LAW
The Law on Persons and Family
Relations Course Outline
I.
Preliminary Title; Human Relations;
Personality; Domicile;
Art. 2 NCC; Art.5 Labor Code; Sec. 3(1) & 4, Ch. 2,
Book VII, Administrative Code of 1987; BSP Circular
799
Effects and application of law
Tanada vs Tuvera, 136 SCRA 27 (1985)
Article 2 of the NCC does not preclude the requirement of
publication in the Official Gazette even if the law itself provides
for the date of its effectivity.
Tanada vs Tuvera,146 SCRA 446 (1986)
If the law provides for its own effectivity date, then it takes
effect
on
the said date, subject to the requirement of
publication. The clause unless otherwise provided refers to the
date of effectivity and not the to the requirement of publication
itself, which cannot in any event be omitted.
Basa vs Mercado, 61 Phil 632
To be a newspaper of general circulation, it is enough that it is
published for the dissemination of local news and general
information, that it has bona fide subscription list of paying
subscribers, and that it is published at regular intervals.
PASEI vs. Torres, G.R. NO. 101279,Aug. 06, 1992 212
SCRA 298
Although the questioned circulars are a valid exercise of the
police
power as delegated to the executive branch of
Government, they are
legally
invalid, defective and
unenforceable for lack of proper publication and filing in the
Office of the National Administrative Register as required in
Article 2 of the Civil Code, Article 5 of the Labor Code and
1
of 1987 which implies that the filing of the rules with the UP
Law Center is the operative act that gives the rules force and
effect.
Cojuangco, Jr. vs. Rep., G.R. NO. 180705, Nov.
27,2012 686 SCRA 472
In this case, while it incorporated the PCA-Cojuangco
AG.R.eement by reference, Section 1 of P.D. 755 did not in
any way reproduce the exact terms of the contract in the
decree. Neither was acopy thereof attached to the decree
when published. We cannot, therefore, extend to the said
AG.R.eement the status of a law.
NMSMI vs. DND,G.R. NO. 187587,June 5, 2013 697
SCRA 359
The Court cannot rely on a handwritten note that was not part of
Proclamation No. 2476 as published. Without publication, the
note never had any legal force and effect.
Roy vs CA, G.R. NO 80718 Jan. 29, 1988
The term laws do not include decisions of the Supreme
Court because lawyers in the active practice must keep
abreast of decisions, particularly where issues have been
clarified, consistently reiterated and published in advanced
reports and the SCRA.
(2000)
child filed an
(2000)
The
Supreme
Court
declared
the
moratorium
law
unconstitutional but it did not allow to toll the prescriptive
period of the right to foreclose the mortgage. The court
adopted the view that before
an act is declared
unconstitutional it is an operative fact which can be the source
of rights and duties.
492
judgment and its authenticity must be proven as facts under our rules
on evidence, together with the aliens applicable national law to show
the effect of the judgment on the alien himself or herself. The
recognition may be made in an action instituted specifically for the
purpose or in another action where a party invokes the foreign decree
as an integral aspect of his claim or defense. With respect to their
properties in the Philippines, Leticia filed a petition for judicial
separation of conjugal properties. The Court ruled that the Philippine
courts did not acquire jurisdiction over the California properties of
David and Leticia. Indeed, Article 16 of the Civil Code clearly states
that real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of
the country where it is situated. Thus, liquidation shall only be limited
to the Philippine properties.
NORMA A. DEL SOCORRO, for and in behalf of her minor child
RODERIGO NORJO VAN WILSEM, vs. ERNST JOHAN BRINKMAN
VAN WILSEM, G.R. No.
193707 , December 10, 2014
A foreigner was sued for support. The Supreme Court ruled that Article
195 of the New Civil Code cannot apply to him, since Article 15 of the
New Civil Code stresses the principle of nationality. Philippine laws,
specifically the provisions of the Family Code relating to support, only
apply to Filipino citizens. By analogy, the same principle applies to
foreigners such that they are governed by their national law with
respect to family rights and duties. Be that as it may, the accused,
who is residing in the Philippines, was held liable under under Section
5(e) and (i) of R.A. No. 9262 for unjustly refusing or failing to give
support to petitioners son on since respondent is currently living in
the Philippines, on the basis of the Territoriality Principle in criminal
law, in relation to Article 14 of the New Civil Code, applies to the
instant case, which provides that: "[p]enal laws and those of public
security and safety shall be obligatory upon all who live and sojourn in
Philippine territory, subject to the principle of public international law
and to treaty stipulations."
NORMA A. DEL SOCORRO for and in behalf of her Minor
Child RODERIGO NORJO VAN WILSEM vs. ERNST JOHAN
BRINKMAN VAN WILSEM, G.R. No.
193707, December 10, 2014
NO. 80116
June 30,
Although the act is not illegal, liability for damages may arise should
there be an abuse of rights. The concept of abuse of rights prescribes
that a person should not use his right unjustly or in bad faith;
otherwise, he may be liable to another who suffers injury. There is an
abuse of rights if when the act is performed without prudence or in bad
faith. In order that liability may attach under the concept of abuse of
rights, the following elements must be present, to wit: (a) the existence
of a legal right or duty, (b) which is exercised in bad faith, and (c) for
the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another. There is no hard and
fast rule that can be applied to ascertain whether or not the principle of
abuse of rights is to be invoked. The resolution of the issue depends on
the circumstances of each case.
However, Sesbreo did not persuasively demonstrate that there was an
intervention of malice or bad faith on the part of (VOC) inspection team
The issue for resolution is: whether or not petitioner committed acts
amounting to unfair competition under Article 28 of the Civil Code.The
instant case falls under Article 28 of the Civil Code on human
relations, and not unfair competition under Republic Act No. 8293, as
the present suit is a damage suit and the products are not covered by
patent registration. A fortiori, the existence of patent registration is
immaterial in the present case.
The concept of "unfair competition"under Article 28 is very much
broader than that covered by intellectual property laws. Under the
present article, which follows the extended concept of "unfair
competition" in American jurisdictions, the term covers even cases of
discovery of trade secrets of a competitor, bribery of his employees,
misrepresentation of all kinds, interference with the fulfillment of a
competitors contracts, or any malicious interference with the latters
business.
Article 28 of the Civil Code provides that unfair competition in
agricultural, commercial or industrial enterprises or in labor through
the use of force, intimidation, deceit, machination or any other unjust,
oppressive or high-handed method shall give rise to a right of action by
the person who thereby suffers damage. What is being sought to be
prevented is not competition per se but the use of unjust, oppressive or
highhanded methods which may deprive others of a fair chance to
engage in business or to earn a living. Thus, when a manufacturer of
plastic kitchenware products employed the former employees of a
neighboring partnership engaged in the manufacture of plastic
automotive parts; deliberately copied the latters products and even
went to the extent of selling these products to the latters customers,
there is unfair competition.
1
0
12
(1997)
Marriage License
Certificate of
Civil Registrar;
Alcantara v. Alcantara,
28,2007 531 SCRA 446
G.R.
NO.
167746
Aug.
Marriage Ceremony
Morigo vs People, 422 SCRA 376 (2004)
Petitioner and Lucia Barrette merely signed
the
marriage
contract on their own. The mere act of signing a marriage
contract by the contracting parties without the presence of the
solemnizing officer will not result to marriage.
Infante vs Arenas, June 29, 1951
The failure of the solemnizing officer to ask the parties whether
they take each other as husband and wife cannot be regarded
as a fatal
omission
if the parties nonetheless signed the
marriage contract in the presence of the solemnizing officer.
A declaration of word of mouth of what the parties and
already stated in writing would be a mere repetition, so that
its omission should not be regarded as fatal.
People v. Opea, L-34954, Feb. 20, 1981
they were
and legally
rebutted by
marriage.
passport using Andos last name, the DFA told her that she needed to
prove by a competent court decision that her second marriage to
Ando is valid until otherwise declared.
There appears to be insufficient proof or evidence presented on
record of both the national law of her first husband, Kobayashi, and
of the validity of the divorce decree under that national law. Hence,
any declaration as to the validity of the divorce can only be made
upon her complete submission of evidence proving the
divorce decree and the national law of her alien spouse, in an action
instituted in the proper forum.
Rep. v. Orbecido, G.R. NO. 154380, Oct. 05, 2005 472
SCRA 114
Whether or not, a Filipino spouse of an alien, who is a Filipino
at the time of marriage, remarry after the latter acquires a
foreign divorce that allows her to remarry. The reckoning point is
not the citizenship of the parties at the time of the celebration
of the marriage, but their citizenship at the time a valid divorce
is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating the latter to
remarry.
