Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
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 M ercado, 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 Sections 3(1)
and 4, Chapter 2, Book VII of the Administrative Code of 1987
Rep. vs. Extelcom, G.R. NO. 147096,Jan. 15, 2002 373 SCRA 316
Thus, publication in the Official Gazette or a newspaper of general
circulation is a condition sine qua non before statutes, rules or
regulations can take effect. There is nothing in the Administrative Code
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.
NMSM I 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.
Article 8. Stare Decisis; Case Law; See also Article 36, FC; article 9,
10, 11, 12 , 13, 14 NCC
Ting v. Velez-Ting, G.R. NO. 166562, M ar. 31, 2009 582 SCRA 694
The rule of stare decisis is not inflexible, whether it shall be followed or
departed from, is a question entirely within the discretion of the court,
which is again called upon to consider a question once decided. It is only
when a prior ruling of this Court is overruled, and a different view is
adopted, that the new doctrine may have to be applied prospectively in
favor of parties who have relied on the old doctrine and have acted in
good faith, in accordance therewith under the familiar rule of "lex
prospicit, non respicit
Floresca vs Philex Mining Corp.,G.R. 30642, April 30, 1985
The application or interpretation placed by the Supreme Court upon a
law is part of the law as of the date of its enactment since the courts
application or interpretation merely establishes the contemporaneous
legislative intent that the construed law purports to carry into effect.
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
Van Dorn vs. Romillo G.R. NO.L-68470 October 8, 1985 139 SCRA
139
It is true that owing to the nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of
the Civil Code, only Philippine nationals are covered by the policy against
absolute divorces the same being considered contrary to our concept of
public policy and morality. Howe ver, aliens may obtain divor ces abroad,
which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid
according to their national law.
Pilapil vs. Ibay-Somera, G.R. NO. 80116 June 30, 1989 174 SCRA
652
Whether or not, the complainant, a foreigner, qualify as an offended
spouse having obtained a final divorce decree under his national law
prior to his filing the criminal complaint. The person who initiates the
adultery case must be an offended spouse, and by this is meant that he
is still married to the accused spouse, at the time of the filing of the
complaint.
Recio vs. Recio G.R. NO. 138322. October 2, 2001 366 SCRA 437
Whether or not the divorce must be proved before it is to be recognized
in the Philippines. Before a foreign divorce decree can be recognized by
our courts, the party pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact and
demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it. Presentation
solely of the divorce decree is insufficient.
Roehr v. Rodriguez,G.R. NO. 142820 ,Jun. 30, 2003 404 SCRA 495
As a general rule, divorce decrees obtained by foreigners in other
countries are recognizable in our jurisdiction, but the legal effects
thereof, e.g. on custody, care and support of the children, must still be
determined by our courts.
Morigo v. People, G.R. NO. 145226 , Feb. 6, 2004 422 SCRA 376
6
The principle of unjust enrichment requires two conditions: (1) that a person is
benefited without a valid basis or justification, and (2) that such benefit is derived at
the expense of another.
It does not, however, apply in this case since any benefit that the spouses Manzanilla
may obtain from the subject premises cannot be said to be without any valid basis
or justification. It is well to remind Waterfields that they violated the contract of
lease and that they failed to vacate the premises upon demand. Hence, the spouses
Manzanilla are justified in recovering the physical possession thereof and
consequently, in making use of the property. Besides, in violating the lease by failing
to pay the rent, Waterfields took the risk of losing the improvements it introduced
thereon in favor of the spouses Manzanilla.
RAUL SESBRENO VS. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 160689 March 26, 2014, J.
BERSAMIN
This case concerns the claim for damages of petitioner Raul H. Sesbreo founded on abuse
of rights. Sesbreo accused the violation of contract (VOC) inspection team dispatched by
the Visayan Electric Company (VECO) to check his electric meter with conducting an
unreasonable search in his residential premises. It is worth noting that the VOC inspectors
decided to enter the main premises only after finding the meter of Sesbreo turned upside
down, hanging and its disc not rotating. Their doing so would enable them to determine the
unbilled electricity consumed by his household. The circumstances justified their decision,
and their inspection of the main premises was a continuation of the authorized entry.
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 during the inspection of
the main premises, or any excessiveness committed by them in the course of the
inspection. But Sesbreo did not. On the other hand, the CA correctly observed that
the inspection did not zero in on Sesbreos residence because the other houses
within the area were similarly subjected to the routine inspection. The court
eliminated any notion of malice or bad faith.
WILLAWARE PRODUCTS CORPORATION vs. JESICHRIS MANUFACTURING
CORPORATION, G.R. No. 195549, September 3, 2014, J. Peralta
8
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 unde r
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.
CARLOS A. LORIA vs. LUDOLFO P. MUOZ, G.R. No. 187240, October 15, 2014, J.
Leonen
The principle of unjust enrichment has two conditions. First, a person must have
been benefited without a real or valid basis or justification. Second, the benefit was
derived at another persons expense or damage. In this case, Loria received
P2,000,000.00 from Muoz for a subcontract of a government project to dredge the
Masarawag and San Francisco Rivers in Guinobatan, Albay. However, contrary to the
parties agreement, Muoz was not subcontracted for the project. Nevertheless,
Loria retained the P2,000,000.00. Thus, Loria was unjustly enriched. He retained
Muozs money without valid basis or justification. Under Article 22 of the Civil
Code of the Philippines, Loria must return the P2,000,000.00 to Muoz.
DOMINGO GONZALO VS.JOHN TARNATE JR., G.R. NO. 160600, JANUARY 15,
2014, J. Bersamin
9
Gonzalo, who was the sole contractor of the project in question, subcontracted the
implementation of the project to Tarnate in violation of the statutory prohibition.
Their subcontract was illegal because it did not bear the approval of the DPWH
Secretary. Necessarily, the deed of assignment was also illegal, because it sprung
from the subcontract. Thus, Tarnate and Gonzalo entered into an illegal contract.
While it is true that under Article 1412 (1) of the Civil Code, the guilty parties to an
illegal contract cannot recover from one another and are not entitled to an
affirmative relief because they are in pari delicto or in equal fault, the doctrine of in
pari delicto is not always rigid.
An accepted exception arises when its application contravenes well-established
public policy. In this jurisdiction, public policy has been defined as "that principle of
the law which holds that no subject or citizen can lawfully do that which has a
tendency to be injurious to the public or against the public good."
Under the principle of unjust enrichment exists then, Gonzalo would be unjustly
enriched at the expense of Tarnate, who provided the materials, if the latter was to
be barred from recovering because of the rigid application of the doctrine of in pari
delicto. The prevention of unjust enrichment called for the exception to apply in
Tarnates favor.
Amonoy vs Gutierrez, 351 SCRA 731 (2001)
One who merely exercises ones rights does no actionable injury and
cannot be held liable for damages.
Albenson Enterprises Corp. vs CA,217 SCRA 18 (1993)
The elements of an abuse of right under article 19are the following: 1.
There is a legal right or duty; 2. Which is exercised in bad faith; 3. For
the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another.
RCPI vs CA, 143 SCRA 657 (1986)
Dionela filed a complaint for damages against RCPI alleging that the
defamatory words on the telegram sent to him not only wounded his
feelings but also caused him undue embarrassment and affected his
business as well as because other people have come to know of said
defamatory words. There is a clear case of breach of contract by the
petitioner in adding extraneous and libelous matters in the message se nt
to Dionela.
Constantino vs M endez 209 SCRA 18 (1992)
Mere sexual intercourse is not by itself a basis for recovery. Damages
could only be awarded if sexual intercourse is not a product of
voluntariness and mutual desire.
10
UP v. Philab, G.R. NO. 152411, Sept. 29, 2004 439 SCRA 467
Whether or not UP is liable to pay PHILAB considering that it is only a
donee of FEMF, FEMF being the one which funded the project, and
despite being a donee, unjust enrichment still applies to UP. In order
that accion in rem verso may prosper, the essential elements must be
present: (1) that the defendant has been enriched, (2) that the plaintiff
has suffered a loss, (3) that the enrichment of the defendant is without
just or legal ground, and (4) that the plaintiff has no other action
based on contract, quasi-contract, crime or quasi-delict.
Beumer vs. Amores, G.R. NO. 195670, Dec. 03, 2012 686 SCRA 770
An action for recovery of what has been paid without just cause has been
designated as an accion in rem verso. This provision does not apply if, as
11
Civil Personality; Birth; Death; Arts 37, 38, 39 40, 41, 42; 390, 391,
712, 777 NCC; Art. 41, 96 &124, 99 & 126, 142 FC
12
13
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
If a man and a woman deport themselves as if they were husband and
wife, they are presumed to be validly and legally married to each other
and this presumption is not rebutted by a mere denial by the man (or
woman) of the fact of marriage.
17
18
Atty. Lunas subsequent marriage to Soledad was void for being bigamous, on the
ground that the marriage between Atty. Luna and Eugenia had not been dissolved
by the Divorce Decree rendered by the CFI of Sto. Domingo in the Dominican
Republic but had subsisted until the death of Atty. Luna
Given the subsistence of the first marriage between Atty. Luna and Eugenia, the
presumption that Atty. Luna acquired the properties out of his own personal funds
and effort remained. It should then be justly concluded that the properties in litis
legally pertained to their conjugal partnership of gains as of the time of his death.
Consequently, the sole ownership of the 25/100 pro indiviso share of Atty. Luna in
the condominium unit, and of the law books pertained to the respondents as the
lawful heirs of Atty. Luna.
EDELINA T. ANDO vs. DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, G.R. No.
195432, August 27, 2014, CJ. Sereno
Petitioner questions the decision of the RTC, dismissing her petition for the
recognition of her second marriage as valid, for failing to comply with the
requirements set forth in Art. 13 of the Family Code that is obtaining a judicial
recognition of the foreign decree of absolute divorce in our country. The SC however
ruled that a divorce obtained abroad by an alien may be recognized in our
jurisdiction, provided the decree is valid according to the national law of the
foreigner. The presentation solely of the divorce decree is insufficient; both the
divorce decree and the governing personal law of the alien spouse who obtained the
divorce must be proven. Because our courts do not take judicial notice of foreign
laws and judgment, our law on evidence requires that both the divorce decree and
the national law of the alien must be alleged and proven and like any other fact.
Hence, instead of filing a petition for the recognition of her second marriage as valid,
petitioner should have filed a petition for the judicial recognition of her foreign
divorce from her first husband.
EDELINA T. ANDO v DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, G.R No. 195432
August 27, 2014. J. SERENO
Edelina Tungol married a Japanese man, Yuichiro Kobayashi, in 2001. In 2004,
Kobayashi obtained a divorce valid under Japanese law. Believing the divorce
capacitated her to marry, Edelina married Masatomi Ando in 2005. When Edelina
applied for a renewal of her 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
19
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.
Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas, G.R. NO. 186571, Aug. 11, 2010 628 SCRA
266
A judgment of divorce is a judicial decree, although a foreign one,
affecting a persons legal capacity and status that must be recorded. But
while the law requires the entry of the divorce decree in the civil registry,
the law and the submission of the decree by themselves do not ipso facto
authorize the decrees registration.
Classification of M arriages, Relationships. Parties In
NCC;FC;AM 02-11-10 SC
Interest;
Valid
Voidable
Void
Terminable
Others Classifications
Legal Separation
Separation in Fact
Common Law Relationship
Void M arriages vs Voidable M arriages
Suntay vs. Conjuangco-Suntay, 300 SCRA 760, 770 (1998)
The fundamental distinction between void and voidable marriages is that
a void marriage is deemed never to have taken place at all and cannot be
the source of rights. On the other hand, a voidable marriage, is
considered valid and produces all its civil effects, until it is set aside by
final judgment of a competent court in an action for annulment
20
21
Article 36, FC; AM 02-11-10 SC; See also Articles 48, 68-71, 220-221
& 225 FC
Psychological Incapacity Definition
Salita vs Hon. M agtolis ,June 13, 1994
The Committee did not give any examples of psychological incapacity for
fear that the giving of examples would limit the applicability of the
provision under the principle of ejusdem generis. Rather, the Committee
would like the judge to interpret the provision on a case-to-case basis,
guided by experience, the findings of experts and researchers in
psychological disciplines, and by decisions of church tribunals which,
although not binding on the civil courts, may be given persuasive effect
since the provision was taken from Canon Law.
Characteristics of Psychological Incapacity
Santos v. Court of Appeals, 240 SCRA 20 (1995)
The Supreme Court enumerated the three basic requirements of
psychological incapacity as a ground for declaration of nullity of the
marriage: (a) gravity; (b) juridical antecedence; and (c) incurability.
Guidelines in the interpretation and application of Article 36; AM
02-11-10 SC
VALERIO E. KALAW vs. MA. ELENA FERNANDEZ, G.R. No. 166357, January 14,
2015, J. Del Castillo
On reconsideration, the Supreme Court reversed its previous ruling and reinstated
the trial courts ruling granting the petition for nullity on the basis of Art. 36.
Psychological incapacity is the downright incapacity or inability to take cogniza nce
of and to assume the basic marital obligations. The burden of proving psychological
incapacity is on the plaintiff. The plaintiff must prove that the incapacitated party,
based on his or her actions or behavior, suffers a serious psychological disorder that
completely disables him or her from understanding and discharging the essential
obligations of the marital state. The psychological problem must be grave, must
have existed at the time of marriage, and must be incurable.
The courts are justified in declaring a marriage null and void under Article 36 o f the
Family Code regardless of whether it is the petitioner or the respondent who
imputes the psychological incapacity to the other as long as the imputation is fully
substantiated with proof. Indeed, psychological incapacity may exist in one party
alone or in both of them, and if psychological incapacity of either or both is
established, the marriage has to be deemed null and void.
