LEAL et al.

Vs IAC
GR No. 65425, Nov 5 1987

Topic: Art 1306

FACTS:

Leal owns three parcels of land formerly owned by Santiago. A contract entitled
“compraventa,” written entirely in the Spanish language, provided that “en caso de
venta, no podran vender a otros dischos lotes de terreno sino al aqui vendedro o
los herederos or sucesores de este.” This is an express prohibition against the sale
of the lots described in the “compraventa” to third persons or strangers other than
his heirs or successors.

ISSUE;

WON under the “compraventa”, a right to repurchase in favor of the private

respondent exist.

HELD:

No. The provision is a nullity. A prohibition to alienate should not exceed at most
a period of twenty years; otherwise, there would be subversion of public policy
which naturally frowns on unwarranted restrictions on the right of ownership
because it prevents anyone from freely disposing of his own properties.
Sangguniang Panglungsod ng Baguio City vs Jadewell Parking Systems Corp.

Topic: recission

Facts:

City Gov’t of Baguio and Jadewell executed a Memorandum of Agreement

(MOA) thereby authorizing Jadewell to implement installation of modern parking
metres in the City. SP revoked such MOA thru a City Resolution. Jadewell
commenced and action questioning the validity of MOA’s revocation and SP’s
capacity to pass a resolution of revocation without the legal procedure of a 60 day
prior notice of intention to rescind which was stipulated on sec. 12 of the MOA.

Issue:

WON SP can justifiably rescind the MOA prior to the 60 day prior notice of
intention provision.

Held:

No, the SP resolution is denied, although SP can clearly exercise its power of
legislation and administration in rescinding the MOA. The RTC and CA has not
found evidence on record to conclude that Jadewell’s violation were sufficient in
to justify the unilateral cancellation of the MOA.
Spouses Rodolfo Berot and Lilia Berot vs Felipe C Siapno
GR No. 188944, July 9, 2014

Topic: art 1207

Facts:
Macaria Berot and Sps Rodolfo and Lilia Berot obtained a loan from Felipe
Siapno, payable within one year together with interest thereon at rate of 24% per
annum until fully paid. As security for the load Macaria and Lilia mortgaged to
Siapno a portion of a parcel of land. The lot is in the name of macaria and her
husband, Pedro Berot (deceased). Macaria died a year later.
Because of the mortgagor’s default, Siapno filed an action against them for
foreclosure of the mortgage damages.

Issue:
WON the nature of the obligation is joint or solidary

Ruling:
The nature of the loan obligation contracted by the petitioners is joint. Under Art.
1207 of the CC, the general rule is that there is a concurrence of two or more
debtors under a single obligation, the obligation is presumed to be joint. There is
solidary liability only when the obligation expressly so states, or when the law or
nature requires solidarity.