Relationships.
Interest;
Valid
Voidable
Void
Terminable
Others Classifications
Legal Separation
Separation in Fact
Common Law
Relationship
Void Marriages vs Voidable Marriages
2
0
Suntay
(1998)
vs.
Conjuangco-Suntay,
300
SCRA
760,
770
2
0
marriage
21
Whether
or
not
A.M.
NO.
02-11-10-SC
RULE
ON
DECLARATION OF
ABSOLUTE
NULLITY
OF
VOID
MARRIAGES AND ANNULMENT OF
VOIDABLE
MARRIAGES
is
applicable
to
marriages
solemnized before the effectivity of Family Code. NO. The Rule
on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and
Annulment of Voidable Marriages as contained in A.M. NO. 0211-10-SC which the Court promulgated on March 15, 2003
22
1994
Appeals
and
The appellate court correctly ruled that the report of Dr. Tayag
failed to explain the root cause of petitioners alleged
psychological incapacity. The evaluation of Dr. Tayag merely
made a general conclusion that petitioner is suffering from an
Anti-social Personality Disorder but there was no factual basis
stated for the finding that petitioner is a socially deviant
person, rebellious, impulsive, self-centered and deceitful.
GRACE
PAREL-VIAS,
G.R.
No.
Prescription
Nial v. Bayadog G.R. NO. 133778=, Mar. 14, 2000
328 SCRA 122
The action or defense for nullity is imprescriptible, unlike
voidable marriages where the action prescribes. Only the
parties to a voidable marriage can assail it but any proper
interested party may attack a void marriage.
Declaration of Nullity; Art.40; Prejudicial QuestionSection 7, Rule 117, 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure;
Arts.35 (4) & 41, FC; Art.349 RPC; Civil & Criminal
Bigamy; Art. 83, NCC
Judicial Declaration of nullity of marriages
3
0
vs.
Cojuangco-Suntay,
300
SCRA
760,
771
annulment
of
marriage
and
32
A.M.
NO.00-1329,
Mar.
08,
The fact that Manzano and Payao had been living apart from
their respective spouses for a long time already is immaterial.
Article 63(1) of the Family Code allows spouses who have
obtained a decree of legal separation to live separately from
each other, but in such a case the marriage bonds are not
severed.
SSS v. Aguas, G.R. NO. 165546 , Feb. 27, 2006 483
SCRA 383
On the claims of Rosanna, it bears stressing that for her to
qualify as a primary beneficiary, she must prove that she was
"the legitimate spouse dependent for support from the
employee, whether one is actually dependent for support
Title
III.
RIGHTS
AND
OBLIGATIONS
HUSBAND & W IFE (Arts 68-73)
BETWEEN
BY
REASON
OF MARRIAGE
CHAPTER 3. SYSTEM
(Articles 88-104);
R.A. 8369
OF
ABSOLUTE
COMMUNITY
constitutes
Community
Property
OF
ABSOLUTE
COMMUNITY
constitutes
Community
Property
Concept
Homeowners Savings & Loan Bank vs. Dailo, 453 SCRA
283, 290 (2005)
The regime of conjugal partnership of gains is a special
type of partnership, where the husband and wife place in a
common fund the proceeds, products, fruits and income from
their separate properties and those acquired by either or both
spouses through their efforts or by chance.
Rules governing CPG
Commencement of CPG
Prohibition on waiver of Rights, Interest, Shares
and Effects Quiao vs. Quiao G.R. NO. 176556 , July
4, 2012 675 SCRA 642
In this provision, net profits "shall be the increase in value
between the market value of the community property at the time
of the celebration of the marriage and the market value at
the time of its dissolution."
General Provisions
FRANCISCO LIM vs. EQUITABLE PCI BANK, now known as the
BANCO DE ORO
UNIBANK INC., January 15, 2014, J. del Castillo
All property of the marriage is presumed to be conjugal, unless it is
shown that it is owned exclusively by the husband or the wife; that
this presumption is not overcome by the fact that the property is
registered in the name of the husband or the wife alone 2and that the
consent of both spouses is required before a conjugal property may
be mortgaged. However, we find it iniquitous to apply the foregoing
presumption especially since the nature of the mortgaged property
was never raised as an issue before the RTC, the CA, and even before
this Court. In fact, petitioner never alleged in his Complaint that the
said property was conjugal in nature.
2.
Exclusive
109
-115)
Property
Villegas
v.
of
Each
Lingan
Spouse
G.R.
NO.
Improvement on Separate
Property Determination of
Ownership
Ferrer v. Ferrer, G.R. NO.166496 , Nov. 29, 2006 508
SCRA 570
The obligation to reimburse rests on the spouse upon whom
ownership
of the entire property is vested. There is no
obligation on the part of the purchaser of the property, in case
the property is sold by the owner- spouse.
Section 4.Charges Upon &
Partnership (Articles 121-123)
Oblig.of
the
Conjugal
vs.
The burden of proof that the debt was contracted for the benefit
of the conjugal partnership of gains lies with the creditor-party
litigant claiming as such.
Ayala Investment & Development Corp. vs. Court of
Appeals, 286 SCRA 272 (1998)
Where the husband contracts obligations on behalf of the
family business, the law presumes, and rightly so, that such
obligation will redound to the benefit of the conjugal
partnership.
Ching vs. CA, G.R. NO. 124642 , Feb. 23, 2004 423
SCRA 356
4
0
4
0
Due to the second marriage between Atty. Luna and the petitioner
being void ab initio by virtue of its being bigamous, the properties
acquired during the bigamous marriage were governed by the rules
on co-ownership, conformably with Article 144 of the Civil Code.
42
of
Appeals,
G.R.
No.
Jader-Manalo vs.
23, 2002 374
SCRA 498
Camaisa,
G.R.
NO.
147978,
Jan.
16,
G.R. NO.
CHAPTER 5.SEPARATION
OF
PROP.
OF
THE
SPOUSES
& ADM INISTRATION OF COMMON
PROPERTY BY ONE SPOUSE DURING THE MARRIAGE
(Arts 134-142)
CHAPTER 6. REGIME OF SEPARATION OF PROPERTY
(Articles 143 - 146)
Grounds
Voluntary Separation of Property
Maquilan
2007 524
166
QC G.R.
the
San Luis v. San Luis G.R. NO. 133743, Feb. 06, 2007 514
SCRA
294
In the instant case, respondent would qualify as an
interested person who has a direct interest in the estate of
Felicisimo by virtue of their cohabitation, the existence of
which was not denied by petitioners. If she proves the
validity of the divorce and Felicisimos capacity to remarry,
but fails to prove that her marriage with him was validly
performed under the laws of the U.S.A., then she may be
conside red as a co-owner under Article 144 76 of the Civil
Code
By the very definition of the law that the family home is the
dwelling house where a person and his family resides and the
land on which it is situated, it is understood that the house
should be constructed on a land not belonging to another.
tax return, which only shows that income tax has been paid
and the amount thereof.
Macadangdang vs. Court of Appeals, 100 SCRA 73
In this case the husband and the wife continued to live in the
same province after their alleged separation, the Court did not
discount the possibility of physical access to each other
considering their proximity to
5
0
each other and considering further that the wife still visited and
recuperated in her mothers house where her spouse resided
with their children.
Andal vs. Macaraig, 89 Phil 165
The court held that just because tuberculosis is advanced in a
man does not necessarily mean that he is incapable
of
sexual intercourse. There are cases where persons suffering
from tuberculosis can do the carnal act even in the most
crucial stage of health because then they seemed to be more
inclined to sexual intercourse.
Tison vs CA, 276 SCRA 582 (1997)
The issue of legitimacy cannot be attacked collaterally.
CHAPTER 2. PROOF OF FILIATION (Articles 172-174)
RODOLFO S. AGUILAR vs. EDNA G. SIASAT, G.R. No. 200169,
January 28, 2015, J.
Del Castillo
The filiation of illegitimate children, like legitimate children, is
established by (1) the record of birth appearing in the civil register or a
final judgment; or (2) an admission of legitimate filiation in a public
document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the
parent concerned. In the absence thereof, filiation shall be proved by
(1) the open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate
child; or (2) any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special
laws. The due recognition of an illegitimate child in a record of birth, a
will, a statement before a court of record, or in any authentic writing is,
in itself, a consummated act of acknowledgment of the child, and no
further court action is required. In fact, any authentic writing is treated
not just a ground for compulsory recognition; it is in itself a voluntary
recognition that does not require a separate action for judicial
approval.