22
23
Marable v. M arable G.R. NO. 178741, Jan. 17, 2011 639 SCRA 557
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.
Ochosa v. Alano, G.R. NO. 167459 , Jan. 26, 2011 640 SCRA 517
In this case the court proved that respondent was the sex partner of
many military officials. In view of the foregoing, the badges of Bona s
alleged psychological incapacity, i.e., her sexual infidelity and
abandonment, can only be convincingly traced to the period of time after
her marriage to Jose and not to the inception of the said marriage.
Yambao v. REP., G.R. NO. 184063 , Jan. 24, 2011 640 SCRA 355
Article 36 contemplates incapacity or inability to take cognizance of
and to assume basic marital obligations and not merely difficulty,
refusal, or neglect in the performance of marital obligations or ill will.
Rep. v. Galang G.R. NO. 168335 , Jun. 6, 2011 650 SCRA 524
In like manner, Juvys acts of falsifying the respondents signature to
encash a check, of stealing the respondents ATM, and of squandering a
huge portion of the P15,000.00 that the respondent entrusted to her,
while no doubt reprehensible, cannot automatically be equated with a
psychological disorder, especially when the evidence shows that these
were mere isolated incidents and not recurring acts.
Aurelio v. Aurelio, G.R. NO. 175367 , Jun. 6, 2011 650 SCRA 561
Whether or not a petition for nullity of marriage on the ground of
psychological incapacity may be dismiss for failure to comply with the
guidelines set forth in the Molina Ruling. Let it be remembered that each
case involving the application of Article 36 must be treated distinctly and
judged not on the basis of a priori assumptions, predilections or
generalizations but according to its own attendant facts.
Kalaw v. Fernandez, G.R. NO. 166357 , Sept 19, 2011 657 SCRA 822
24
opinion for that purpose. Expert e vidence submitted here did not
establish the precise cause of the supposed psychological incapacity of
Dominic, much less show that the psychological incapacity existed at the
inception of the marriage.
Republic v. Encelan, G.R. NO. 170022 , Jan. 9, 2013 688 SCRA 215
In any event, sexual infidelity and abandonment of the conjugal dwelling,
even if true, do not necessarily constitute psychological incapacity; these
are simply grounds for legal separation. To constitute psychological
incapacity, it must be shown that the unfaithfulness and abandonment
are manifestations of a disordered personality that completely prevented
the erring spouse from discharging the essential marital obligations.
Evidentiary requirement
GLENN VIAS vs. MARY GRACE PAREL-VIAS, G.R. No. 208790, January 21,
2015, J. Reyes
The lack of personal examination or assessment by a psychologist or psychiatrist is
not necessarily fatal in a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage. If the
totality of evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological
incapacity, then actual medical examination of the person concerned need not be
resorted to. In the case at bar, the assessment of the psychological incapacity of the
wife was based solely on the information provided by the husband whose bias in
favor of his cause cannot be doubted. While this circumstance alone does not
disqualify the psychologist for reasons of bias, her report, testimony and
conclusions deserve the application of a more rigid and stringent set of standards.
Hence, if the totality of the evidence presented provides inadequate basis to warrant
the conclusion that a psychological incapacity existed that prevented her from
complying with the essential obligations of marriage, the declaration of the nullity of
the marriage cannot be obtained. It has been settled that irreconcilable differences,
sexual infidelity or perversion, emotional immaturity and irresponsibility, and the
like, do not by themselves warrant a finding of psychological incapacity under
Article 36, as the same may only be due to a persons refusal or unwillingness to
assume the essential obligations of marriage and not due to some psychological
illness that is contemplated by said rule.
Ablaza v. Republic, G.R. NO. 158298 , Aug. 11, 2010 628 SCRA 27
Other than for purposes of remarriage, no judicial action is necessary to
declare a marriage an absolute nullity. For other purposes, such as but
not limited to determination of heirship, legitimacy or illegitimacy of a
child, settlement of estate, dissolution of property regime, or a criminal
case for that matter, the court may pass upon the validity of marriage
even in a suit not directly instituted to question the same so long as it is
essential to the determination of the case.
Atienza vs. Brillantes, Jr., 243 SCRA 32,35 (1995)
Article 40 is applicable to remarriages entered into after the effectivity of
the Family Code on August 3, 1988 regardless of the date of the first
marriage.
Mercado vs. Tan, 337 SCRA 122 (2000)
27
29
Rep. v. Tango, G.R. NO.161062 , Jul. 31, 2009 594 SCRA 560
By express provision of law, the judgment of the court in a summary
proceeding shall be immediately final and executory. As a matter of
course, it follows that no appeal can be had of the trial courts judgment
in a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death of an
absent spouse under Article 41 of the Family Code
Navarro v. Domogtoy, A.M . NO.M TJ-96-1088, Jul. 19, 1996 259
SCRA 129
Even if the spouse present has a well-founded belief that the absent
spouse was already dead, a summary proceeding for the declaration of
presumptive death is necessary in order to contract a subsequent
marriage, a mandatory requirement which has been precisely
incorporated into the Family Code to discourage subsequent marriages
where it is not proven that the previous marriage has been dissolved or a
missing spouse is factually or presumptively dead, in accordance with
pertinent provisions of law.
Rep. v. Bermudez-Lorino, G.R. NO. 160258 , Jan. 19, 2005 449
SCRA 57
Although the result of the Court of Appeals denial of the appeal would
apparently be the same, there is a big difference between having the
supposed appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by virtue of the fact
that the RTC decision sought to be appealed is immediately final and
executory, and the denial of the appeal for lack of merit. In the former,
the supposed appellee can immediately ask for the issuance of an Entry
30
of Judgment in the RTC, whereas, in the latter, the appellant can still
raise the matter to this Court on petition for review and the RTC
judgment cannot be executed until this Court makes the final
pronouncement.
Rep. v. Granada, G.R. NO. 187512, June 13, 2012 672 SCRA 432
As a matter of course, it follows that no appeal can be had of the trial
court's judgment in a summary proceeding for the declaration of
presumptive death of an absent spouse under Article 41 of the Family
Code. It goes without saying, however, that an aggrieved party may file a
petition for certiorari to question abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction.
Terminable M arriage; Art. 43 44 FC
Effects of termination of subsequent marriage
Effects of Bad Faith
Armas v. Calisterio, G.R. NO.136467, Apr. 06, 2000 330 SCRA 201
Bad faith imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and
conscious doing of wrong it partakes of the nature of fraud, a breach of a
known duty through some motive of interest or ill-will.
Voidable M arriages; Art. 45- 49 FC
Definition
Suntay vs. Cojuangco-Suntay, 300 SCRA 760, 771 (1998)
A voidable marriage is considered valid and produces all its civil effects
until it is set aside by final judgment of a competent court in an action
for annulment. The terms annul and null and void have different legal
connotations and implications. Annul means to reduce to nothing; to
nullify; to abolish; to do away with; whereas, null and void is something
that does not exist from the beginning.
Characteristics of Voidable M arriages
Proper party to file annulment of M arriage
G.R.ounds
Ratification and prescription
Procedural rules of annulment of marriage and declaration of nullity
31
Marital rights including coverture and living in conjugal dwelling may not
be enforced by the extra-ordinary writ of habeas corpus. With his full
mental capacity coupled with the right of choice, Potenciano Ilusorio may
not be the subject of visitation rights against his free choice. Otherwise,
we will deprive him of his right to privacy.
Go vs. CA G.R. NO.114791, M ay 29, 1997 272 SCRA 752
Under Article 117 of the Civil Code (now Article 73 of the Family Code),
the wife may exercise any profession, occupation or engage in business
without the consent of the husband. In the instant case, we are
convinced that it was only petitioner Nancy Go who entered into the
contract with private respondent.
Family expenses and management of the household
TITLE IV. PROPERTY RELATIONS BET. HUSBAND & W IFE (Articles
74- 148)
CHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS;
(Articles 74-81, FC; Art. 119, NCC)
Pre-nuptial
Agreement;
Concept
Property regime by default
Marriage settlement
Parties to M arriage settlement
Laws governing Property Relations
CHAPTER 2. DONATIONS BY REASON OF M ARRIAGE (Articles 82 87)
Donation Propter Nuptias
Serrano vs. Solomon, G.R. NO. L-12093, June 29, 1959
The following donations are not donations propter nuptias: (1) those made
in favor of the spouses after the celebration of marriage; (2) those
executed in favor of the future spouses but not in consideration of the
marriage; and (3) those Ggranted to persons other than the spouses even
though they may be founded on the marriage
Rules governing Donation propter nuptias
Heirs of Segunda M aningding vs. CA, 276 SCRA 601 (1997)
34
Even if the donation proper nuptias is void for failure to comply with
formal requisites, it could still constitute as legal basis for adverse
possession.
Valencia v. Locquiao, G.R. NO. 122134, Oct. 3, 200 412 SCRA 600
Under the Old Civil Code, donations propter nuptias must be made in a
public instrument in which the property donated must be specifically
described. However, Article 1330 of the same Code provides that
"acceptance is not necessary to the validity of such gifts". In
other words, the celebration of the marriage between the beneficiary
couple, in tandem with compliance with the prescribed form, was enough
to effectuate the donation propter nuptias under the Old Civil Code.
Donation between the parties
Donation of future properties
Revocation of Donation Propter Nuptias
Donation between Spouses
Agapay vs. Palang, G.R. NO. 116668 , Jul. 28, 1997 276 SCRA 340
Article 87 of the Family Code expressly provides that the prohibition
against donations between spouses now applies to donations between
persons living together as husband and wife without a valid marriage, for
otherwise, the condition of those who incurred guilt would turn out to be
better than those in legal union.
Arcaba vs. Batocael, G.R. NO.146683 , Nov.22, 2001 370 SCRA 414
Respondents having proven by a preponderance of evidence that Cirila
and Francisco lived together as husband and wife without a valid
marriage, the inescapable conclusion is that the donation made by
Francisco in favor of Cirila is void under Art. 87 of the Family Code.
CHAPTER 3. SYSTEM OF ABSOLUTE COMMUNITY (Articles 88-104);
R.A. 8369
Section 1. General Provisions (Articles 88-90)
Section 2. W hat constitutes Community Property (Articles 91-93)
Section 3. Charges Upon & Obligations of the Absolute Community
(Articles 94-95)
35
36
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.
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v JOSE GARCIA and CHILDREN NORA GARCIA,
JOSE GARCIA, JR., BOBBY GARCIA and JIMMY GARCIA and HEIRS OF ROGELIO
GARCIA NAMELY: CELEDONIO GARCIA, DANILO GARCIA, ELSA GARCIA, FERMIN
GARCIA, HEHERSON GARCIA, GREGORIO GARCIA, IMELDA GARCIA and JANE
GARCIA, G.R No. 182839, June 2, 2014 J. BRION
37
Registration of a property alone in the name of one spo use does not destroy its
conjugal nature. What is material is the time when the property was acquired. The
registration of the property is not conclusive evidence of the exclusive ownership of
the husband or the wife. Although the property appears to be registered in the name
of the husband, it has the inherent character of conjugal property if it was acquired
for valuable consideration during marriage. In order to rebut the presumptive
conjugal nature of the property, the petitioner must present strong, clear and
convincing evidence of exclusive ownership of one of the spouses. The burden of
proving that the property belongs exclusively to the wife or to the husband rests
upon the party asserting it.
Dewara v. Lamela G.R. NO. 179010, Apr. 11, 2011 647 SCR A 483
All property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal
partnership, unless it be proved that it pertains exclusively to the
husband or to the wife. Registration in the name of the husband or the
wife alone does not destroy this presumption.
De Leon v. De Leon G.R. NO. 185063 , Jul. 23, 2009 593 SCRA 768
In the case at bar, ownership over what was once a PHHC lot and
covered by the PHHC-Bonifacio Conditional Contract to Sell was only
transferred during the marriage of Bonifacio and Anita. Evidently, title to
the property in question only passed to Bonifacio after he had fully paid
the purchase price on June 22, 1970.
Section 2. Exclusive Property of Each Spouse (Articles 109-115)
Villegas v. Lingan G.R. NO. 153839 , Jun. 29, 2007 526 SCRA 63
Consequently, as correctly held by the CA, Marilou acquired ownership
of the subject property. All rights and title of the judgment obligor are
transferred upon the expiration of the right of redemption. And where the
redemption is made under a property regime governed by the conjugal
partnership of gains, Article 109 of the Family Code provides that
property acquired by right of redemption is the exclusive property of the
spouses redeeming the property.
38
For the presumption to apply, it is not e ven necessary to prove that the
property was acquired with funds of the partnership. In fact, e ven when
the manner in which the property was acquired does not appear, the
presumption applies and it will be considered conjugal property.
Imani v. MBTC, G.R. NO.187023,Nov. 17, 2010 635 SCRA 357
The party who invokes it must first prove that the property was acquired
during the marriage. Proof of acquisition during the coverture is a
condition sine qua non to the operation of the presumption in favor of
the conjugal partnership.
Pisuea vs. Heirs of Petra Unating, G.R. NO. 132803 , Aug. 31, 1999
313 SCRA 384
The words "married to" were merely descriptive of Petra Unating's status
at the time the lot was awarded and registered in her name. Since Petra
Unating did not leave any other property, will or debt upon her demise in
1948, the property in question was thus inherited by her children, Felix
and Catalina Villar; and her husband, Aquilino Villar.
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 ownerspouse.
Section 4.Charges Upon & Oblig.of the Conjugal Partnership (Articles
121-123)
Alipio vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. NO. 134100, Sept. 29, 2000.
