties. They arise from the nature orcircumstances of the consideration involved in a transaction whereby one person therebybecomes invested with legal title but is obligated in equity to hold his legal title for the benefitof another.


42/145

NOEL '. 'ACCA v. -ARI'EL C. 'ACCA */0 REP&'LIC OF THE PHILIPPINESG.R. No. 1313( $e8embe 1, !#1#

Psychological incapacity must be more than just a


43/145

JOCELN -. TOLE$O v. -ARILO& -. H$ENG.R. No. 1!13" $e8embe (, !#1#

It is true that the imposition of an unconscionable rate of interest on a money debt isimmoral and unjust and the court may come to the aid of the aggrieved party to that contract.

6owever, before doing so, courts have to consider the settled principle that the law will notrelieve a party from the effects of an unwise, foolish or disastrous contract if such party had

full awareness of what she was doing.

ENRI:&E AGRAVIA$OR + AL&NAN v. ERLIN$A A-PARO9AGRAVIA$OR */0REP&'LIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 1#!" $e8embe (, !#1#

rticle "5 of the amily %ode contemplates downright incapacity or inability toassume and fulfill the basic marital obligations, not a mere refusal, neglect or difficulty,

much less, ill will, on the part of the errant spouse.

RO'ERTO $. T&A%ON v. LO&R$ES :. $EL ROSARIO9S&ARE%, CATALINA R.S&ARE%9$E LEON, ILFRE$O $E LEON, -IG&EL L&IS S. $E LEON, RO--EL

LEE S. $E LEON, */0 G&ILLER-A L. SAN$ICO9SILVA, *< *tto/e+9/97*8t o7 t;e0e7e/0*/t


44/145

$EPT. OF AGRARIAN REFOR-, ROAS Co., INC. AN$OR ATT. -ARIANOA-PIL

G.R. No. 165#5

>ATIP&NAN NG -GA -AG'&'&>I$ SA HACIEN$A ROAS, INC. ?>A-AHARI@,ET. AL v. SECRETAR OF THE $EPT. OF AGRARIAN REFOR-, ROAS Co.,

INC.G.R. No. 1654#

$EPART-ENT OF LAN$ REFOR-, FOR-ERL $EPART-ENT OF AGRARIANREFOR- ?$AR@ v. ROAS CO, INC.

G.R. No. 16543

ROAS CO., INC. v. $A-'A9NFSG.R. No. 16(45

$A-'A9NFS REPRESENTE$ ' LA&RO V. -ARTIN v. ROAS CO., INC.

G.R. No. 16"163

$A-'A9NFS v. ROAS CO., INC.G.R. No. 1"65# $e8embe 14, !#1#

There is no need for the publication and filing of the said @= ;emorandum%ircular with the +$= as it is merely an administrative interpretation. Interpretative rule is

promulgated by the administrative agency to interpret, clarify or e4plain statutoryregulations under which the administrative body operates. The purpose or objective of aninterpretative rule is merely to construe the statute being administered. It purports to do nomore than interpret the statute.

RENATO REES, epe


45/145

=econveyance is a legal remedy granted to a landowner whose property has beenwrongfully or erroneously registered in another>s name, which must be filed within ten years

from the issuance of the title since such issuance operates as a constructive notice. 3here aparty has neglected to assert his rights over a property in question for an unreasonably longperiod, he is estopped from questioning the validity of another person>s title to the property.Long inaction and passivity in asserting one>s rights over a disputed property precludes himfrom recovering said property.

SEALOA$ER SHIPPING CORPORATION v. GRAN$ CE-ENT -AN&FACT&RINGCORPORATION, JOCE LA&NCH T&G CO., INC., RO-&LO $IANTAN

JOHNN PONCEG.R. No. 16363

TAIHEIO CE-ENT PHILIPPINES, INC. ?Fome+ G*/0 Ceme/t -*/)7*8t)/Copo*to/@ v. SEALOA$ER SHIPPING CORPORATION, JOCE LA&NCH T&G

CO., INC., RO-&LO $IANTAN JOHNN PONCE

G.R. No. 1466 $e8embe 15, !#1#

The doctrine of last clear chance states that where both parties are negligent but the

negligent act of one is appreciably later than that of the other, or where it is impossible todetermine whose fault or negligence caused the loss, the one who had the last clearopportunity to avoid the loss but failed to do so, is chargeable with the loss. tateddifferently, the antecedent negligence of plaintiff does not preclude him from recoveringdamages caused by the supervening negligence of defendant, who had the last fair chance to

prevent the impending harm by the e4ercise of due diligence.

$egligence is defined as


46/145

The term collation has two distinct concepts& first, it is a mere mathematical

operation by the addition of the value of donations made by the testator to the value

of the hereditary estate) and second, it is the return to the hereditary estate ofproperty disposed of by lucrative title by the testator during his lifetime. The purposes

of collation are to secure equality among the compulsory heirs in so far as is

possible, and to determine the free portion, after finding the legitime, so thatinofficious donations may be reduced.

PCI LEASING AN$ FINANCE, INC. v. TROJAN -ETAL IN$&STRIESINCORPORATE$, ALFRI$O $I%ON, ELI%A'ETH $I%ON, */0 JOHN $OE

G.R. No. 163(1 , $e8embe 15, !#1#

s periodic payment of a fi4ed amount ofrental. In this case, however, T;I already owned the subject equipment before it transacted

with P%IL. Therefore, the transaction between the parties in this case cannot be deemed tobe in the nature of a financial leasing as defined by law but a simple loan secured by thevarious equipment owned by T;I.?

JOSE -AR:&ES, ET AL. v. FAR EAST 'AN> AN$ TR&ST CO-PAN, ET AL. FAREAST 'AN> AN$ TR&ST CO-PAN, ET AL. v. JOSE -AR:&ES, ET AL.G.R. No. 113"G.R. No. 1141", J*/)*+ 1#, !#11

C9stoppel by silence> arises where a person, who by force of circumstances is obliged toanother to spea2, refrains from doing so and thereby induces the other to believe in the

e4istence of a state of facts in reliance on which he acts to his prejudice. ilence may supportan estoppel whether the failure to spea2 is intentional or negligent.

LOA$-ASTERS C&STO-S SERVICES, INC. v. GLO$EL 'RO>ERAGECORPORATION */0 R' INS&RANCE CORPORATION

G.R. No. 1"446, J*/)*+ 1#, !#11.

Dy the contract of agency a person binds himself to render some service or to dosomething in representation or on behalf of another, with the consent or authority of the

latter.? The elements of a contract of agency are& !( consent, e4press or implied, of theparties to establish the relationship) *( the ob

Documents

Print Civil Law Case- Gist(1)