51
It must be concluded that Rodolfo who was born during the marriage
of Alfredo Aguilar and Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar and before their
respective deaths has sufficiently proved that he is the legitimate
issue of the Aguilar spouses. He correctly argues, Alfredo Aguilars
SSS satisfies the requirement for proof of filiation and relationship to
the Aguilar spouses under Article 172 of the Family Code; by itself, said
document constitutes an admission of legitimate filiation in a public
document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the
parent concerned.
52
G.R
.NO.
132474, Nov.
19,
and the
Guy v. CA, G.R. NO. 163707, Sept. 15, 2006 502 SCRA
151
It is clear therefore that the resolution of the issue of
prescription depends on the type of evidence to be adduced by
private respondents in proving their filiation. However, it would
be impossible to determine the same in this case as there has
been no reception of evidence yet.
8,
adopted
Lim
G.R.
&
SPECIAL
PARENTAL
Reyes
It was improper for BBB, knowing that CCC was not his biological son,
to have CCC legitimated after the celebration of BBB and AAAs
marriage. The legal process of legitimation was trifled with when BBB
voluntarily but falsely acknowledged CCC as his son. The principle of
estoppel under Article 1431 thus applies, and it now bars BBB from
making an assertion contrary to his previous representations. He
should not be allowed to evade a responsibility arising from his own
misrepresentations.
He is bound by the effects of the legitimation process. CCC remains to
be BBBs son, and pursuant to Article 179 of the Family Code, the
former is entitled to the same rights as those of a legitimate child,
including the receipt of his fathers support.
Duty of Representation
Obedencio vs. Murillo, A.M. NO. RTJ-03-1753. Feb. 5,
2004 422 SCRA 21
Licel was only 14 years old, definitely a minor, on May 22,
2001, when she was presented before respondents sala to
affirm the execution of her affidavit of desistance. This being
the case, said affidavit should have been executed with the
concurrence of her parents. Licel could not validly give
consent to an affidavit of desistance, for
a
minor
is
incompetent to execute such an instrument.
damages
caused
by their minor
Neri v. Heirs of
10, 2012 683
SCRA 253
Hadji
Yusop, G.R. No
194366, Oct.
6
0
61
INVOLVING
PARENTAL
62
Rule
on
Rule
on
NCC)
The petitioner alleges that being a common law spouse who took care
of the deceased, she has the right to make funeral arrangements for
the deceased. The Supreme Court ruled that the duty and the right to
make funeral arrangements are confined within the family of the
deceased particularly the spouse of the deceased to the exclusion of a
common law spouse. FE FLORO VALINO vs. ROSARIO D. ADRIANO,
FLORANTE D. ADRIANO, RUBEN D. ADRIANO, MARIA TERESA
ADRIANO ONGOCO, VICTORIA ADRIANO BAYONA, and LEAH
ANTONETTE D. ADRIANO, G.R. No. 182894, April 22, 2014, J.
Mendoza
Code
9255
An
Act
Allowing Illegitimate
Children
to Use
Rules
(Section
4)
73, 74,107,
Arts.774 & 777; Art. 1456; Arts 22, 2142-2175; Wills &
Succession
P ROP ERTY
Title I. CLASSIFICATION OF
PROPERTY PRELIM INARY
PROVISIONS
Concept of Property
Classification of Property
Immovable vs Movable
Properties
Laurel
2009
vs. Abrogar,
G.R. NO.
155076,
Jan.
13,
Phils.,
Inc.,
vs.
CBAA, May
31,
1982
CBAA,
May
31,
1982
While the two storage tanks are not embedded in the land, they
may, nevertheless, be considered as improvements on the land,
enhancing its utility and rendering it useful to the oil industry. It
is undeniable that the two tanks have been installed with some
deG.R.ee of permanence as receptacles for the considerable
quantities of oil needed by Meralco for its operations.
Rights as property
MBTC v. Alejo, 364 SCRA 812, 819 (2001)
Chapter 2 Movable
Property Concept
180027,July
18, 2012
to
20,
The buyer did not acquire private ownership of the bed of the
eastern branch of the Cagayan River even if it was included in
the deeds of absolute sale executed by the sellers since the
sellers could not have validly sold land that constituted
property of public dominion.
Hilario vs City of Manila, G.R. No. L-19570, April 27,
1967
The phrase banks of a river is understood to be those lateral
strips orzones of its beds which are washed by the stream only during such
highfloods as do not cause inundations. In other words, the banks
refer to the lateral lines or strips reached by the waters when
the river is at high tide.
Manila International Airport Authority vs. CA, 495 SCRA
591
No one can dispute that properties of public dominion
mentioned in Article 420 of the Civil Code, like roads, canals,
rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State,
are owned by the State. The term ports includes seaports
and airports. The MIAA Airport Lands and Buildings constitute
a port constructed by the State.
Reclaimed Properties
Republic
vs.
Paraaque, G.R.
NO.
191109,July 18, 2012 677 SCRA 246
The subject reclaimed lands are still part of the public
domain, owned by the State and, therefore, exempt from
payment of real estate taxes. Here, the subject lands are
reclaimed lands, specifically portions of the foreshore and
offshore areas of Manila Bay. As such, these lands remain
public lands and form part of the public domain.
MIDWAY
MARITIME
AND
TECHNOLOGICAL
FOUNDATION,
represented by its
Chairman/President PhD in Education DR. SABINO M.
MANGLICMOT vs. MARISSA E. CASTRO, ET AL., G.R. No.
189061, August 6, 2014, J. Reyes
The petitioner is a lessee of a parcel of land and disputes the title of the
owners of the building built on the land they are leasing. The Supreme
Court ruled that it is settled that "[o]nce a contact of lease is shown to
exist between the parties, the lessee cannot by any proof, however
strong, overturn the conclusive presumption that the lessor has a valid
title to or a better right of possession to the subject premises than the
lessee." Section 2(b), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court prohibits a tenant
from denying the title of his landlord at the time of the commencement
of the relation of landlord and tenant between them.
SUBIC BAY LEGEND RESORTS AND CASINOS, INC VS. BERNARD
C.
FERNANDEZ, G.R. No. 193426, September 29, 2014, J. Del
Castillo
Though casino chips do not constitute legal tender, there is no law
which prohibits their use or trade outside of the casino which issues
them. In any case, it is not unusual nor is it unlikely that respondent
could be paid by his Chinese client at the former' s car shop with the
casino chips in question; said transaction, if not common, is
nonetheless not unlawful. These chips are paid for anyway; petitioner
would not have parted with the same if their corresponding
representative equivalent - in legal tender, goodwill, or otherwise was
not received by it in return or exchange. Given this premise - that
casino chips are considered to have been exchanged with their
corresponding representative value - it is with more reason that this
Court should require petitioner to prove convincingly and persuasively
that the chips it confiscated from Ludwin and Deoven were indeed
stolen from it; if so, any Tom, Dick or Harry in possession of genuine
casino chips is presumed to have paid for their representative value in
exchange therefor. If petitioner cannot prove its loss, then Article 559
cannot apply; the presumption that the chips were exchanged for value
remains..
The petitioner claims that they are the rightful owners of the disputed
property. Thus, an ejectment proceeding cannot be commenced
against them. The Supreme Court ruled that "ejectment proceedings
are summary proceedings intended to provide an expeditious means of
protecting actual possession or right to possession of property. Title is
not involved. The sole issue to be resolved is who is entitled to the
physical or material possession of the premises or possession de
facto." "Issues as to the right of possession or ownership are not
involved in the action; evidence
7
0
decisive, for in
in
such
action, the
defendant is the
party
72
of action is the
to
continue
in
20, 2011
Philippines v. Court of
Appeals,
160
the ownership of the building separate from the lot, it never hesitated
to disregard such rule. The case at bar is of similar import. When there
are factual and evidentiary evidence to prove that the building and the
lot on which it stands are owned by different persons, they shall be
treated separately. As such, the building or the lot, as the case may
be, can be made liable to answer for the obligation of its respective
owner.