A creditor cannot sue the surviving spouse of a decedent in an ordinary
proceeding for the collection of a sum of money chargeable against the
conjugal partnership and that the proper remedy is for him to file a claim
in the settlement of estate of the decedent.
Homeowners Savings & Loan Bank vs. Dailo, 453 SCRA 283 (2005)
39
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
The barefaced fact that the shares of stocks were registered in the
corporate books of Citycorp Investment Philippines solely in the name of
the petitioner-husband does not constitute proof that the petitionerhusband, not the conjugal partnership, owned the same.
Carlos vs. Abelardo, G.R. NO. 146504 , Apr. 09, 2002 380 SCRA 361
On the same principle, acknowledgment of the loan made by the
defendant-wife binds the conjugal partnership since its proceeds
redounded to the benefit of the family. Hence, defendant-husband and
defendant-wife are jointly and severally liable in the payment of the loan.
SBTC v. M ar Tierra Corp., G.R. NO. 143382 , Nov. 29, 2006 508
SCRA 419
To hold the conjugal partnership liable for an obligation pertaining to the
husband alone defeats the objective of the Civil Code to protect the
solidarity and well being of the family as a unit. The underlying concern
of the law is the conservation of the conjugal partnership. Hence, it limits
the liability of the conjugal partnership only to debts and obligations
contracted by the husband for the benefit of the conjugal partnership.
Ros v. PNB Laoag Br., G.R. NO.170166, Apr. 06, 2011 647 SCRA 334
It is enough that the benefit to the family is apparent at the signing of
the contract. From the very nature of the contract of loan or services, the
family stands to benefit from the loan facility or services to be rendered
to the business or profession of the husband.
40
Pana v. Heirs of Jose Juanite G.R. NO. 164201,Dec. 10, 2012 687
SCRA 414
Contrary to Efrens contention, Article 121 above allows payment of the
criminal indemnities imposed on his wife, Melecia, out of the partnership
assets even before these are liquidated. Indeed, it states that such
indemnities "may be enforced against the partnership assets after the
responsibilities enumerated in the preceding article have been covered."
No prior liquidation of those assets is required.
41
Tinitigan vs. Tinitigan, Sr., NO. L- 45418, October 30, 1980, 100
SCRA 619.
A husband may sell property belonging to the conjugal partnership even
without the consent of the wife if the sale is necessary to answer for a big
conjugal liability which might endanger the familys economic standing.
This is one instance where the wifes consent is not required and,
impliedly, no judicial intervention is necessary.
Spouses Guiang vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125172. June 26,
1998,
Under the Civil Code, the encumbrance or alienation of a conjugal real
property by the husband absent the wifes consent, is voidable and not
void.
Roxas vs. CA G.R. NO. 92245, Jun. 26, 1991 198 SCRA 541
The joinder of the wife, although unnecessary for an oral lease of
conjugal realty which does not exceed one year in duration, is required in
a lease of conjugal realty for a period of more than one year, such a lease
being considered a conveyance and encumbrance within the provisions
of the Civil Code requiring the joinder of the wife in the instrument by
which real property is conveyed or encumbered
Guiang vs. CA, G.R. NO. 125172, Jun. 26, 1998 291 SCRA 372
The sale of a conjugal property requires the consent of both the husband
and the wife. The absence of the consent of one renders the sale null and
void, while the vitiation thereof makes it merely voidable. Only in the
latter case can ratification cure the defect.
Jader-M analo vs. Camaisa, G.R. NO. 147978, Jan. 23, 2002 374
SCRA 498
Respondent Norma Camaisa admittedly did not give her written consent
to the sale. Even G.R.anting that respondent Norma actively participated
in negotiating for the sale of the subject properties, which she denied,
her written consent to the sale is required by law for its validity.
42
43
After the marriage of petitioner and respondent has been declared void, petitioner
filed a complaint for the partition of the house and lot obtained by them during their
marriage. The SC ruled that what governs them is Art. 147 of the Family Code. Under
this article, property acquired by both spouses through their work and industry
shall be governed by the rules on equal co-ownership. Any property acquired during
the union is prima facie presumed to have been obtained through their joint efforts.
A party who did not participate in the acquisition of the property shall be
considered as having contributed to the same jointly if said party's efforts consisted
in the care and maintenance of the family household. Efforts in the care and
maintenance of the family and household are regarded as contributions to the
acquisition of common property by one who has no salary or income or work or
industry. In the case at bar since the former spouses both agreed that they acquired
the subject property during the subsistence of their marriage, it shall be presumed
to have been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry, thus, the property is
jointly owned by them in equal shares. MARIETTA N. BARRIDO vs. LEONARDO V.
NONATO, G.R. No. 176492, October 20, 2014, J. Peralta
MBTC v. Pascual, G.R. NO. 163744, Feb. 29, 2008 547 SCRA 246
Termination of Conjugal Property Regime does not ipso facto End the
Nature of Conjugal Ownership. While the declared nullity of marriage of
Nicholson and Florencia severed their marital bond and dissolved the
conjugal partnership, the character of the properties acquired before
such declaration continues to subsist as conjugal properties until and
after the liquidation and partition of the partnership.
Dio v. Dio, G.R. NO. 178044, Jan. 19, 2011 640 SCRA 178
The trial court erred in ordering that a decree of absolute nullity of
marriage shall be issued only after liquidation, partition and distribution
of the parties properties under Article 147 of the Family Code. The ruling
has no basis because Section 19(1) of the Rule does not apply to cases
governed under Articles 147 and 148 of the Family Code.
Espinosa v. Omaa, AC. 9081, Oct 12, 2011 659 SCRA 1
Extrajudicial dissolution of the conjugal partnership without judicial
approval is void. The Court has also ruled that a notary public should
not facilitate the disintegration of a marriage and the family by
encouraging the separation of the spouses and extrajudicially dissolving
the conjugal partnership, which is exactly what Omaa did in this case.
The "Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay" has no legal effect and is against
public policy.
44
45
whether the parties have the right to freely divide among themselves the
subject properties. Moreover, to follow petitioners argument would be to
allow respondent not only to admit against his own interest but that of
his legal spouse as well, who may also be lawfully entitled co-ownership
over the said properties.
Cario v. Cario, G.R. NO. 132529, Feb. 02, 2001 351 SCRA 127
As to the property regime of petitioner Susan Nicdao and the deceased,
Article 147 of the Family Code governs. This article applies to unions of
parties who are legally capacitated and not barred by any impediment to
contract marriage, but whose marriage is nonetheless void for other
reasons, like the absence of a marriage license
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
TITLE V. THE FAM ILY HOME
CHAPTER 1. THE FAM ILY AS AN INSTITUTION (Articles 149-151)
Tuason vs. CA, 256 SCRA 158 (1996)
Our family law is based on the policy that marriage is not a mere
contract but a social institution in which the state is vitally interested.
Hontiveros vs. RTC Iloilo City, G.R. NO. 125465, Jun. 29, 1999 309
SCRA 340
Religious relationship and relationship by affinity are not given any legal
effect in this jurisdiction. Consequently, private respondent Ayson, who
is described in the complaint as the spouse of respondent Hontiveros,
and petitioner Maria Hontiveros, who is admittedly the spouse of
petitioner Augusto Hontiveros, are considered strangers to the
Hontiveros family, for purposes of Art. 151.
Gayon v. Gayon, 36 SCRA 104 (1970)
47
Arriola v. Arriola, G.R. NO. 177703, Jan. 28, 2008 542 SCRA 666
Furthermore, Articles 152 and 153 specifically extend the scope of the
family home not just to the dwelling structure in which the family resides
48
but also to the lot on which it stands. Thus, applying these concepts, the
subject house as well as the specific portion of the subject land on which
it stands are deemed constituted as a family home by the deceased and
petitioner Vilma from the moment they began occupying the same as a
family residence 20 years back
Modequillo vs. Breva, G.R. No. 86355, M ay 31, 1990.
There is no need to constitute the same judicially or extrajudicially as
required in the Civil Code. If the family actually resides in the premises,
it is, therefore, a family home as contemplated by law
Patricio vs. Dario, G.R. NO. 170829, November 20, 2006.
Three requisites must concur before a minor beneficiary is entitled to the
benefits of Art. 159: (1) the relationship enumerated in Art. 154 of the
Family Code; (2) they live in the family home, and (3) they are dependent
for legal support upon the head of the family.
Cabang v. Basay, G.R. NO. 180587, M ar. 20, 2009 582 SCRA 172
The family home must be established on the properties of (a) the absolute
community, or (b) the conjugal partnership, or (c) the exclusive property
of either spouse with the consent of the other. It cannot be established
on property held in co-ownership with third persons. However, it can be
established partly on community property, or conjugal property and
partly on the exclusive property of either spouse with the consent of the
latter.
Olivia De M esa v. Acero, G.R. NO. 185064 Jan. 16, 2012 663 SCRA
40
The family homes exemption from execution must be set up and proved
to the Sheriff before the sale of the property at public auction. The
petitioners now are barred from raising the same. Failure to do so estop
them from later claiming the said exemption.
Manacop vs. CA, 277 SCRA 57 (1997)
Articles 152 and 153 of the Family Code do not have a retroactive effect
such that all existing family residences are deemed to have been
constituted as family homes at the time of their occupation prior to the
effectivity of the Family Code and are exempt from execution for the
payment of obligations incurred before the effectivity of the Family Code.
49
Benitez-Badua vs. CA G.R. NO. 105625, Jan. 24, 1994 229 SCRA 468
Article 170 of the Family Code is inapplicable to this case because this is
not an action to impugn the legitimacy of a child, but an action of the
private respondents to claim their inheritance as legal heirs of their
childless deceased aunt. They do not claim that petitioner Violeta
Cabatbat Lim is an illegitimate child of the deceased, but that she is not
the decedent's child at all.
Liyao vs. Tanhoti-Liyao,G.R. NO. 138961, M ar. 07, 2002 378 SCRA
563
The grounds for impugning the legitimacy of the child mentioned in
Article 255 of the Civil Code may only be invoked by the husband, or in
proper cases, his heirs under the conditions set forth under Article 262
of the Civil Code.
Labagla vs. Santiago, G.R. NO. 132305, Dec. 04, 2001 371 SCRA 360
A baptismal certificate, a private document, is not conclusive proof of
filiation. More so are the entries made in an income 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
50
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. M acaraig, 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 po ssession 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.
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.
51
Solinap vs. Locsin Jr. G.R. NO. 146737 , Dec. 10, 2001 371 SCRA
711
Whether or not the certificate of live birth (Exhibit D) as presented by the
respondent, including the photograph showing that he and his mother
attended the deceased funeral, is sufficient to proof filiation of the
petitioner to the deceased. A birth certificate offers only prima facie
evidence of filiation and may be refuted by contrary evidence.
Verceles v. Posada, G.R. NO.159785, Apr. 27, 2007 522 SCRA 518
The court held that 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 acknowledgement of the child,
and no further court action is required
De Asis vs CA, 303 SCRA 176
Paternity or filiation, or the lack of it, is a relationship that must be
judicially established and it is for the court to declare its existence or
absence.
Lucas v. Lucas, G.R. NO. 190710, Jun. 6, 2011 650 SCRA 667
Although a paternity action is civil, not criminal, the constitutional
prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures is still
applicable, and a proper showing of sufficient justification under the
particular factual circumstances of the case must be made before a court
may order a compulsory blood test.
Rodriguez vs. CA, G.R. NO. 85723, Jun. 19, 1995 245 SCRA 150
When a recognition has been made by one parent, the name of the other
parent may be revealed in an action by the child to compel such other
parent to recognize him also.
Heirs of Cabais vs. CA, G.R. NO. 106314-15,Oct. 08, 1999 316 SCRA
338
A baptismal certificate, a private document, which, being hearsay, is not
a conclusive proof of filiation.
Cenido vs. Apacionado, G.R .NO. 132474, Nov. 19, 1999 318 SCRA
688
Under the law, this statement must be made personally by the parent
himself or herself, not by any brother, sister or relative; after all, the
52
Tayag v. Tayag-Gallor, G.R. NO. 174680, M ar. 24, 2008 549 SCRA 68
Petitioner, however, overlooks the fact that respondents successional
rights may be established not just by a judicial action to compel
recognition but also by proof that she had been voluntarily acknowledged
and recognized as an illegitimate child. Respondent in this case had not
been given the opportunity to present evidence to show whether she had
been voluntarily recognized and acknowledged by her deceased father
because of petitioners opposition to her petition and motion for hearing
on affirmative defenses.
Puno v. Puno Ent. Inc., G.R. NO. 177066, Sept. 11, 2009 599 SCRA
585
A certificate of live birth purportedly identifying the putative father is not
competent evidence of paternity when there is no showing that the
putative father had a hand in the preparation of the certificate. The local
civil registrar has no authority to record the paternity of an illegitimate
child on the information of a third person.
Gotardo v. Buling, G.R. NO. 165166, Aug. 15, 2012 678 SCRA 436
We have held that such other proof of one's filiation may be a "baptismal
certificate, a judicial admission, a family bible in which [his] name has
been entered, common reputation respecting his pediG.R.ee, admission
by silence, the testimonies of witnesses, and other kinds of proof
admissible under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court." In this case, the
respondent established a prima facie case that the petitioner is the
putative father of Gliffze through testimony that she had been sexually
involved only with one man, the petitioner, at the time of her conception.
Rodulfo corroborated her testimony that the petitioner and the
respondent had intimate relationship.
Lucas v. Lucas, G.R . NO. 190710, Jun. 6, 2011 650 SCRA 667
Although a paternity action is civil, not criminal, the constitutional
prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures is still
53
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.
