1. Rodriguez vs Mactal
2. Rubias vs Batiller
- The appellants insist the administratrix bought indirectly, through
the mediation of S. Ch., the land sold by her to the latter, and that
both sales should be annulled under the provisions of article 1459 of
the Civil Code. The proofs do not substantiate such claim. In order
to bring the sale within the provisions of the above cited article it is
essential that the proof submitted establish some agreement
between the purchaser and the administratrix to the effect that said
purchaser should buy the property for the benefit of the
administratrix. Without said agreement the sale could not be set
aside, and the evidence does not establish such agreement.
- After the amendment of section 714 of the Code of Civil
Procedure by Act No. 3882, the court, under the circumstances
therein mentioned, on application of the executor or administrator,
and on written notice to the heirs, devisees, and other persons
interested, may grant him a license to sell, mortgage or otherwise
encumber real estate f or the payment of debts. The consent and
approbation, in writing, of the heirs, devisees, and legatees, are no
- Article 1491 of the Civil Code of the Philippines (like Article 1459
of the Spanish Civil Code) prohibits in its six paragraphs certain
persons, by reason of the relation of trust or their peculiar control
either directly or indirectly and "even at a public or judicial
auction," as follows: (1) guardians; (2) agents; (3) administrators;
(4) public officers and employees; (5) judicial officers and
employees, prosecuting attorneys, and lawyers; and (6) others
specially disqualified by law.
- Castan's rationale for his conclusion that fundamental
considerations of public policy render void and inexistent such
expressly prohibited purchases (e.g. by public officers and
employees of government property intrusted to them and by
justices, judges, fiscals and lawyers of property and rights in
litigation submitted to or handled by them, under Article 1491,
paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Civil Code of the Philippines) has
been adopted in a new article of the Civil Code of the Philippines,
viz, Article 1409 declaring such prohibited contracts as "inexistent
and void from the beginning."
the trial court to the Supreme Court and the value of the property
involved in the controversy does not exceed P200,000.00, only
issues of law are reviewable by the Supreme Court, the findings of
fact of the trial court being conceded by the appellant (Jacinto v.
Jacinto, 105 Phil. 1218; Del Castillo v. Guerro, L-11994, 25 July
1960; Abuyo et al. v. De Suazo, L-21202, 29 Oct. 1966; 18 SCRA
600, 601).
- The decision of a barrio council, respecting the settlement of
ownership and possession of a parcel of land, is ultra vires because
barrio councils, which are not courts, have 110 judicial powers (Sec.
1, Art. VIII, Constitution. Sec Sec. 12 Rep. Act 2370 otherwise
known as the Barrio Charter). Therefore, said decision, if
introduced as an exhibit, is not admissible in a judicial proceeding
as evidence for ascertaining the truth respecting the fact of
ownership and possession (See. 1, Rule 128, Rules of Court).
- As in De Lucas v. Gamponia. 100 Phil. 277, the four elements of
laches are present in the case at bar, namely: (a) conduct on the part
of the defendant, or of one under whom he claims, giving- rise to
the situation of which complaint is made and for which the
complaint seeks a remedy; (b) delay in asserting the complainant's
rights, the complainant having had knowledge or notice, of the
cannot look with favor at parties who, by their silence, delay and
inaction, knowingly induce another to spend time, effort and
expense in cultivating the land, paying taxes and making
improvements thereon for 30 long years, only to spring from
ambush and claim title when the possessor's 'efforts and the rise of
land values offer an opportunity to make easy profit at his expense
(De Lucas v. Gamponia, supra).
4. Estate of Serra Serra vs Heirs of Hernaez
- Other than citing general exceptions to the rule requiring a motion
for reconsideration as a pre-condition to instituting a petition for
certiorari, the petitioners did not offer valid reason why their
particular case fall under any of the specified exceptions. The
settled rule is that a motion for reconsideration is a sine qua non
condition for the filing of a petition for certiorari. The purpose is to
grant an opportunity to public respondent to correct any actual or
perceived error attributed to it by the re-examination of the legal
and factual circumstances of the case. Petitioners failure to file a
motion for reconsideration deprived the trial court of the
opportunity to rectify an error unwittingly committed or to vindicate
itself of an act unfairly imputed. Besides, a motion for
5. Mapalo vs Mapalo
- When the consent to a contract was fraudulently obtained, the
contract is voidable.
- The rule under the Civil Code, be it the old or the new, is that
contracts without a cause or consideration produce no effect
whatsoever. (Art. 1275, Old Civil Code; Art. 1352, New Civil
Code.) Nonetheless, under the Old Civil Code, the statement of a
false consideration renders the contract voidable, unless it is proven
that it is supported by another real and licit consideration. (Art.
1276, Old Civil Code.)
- The action for annulment of a contract on the ground of falsity of
consideration shall last four years, the term to run from the date of
the consummation of the contract. (Art. 1301, Old Civil Code.)
- A contract that states a false consideration is one that has in fact a
real consideration but the same is not the one stated in the
document. (Manresa, Codigo Civil, Tomo VIII, Vol. II, p. 354.)