4.To prove good faith, the following conditions must be present: (a) the
seller is the registered owner of the land; (b) the owner is in possession
thereof; and (3) at the time of the sale, the buyer was not aware of any
claim or interest of some other person in the property, or of any defect
Definition
Kinds of Accession
Right of Accession with respect to what is produced
by property Accession Discreta
Kinds of Fruits
Right of Accession with respect to
immovable property Accession Continua
Fundamental
rules Industrial
Accession
Building, Planting, and Sowing (BPS)
Rules in BPS in the presence of good faith and
bad faith Concept of Good Faith
Rules governing BPS
Floreza v. Evangelista, 96 SCRA 130
The rule under article 448 of the NCC applies only when the
builder, planter or sower believes he had the right so to build,
plant or sow because he thinks he owns the land or believes
himself to have a claim of title.
Mercado v. CA, 162 SCRA 75, 85 1988
To be deemed a builder in good faith, it is essential that a
person asserts title to the land on which he builds, i.e., it is
essential that he be a possessor in concept of owner and that
he be unaware that there exists in his title or mode of
acquisition any flaw which invalidates it.
Bulacanag v. Francisco, 122 SCRA 498, 502 (1983)
557
Since the subject land was the direct result of the dumping
of sawdust by the Sun Valley Lumber Co., the accretion was
man-made, hence, Art. 457 does not apply. Ergo, the subject
land is part of the public domain.
Roxas v. Tuason, 9 Phil. 408.
The right of the owners of the bank adjacent to rivers to the
accretion which they receive by virtue of the action of the
waters of the river is ipso jure and there is no need of an
action of the owner of the bank to possess the new addition
since it belongs to him by the very fact of the addition.
Cureg v. IAC, 177 SCRA 313 (1989)
The accretion to registered land does not preclude
acquisition of the additional area by another person through
prescription.
Avulsion
Definition
Avulsion vs Alluvion
Rules Governing
Avulsion Change of
course of River
Agne v. Director of Lands, 181 SCRA 793, 805 (1990)
There need be no act on their part to subject the old river bed
to their ownership, as it is subject thereto ipso jure from the
moment the mode of acquisition becomes evident, without
need of any formal act of acquisition. Such abandoned
riverbed had fallen to the private ownership of the owner of
the land through which the new river bed passes even
without any formal act of his will and any unauthorized
occupant thereof will be considered as a trespasser.
Formation of Island
Right of Accession with respect to Movable
Property Adjunction or Conjunction
Rules governing Adjunction or
Conjunction Presence and absence
of badfaith
Commixtion or
Confusion
Specification
Chapter 3 Quieting of
Title Action to Quiet
Title
HEIRS OF PACIFICO POCIDO, ET AL. VS. ARSENIA AVILA AND
EMELINDA CHUA G.R. No.
199146, March 19, 2014, J. Carpio
The DENR Decision was affirmed by the Office of the President which
held that lands within the Baguio Townsite Reservation belong to the
public domain and are no longer registrable under the Land
Registration Act. The Office of the President ordered the disposition of
the disputed property in accordance with the applicable rules of
procedure for the disposition of alienable public lands within the Baguio
Townsite Reservation, particularly Chapter X of Commonwealth Act No.
141 on Townsite Reservations and other applicable rules. Having
established that the disputed property is public land, the trial court was
therefore correct in dismissing the complaint to quiet title for lack of
jurisdiction. The trial court had no jurisdiction to determine who among
the parties have better right over the disputed property which is
admittedly still part of the public domain.
Considering that the action for annulment and cancellation of title filed
by the respondents is substantially in the nature of an action for
reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust, combined
with the fact that the respondents have always been in possession of
the subject property, the Court treated Civil Case No.
18421 as an action to quiet title, the filing of which does not prescribe.
Requisites
HERMINIO M. DE GUZMAN, FOR HIMSELF AND AS ATTORNEY-INFACT
OF:
NILO M. DE GUZMAN, ANGELINO DE GUZMAN,
JOSEFINO M. DE GUZMAN, ESTRELLA M. DE GUZMAN, TERESITA
DE GUZMAN, ELSA MARGARITA M. DE GUZMAN, EVELYN M. DE
GUZMAN, MA. NIMIA M. DE GUZMAN, ANTOLIN M. DE GUZMAN,
AND
FERDINAND
M.
DE
GUZMAN
vs.
TABANGAO
REALTY
INCORPORATED, G.R. No. 154262, February 11, 2015, J.
Leonardo-De Castro
The petitioners allege that they are the owners of the disputed
property. This allegation is anchored on the assertion that at the time of
the death of their parents, the disputed property is still under the
latters name. The Supreme Court ruled that for an action to quiet title
to prosper, two indispensable requisites must concur: (1) the plaintiff or
complainant has a legal or equitable title or interest in the real property
subject of the action; and (2) the deed, claim, encumbrance, or
proceeding claimed to be casting a cloud on his title must be shown to
be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of
validity or legal efficacy. Petitioners Complaint in Civil Case No. TM1118 failed to allege these two requisites for an action to quiet title.
CLT REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. PHIL-VILLE
DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING CORPORATION, REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES (THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR
GENERAL) AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF METRO MANILA
DISTRICT III, CALOOCAN, G.R. No. 160728, March 11, 2015, J.
Leonardo-De Castro
Thus, both requisites in order for an action for quieting of title to
prosper have been met in this case: (1) Phil-Ville had established its
equitable title or interest in the 16 parcels of land subject of the action;
and (2) TCT No. T-177013, found to overlap titles to said properties of
Phil-Ville, was previously declared invalid.
Chung
2012
Jr.
vs.
Mondragon, G.R.
179754,Nov.
21,
The issues in a case for quieting of title are fairly simple; the
plaintiff need to prove only two things, namely: "(1) the
plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an equitable title to or
interest in the real property subject of the action; and (2) that
the deed, claim, encumbrance or proceeding claimed to be
casting a cloud on his title must be shown to be in fact
11,
2012
Under Articles 476 and 477 of the Civil Code, the two (2)
indispensable requisites in an action to quiet title are: (1)
that the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an equitable
title to or interest in the real property subject of the action;
and (2) that a deed, claim, encumbrance or proceeding is
claimed to be casting cloud on his title.
In this case, an action to quiet title is not the proper remedy
because petitioner no longer had any legal or equitable title to
or interest in the lots. The petitioners status as possessor and
owner of the lots had been settled in the final and executory
December 4, 1985 decision of the Bureau of Lands that the
DENR Secretary and the OP affirmed on appeal. Thus, the
petitioner is not entitled to the possession and ownership of
the lots.
8
0
8
0
of
Co-
ownership Rules
Governing Co-ownership
82
Extinguishment of Co-ownership
VILMA QUINTOS, represented by her Attorney-in-Fact FIDEL I.
QUINTOS, JR.; FLORENCIA I. DANCEL, represented by her
Attorney-in-Fact FLOVY I. DANCEL; and CATALINO L. IBARRA v
PELAGIA I. NICOLAS, NOLI L. IBARRA, SANTIAGO L. IBARRA,
PEDRO L. IBARRA, DAVID L. IBARRA, GILBERTO L. IBARRA,
HEIRS OF AUGUSTO L. IBARRA, namely CONCHITA R., IBARRA,
APOLONIO IBARRA, and NARCISO IBARRA, and the spouses
RECTO CANDELARIO and ROSEMARIE CANDELARIO. G.R No.
210252, June 16, 2014. J. VELASCO, JR.
A partition case of a land co-owned by ten siblings was dismissed for
the failure of the parties and counsels to appear despite due notice
under Rule 17, Section 3 of the Rules of Court. Later, in a quieting of
title case involving the same property, the siblings demanded partition.
The occupant of the lot claimed that the action for partition is barred
by res judicata.
It is indeed true that dismissal with prejudice under the above-cited
rule amply satisfies one of the elements of res judicata. However,
dismissal with prejudice under Rule 17, Sec. 3 of the Rules of Court
cannot defeat the right of a co-owner to ask for partition at any time,
provided that there is no actual adjudication of ownership of shares
yet.
A perusal of Article 494 of the Civil Code shows that the law generally
does not favor the retention of co-ownership as a property relation,
and is interested instead in ascertaining the co-owners specific shares
so as to prevent the allocation of portions to remain perpetually in
limbo. Thus, the law provides that each co-owner may demand at any
time the partition of the thing owned in common.
Between dismissal with prejudice under Rule 17, Sec. 3 and the right
granted to co - owners under Art. 494 of the Civil Code, the latter must
prevail. To construe otherwise would diminish the substantive right of a
co-owner through the promulgation of procedural rules. Such a
construction is not sanctioned by the principle, which is too well
Mar.