De La Cruz v. Gracia G.R. NO. 177728, Jul. 31, 2009 594 SCRA 648
Where the private handwritten instrument is the lone piece of evidence
submitted to prove filiation, there should be strict compliance with the
requirement that the same must be signed by the acknowledging parent.
Where the private handwritten instrument is accompanied by other
relevant and competent evidence, it suffices that the claim of filiation
therein be shown to have been made and handwritten by the
acknowledging parent as it is merely corroborative of such other
evidence.
Uy v. Chu, G.R. NO. 183965, Sept. 18, 2009 600 SCRA 806
It is settled, then, in law and jurisprudence, that the status and filiation
of a child cannot be compromised. Public policy demands that there be
no compromise on the status and filiation of a child. Paternity and
filiation or the lack of the same, is a relationship that must be judicially
54
Cang vs. CA, G.R. NO.105308, Sept. 25, 1998 296 SCRA 128
Physical estrangement alone, without financial and moral desertion, is
not tantamount to abandonment. While admittedly, petitioner was
physically absent as he was then in the United States, he was not remiss
in his natural and legal obligations of love, care and support for his
children.
In re: Adoption of M ichelle & M ichael Lim G.R. NO.168992-93, M ay
21, 2009 588 SCRA 98
The filing of a case for dissolution of the marriage between petitioner and
Olario is of no moment. It is not equivalent to a decree of dissolution of
marriage. Until and unless there is a judicial decree for the dissolution of
the marriage between petitioner and Olario, the marriage still subsists.
That being the case, joint adoption by the husband and the wife is
required.
56
Republic vs. CA & Bobiles, G.R. NO.92326, Jan. 24, 199 2 205 SCRA
356
Under the Child and Youth Welfare Code, private respondent had the
right to file a petition for adoption by herself, without joining her
husband therein. When Mrs. Bobiles filed her petition, she was
exercising her explicit and unconditional right under said law.
Lahom vs. Sibulo, G.R. NO. 143989, July 14, 2003
R.A. NO. 8552 has unqualifiedly withdrawn from an adopter a
consequential right to rescind the adoption decree even in cases where
the adoption might clearly turn out to be undesirable.
TITLE VIII. SUPPORT
Concept of Support
G.R.ounds for Action for Support
Right to support
Order of liability for support
Contractual support vs Legal Support
Mangonon v. CA, G.R. NO. 125041 , June.30, 2006 494 SCRA 1
The grandparents are liable to support their grandchildren if the parent
cannot give support or sufficient support.
Lim v. Lim, G.R. NO. 163209, Oct. 30, 2009 604 SCRA 691
The inability of the parents to sufficiently provide for their children shifts
a portion of their obligation to the ascendants in the nearest degree, both
in the paternal (petitioners) and maternal lines, following the ordering in
Article 199.
Gan vs. Reyes, G.R. NO.145527, M ay.28, 2002 382 SCRA 357
A judgment ordering for support is immediately executory despite
pendency of appeal.
De Asis vs. CA, G.R. NO.127578, Feb. 15, 1999 303 SCRA 176
Whether or not, a renunciation of the existence of filiation of the child
and the putative father, made by the mother, is valid. It is true that in
order to claim support, filiation and,or paternity must first be shown
between the claimant and the parent, however, paternity and filiation or
the lack of the same is a relationship that must be judicially established
and it is for the court to declare its existence or absence.
57
59
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. M urillo, 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.
Lindain v. CA, G.R. NO. 95305 , Aug. 20, 199 212 SCRA 725
Under the law, a parent, acting merely as the legal (as distinguished
from judicial) administrator of the property of his/her minor children,
does not have the power to dispose of, or alienate, the property of said
children without judicial approval.
Neri v. Heirs of Hadji Yusop, G.R. No 194366, Oct. 10, 2012 683
SCRA 253
Administration includes all acts for the preservation of the property and
the receipt of fruits according to the natural purpose of the thing. Any
act of disposition or alienation, or any reduction in the substance of the
patrimony of child, exceeds the limits of administration. Thus, a father or
60
OR
TERMINATION
OF
PARENTAL
INVOLVING
PARENTAL
AUTHORITY
61
See RA 9262 (Anti Violence against W omen and Children [VAW C]) &
IRR
A.M . NO. 02-11-12-SC- Re: Proposed Rule on Provisional Orders
(M arch 4, 2003)
A.M . NO. 03-02-05-SC- Re: Proposed Rule on Guardianship of M inors
(April 1, 2003)
A.M . NO. 03-04-SC- Re: Proposed Rule on Custody of M inors and
Writ of
Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of M inors (April 30, 2003)
CHAPTER 4. OTHER MATTERS
PROCEEDINGS (Article 253)
SUBJECT
TO
SUMMARY
Uy (Jardeleza) vs. CA, G.R. NO. 109557, Nov. 29, 2000 346 SCRA
246
Rule 95 of the ROC, not the Rule on Summary Proceedings in the Family
Code, shall apply in a sale of a conjugal property where one spouse is is
an incompetent. A comatose spouse is incompetent.
Republic v. Tango, G.R. NO.161062, Jul. 31, 2009 594 SCRA 560
By express provision of law, the judgment of the court in a summary
proceeding shall be immediately final and executory. As a matter of
course, it follows that no appeal can be had of the trial courts judgment
in a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death of an
absent spouse under Article 41 of the Family Code.
Rep. v. Bermudez-Lorino G.R. NO. 160258 , Jan. 19, 2005 449 SCRA
5
In Summary Judicial Proceedings under the Family Code, there is no
reglementary period within which to perfect an appeal, precisely because
judgments rendered thereunder, by express provision of Section 247,
Family Code, supra, are "immediately final and executory". It was
erroneous, therefore, on the part of the RTC to give due course to the
Republics appeal and order the transmittal of the entire records of the
case to the Court of Appeals.
62
P ROP ERTY
Concept of Property
Classification of Property
Immovable vs M ovable Properties
Laurel vs. Abrogar,
Jan.
13,
2009
64
Inc.,
vs.
CBAA, M ay
31,
1982
CBAA,
M ay
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)
A real estate mortgage is a real right and a real property by itself.
Chapter 2 M ovable Property
Concept
65
Jura Regalia simply means that the State is the original proprietor of all
lands and, as such, is the general source of all private titles. Thus,
pursuant to this principle, all claims of private title to land, save those
acquired from native title, must be traced from some grant, whether
express or implied, from the State. Absent a clear showing that land had
been let into private ownership through the States imprimatur, such
land is presumed to belong to the State
Public ownership vs State Ownership
Public Service vs Public Use
Villarico v. Sarmiento, 442 SCRA 110, 115 2004
Public use means use which is not confined to privileged individuals,
but is open to the indefinite public.
Characteristics of Properties of Public Dominion
Menchavez vs Teves, Jr, 449 SCRA 380
Properties of public dominion may not be alienated but may be subject to
joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with private individuals
or corporations for their exploration, development and utilization.
Dacanay vs Asistio,Jr 208 SCRA 404
66
20,
2010
To qualify as foreshore land, it must be shown that the land lies between
the high and low water marks and is alternately wet and dry according to
the flow of the tide. The land's proximity to the waters alone does not
automatically make it a foreshore land.
Binalay v. M analo, 195 SCRA 374, 384 (1991)
67
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 M anila, 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.
Patrimonial Property of the State
Conversion of Property of Public Dominion to Patrimonial Property
Yu Chang v. Republic, G.R. NO. 171726. Feb. 23, 2011
The classification of land is descriptive of its legal nature or status and
does not have to be descriptive of what the land actually looks like. The
fact that the area within which the subject parcels of land are located is
being used for residential and commercial purposes does not serve to
convert the subject parcels of land into aG.R.icultural land. It is
68
fundamental that before any land may be declassified from the forest
G.R.oup and converted into alienable or disposable land for
aG.R.icultural or other purposes, there must be a positive act from the
government.
Laurel v. Garcia,187 SCRA 797
Any conveyance of a real property falling under the patrimonial property
of the State must be authorized and approved by a law enacted by the
Congress.
Property for public use of Provinces, Cities, and Municipalities
Patrimonial Property of Political Subdivision
Title II Ownership
Ownership in General
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, represented by its REGIONAL DIRECTOR
TERESITA DOMALANTA vs. MARIANO TULIAO, G.R. No. 205664, June 9, 2014, J.
Mendoza
In actions for recovery of possession, the plaintiff must show proof to support his
claim of his right to possession of the property. The defendant in turn must show
proof to controvert the plaintiffs claim; otherwise the court will rule for the
plaintiff. Thus, when a landowner filed an action for recovery of possession against a
public school which built a gymnasium on a parcel of land which the owner allowed
the school to use as an access road for the schoolchildren, and the plaintiff showed
as evidence tax declarations and a certificate of title over the property, the lone
testimonial evidence the DepEd presented is not sufficient to controvert the
landowners case. In addition, the landowners claim is not barred by laches when
the schools possession of the property is not adverse, and when the landowner
brought suit two years after he learned that the school is constructing a gymnasium
over the property.
HEIRS OF PACIANO YABAO, represented by REMEDIOS CHAN vs. PAZ LENTEJAS
VAN DER KOLK, G.R. No. 207266, June 25, 2014, J. Mendoza
A tax declaration is not a proof of ownership; it is not a conclusive evidence of
ownership of real property. In the absence of actual, public, and adverse possession,
the declaration of the land for tax purposes does not prove ownership.
69
70
thereon is not admissible, except only for the purpose of determining the issue of
possession."
Concept of Ownership
Attributes of Ownership
Recovery of Property
Accion Reinvindicatoria; Ejectment
THE HEIRS OF EUGENIO LOPEZ, SR. NAMELY, OSCAR M. LOPEZ,
MANUEL M. LOPEZ AND PRESENTACION L. PSINAKIS, vs. THE
HONORABLE FRANCISCO QUERUBIN, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING
JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ANTIPOLO, BRANCH 74,
THE HEIRS OF ALFONSO SANDOVAL AND HIS WIFE ROSA RUIZ,
REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, MRS. IMELDA RIVERA,
G.R. No. 155405/HEIRS OF EUGENIO LOPEZ, vs. ALFONSO SANDOVAL AND
ROMAN OZAETA, JR., G.R. No. 164092, MARCH 18, 2015, J. Leonardo-de
Castro
One who claims to be the owner of a property that is possessed by another must
bring the appropriate judicial action for its physical recovery. The term "judicial
process" could mean no less than an ejectment suit or reinvindicatory action in
which the ownership claims of the contending parties may be properly heard and
adjudicated.
Del Fierro v. Seguiran G.R. NO. 152141,Aug. 8, 2011 The first
requisite in an accion reinvindicatoria requires that the person who
claims that he has a better right to the property must first fix the identity
of the land he is claiming by describing the location, area and boundaries
thereof. Anent the second requisite, i.e., the claimant's title over the
disputed area, the rule is that a party can claim a right of ownership only
over the parcel of land that was the object of the deed.
Del
Rosario
NO. 170575,June
v. Roxas
8, 2011
Foundation,
G.R.
In forcible entry, the possession is illegal from the beginning and the only
issue is who has the prior possession de facto. In unlawful detainer,
possession was originally lawful but became unlawful by the expiration
or termination of the right to possess and the issue of rightful possession
is the one decisive, for in such action, the defendant is the party in
71
20,
2011
property motorized deep wells but were prevented from doing so by the
authorities precisely because of the construction and existence of the
tunnels underneath the surface of their property.
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 or restriction in the titleof the seller or in his
capacity to convey title to the property. All these conditions must be present,
otherwise, the buyer is under obligation to exercise extra ordinary diligence by
scrutinizing the certificates of title and examining all factual circumstances to enable
him to ascertain the sellers title and capacity to transfer any interest in the
property.
74
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)
Article 448 applies only to a case where one builds on land in the belief
that he is the owner thereof and it does not apply where ones only
interest in the land is that of a lessee under a rental contract.
75
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 M ovable Property
Adjunction or Conjunction
Rules governing Adjunction or Conjunction
Presence and absence of badfaith
77
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.
For an action to quiet title to prosper, two indispensable requisites must concur,
namely: (1) the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or equitable title to or interest in
the real property subject of the action; and (2) the deed, claim, encumbrance, or
proceeding claimed to be casting cloud on the title must be shown to be in fact
invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or efficacy. The
first requisite was not complied with. Petitioners alleged open, continuous,
exclusive, and uninterrupted possession of the subject property is belied by the fact
that respondents, in 2005, entered into a Contract of Lease with the Avico Lending
Investor Co. over the subject lot without any objection from the petitioners.
Petitioners inability to offer evidence tending to prove that Bienvenido and
Escolastica Ibarra transferred the ownership over the property in favor of
petitioners is likewise fatal to the latters claim.
JUANARIO G. CAMPIT v ISIDRA B. GRIP A, PEDRO BARDIAGA, and SEVERINO
BARDIAGA, represented by his son ROLANDO BARDIAGA, G.R No. 195443,
September 17, 2014. J. BRION
78
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-IN-FACT 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. TM-1118 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 Jr. vs. M ondragon, G.R. 179754,Nov.
21,
2012
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
79
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 be en
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.
Vda.de Aviles v. CA, 264 SCRA 473
An action for quieting of title may not be brought for the purpose of
settling a boundary dispute.
Title III- Co-ownership
Definition
Requisites
Nature of Co-ownership
LOURDES C. FERNANDEZ v NORMA VILLEGAS and any person acting in her
behalf including her family, G.R No. 200191, August 20, 2014. J. PERLASBERNABE
Article 487 of the Civil Code explicitly provides that any of the co -owners may bring
an action for ejectment, without the necessity of joining all the other co -owners as
co-plaintiffs because the suit is deemed to be instituted for the benefit of all. To
reiterate, both Lourdes and Cecilia are co-plaintiffs in the ejectment suit. Thus, they
share a commonality of interest and cause of action as against respondents. Hence,
80
A stipulation in a contract requiring a co-owner to secure an authority from his coowners for the alienation of his share, as seemingly indicated in this case, should be
considered mere surplusage and does not, in any way, affect the validity or the
enforceability of the contract. Pursuant to Article 493, a co-owner has the right to
alienate his proindiviso share in the co-owned property even without the consent of
his co-owners.
REYNALDO DELA ROSA, Namely: TEOFISTA DELA ROSA, JOSEPHINE SANTIAGO
AND JOSEPH DELA ROSA v MARIO A. BA TONGBACAL, IRENEO BATONGBACAL,
JOCELYN BA TONGBACAL, NESTOR BATONGBACAL AND LOURDES BA
TONGBACAL, G.R No. 179205, July 30, 2014 J. PEREZ
A contract of sale is a consensual contract, which becomes valid and binding upon
the meeting of minds of the parties on the price and the object of the sale. The mere
inadequacy of the price docs not affect its validity when both parties are in a
position to form an independent judgment concerning the transaction, unless fraud,
mistake or undue influence indicative of a defect in consent is present. A contract
may consequently be annulled on the ground of vitiated consent and not due to the
inadequacy of the price. In the case at bar, however, no evidence to prove fraud,
mistake or undue influence indicative of vitiated consent is attendant.
RAUL V. ARAMBULO AND TERESITA DELA CRUZ VS. GENARO NOLASCO AND JEREMY
SPENCER NOLASCO, G.R. No. 189420
March 26, 2014, J. Perez
M ar.
21,
2011
The first phase of a partition and,or accounting suit is taken up with the
determination of whether or not a co-ownership in fact exists, and a
partition is proper (i.e., not otherwise legally proscribed) and may be
made by voluntary aG.R.eement of all the parties interested in the
property. This phase may end with a declaration that plaintiff is not
entitled to have a partition either because a co-ownership does not exist,
or partition is legally prohibited.
Cruz v.
Feb.
12,
2008
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 actua l 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 self-serving. . The respondents failed to discharge
their burden of proving the element of prior physical possession.
Concept of Possession
Elements of Possession
86
Kinds of Possession
Possession in Good Faith and Bad Faith
PNB v. De Jesus, G.R. NO. 149295, September 23, 2003 - One is
considered in good faith if he is not aware that there exists in his title or
mode of acquisition any flaw which invalidates it.
Parilla v. Pilar, G.R. NO. 167680, Nov. 30, 2006 - One whose interest
is merely that of a holder, such as a mere tenant, agent or usufructuary,
is not qualified to become a possessor builder in good faith.
Abalos
v.
Heirs
of
Torio,
G.R.
NO. 175444,
Dec.
14,
2011 - Acts of possessory character
executed due to license or by mere tolerance of the owner are inadequate
for purposes of acquisitive prescription. Possession, to constitute the
foundation of a prescriptive right, must be en concepto de dueo, or, to
use the common law equivalent of the term, that possession should be
adverse, if not, such possessory acts, no matter how long, do not start
the running of the period of prescription.
Chapter 2 Acquisition of Possession
ANACLETO C. MANGASER, REPRESENTED BY HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
EUSTAQUIO DUGENIAvs. DIONISIO UGAY, G.R. No. 204926, December 03, 2014,
J. Mendoza
For a forcible entry suit to prosper, the plaintiffs must allege and prove: (a) that they
have prior physical possession of the property; (b) that they were deprived of
possession either by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth; and, (c) that the
action was filed within one (1) year from the time the owners or legal possessors
learned of their deprivation of the physical possession of the property.
There is only one issue in ejectment proceedings: who is entitled to physical or
material possession of the premises, that is, to possession de facto, not possession
de Jure? Issues as to the right of possession or ownership are not involved in the
action; evidence thereon is not admissible, except only for the purpose of
determining the issue of possession.
As a rule, the word "possession" in forcible entry suits indeed refers to nothing more
than prior physical possession or possession de facto, not possession de Jure or legal
possession in the sense contemplated in civil law. Title is not the issue, and the
absence of it "is not a ground for the courts to withhold relief from the parties in an
ejectment case."
87
Possession can be acquired by juridical acts. These are acts to which the law gives
the force of acts of possession. Examples of these are donations, succession,
execution and registration of public instruments, inscription of possessory
information titles and the like. The reason for this exceptional rule is that possession
in the eyes of the law does not mean that a man has to have his feet on every square
meter of ground before it can be said that he is in possession. It is sufficient that
petitioner was able to subject the property to the action of his will.
CARMENCITA SUAREZ VS. MR. AND MRS. FELIX E. EMBOY JR. AND MARILOU P. EMBOYDELANTAR G.R. No. 187944 March 12, 2014, J. Reyes
In a complaint for unlawful detainer, the following key jurisdictional facts must be
alleged and sufficiently established: (1) initially, possession of property by the
defendant was by contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff;(2) eventually, such
possession became illegal upon notice by plaintiff to defendant of the termination of
the latters right of possession; (3) thereafter, the defendant remained in possession
of the property and deprived the plaintiff of the enjoyment thereof; and (4) within
one year from the last demand on defendant to vacate the property, the plaintiff
instituted the complaint for ejectment.
In the case at bar, the first requisite mentioned above is markedly
absent. Carmencita failed to clearly allege and prove how and when the
respondents entered the subject lot and constructed a house upon it. Carmencita
was likewise conspicuously silent about the details on who specifically permitted
the respondents to occupy the lot, and how and when such tolerance came
about. Instead, Carmencita cavalierly formulated a legal conclusion, sans factual
substantiation, that (a) the respondents initial occupation of the subject lot was
lawful by virtue of tolerance by the registered owners, and (b) the respondents
became deforciants unlawfully withholding the subject lots possession after
Carmencita, as purchaser and new registered owner, had demanded for the former
to vacate the property. It is worth noting that the absence of the first requisite
assumes even more importance in the light of the respondents claim that for
decades, they have been occupying the subject lot as owners thereof.
SPOUSES EDMUNDO DELA CRUZ AND AMELIA CONCIO-DELA CRUZ VS. SPOUSES
RUFINO R. CAPCO AND MARTY C. CAPCO G.R. No. 176055, March 17, 2014
"The only issue in an ejectment case is the physical possession of real property
possession de facto and not possession de jure." But "[w]here the parties to an
ejectment case raise the issue of ownership, the courts may pass upon that issue to
determine who between the parties has the better right to possess the property."
Here, both parties anchor their right to possess based on ownership, i.e., the spouses
Dela Cruz by their own ownership while the spouses Capco by the ownership of
Rufino as one of the heirs of the alleged true owner of the property. Thus, the MeTC
88
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 .
ROBERT AND NENITA DE LEON, vs. GILBERT AND ANALYN DELA LLANA, G.R.
No. 212277, February 11, 2015, J. Perlas-Bernabe
An unlawful detainer complaint was filed by Gilbert dela Llana against petitioner
Robert de Leon and Gil de Leon. Robert and Gil contend that the lease contract was
simulated. It is quite apparent that the MCTC-Nabunturan-Mawab actually intended
to mean that the undated lease contract subject of this case was absolutely
simulated. Its pronouncement that the parties did not intend to be bound by their
agreement is simply inconsistent with relative simulation.
Bunyi v.
Factor, G.R. NO.
591 SCRA 350
172547,
Jun.
30,
2009
89
175604,
Apr.
10,
2008
v.
109595,
Apr.
27,
2000
90
them, then she deserves to be respected and restored to her lawful possession as
provided in Article 539 of the New Civil Code.
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 the Court should require petitioner to prove convincingly and persuasively that
the chips it confiscated from the Fernandez brothers 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 SBL cannot prove its
loss, then Art. 559 cannot apply; the presumption that the chips were exchanged for
value remains.
PENTA PACIFIC REALTY CORPORATION vs. LEY CONSTRUCTION AND
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, G.R. No. 161589, November 24, 2014, J.
Bersamin
Penta Pacific leased its properties to Ley Construction. Both parties then entered
into a contract to sell. Ley Construction failed to pay its amortizations prompting
Penta Pacific to file an action for ejectment.
The MeTC correctly exercised its authority in finding for the petitioner as the
plaintiff. In unlawful detainer, the possession was originally lawful but became
unlawful by the expiration or termination of the right to possess; hence, the issue of
rightful possession is decisive for, in the action, the defendant is in actual possession
and the plaintiffs cause of action is the termination of the defendant's r ight to
continue in possession.
A defendant's claim of possession de jure or his averment of ownership does not
render the ejectment suit either accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria. The suit
remains an accion interdictal, a summary proceeding that can proceed
independently of any claim of ownership. Even when the question of possession
cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership
is to be resolved only to determine the issue of possession.
91
V.
614
80298,
Apr.
26,
1990
Actual delivery of the books having been made, Cruz acquired ownership
over the books which he could then validly transfer to the private
respondents. The fact that he had not yet paid for them to EDCA was a
matter between him and EDCA and did not impair the title acquired by
the private respondents to the books.
BPI Family
v.
123498,
Nov.
23,
2007
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
Restrictive Covenant
Fajardo v. Freedom
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.
112331,
M ay
29,
1996
173252,
Jul.
17,
2009
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. PERLASBERNABE
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.
CRISOSTOMO B. AQUINO v MUNICIPALITY OF MALAY, AKLAN, represented by
HON. MAYOR JOHN P. YAP, SANGGUNIANG BA YAN OF MALAY, AKLAN,
represented by HON. EZEL FLORES, DANTE PASUGUIRON, ROWEN AGUIRRE,
WILBEC GELITO, JUPITER GALLENERO, OFFICE OF THE MUNICIPAL ENGINEER,
95
182567,
Jul.
13,
2009
96
Quezon
11,
2011
The wing walls do not per se immediately and adversely affect the safety
of persons and property. The fact that an ordinance may declare a
structure illegal does not necessarily make that structure a nuisance.
Perez v.
M adrona G.R. NO. 184478,
M ar.
21,
2012 Respondents fence 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 secure the property of respondents and prevent intruders
from entering it.
Donation
CHARLES BUMAGAT, JULIAN BACUDIO, ROSARIO PADRE, SPOUSES ROGELIO
and ZOSIMA PADRE, and FELIPE DOMINCIL v REGALADO ARRIBAY, G.R No.
194818, June 9, 2014. J. DEL CASTILLO
Under Article 749 and 709 of the Civil Code, it may be inferred that as between the
parties to a donation of an immovable property, all that is required is for said
donation to be contained in a public document. Registration is not necessary for it to
be considered valid and effective. However, in order to bind third persons, the
donation must be registered in the Registry of Land Titles and Deeds. Although the
non-registration of a deed of donation shall not affect its validity, the necessity of
registration comes into play when the rights of third persons are affected, as in the
case at bar.
In this case, the donation executed by Gonzales in favor of his grandchildren,
although in writing and duly notarized, has not been registered in accordance with
law. Hence, while the deed of donation is valid between the donor and the donees,
such deed, however, did not bind the tenants-farmers who were not parties to the
donation. Non-registration of a deed of donation does not bind other parties
ignorant of a previous transaction. It is of no moment that the right of the tenantfarmers in this case was created by virtue of a decree or law. They are still
considered "third persons" contemplated in our laws on registration, for the fact
remains that these tenant-farmers had no actual knowledge of the deed of donation.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE vs. FEDERICO DACLAN, JOSEFINA COLLADO, AND HER HUSBAND
FEDERICO DACLAN AND MINVILUZ DACLAN, AS SURVIVING HEIRS OF
97
DECEASED JOSE DACLAN, G.R. No. 197115 (consolidated), March 23, 2015, J.
Del Castillo
The Daclans lament the supposed failure of the Province to provide agricultural
extension and on-site research services and facilities as required under the IRR of
the LGC of 1991, which failure they believe, constituted a violation of the stipulation
contained in the deeds of donation to develop and improve the livestock industry of
the country. Yet this cannot be made a ground for the reversion of the donated
lands; on the contrary, to allow such an argument would condone undue
interference by private individuals in the operations of government. The deeds of
donation merely stipulated that the donated lands shall be used for the
establishment of a breeding station and shall not be used for any other purpose, and
that in case of non-use, abandonment or cessation of the activities of the BAI,
possession or ownership shall automatically revert to the Daclans. It was never
stipulated that they may interfere in the management and operation of the breeding
station. Even then, they could not directly participate in the operations of the
breeding station.
Nature of Donations
Classification of Donations
Persons who may giver or receive a Donation
Formalities of Donation
ESPERANZA C. CARINAN vs. SPOUSES GAVINO CUETO and CARMELITA CUETO, G.R. No.
198636, October 8, 2014, J. Reyes
In order to sufficiently substantiate her claim that the money paid by the
respondents was actually a donation, petitioner should have also submitted in court
a copy of their written contract evincing such agreement. As earlier ruled by the
Court, a donation must comply with the mandatory formal requirements set forth by
law for its validity. When the subject of donation is purchase money, Article 748 of
the NCC is applicable. Accordingly, the donation of money as well as its acceptance
should be in writing. Otherwise, the donation is invalid for non-compliance with the
formal requisites prescribed by law.
Effects and limitation of Donation
a separate instrument is either not given to the donor or else noted in the
deed of donation, and in the separate acceptance.
Villanueva vs. Spouses Branoco, G.R. No. 172804, January 24, 2011
When the donor used the words that the gift "does not pass title during
my lifetime; but when I die, she shall be the true owner of the two
aforementioned parcels"] the donor meant nothing else than that she
reserved of herself the possession and usufruct of said two parcels of
land until her death, at which time the donee would be able to dispose of
them freely.