21,
Catapang
G.R.
164110,
Feb.
12,
v.
Heirs
of
Lustre,
G.R. NO.
151016,
Aug.
06,
2008 - any adverse ruling in the earlier case will not, in any
way, prejudice the heirs who did not join, even if such case
was actually filed in behalf of all the co-owners. In fact, if an
action for recovery of property is dismissed, a subsequent
action by a co- heir who did not join the earlier case should
not be barred by prior judgment.
Title V Possession
SPOUSES REYNALDO AND HILLY G. SOMBILON v ATTY. REY
FERDINAND GARAY AND PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, G.R No.
179914, June 16, 2014. DEL CASTILLO
The Court ruled that PNB has the right to the writ. The allegedly
invalidity of the sale between PNB and Atty. Garay is not a ground to
oppose or defer the issuance of the Writ of Possession as this does not
affect PNBs right to possess the subject
property. As the registered owner, PNB is entitled to the possession
of the subject property as a matter of right.
NORMA V. JAVATE vs. SPOUSES RENATO J. TIOTUICO AND LERMA
C. TIOTUICO,
G.R. No. 187606, March 09, 2015, J. Peralta
If the purchaser is a third party who acquired the property after the
redemption period, a hearing must be conducted to determine whether
possession over the subject property is still with the mortgagor or is
already in the possession of a third party holding the same adversely
to the defaulting debtor or mortgagor. In the instant case, while
respondents' petition for the issuance of a writ of possession was filed
ex-parte, a hearing was, nonetheless, conducted when the RTC gave
petitioner her day in court by giving her the opportunity to file various
pleadings to oppose respondent's petition. Moreover, there is no
dispute that petitioner remained in possession of the subject property
prior to the issuance of the questioned writ of possession. It is, thus,
clear that respondents' resort, as a subsequent or third-party
purchaser, the petition for the issuance of a writ of possession is
proper.
MARCELA M. DELA CRUZ VS. ANTONIO O. HERMANO, ET AL.
G.R. No. 160914.
March 25, 2015, J. Sereno
To prove their claim of having a better right to possession, respondents
submitted their title thereto and the latest Tax Declaration prior to the
initiation of the ejectment suit. The CA erred in considering those
documents sufficient to prove respondents prior physical possession.
Similarly, tax declarations and realty tax payments are not conclusive
proofs of possession. They are merely good indicia of possession in the
concept of owner based on the presumption that no one in ones right
mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in ones actual or
constructive possession.
The respondents have claimed from the inception of the controversy up
to now that they are using the property as their vacation house, this
claim, however, is not substantiated by any corroborative evidence.
Their uncorroborated claim of that fact, even if made under oath, is
Kinds of Possession
Possession in Good Faith and Bad
Faith
CARMENCITA SUAREZ VS. MR. AND MRS. FELIX E. EMBOY JR. AND
MARILOU P. EMBOY- DELANTAR G.R. No. 187944 March 12, 2014, J.
Reyes
and the RTC correctly passed upon the issue of ownership in this case
to determine the issue of possession. However, it must be emphasized
that "[t]he adjudication of the issue of ownership is only provisional,
and not a bar to an action between the same parties involving title to
the property."
BONIFACIO PIEDAD, MARIA PIEDAD represented by INSPIRACION DANAO
v SPOUSES VICTORIO GURIEZA and EMETERIA M. GURIEZA, G.R No.
207525, June 18, 2014. J. PERLAS-BERNABE
Unlawful detainer is an action to recover possession of real property
from one who unlawfully withholds possession thereof after the
expiration or termination of his right to hold possession under any
contract, express or implied. An ejectment case, based on the
allegation of possession by tolerance, falls under the category of
unlawful detainer. Where the plaintiff allows the defendant to use
his/her property by tolerance without any contract, the defendant is
necessarily bound by an implied promise that he/she will vacate on
demand, failing which, an action for unlawful detainer will lie. In
unlawful detainer actions, the Court shall solely resolve the issue as to
who between the parties has the better right of possession de facto
over the subject lot. Corollary thereto, issues pertaining to ownership
are better threshed out in another action instituted for such purpose.
FE U. QUIJANO v ATTY. DARYLL A. AMANTE, G.R No. 164277,
October 8, 2014. J. BERSAMIN
Where the plaintiff does not prove her alleged tolerance of the
defendant's occupation, the possession is deemed illegal from the
beginning. Hence, the action for unlawful detainer is an improper
remedy. But the action cannot be considered as one for forcible entry
without any allegation in the complaint that the entry of the defendant
was by means of force, intimidation, threats, strategy or stealth.
Factor, G.R.
NO.
350
172547,
Jun.
30,
200
9
175604,
Apr.
v.
109595,
Apr.
Effects of Possession
PAUL P. GABRIEL, JR, et al. vs. CARMELING CRISOLOGO, G.R. No. 204626,
June 9, 2014, J. Mendoza
When it is shown that the plaintiff in a case of accion publiciana had a
valid title issued in her name in 1967, within the period which the
Supreme Court held that titles issued over the same properties were
valid; that she has been paying the realty taxes on the said properties
since l969; that she likewise appointed an administrator of the
disputed lands, and more importantly, there is no question that she
offered to sell to petitioners the portions of the subject properties
occupied by
9
0
91
92
80298, Apr.
26,
199
0
v.
123498,
Nov.
Bad faith
does not simply
connote
bad judgment or
negligence; it imports
a dishonest purpose or some moral
obliquity and conscious doing of wrong; it partakes of the
nature of fraud. We have held that it is a breach of a known
duty through some motive of interest or ill will.
Title VI Usufruct
Characteristics and
Nature
Rights and Obligations of the
Parties Title VII. Easements or
Servitude
del
Restrictive Covenant
Fajardo v. Freedom
to Build, G.R. NO.
134692, Aug. 1, 2000
While it may be correct to state that restrictive covenants on
the use of land or the location or character of buildings or other
structures thereon may broadly be said to create easements or
rights, it can also be contended
that
such
covenants,
being limitations on the manner
in
which one may use his own property, do not result in true
easements,
but a case of servitudes (burden), sometimes
characterized to be negative easements or reciprocal negative
easements.
Abellana v. CA, G.R. NO.
Abangan,
v.
CA,
G.R. NO.
112331,
May
29,
Unisource v.
17,
2009
173252,
Jul.
Classification of Nuisance
LINDA RANA vs. TERESITA LEE WONG, SPS. SHIRLEY LEE ONG and
RUBEN ANG ONG and SPS. ROSARIO and WILSON UY; SPS. ROSARIO and
WILSON UY; WILSON UY as attorney-in-fact of TERESITA LEE WONG, and
SPS. SHIRLEY LEE ONG and RUBEN ANG ONG vs. SPS. REYNALDO and
LINDA LANA, G.R. No. 192861; G.R. No. 192862, June 30, 2014, J. Perlas-Bernabe
It is a standing jurisprudential rule that unless a nuisance is a nuisance
per se, it may not be summarily abated. Aside from the remedy of
summary abatement which should be taken under the parameters
stated in Articles 704 (for public nuisances) and 706 (for private
nuisances) of the Civil Code, a private person whose property right
was invaded or unreasonably interfered with by the act, omission,
establishment, business or condition of the property of another may
file a civil action to recover personal damages. Abatement may be
judicially sought through a civil action therefor if the pertinent
requirements under the Civil Code for summary abatement, or the
requisite that the nuisance is a nuisance per se, do not concur. To note,
the remedies of abatement and damages are cumulative; hence, both
may be demanded.
LINDA RANA v TERESITA WONG, G.R No. 192861, June 30,
2014. J. PERLAS- BERNABE
The spouses Wong and the spouses Rana are neighbors who live
across a road from each other. The Ranas elevated and cemented the
road without consultation from the spouses Wong. Wong et al availed
of the remedy of judicial abatement and damages against Spouses
Rana, claiming that the elevated and cemented portion are nuisances
that curtailed their use and enjoyment of their properties.
With respect to the elevated and cemented subject portion, the Court
finds that the same is not a nuisance per se. By its nature, it is not
injurious to the health or comfort of the community. It was built
primarily to facilitate the ingress and egress of Sps. Rana from their
house which was admittedly located on a higher elevation than the
subject road and the adjoining Uy and Wong-Ong properties. Since
the subject portion is not a nuisance per se, it cannot be summarily
abated. The demolition order secured by Wong was thus unwarranted,
entitling the spouses Rana to nominal and temperate damages.