Central Philippines University vs. CA, G.R. No. 112127 July 17,
1995
If there was no fulfillment or compliance with the condition, the donation
may now be revoked and all rights which the donee may have acquired under it
shall be deemed lost and extinguished.
Insular
Life
v.
44059,
Oct.
28,
1977
v.
Sept.
30,
2008
126444,
Dec.
4,
1998.
Since no period was imposed by the donor on when must the donee
comply with the condition, the latter remains the owner so long as he
has tried to comply with the condition within a reasonable period. Only
then - when the non-fulfillment of the resolutory condition was brought
99
PRESCR IP TION
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.
RURAL BANK OF CABADBARAN, INC v JORGITA A. MELECIO-YAP, LILIA
MELECIO PACIFICO (deceased, substituted by her only child ERILL* ISAAC M.
PACIFICO, JR.), REYNALDO A. MELECIO DELOSO, and SARAH MELECIO PALMAGIL, G.R No. 178451, July 30, 2014. J. PERLAS-BERNABE
In this case, the complaint for nullification of the SPA was filed before the RTC on
April 17,1996, or barely three years from the discovery of the averred forgery in
1993, which is within the four-year prescriptive period provided under Article 1146
of the Civil Code to institute an action upon the injury to their rights over the subject
properties. A delay within the prescriptive period is sanctioned by law and is not
considered to be a delay that would bar relief. Laches applies only in the absence of
a statutory prescriptive period.
SPOUSES FRANCISCO SIERRA (substituted by DONATO, TERESITA, TEODORA,
LORENZA, LUCINA, IMELDA, VILMA, and MILAGROS SIERRA) and ANTONINA
SANTOS, SPOUSES ROSARIO SIERRA and EUSEBIO CALUMA LEYVA, and
SPOUSES SALOME SIERRA and FELIX GATLABAYAN (substituted by BUENA
VENTURA, ELPIDIO, PAULINO, CATALINA, GREGORIO, and EDGARDO
GATLABAYAN, LORETO REILLO, FERMINA PEREGRINA, and NIDA HASHIMOTO)
vs. PAIC SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK, INC., G.R. No. 197857, September 10,
2014, J. Perlas- Bernabe
100
Since the complaint for annulment was anchored on a claim of mistake, i.e., that
petitioners are the borrowers under the loan secured by the mortgage, the action
should have been brought within four (4) years from its discovery. As mortgagors
desiring to attack a mortgage as invalid, petitioners should act with reasonable
promptness, else its unreasonable delay may amount to ratification. Verily, to allow
petitioners to assert their right to the subject properties now after their unjustified
failure to act within a reasonable time would be grossly unfair to PSMB, and
perforce should not be sanctioned. As such, petitioners' action is already barred by
laches, which, as case law holds, operates not really to penalize neglect or sleeping
on one's rights, but rather to avoid recognizing a right when to do so would result in
a clearly inequitable situation.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
SHANG PROPERTIES REALTY CORPORATION (formerly THE SHANG GRAND
TOWER CORPORATION) and SHANG PROPERTIES, INC. (formerly EDSA
PROPERTIES HOLDINGS, INC.), v ST. FRANCIS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
G.R No. 190706, July 21, 2014. J. PERLAS-BERNABE
St. Francis Development Corporation (SFDC) uses the mark ST. FRANCIS to
identify numerous development projects at Ortigas Center. When Shang Properties
Realty (SPR) used the marks The St. Francis Towers and The St. Francis ShangriLa Place, SFDC filed a complaint for intellectual property violation for unfair
competition and damages.
For unfair competition to be established, there must be a showing that SPR
employed means to induce the public towards a false belief that it was offering
SFDCs goods/services. Here, this was not proven.
On the contrary, the Court upheld SPRs use of the St. Francis mark since the use
was meant not to ride on SFDCs goodwill, but merely to identify, or at least
associate, their real estate project/s with its geographical location. In the real estate
business, here can be no description of its geographical origin as precise and
accurate as that of the name of the place where they are situated.
ILLAWARE PRODUCTS CORPORATION V JESICHRIS MANUFACTURING
CORPORATION, G.R No. 195549, September 3, 2014. J. PERALTA
In order to qualify the competition as "unfair," it must have two characteristics: (1)
it must involve an injury to a competitor or trade rival, and (2) it must involve acts
which are characterized as "contrary to good conscience," or "shocking to judicial
sensibilities," or otherwise unlawful; in the language of our law, these include force,
intimidation, deceit, machination or any other unjust, oppressive or high-handed
101
method. The public injury or interest is a minor factor; the essence of the matter
appears to be a private wrong perpetrated by unconscionable means.
It is evident that petitioner Willaware is engaged in unfair competition as shown by
his act of suddenly shifting his business from manufacturing kitchenware to plasticmade automotive parts; his luring the employees of the respondent to transfer to his
employ and trying to discover the trade secrets of the respondent.
ABS-CBN CORPORATION, vs. FELIPE GOZON, GILBERTO R. DUAVIT, JR.,
MARISSA L. FLORES, JESSICA A. SOHO, GRACE DELA PEA-REYES, JOHN OLIVER
T. MANALASTAS, JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES, G.R. No. 195956, March 11, 2015,
J. Leonen
Several employees of GMA-7 were charged with copyright infringement. ABS-CBN
claims that news footage is subject to copyright and prohibited use of copyrighted
material is punishable under the Intellectual Property Code. It argues that the new
footage is not a "newsworthy event" but "merely an account of the arrival of Angelo
dela Cruz in the Philippines the latter being the newsworthy event".
The Supreme Court held that the news footage is copyrightable. he news footage is
copyrightable.
The Intellectual Property Code is clear about the rights afforded to authors of
various kinds of work. Under the Code, "works are protected by the sole fact of their
creation, irrespective of their mode or form of expression, as well as of their content,
quality and purpose." These include "[audio-visual works and cinematographic
works and works produced by a process analogous to cinematography or any
process for making audiovisual recordings."
It is true that under Section 175 of the Intellectual Property Code, "news of the day
and other miscellaneous facts having the character of mere items of press
information" are considered unprotected subject matter. However, the Code does
not state that expression of the news of the day, particularly when it underwent a
creative process, is not entitled to protection.
GMA-7's rebroadcast of ABS-CBN's news footage without the latter's consent is not
an issue. The mere act of rebroadcasting without authority from the owner of the
broadcast gives rise to the probability that a crime was committed under the
Intellectual Property Code.
Respondents cannot invoke the defense of good faith to argue that no probable
cause exists.Infringement under the Intellectual Property Code is malum prohibitum.
The Intellectual Property Code is a special law.
TAIWAN KOLIN CORPORATION, LTD VS. KOLIN ELECTRONICS CO., INC G.R. No.
209843. March 25, 2015, J. Velasco Jr.
102
The issue to be resolved in the case at bar is whether or not petitioner is entitled to
its trademark registration of KOLIN over its specific goods of television sets and
DVD players. Petitioner postulates, in the main, that its goods are not closely related
to those of Kolin Electronics. On the other hand, respondent hinges its case on the
CAs findings that its and petitioners products are closely-related. Thus, granting
petitioners application for trademark registration, according to respondent, would
cause confusion as to the public.
The Supreme Court held that identical marks may be registered for products for the
same classification. Mere uniformity in categorization, by itself, does not
automatically preclude the registration of what appears to be an identical mark, if
that be the case. In fact, SC, in a long line of cases, has held that such circumstance
does not necessarily result in any trademark infringement. It is hornbook doctrine
that emphasis should be on the similarity of the products involved and not on the
arbitrary classification or general description of their properties or characteristics.
The mere fact that one person has adopted and used a trademark on his goods
would not prevent the adoption and use of the same trademark by others on
unrelated articles of a different kind.
It is erroneous to conclude that all electronic products are related and that the
coverage of one electronic product necessarily precludes the registration of a
similar mark over another. In this digital age wherein electronic products have not
only diversified by leaps and bounds, and are geared towards interoperability, it is
difficult to assert readily, as respondent simplistically did, that all devices that
require plugging into sockets are necessarily related goods. In addition, Supreme
court rule that there is no confusing similarity between the marks, given that the
products covered by the trademark, i.e., jeans, were, at that time, considered pricey,
typically purchased by intelligent buyers familiar with the products and are more
circumspect, and, therefore, would not easily be deceived.Hence, petitioner's
trademark registration not only covers unrelated good, but is also incapable of
deceiving the ordinary intelligent buyer.
OBLIGA TIONS
I. DEFINITION
MAKATI STOCK EXCHANGE vs. CAMPOS, G.R. NO. 138814, April 16,
2009
Respondent used the terms "right and obligation" in his Petition from
which he concluded that that such Petition sufficiently states a cause of
action. Right and obligation are legal terms with specific legal meaning;
103
104
2. CIVIL OBLIGATIONS
ANSAY vs. NDC, G.R. NO. L-13667, April 29, 1960
Appellants contend that there exists a cause of action in their complaint
because their claim rests on moral grounds or what in brief is defined by
law as a natural obligation. Article 1423 of the New Civil Code classifies
obligations into civil or natural. "Civil obligations are a right of action to
compel their performance. Natural obligations, not be ing based on
positive law but on equity and natural law, do not grant a right of action
to enforce their performance, but after voluntary fulfillment by the
obligor, they authorize the retention of what has been delivered or
rendered by reason thereof".
V. SOURCES OF OBLIGATIONS
ABS-CBN vs. OFFICE OF THE OM BUDSMAN, G.R. NO. 133347
April 23, 2010
Petitioner asserts that a criminal complaint may continue and be
prosecuted as an independent civil action. The claim for civil liability
survives notwithstanding the death of accused, if the same may also be
predicated on a source of obligation other than delict. Article 1157 of the
Civil Code enumerates these other sources of obligation from which the
civil liability may arise as a result of the same act or omission: a) law. b)
contracts. c) quasi-contracts. d) xxx xxx xxx. e) quasi-delicts.
1. OBLIGATIONS ARISING FROM LAW
SALEN vs. BALCE, G.R. NO. L-14414, April 27, 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
106
METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY vs. ANA GRACE ROSALES AND
YO YUK TO, G.R. No. 183204, January 13, 2014 J. del Castillo
Petitioner bank uses as basis for its refusal The Hold Out clause found in the
agreement it entered into with respondents. The Supreme Court held that the Hold
Out clause applies only if there is a valid and existing obligation arising from any of
the sources of obligation enumerated in Article 115779of the Civil Code, to wit: law,
contracts, quasi-contracts, delict, and quasi-delict. No such ground exists in this
case, hence the bank is guilty of breach of contract when it unjustifiably refused to
release respondents deposit despite demand.
SALUDAGA vs. FEU, G.R. NO. 179337 April 30, 2008
Saludaga, a sophomore law student of respondent FEU filed a case for
damages against it after he was shot by one of the security guards on
duty at the school premises. When an academic institution accepts
students for enrollment, there is a established contract between them,
resulting in bilateral obligations which both parties are bound to comply
with but which FEU failed to perform when it did not provide a safe and
secure environment to its students.
MERALCO vs RAMOY, G.R. NO. 158911, M arch 4, 2008
The respondents' cause of action against MERALCO is anchored on culpa
contractual or breach of contract for the latter's discontinuance of its
service to respondents. In culpa contractual the me re proof of the
existence of the contract and the failure of its compliance justify, prima
facie, a corresponding right of relief from law, recognizing the obligatory
force of contracts, the law will not permit a party to be set free from
liability for any kind of misperformance of the contractual undertaking or
a contravention of the tenor thereof.
3. OBLIGATIONS ARISING FROM QUASI CONTRACT
CRUZ vs.TUASON, G.R. NO. L-23749 April 29, 1977
Cruz alleged that Tuason had been enriched at the expense of Cruz by
virtue of an agreement made by Cruz and the Deudors in the clearing,
improving, subdividing and selling the large tract of land for the reasons
that said improvements are being used and enjoyed by Tuason. A
107
City of Manila is likewise liable for damages under Article 2189 of the
Civil Code, respondent City having retained control and supervision over
the Sta. Ana Public Market and as tort-feasor under Article 2176 of the
Civil Code on quasi-delicts Respondent City of Manila and Asiatic
Integrated Corporation being joint tort-feasors are solidarily liable under
Article 2194 of the Civil Code.
JIMENEZ vs. CITY OF M ANILA, G.R. NO. 71049, M ay 29, 1987
Petitioner fell into the open drainage holes, causing him physical
injuries, in a public market being managed by Asiatic Integrated
Corporation but such public market is still under the control and
supervision of the City of Manila. As a defense against liability on the
basis of a quasi-delict, one must have exercised the diligence of a good
father of a family. (Art. 1173 of the Civil Code).
VI. NATURE AND EFFECTS OF OBLIGATION
A. OBLIGATION TO GIVE A DETERM INATE THING vs A GENERIC
THING
SANCHEZ vs. RIGOS, G.R. NO. L-25494 June 14, 1972
In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that, by virtue of the option under
consideration, "defendant agreed and committed to sell" and "the plaintiff
agreed and committed to buy" the land described in the option, hence,
plaintiff maintains that the promise contained in the contract is
"reciprocally demandable. "A promise to buy and sell a determinate thing
for a price certain is reciprocally demandable and an accepted unilateral
promise to buy or to sell a determinate thing for a price certain is binding
upon the promissor if the promise is supported by a consideration
distinct from the price.
GAISANO CAGAYAN, INC. vs INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH
AMERICA, G.R. NO. 147839, June 8, 2006
Petitioners argument is that it is not liable for the unpaid accounts
because the fire is a fortuitous event. If the obligation is generic in the
sense that the object thereof is designated merely by its class or genus
without any particular designation or physical segregation from all others
of the same class, the loss or destruction of anything of the same kind
even without the debtors fault and before he has incurred in delay will
not have the effect of extinguishing the obligation, based on the principle
110
that the genus of a thing can never perish, (Genus nunquan perit) and
an obligation to pay money is generic; therefore, it is not excused by
fortuitous loss of any specific property of the debtor.
GAISANO CAGAYAN, INC. vs INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH
AMERICA, G. R. NO. 147839, June 8, 2006
Petitioners argument is that it is not liable for the unpaid accounts
because the fire is a fortuitous event. The rule that an obligor should be
held exempt from liability when the loss occurs thru a fortuitous event
only holds true when the obligation consists in the delivery of a
determinate thing and there is no stipulation holding him liable even in
case of fortuitous event and it does not apply when the obligation is
pecuniary in nature.
B. FAILURE OF PERFORMANCE
ART 1170
ARRIETA vs. NARIC, G.R. NO. L-15645, January 31, 1964
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
Petitioner and private respondent entered into a contract whereby, for a
fee, petitioner undertook to send said private respondent's message
overseas by telegram but which petitioner did not do, despite
performance by said private respondent of her obligation by paying the
required charges. 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.
C. DELAY
1. M ORA SOLVENDI
ART 11
111
112
Petitioners contend that they have fully complied with their obligation
under the Memorandum of Agreement but due to respondents failure to
increase the capital stock of the corporation to an amount that will
accommodate their undertaking, it had become impossible for them to
perform their end of the Agreement. In reciprocal obligations, failure of
the other party to perform the obligation renders the other party to
demand fulfillment of the obligation or asked for the rescission of the
contract, but not simply not performing their part of the Agreement.
D. NEGLIGENCE
1. DEGREE OF DILIGENCE
SICAM vs. JORGE, G.R. NO. 159617, August 8, 2007
Sicam exempts himself from liability on the ground that the robbery of
his pawnshop is a fortuitous event which is by definition is an
extraordinary event not foreseeable or avoidable. In order for a fortuitous
event to exempt one from liability, it is necessary that one has committed
no negligence or misconduct that may have occasioned the loss and
robbery per se, just like carnapping, is not a fortuitous event for it does
not foreclose the possibility of negligence on the part of herein
petitioners.
MERALCO vs. RAM OY, G.R. NO. 158911, M arch 4, 2008
The respondents' cause of action against MERALCO is anchored on culpa
contractual or breach of contract for the latter's discontinuance of its
service to respondents. Article 1173 also provides that the fault or
negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that diligence which
is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the
circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the place, hence, as a
public utility, MERALCO has the obligation to discharge its functions
with utmost care and diligence.
113
NAKPIL & SONS v. CA, G.R. NO. L-47851 April 15, 1988
114
There was an earthquake which caused the building heavy damage but
the other nearby structures had less damages as compared to the said
building, the architects, engineers and contractors are claiming
fortuitous event as a defense. To be exempt from liability due to an act of
God, the ff must occur:
1) cause of breach must be independent of the will of the debtor
2) event must be unforeseeable or unavoidable
3) event must be such that it would render it impossible for the debtor to
fulfill the obligation
4) debtor must be free from any participation or agG.R.avation of the
industry to the creditor.
3. EXTRAORDINARY INFLATION
ALMEDA vs. BATHALA MARKETING,G.R.NO.150806, January 28,
2008
The lower court denied petitioners right to pass on to respondent the
burden of paying the VAT and their right to collect the demanded
increase in rental, there being no extraordinary inflation or devaluation
as provided for in the seventh clause of the contract. Extraordinary
inflation exists when there is a decrease or increase in the purchasing
power of the Philippine currency which is unusual or beyond the
common fluctuation in the value of said currency, and such increase or
decrease could not have been reasonably foreseen or was manifestly
beyond the contemplation of the parties at the time of the establishment
of the obligation.
4. BREACH FOR RESCISSION
UNIVERSAL FOOD CORPORATION vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS,
G.R. NO. L-29155
M ay 13, 1970
Respondent patentee was dismissed as the permanent chief chemist of
the corporation without any fault or negligence on his part after the
execution of the Bill of Assignment, prompting him to rescind the
contract. The general rule is that rescission of a contract will not be
permitted for a slight or casual breach, but only for such substantial and
fundamental breach as would defeat the very object of the parties in
making the agreement.
VII. KINDS OF CIVIL OBLIGATIONS
115
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 petitioner-creditor 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 M arch 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
First, since Espidol failed to pay the installment on a day certain fixed in
their agreement, the Atienzas can afterwards validly cancel and ignore
the contract to sell because their obligation to sell under it did not
arise. Since the suspensive condition did not arise, the parties stood as
if the conditional obligation had never existed.
Second, it was not a pure suspensive condition in the sense that the
Atienzas made no undertaking while the installments were not yet
116
118
complaint not having sought that the court should set a period, but must
set the time that the parties are shown to have intended.
4. OBLIGATIONS W ITH A PENAL CLAUSE
SSS vs. MOONWALK DEVELOPMENT & HOUSING CORPORATION,
G.R. NO. 73345, April 7, 1993.
Is the penalty demandable even after the extinguishment of the principal
obligation? For all purposes the principal obligation of defendantappellee was deemed extinguished as well as the accessory obligation of
real estate mortgage, the penal clause which is also an accessory
obligation must also be deemed extinguished, it would be otherwise, if
the demand for the payment of the penalty was made prior to the
extinguishment of the obligation because by then the debtor would be in
mora and therefore liable for the penalty.
THE BACHRACH M OTOR CO., INC., vs. ESPIRITU, G.R. NO. L -28497
November 6, 1928
Defendant alleged that the decision of the lower court to pay 25 percent
of the amount of the trucks in addition to the amount of the trucks plus
12 per cent per annum is unconscionable and exceeds the rate fixed by
law. The penalty agreed upon does not include the interest, and which
may be demanded separetely and the penalty is not to be added to the
interest for the determination of whether the interest exceeds the rate
fixed by the law, since said rate was fixed only for the interest.
ROBES-FRANCISCO REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs.
CFI, G.R. NO. L-41093, October 30, 1978
Petitioner corporation questions the award for nominal damages and
attorney's fee since the contract agreed upon indicated an interest at 4%
per annum of the total amount to be paid which should be considered as
penalty clause for failure to comply with 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
120
GOLDEN VALLEY EXPLORATION, INC. vs. PINKIAN MINING COMPANY and COPPER
VALLEY, INC., G.R. No. 190080, June 11, 2014, J. Perlas-Bernabe
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
GSIS sold a house to Agcaoili, and required him to immediately occupy it
under pain of cancellation of the sale, but Agcaoili found out that the
house was uninhabitable hence payment was suspended which
prompted GSIS to cancel the sale. It is axiomatic that "(i)n reciprocal
obligations, neither party incurs in delay if the other does not comply or
is not ready to comply in a proper manner with what is incumbent upon
him."
UNLAD RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. DRAGON,
G.R. NO. 149338, July 28, 2008
Petitioners contend that they have fully complied with their obligation
under the Memorandum of Agreement but due to respondents failure to
increase the capital stock of the corporation to an amount that will
accommodate their undertaking, it had become impossible for them to
perform their end of the Agreement. In reciprocal obligations, failure of
the other party to perform the obligation renders the other party to
121
122
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
126
127
128
creditor herein cannot oblige the debtor to pay him in dollars, even if the
loan were given in said currency.
KALALO vs. LUZ, G.R. NO. L-27782, July 31, 1970
Appellant claims that lower court erred in declaring and holding that the
balance owing from defendant-appellant to plaintiff-appellee on the IRRI
Project should be paid on the basis of the rate of exchange of the U.S.
dollar to the Philippine peso at the time of payment of judgment. Even if
the obligation assumed by the defendant was to pay the plaintiff a sum of
money expressed in American currency, the indemnity to be allowed
should be expressed in Philippine currency at the rate of exchange at the
time of judgment rather than at the rate of exchange prevailing on the
date of defendant's breach.
LEGAL TENDER
TIBAJIA vs. CA, G.R. NO. 100290, June 4, 1993
Checks representing deposit money do not have legal tender power and
their acceptance in the payment of debts, both public and private, is at
the option of the creditor.
ROMAN CATHOLIC vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, G.R.
NO. 72110. November 16, 1990.
Since a negotiable instrument is only a substitute for money and not
money, the delivery of such an instrument does not, by itself, operate as
payment. A check, whether a managers check or ordinary check, is not
legal tender, and an offer of a check in payment of a debt is not a valid
tender of payment and may be refused receipt by the obligee or creditor.
PAPA vs. VALENCIA, G.R. NO. 105188, January 23, 1998
Petitioner received the payment partly in cash and partly in check but
was not able to encash the check, and now questions the said payment
after 10 years. Respondents, on the other hand, want the petitioner to
deliver to them the owners duplicate of the title and the peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the lot in question.
The geneal rule is delivery of a check produces the effect of payment only
when it is cashed, pursuant to Art. 1249 of the Civil Code. The rule does
not apply, however, if
the debtor is prejudiced by the creditors
unreasonable delay in the presentment of the check. Acceptance of a
check implies an undertaking of due diligence in presenting it for
130
131
134
The relationship of the depositors and the Bank or similar institution is that of
creditor-debtor. Article 1980 of the New Civil Code provides that fixed, savings and
current deposits of money in banks and similar institutions shall be governed by the
provisions concerning simple loans. The bank is the debtor and the depositor is the
creditor. The depositor lends the bank money and the bank agrees to pay the
depositor on demand. The savings deposit agreement between the bank and the
135
depositor is the contract that determines the rights and obligations of the parties.
Petitioners are not liable for the deposit of the altered checks. The Bank, as the
depositary and collecting bank ultimately bears the loss. Thus, there being no
indebtedness to the Bank on the part of petitioners, legal compensation cannot take
place.Under Art. 1278 of the New Civil Code, compensation shall take place when
two persons, in their own right, are creditors and debtors of each other.
FEDERAL BUILDERS, INC. vs.FOUNDATION SPECIALISTS, INC., G.R. No. 194507,
September 8, 2014, J. Peralta
In the landmark case of Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, as regards
particularly to an award of interest in the concept of actual and compensatory
damages, the rate of interest, as well as the accrual thereof, is imposed, as follows:
When the obligation is breached, and it consists in the payment of a sum of money,
i.e., a loan or forbearance of money, the interest due should be that which may have
been stipulated in writing. Furthermore, the interest due shall itself earn legal
interest from the time it is judicially demanded. In the absence of stipulation, the
rate of interest shall be 12% per annum to be computed from default, i.e., from
judicial or extrajudicial demand under and subject to the provisions of Article 1169
of the Civil Code. In line with the recent circular of the Monetary Board of the
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas No. 799 (July 1, 2013), the Court has modified the
guidelines in Nacar v. Gallery Frames, wherein the interest due shall itself earn
legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded and in the absence of
stipulation, the rate of interest shall be 6% per annum to be computed from default,
i.e., from judicial or extrajudicial demand under and subject to the provisions of
Article 1169 of the Civil Code. This case, however, does not involve acquiescence to
the temporary use of a partys money but a performance of a particular service,
specifically the construction of the diaphragm wall, capping beam, and guide walls
of the Trafalgar Plaza. Thus, in the absence of any stipulation as to interest in the
agreement between the parties herein, the matter of interest award arising from the
dispute in this case would actually fall under the second paragraph of the above quoted guidelines in the landmark case of Eastern Shipping Lines, which
necessitates the imposition of interest at the rate of 6%, instead of the 12% imposed
by the courts below. As to the rate of interest due 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
136
137
Francia contends that his tax delinquency has been extinguished by legal
compensation and claims that the government owed him when a portion
of his land was expropriated, hence, his tax obligation had been set-off
by operation of law.
The general rule based on grounds of public policy is well-settled that no
set-off admissible against demands for taxes levied for general or local
governmental purposes because taxes are not in the nature of contracts
between the party and party but grow out of duty to, and are the positive
acts of the government to the making and enforcing of which, the
personal consent of individual taxpayers is not required.
SYCIP vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. NO. L -38711,
January 31, 1985
Petitioner contends that respondent Court of Appeals erred in not
applying the provisions on compensation or setting-off debts despite
evidence showing that Lapuz, an agent of Albert Smith and/or Dr.
Dwight Dill, owed him. Compensation takes place only when two persons
in their own right are creditors and debtors of each other, and that each
one of the obligors is bound principally and is at the same time a
principal creditor of the other.
MINDANAO PORTLAND CEMENT CORPORATION vs. CA, G.R. NO. L62169, February 28, 1983
It is clear from the record that both corporations, petitioner Mindanao
Portland Cement Corporation (appellant) and respondent Pacweld Steel
Corporation (appellee), were creditors and debtors of each other, their
debts to each other consisting in final and executory judgments of the
Court of First Instance in two (2) separate cases, ordering the payment to
each other of the sum of P10,000.00 by way of attorney's fees. The two
(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. L69560 June 30, 1988
Petitioner contended that, after extrajudicially foreclosing the mortgage,
private respondent still owes the former an amount, by way of deficiency.
138
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. SOLA, JR., G.R. NO. 174882 January 21, 2013
Respondent reneged on his promise to pay petitioner. Petitioner
thereafter withheld the payment of respondent's service fees and applied
the same as partial payments of the debt by way of compensation.