Remedies
Telmo v. Bustamante, G.R. NO.
13,
2009
182567, Jul.
Quezon
177807,Oct
Insular
Life
28,
1977
v.
44059,
Oct.
v.
Sept.
vs.
126444,
Dec.
4,
PRESCR IPTION
METROPOLITAN FABRICS INC. ET AL. VS. PROSPERITY CREDIT
RESOURCES ENC. ET AL. G.R. No. 154390 March 17, 2014, J.
Bersamin
With the contract being voidable, petitioners action to annul the real
estate mortgage already prescribed. Article 1390, in relation to Article
1391 of the Civil Code, provides that if the consent of the contracting
parties was obtained through fraud, the contract is considered voidable
and may be annulled within four years from the time of the discovery
of the fraud. The discovery of fraud is reckoned from the time the
document was registered in the Register of Deeds in view of the rule
that registration was notice to the whole world. Thus, because the
mortgage involving the seven lots was registered on September 5,
1984, they had until September 5, 1988 within which to assail the
validity of the mortgage. But their complaint was instituted in the RTC
only on October 10, 1991.Hence, the action, being by then already
prescribed, should be dismissed.
10
0
10
2
I. DEFINITION
MAKATI STOCK EXCHANGE vs. CAMPOS, G.R. NO.
138814, April 16, 2009
ELEMENTS OF AN OBLIGATION
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES,
G.R.
III.
ASIAN
CONSTRUCTION
AND
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION
vs.
PHILIPPINE
COMMERCIAL
INTERNATIONAL BANK, G.R. NO. 153827
April 25, 2006
2. CIVIL OBLIGATIONS
ANSAY vs. NDC, G.R. NO. L-13667, April 29, 1960
Delfin, the father, was held jointly and severally liable with his
minor son Dante arising from the criminal act committed by
the latter. The civil liability which the law imposes upon the
father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, for
any damages that may be caused by the minor children who
live with them, is a necessary consequence of the parental
authority they exercise over them which imposes upon the
parents the "duty of supporting them, keeping them in their
company, educating them in proportion to their means",
while, on the other hand, gives them the "right to correct and
punish them in moderation" .
2. OBLIGATIONS ARISING FROM CONTRACTS
B. SOLUTIO INDEBITI
ANDRES vs. MANUFACTURERS HANOVER
CORPORATION,
G.R. NO. 82670 September 15, 1989
&
TRUST
PUYAT & SONS, INC. vs. CITY OF MANILA, G.R. NO. L17447, April 30, 1963
A.OBLIGATION TO GIVE
GENERIC THING
DETERMINATE
THING
vs
11
0
11
0
It is clear upon the records that the sole and principal reason for
the cancellation of the allocation of rice contracted by the
appellee herein in Burma, was the failure of the letter of credit
to be opened by NARIC within the contemplated period
which resulted in the consequent damage. Every debtor who
fails in performance of his obligations due to fraud, negligence,
or delay is bound to indemnify for the losses and damages
caused thereby.
TELEFAST vs. CASTRO, G.R. NO. 73867, February 29,
1988
11
2
MARKETING,G.R.NO.150806,
A.PURE OBLIGATIONS
ART 1179
HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORP. vs.
BROQUEZA, G.R. NO. 178610 November 17, 2010
Respondents executed undated promissory notes. They were not
able to pay the monthly amortizations of their respective loans,
which were suppose to be paid through salary deduction, to the
petitioner because of their dismissal. Loans secured by their
future retirement benefits to which they are no longer entitled
are reduced to unsecured and pure civil obligations and the
absence of a period within which to pay the obligation, the
fulfillment of which is demandable at once.
PAY vs. PALANCA, G.R. NO. L-29900June 28, 1974
Oppositor-appellee alleged that the rights of the petitionercreditor had already prescribed when the action based on a
dated promissory note was filed 15 years after. The wordings
of the promissory note being "upon demand," the obligation was
immediately due and had prescribed upon the lapse of ten
years from the date on the promissory
note.
B. CONDITIONAL
OBLIGATIONS
SUSPENSIVE CONDITION
183 SCRA 171
Art. 1181
JAVIER vs. CA, G.R. No. L-48194 March 15, 1990
When a contract is subject to a suspensive condition, its birth
and effectivity can take place only if and when the event
which constitutes the condition happens or is fulfilled, and if
the suspensive condition does not take place, the parties
would stand as if the conditional obligation had never
existed.
HEIRS OF PAULINO ATIENZA vs. ESPIDOL, G.R. NO.
180665
CONDITION PRECEDENT
PARKS vs. PROVINCE OF TARLAC, G.R. NO. L-24190,
July 13, 1926
RESOLUTORY
CONDITION ART 1181
CENTRAL PHILIPPINE UNIVERSITY vs. CA, G.R. NO.
112230. July 17, 1995
the obligation hence, the vendee cannot recover more than what
is agreed upon. Those who in the performance of their
obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those
who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for
damages and nominal damages are not
intended
for
indemnification
of
loss suffered but for the vindication or
recognition of a right violated or invaded.
5. RECIPROCAL OBLIGATION
12
0
In reciprocal obligations, either party may rescind the contract upon the
others substantial breach of the obligation/s he had assumed
thereunder. The basis therefor is Article 1191 of the Civil Code. PMC
rescinded the operating agreement with GVEI due to failure of the latter
to advance payment for actual cost. The court ruled that in reciprocal
obligations, either party may rescind the contract upon the others
substantial breach of the obligation/s he had assumed thereunder.
SWIRE REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. JAYNE YU, G.R. No.
207133, March 09, 2015, J. Peralta
The right of rescission of a party to an obligation under Article 1191 of
the Civil Code is predicated on a breach of faith by the other party
who violates the reciprocity between them. The breach contemplated
in the said provision is the obligors failure to comply with an existing
obligation. When the obligor cannot comply with what is incumbent
upon it, the obligee may seek rescission and, in the absence of any
just cause for the court to determine the period of compliance, the
court shall decree the rescission. Thus, the delay in the completion of
the project as well as of the delay in the delivery of the unit are
breaches of statutory and contractual obligations which entitle
respondent to rescind the contract, demand a refund and payment of
damages.
AGCAOILI vs. GSIS, G.R. NO. L-30056, August 30,
1988
12
2
OBLIGATIONS SOLIDARY
OBLIGATION
SPOUSES RODOLFO BEROT AND LILIA BEROT vs.FELIPE C.
SIAPNO, G.R. No.
188944, July 9, 2014, CJ. Sereno
As previous ruled by the Court, The well entrenched rule is that
solidary obligations cannot be inferred lightly. They must be positively
and clearly expressed. A liability is solidary only when the obligation
expressly so states, when the law so provides or when the nature of the
obligation so requires. Respondent was not able to prove by a
preponderance of evidence that petitioners' obligation to him was
solidary. Hence, applicable to this case is the presumption under the
law that the nature of the obligation herein can only be considered as
joint. It is incumbent upon the party alleging otherwise to prove with a
preponderance of evidence that petitioners' obligation under the loan
contract is indeed solidary in character.
OLONGAPO CITY vs. SUBIC WATER AND SEWERAGE CO., INC., G.R. No.
171626, August 6, 2014, J. Brion
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES,
G.R.
Philtranco Bus has been held solidarily liable with its bus
driver, Calang, when Calang accidentally collided with a
jeepney killing a bystander and two jeepney passengers while
other passengers were seriously injured. Since the cause of
action against Calang was based on delict, Philtranco cannot
be held jointly and severally liable with Calang, based on
quasi- delict under Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code
which pertain to
the vicarious liability of an employer for
quasi-delicts that an employee has committed.
IX. EXTINGUISHMENT OF
OBLIGATIONS MODES OF
EXTINGUISHING OBLIGATIONS
A. EXTINGUISHMENT BY PAYMENT OR
PERFORMANCE
RIVELISA REALTY, INC. VS. FIRST STA. CLARA BUILDERS
CORPORATION G.R.
No. 189618, January 15, 2014, J. Perlas-Bernabe
First Sta. Clara is entitled to be compensated for the development
works it had accomplished on the project based on the principle of
quantum meruit. Case law instructs that under this principle, a
contractor is allowed to recover the reasonable value of the thing or
services rendered despite the lack of a written contract, in order to
avoid unjust enrichment. Quantum meruit means that, in an action for
work and labor, payment shall be made in such amount as the plaintiff
reasonably deserves. The measure of recovery should relate to the
reasonable value of the services performed because the principle aims
to prevent undue enrichment based on the equitable postulate that it is
unjust for a person to retain any benefit without paying for it. In this
case, it is undisputed that First Sta. Clara already performed certain
works on the project with an estimated value of P4,578, 152.10. Clearly,
to completely deny it payment for the same would result in Rivelisa
Realty's unjust enrichment at the former' s expense. Besides, as may
be gleaned from the parties' correspondence, Rivelisa Realty obligated
itself to unconditionally reimburse First Sta. Clara the amount of
P3,000,000.00 (representing First Sta. Clara's valuation of its
accomplished works at P4,578,152.10, less the cash advances and
subcontractor's fees) after the JV A had already been terminated by
them through mutual assent. As such, Rivelisa Realty cannot
unilaterally renege on its promise by citing First Sta. Clara's nonfulfilment of the terms and conditions of the terminated JVA. For all
these reasons, the CA' s ruling must be upheld.
PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK (now BDO
UNIBANK, INC.),
vs. ARTURO P. FRANCO, substituted by his heirs, namely:
MAURICIA P. FRANCO, FLORIBEL P. FRANCO, AND ALEXANDER
P. FRANC0,G.R. No. 180069,
March 5, 2014, J. Peralta
Payment: Although Article 1271 of the Civil Code provides for a legal
presumption of renunciation of action (in cases where a private
document evidencing a credit was voluntarily returned by the creditor
to the debtor), this presumption is
merely prima facie and is not conclusive; the presumption loses
efficacy when faced
Under Article 1256, the only instances where prior tender of payment is
excused are: (1) when the creditor is absent or unknown, or does not
appear at the place of payment; (2) when the creditor is incapacitated
to receive the payment at the time it is due; (3) when, without just
cause, the creditor refuses to give a receipt; (4) when two or more
persons claim the same right to collect; and (5) when the title of the
obligation has been lost. None of these instances are present in the
instant case.
Hence, the fact that the subject lots are in danger of being foreclosed
does not
ADM
13
0
DEVELOPMENT CORP,
G.R.
13
2
vs.
REYES,
G.R.
NO.
150913,
ownership
and determined with certainty by the lower courts, it follows that legal
compensation could take place because all the requirements were
present. The legal interest rate to be imposed from February 11,
1993,the time of the extrajudicial demand by respondent, should be
6% per annum in the absence of any stipulation in writing in
accordance with Article 2209 of the Civil Code.
thereon, however, the Court notes that the same should be reduced to
6% per annum considering the fact that the obligation involved herein
does not partake of a loan or forbearance of money.
SOLINAP vs. DEL ROSARIO, G.R. No. L-50638 July 25,
1983
For compensation to take place, it is required that the amount
involved be certain and liquidated. Compensation cannot take
place where one's claim against the other is still the subject
of court litigation.
ART 1980
BPI vs CA, G.R. NO. 136202, January 25, 2007
ACERO,
G.R.
NO.
L-69255,
COURT
OF
APPEALS,
G.R.
(2) obligations,
therefore,
respectively
offset
each
other,
compensation having taken effect by operation of law and
extinguished
both debts to the concurrent
amount of
P10,000.00, pursuant to the provisions of Arts. 1278, 1279
and 1290 of the Civil Code, since all the requisites provided in
Art. 1279 of the said Code for automatic compensation "even
though the creditors and debtors are not aware of the
compensation" were duly present.
THE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE BANK INC. vs. IAC,
G.R. NO. L- 69560 June 30, 1988
Petitioner contended that, after extrajudicially foreclosing the
mortgage, private respondent still owes the former an
amount, by way of deficiency.
Petitioner also claimed that it has the right to apply or set off
private respondent's money market claim despite the fact that
the validity of the extrajudicial foreclosure sale and petitioner's
claim for deficiency are still in question.
Article 1279 of the Civil Code requires among others, that in
order that legal compensation shall take place, "the two debts
be due" and "they be liquidated and demandable", because
compensation is not proper where the claim of the person
asserting the set-off against the other is not clear nor
liquidated.
MONDRAGON vs.
January 21, 2013
SOLA,
JR.,
G.R.
NO.
174882
July
non- negotiable chose in action acquires no greater right than what was
possessed by his assignor and simply stands into the shoes of the
latter.55 Applying the foregoing, the Court finds that MS Maxco, as the
Trade Contractor,
cannot
assign or transfer any of its rights,
obligations, or liabilities under the Trade Contract without the written
consent of FBDC.
14
0
14
2
Rescission under Article 1191 takes place through either of two modes:
(1) through an extrajudicial declaration of rescission; or (2) upon the
grant of a judicial decree of rescission.
Extrajudicial declaration of rescission is recognized as a power which
does not require judicial intervention. If the rescission
is not
opposed, extrajudicial
have a cause of action against Metrobank and Global Bank that would
allow him to rescind the contracts of sale of the managers or cashiers
checks, which would have resulted in the crediting of the amounts
thereof back to his accounts.
THE WELLEX GROUP, INC. vs. U-LAND AIRLINES, CO., LTD., G.R.
No. 167519.
January 14, 2015, J. Leonen
the
parties
in
making
ART 1191
DEL CASTILLO Vda. DE MISTICA vs. SPOUSES
NAGUIAT, G.R. NO.
137909, December 11, 2003
the
vs.
ADAMOS,
G.R.
NO.
L-39378,
The breach of the contract adverted to by the defendantsappellants is so slight and casual when we consider that
apart from the initial downpayment of P392.00 the plaintiffsappellees had already paid the monthly installments for a
period of almost nine (9) years. If the obligation has been
substantially performed in good faith,
the
obligor may
recover as though there had been a strict and complete
fulfillment, less damages suffered by the obligee.
UP vs.
DE LOS
September 29,
ANGELES,
G.R.
NO.
L-28602,
OBLIGATIONS
15
0
15
2
Article 1390(2) of the Civil Code provides that contracts where the
consent is
vitiated by mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence or fraud
are voidable or annullable. Article 1335 of the Civil Code, meanwhile,
states that "there is intimidation when one of the contracting parties
is compelled by a reasonable and well-grounded fear of an imminent
and grave evil upon his person or property, or upon the person or
property of his spouse, descendants or ascendants, to give his
consent." The same article, however, further states that a "threat to
enforce ones claim through competent authority, if the claim is just or
legal, does not vitiate consent."
In this case, Ong merely informed the spouses of Ednas conviction in
the criminal cases for estafa. It might have evoked a sense of fear or
dread on Ednas part, but certainly there is nothing unjust, unlawful or
evil in Ongs act. The judgment of conviction was a result of a valid
judicial process and will not suffice to nullify the real estate mortgages
and the subsequent foreclosure of the mortgaged properties. No proof
was adduced to show that Ong used [force], duress, or threat to make
Edna execute the real estate mortgages.
MARIANO C. MENDOZA and ELVIRA LIM v SPOUSES LEONORA
J. GOMEZ and GABRIEL V. GOMEZ, G.R No. 160110, June 18,
2014. J. PEREZ
Article 2211 of the Civil Code provides that in crimes and quasidelicts, interest as part of the damage, may, in a proper case, be
adjudicated in the discretion of the court. Generally, interest is
allowed as a matter of right for failure to pay liquidated claims when
due. For unliquidated claims, however, Article 2213 of the Civil Code
provides that interest cannot be recovered upon unliquidated claims
or damages, except when the demand can be established with
reasonable certainty. In this case, the Court allowed the award of
interest on the actual and compensatory damages based on justice,
and because these damages could be measured against a reasonably
certain standard.
SPOUSES EDUARDO and LYDIA SILOS v PHILIPPINE NATIONAL
BANK, G.R No. 181045, July 2, 2014. J. DEL CASTILLO
From 1987 to 1998, the spouses Silos executed promissory notes in
favor of PNB, as well as real estate mortgages to secure the loan. The
loan contracts contained an escalation clause: The Borrower agrees
that the Bank may modify the interest rate in the Loan depending on
whatever policy the Bank may adopt in the future, including without
limitation, the shifting from the floating interest rate system to the
fixed interest rate system, or vice versa and the Borrower hereby
agrees that the Bank may, without need of notice to the Borrower,
increase or decrease its spread over the floating interest rate at any
time depending on whatever policy it may adopt in the future.
The Court held that the escalation clause in the loan contract was null
and void for being violative of mutuality of contracts. Any modification
in the contract, such as the interest rates, must be made with the
consent of the contracting parties. The minds of all the parties must
meet as to the proposed modification, especially when it affects an
important aspect of the agreement. In the case of loan agreements,
the rate of interest is a principal condition, if not the most important
component. Thus, any modification thereof must be mutually agreed
upon; otherwise, it has no binding effect.
LAND BANK vs. HEIRS OF SPOUSES SORIANO, G.R.
NO. 178312.
January 30, 2012
vs.
OF
LIBERATO
FORMALITI
ES ART 1724
DUE OBSERVANCE OF PRESCRIBED FORMALITIES
WELDON CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
OF APPEALS,
G.R. NO. L-35721 October 12, 1987
vs.
COURT
ART 1356
GALLARDO
vs.HONORABLE
APPELLATE
COURT,
G.R. NO. L-67742 October 29, 1987
INTERMEDIATE
STAGES , PERFECTION
vs.
IAC,
G.R.
NO.
73918
DEFECTIVE CONTRACTS
A. VOID CONTRACTS
ART 1411, 1420
BRIONES vs. CAMMAYO, ET AL., G.R. NO. L-23559,
October 4, 1971
PHIL.,
INC.,
G.R.
NO.
Respondent contends that the inclusion of the two-year noninvolvement clause in petitioners contract of employment was
reasonable and needed since her job gave her access to the
companys confidential marketing strategies. A non-involvement
clause is not necessarily void for being in restraint of trade as
long as there are reasonable limitations as to time, trade, and
place.
CARIO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. NO. L-47661,
July 31, 1987
Contracts of sale are void and produce no effect whatsoever
where the price, which appears therein as paid, has in fact
never been paid by the vendee to the vendor.
TOPIC: SIM ULATED CONTRACTS
URETA vs. URETA, G.R. No. 165748, September 14,
2011 -Lacking in an absolutely simulated contract is consent
which is essential to a valid and enforceable contract. Thus,
where a person, in order to place his property beyond the reach
of his creditors, simulates a transfer of it to another, he does not
really intend to divest himself of his title and control of the
property; hence, the deed of transfer is but a sham.
Similarly, in this case, Alfonso simulated a transfer to Policronio
purely for taxation purposes, without intending to transfer
ownership over the subject lands.
ART 1410
TONGOY vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS,
G.R. NO. L- 45645 June 28, 1983
The issue in this case is whether or not the rights of herein
respondents over subject properties, which were the subjects
of simulated or fictitious transactions, have already
prescribed. A void or inexistent contract is one which has no
force and effect from the very beginning, as if it had never
been entered into, and which cannot be validated either by
time or by ratification.
LITA ENTERPRISES, INC.,vs. IAC, G.R. NO. L-64693
April 27, 1984
Unquestionably, the parties herein operated under an
arrangement, commonly known as the "kabit system",
whereby a person who has been granted a certificate of
convenience allows another person who owns motors vehicles
to operate under such franchise for a fee, and the petitioner
prays that private respondents be declared liable to petitioner
for whatever amount the latter has paid. It is a fundamental
principle of in pari delicto that the court will not aid either
party to enforce an illegal contract, but will leave them both
where it finds them.
ARSENAL vs. IAC, G.R. NO. L-66696 July 14, 1986
Petitioner questions the validity of the sale between the
respondent and Suralta but the lower court held that the
benefit of said prohibition in the Public Land Act against the
disposal of any land granted to a citizen under that law does
not inure to any third party. The right to set up the nullity of a
void or non-existent contract is not limited to the parties as in
the case of annulable or voidable contracts. The right to set
up the nullity of a void or non-existent contract is extended
to third persons who are directly affected by the contract.
16
0
16
0
vs.
LUI
SHE,
16
1
B. VOIDABLE
CONTRACTS ART
1327
FRANCISCO
vs.
HERRERA,
November 21, 2002
G.R.
NO.
139982,
16
2
Applying Articles 1317 and 1403 of the Civil Code, the Court
of Appeals ruled that through their inaction and silence, the
three sons of Emilia are considered to have ratified the
aforesaid sale of the subject property by their mother.
Ratification means that one under no disability voluntarily
adopts and gives sanction to some unauthorized act or
defective proceeding, which without his sanction would not be
binding on him , hence, an alleged silence and inaction may
not be interpreted as an act of ratification on their part.
C. UNENFORCEABLE CONTRACTS
IGLESIA FILIPINA INDEPENDIENTE vs. HEIRS of BERNARDINO
TAEZA, G.R. No.
179597, February 3, 2014, J. Peralta
Unenforceable contracts are those which cannot be enforced by a
proper action in court, unless they are ratified, because either they
are entered into without or in excess of authority or they do not
comply with the statute of frauds or both of the contracting parties
do not possess the required legal capacity. In the present case,
however, respondents' predecessor-in-interest, Bernardino Taeza,
had already obtained a transfer certificate of title in his name over
the property in question.
Since the person supposedly transferring ownership was not
authorized to do so, the property had evidently been acquired by
mistake. This case clearly falls under the category of unenforceable
contracts mentioned in Article 1403, paragraph (1) of the Civil Code,
which provides, thus: (1) Those entered into in the name of another
person by one who has been given no authority or legal
representation, or who has acted beyond his powers.
YUVIENCO vs. DACUYCUY, G.R. NO. L-55048 May 27,
1981
vs.
Both courts were of the view essentially that the evidence did
not bear out the claim of fraud; that under the Statute of
Frauds, the parties' covenant as to their properties' metes and
bounds was unenforceable since it was not reduced to writing.
Not every agreement "affecting land" must be put in writing
to attain enforceability, under the Statute of Frauds, Article
1403(2) (e) of the Civil Code, such formality is only required
of contracts involving leases for longer than one year, or for
the sale of real property or of an interest therein.
D. RESCISSIBLE CONTRACTS
CABALIW vs. SADORRA, G.R. NO. L-25650 June 11,
1975
REPUBLIC OF THE
NO. L-18841
January 27, 1969
,
PHILIPPINES
vs.
PLDT
G.R.
PHIL.,
INC.,
G.R.
NO.
Respondent contends that the inclusion of the two-year noninvolvement clause in petitioners contract of employment was
reasonable and needed since her job gave her access to the
companys confidential marketing strategies. A non-involvement
MISTICA
vs. SPOUSES
3. MUTUALITY OF CONTRACTS
BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS vs. NAVARRO, G.R. NO. L46591, July 28, 1987
Escalation clauses to be valid should specifically provide: (1)
that there can be an increase in interest if increased by law or
by the Monetary Board; and (2) in order for such stipulation to
be valid, it must include a provision for reduction of the
stipulated interest "in the event that the applicable maximum
rate of interest is reduced by law or by the Monetary Board"
in order to be valid which is known as deescalation clause.
SPOUSES FLORENDO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R.
NO. 101771
December 17, 1996
In order that obligations arising from contracts may have the
force of law between the parties, there must be mutuality
between the parties based on their essential equality, hence,
a contract containing a condition which makes its fulfillment
dependent exclusively upon the uncontrolled will of one of the
contracting parties, is void.
ART 1308
PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL
BANK
AGUSTIN, G.R. NO.
164549
September 18, 2009
vs.
SPOUSES
The spouses Rocamora posit that their loan would not have
bloated to more than double the original amount if PNB had
not
increased
the
interest rates and had it immediately
foreclosed the mortgages. Any increase in the rate of interest
made pursuant to an escalation clause must not be left solely
to the will of one of the parties, but must be the result of a
mutual agreement between the parties, hence, a de-escalation
clause that would authorize a reduction in the interest rates
corresponding to downward changes made by law or by the
the change
vs.
REYNADO,
G.R.
NO.
TRUST
COMPANY
vs.
KINDS OF CONTRACTS
A.INNOMINATE
CONTRACTS ART 1307
CORPUS vs. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. NO. L-40424
June 30, 1980
URSULA
L-42283
IX.
FLORENTINO vs. ENCARNACION, SR., G.R. NO. L27696 September 30, 1977
To constitute a valid stipulation pour autrui it must be the
purpose and intent of the stipulating parties to benefit the
third. It is not sufficient that the third person may be
incidentally benefited by the stipulation.
G.R. NO. 120554 September
21, 1999 SO PING BUN vs.
COURT OF APPEALS
17
0
17
1