Compensation is a mode of extinguishing to the concurrent amount the
obligations of persons who in their own right and as principals are
reciprocally debtors and creditors of each other. Legal compensation
takes place by operation of law when all the requisites are present, as
opposed to conventional compensation which takes place when the
parties aG.R.ee to compensate their mutual obligations even in the
absence of some requisites.
MONTEMAYOR vs. M ILLORA, G.R. NO. 168251.
equivalent value. When petitioner Arco Pulp and Paper tendered a check to Lim in
partial payment for the scrap papers, they exercised their option to pay the price.
This choice was also shown by the terms of the memorandum of agreement which
declared in clear terms that the delivery of petitioner Arco Pulp and Papers finished
products would be to a third person, thereby extinguishing the option to deliver the
finished products of equivalent value to respondent. The trial court erroneously
ruled that the execution of the memorandum of agreement constituted a novation of
the contract between the parties. Novation extinguishes an obligation between two
parties when there is a substitution of objects or debtors or when there is
subrogation of the creditor. The consent of the creditor must be secured for the
novation to be valid. In this case, Lim was not privy to the memorandum of
agreement, thus, his conformity to the contract need not be secured. If the
memorandum of agreement was intended to novate the original agreement between
the parties, respondent must have first agreed to the substitution of Eric Sy as his
new debtor.
THE WELLEX GROUP, INC. vs. U-LAND AIRLINES, CO., LTD., G.R. No. 167519.
January 14, 2015, J. Leonen
Because novation requires that it be clear and unequivocal, it is never presumed.
The parties did not enter into any subsequent written agreement that was couched
in unequivocal terms. The transaction of the First Memorandum of Agreement
involved large amounts of money from both parties. Any subsequent agreement
would be expected to be clearly agreed upon with their counsels assistance and in
writing, as well. Thus there was no express novation. There was also no implied
novation of the original obligation. There was no incompatibility between the
original terms of the First Memorandum of Agreement and the remittances ma de by
respondent U-Land for the shares of stock. These remittances were actually made
with the view that both parties would subsequently enter into a share purchase
agreement. It is clear that there was no subsequent agreement inconsistent with the
provisions of the First Memorandum of Agreement.
FORT BONIFACIO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. VALENTIN L. FONG., G.R.
No. 209370, March 25, 2015, J. Perlas-Bernabe
By virtue of the Deed of Assignment, the assignee is deemed subrogated to the rights
and obligations of the assignor and is bound by exactly the same conditions as those
which bound the assignor. Accordingly, an assignee cannot acquire greater rights
than those pertaining to the assignor. The general rule is that an assignee of a 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.
140
141
inability or insolvency of the new debtor, hence, the creditor should agree
to accept the substitution in order that it may be binding on him.
CALIFORNIA BUS LINES, INC. vs. STATE INVESTMENT HOUSE, INC.,
G.R. NO. 147950. December 11, 2003
There was no change in the object of the prior obligations in the
restructuring agreement since it merely provided for a new schedule of
payments and additional security giving Delta authority to take over the
management and operations of CBLI in case CBLI fails to pay
installments equivalent to 60 days. With respect to obligations to pay a
sum of money, this Court has consistently applied the well-settled rule
that the obligation is not novated by an instrument that expressly
recognizes the old, changes only the terms of payment, and adds other
obligations not incompatible with the old ones, or where the new contract
merely supplements the old one.
AJAX MARKETING vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. NO. 118585
September 14, 1995
In their interrelated first and second assignment of errors, petitioners
argue that a novation occurred when their three (3) loans, which are all
secured by the same real estate property were consolidated into a single
loan of P1 million under Promissory Note, thereby extinguishing their
monetary obligations and releasing the mortgaged property from liability.
The well settled rule is that novation is never presumed and it will not be
allowed unless it is clearly shown by express agreement, or by acts of
equal import, thus, to effect an objective novation it is imperative that
the new obligation expressly declare that the old obligation is thereby
extinguished, or that the new obligation be on every point incompatible
with the new one.
F. RESCISSION
SANGGUNIANG PANLUNGSOD NG BAGUIO CITY VS. JADEWELL PARKING SYSTEMS
CORPORATION
G.R.
NOS.
160025/163052/164107/165564/172215/172216/173043/174879/, April 23,
2014, J. SERENO
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
142
declaration of rescission produces legal effect such that the injured party is already
relieved from performing the undertaking. However, the power of declaring
extrajudicial rescission conferred upon the injured party is regulated by the Civil
Code. If the extrajudicial rescission is impugned by the other party, it shall be
subject to a judicial determination where court action must be taken, and the
function of the court is to declare the rescission as having been properly or
improperly made, or to give a period within which the debtor must perform the
obligation alleged to be breached. A unilateral cancellation of a contract may be
questioned in courts by the affected party to determine whether or not cancellation
is warranted. Thus, in an extrajudicial decree of rescission, revocation canno t be
completely exercised solely on a partys own judgment that the other has committed
a breach of the obligation but always subject to the right of the other party to
judicially impugn such decision.
METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY VS. WILFRED N. CHIOK/
BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS VS. WILFRED N. CHIOK/ GLOBAL
BUSINESS BANK INC.
VS.
WILFRED N. CHIOK G.R. Nos.
172652/175302/175394. November 26, 2014 J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
The injured party may choose between the fulfilment and the rescission of the
obligation, with the payment of damages in either case. He may also seek rescission,
even after he has chosen fulfilment, if the latter should become impossible.
The court shall decree the rescission claimed, unless there be just cause authorizing
the fixing of a period. This is understood to be without prejudice to the rights of
third persons who have acquired the thing, in accordance with Articles 1385 and
1388 and the Mortgage Law.
The cause of action supplied by the above article, however, is clearly predicated
upon the reciprocity of the obligations of the injured party and the guilty party.
Reciprocal obligations are those which arise from the same cause, and in which each
party is a debtor and a creditor of the other, such that the obligation of one is
dependent upon the obligation of the other. They are to be performed
simultaneously such that the performance of one is conditioned upon the
simultaneous fulfillment of the other. When Nuguid failed to deliver the agreed
amount to Chiok, the latter had a cause of action against Nuguid to ask for the
rescission of their contract. On the other hand, Chiok did not 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
143
Wellex and U-Land bound themselves to negotiate with each other within a 40-day
period to enter into a share purchase agreement. If no share purchase agreement
was entered into, both parties would be freed from their respective undertakings.
For Article 1191 to be applicable, however, there must be reciprocal prestations as
distinguished from mutual obligations between or among the parties. A prestation is
the object of an obligation, and it is the conduct required by the parties to do or not
to do, or to give. Parties may be mutually obligated to each other, but the prestations
of these obligations are not necessarily reciprocal. The reciprocal prestations must
necessarily emanate from the same cause that gave rise to the existence of the
contract. U-Land correctly sought the principal relief of rescission or resolution
under Article 1191. The obligations of the parties gave rise to reciprocal prestations,
which arose from the same cause: the desire of both parties to enter into a share
purchase agreement that would allow both parties to expand their respective airline
operations in the Philippines and other neighboring countries.
SWIRE REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. JAYNE YU. G.R. No. 207133.
March 9, 2015, J. PERALTA
Based on the ocular inspection conducted on the subject condominium project and
subject unit shows that the amenities under the approved plan have not yet been
provided as of May 3, 2002, and that the subject unit has not been delivered to
respondent as of August 28, 2002, which is beyond the period of development of
December 1999 under the license to sell. Incontrovertibly, petitioner had incurred
delay in the performance of its obligation amounting to breach of contract as it
failed to finish and deliver the unit to respondent within the stipulated period. 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 under Article 1191, demand a refund and payment of
damages.
UNIVERSAL FOOD CORPORATION vs. CA, G.R. NO. L -29155, M ay 13,
1970
Respondent patentee was dismissed as the permanent chief chemist of
the corporation without any fault or negligence on his part after the
execution of the Bill of Assignment, prompting him to rescind the
contract. The general rule is that rescission of a contract will not be
permitted for a slight or casual breach, but only for such substantial and
fundamental breach as would defeat the very object of the parties in
making the agreement.
ART 1191
DEL CASTILLO Vda. DE M ISTICA vs. SPOUSES NAGUIAT, G.R. NO.
137909, December 11, 2003
144
In the present case, the failure of respondents to pay the balance of the
purchase price within ten years from the execution of the Deed did not
amount to a substantial breach. Under Article 1191 of the Civil Code,
the right to rescind an obligation is predicated on the violation of the
reciprocity between parties, brought about by a breach of faith by one of
them however, rescission is allowed only where the breach is substantial
and fundamental to the fulfillment of the obligation.
PALAY vs. CLAVE , G.R. NO. L-56076 September 21, 1983
The contract agreed upon by the parties provided for automatic
extrajudicial rescission upon default in payment without need of notice
and with forfeiture of all installments paid. Upon default of the
respondent, petitioner rescinded the contract. Responde nt questioned
the validity of the rescission. The judicial action for the rescission of a
contract is not necessary where the contract provides that it may be
revoked and cancelled for violation of any of its terms and conditions,
however there should be at least a written notice sent to the defaulter
informing him of the rescission.
ART 1169,1191
RODRIGO RIVERA vs. SPOUSES SALVADOR CHUA AND VIOLETA S. CHUA, G.R.
No. 184458 (consolidated), January 14, 2015, J. Perez
There are four instances when demand is not necessary to constitute the debtor in
default: (1) when there is an express stipulation to that effect; (2) where the law so
provides; (3) when the period is the controlling motive or the principal inducement
for the creation of the obligation; and (4) where demand would be useless. In the
first two paragraphs, it is not sufficient that the law or obligation fixes a date for
performance; it must further state expressly that after the period lapses, default will
commence.
Corollary thereto, Art. 2209 solidifies the consequence of payment of interest as an
indemnity for damages when the obligor incurs in delay.
Art. 2209 is specifically applicable in this instance where: (1) the obligation is for a
sum of money; (2) the debtor, Rivera, incurred in delay when he failed to pay on or
before 31 December 1995; and (3) the Promissory Note provides for an indemnity
for damages upon default of Rivera which is the payment of a 5% monthly interest
from the date of default.
145
CARTON
The CA added that even assuming that the agreement was for
respondent to deliver the boxes, respondent would not be liable for
breach of contract as petitioner had not yet demanded from it the
delivery of the boxes. Without a previous demand for the fulfillment of
the obligation, petitioner would not have a cause of action for rescission
against respondent as the latter would not yet be considered in breach of
its contractual obligation, since the right to rescind a contract arises
once the other party defaults in the performance of his obligation.
OSMEA III vs SSS, September 13, 2007
The Letter-Agreement, the SPA, the SSC resolutions assailed in this
recourse, and the Invitation to Bid sent out to implement said
resolutions, all have a common subject: the Shares the 187.84 Million
EPCIB common shares, which, as a necessary consequence of the BDOEPCIB merger which saw EPCIB being absorbed by the surviving BDO,
have been transferred to BDO and converted into BDO common shares
under the exchange ratio set forth in the BDO-EPCIB Plan of Merger. As
thus converted, the subject Shares are no longer equity security
issuances of the now defunct EPCIB, but those of BDO-EPCI, which,
needless to stress, is a totally separate and distinct entity from what
used to be EPCIB.
Under the law on obligations and contracts, the obligation to give a
determinate thing is extinguished if the object is lost without the fault of
the debtor, and per Art. 1192 (2) of the Civil Code, a thing is considered
lost when it perishes or disappears in such a way that it cannot be
recovered.
VILLAMAR vs. M ANGAOIL, G.R. NO. 188661 : April 11, 2012
Petitioner alleged that the absence of stipulations in the aG.R.eement
and absolute deed of sale entered into by Petitioner and Respondent
expressly indicating the consequences of the former's failure to deliver
the physical possession of the subject property and the certificate of title
covering the same, the Respondent is not entitled to demand for the
rescission of their contract pursuant to Article 1191 of the NCC.
The power to rescind obligations is implied in reciprocal ones, in case one
of the obligors should not comply with what is incumbent upon him",
146
147
148
absolutely simulated or fictitious contract is void, and the parties may recover from
each other what they may have given under the contract.
In the present case, the true intention of the parties in the execution of the Deed of
Absolute Sale is immediately apparent from respondents very own Answer wherein
they admitted that the purpose of the Deed of Absolute Sale was simply to facilitate
the titling of the subject property. considering that the Deed of Absolute Sale has
been shown to be void for being absolutely simulated, petitioners are not precluded
from presenting evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of the written
agreement as an exception to the parol evidence rule.
I. A. DEFINITION
SPOUSES BALILA vs. IAC, G.R. NO. L-68477 October 29, 1987
A contract is a meeting of minds between two persons whereby one binds
himself with respect to the other to give something or render some
service, the Central Bank of the Philippines in the exercise of its
Administrative power did not create any contractual obligations.
B. CONTRACTS AS A SOURCE OF OBLIGATIONS
BATCHELDER vs. THE CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R.
NO. L-25071, July 29, 1972
Obligations arise from 1) law; 2) contracts; 3) quasi-contracts; 4) acts or
omissions punished by law and 5) quasi -delicts, the circular issued by
the Central Bank has the force and effect of the law. Obligations arising
from law, howe ver, is never presumed.
II. ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF A CONTRACT
SPOUSES TONGSON
vs. EMERGENCY PAWNSHOP BULA, G.R.
167874.
January 15, 2010
A valid contract requires the concurrence of the following essential
elements: (1) consent or meeting of the minds, that is, consent to transfer
ownership in exchange for the price; (2) determinate subject matter; and
(3) price certain in money or its equivalent.
In the present case, there is no question that the subject matter of the
sale is the 364-square meter Davao lot owned by the Spouses Tongson
and the selling price agreed upon by the parties is P3,000,000, but the
149
ECE REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT INC. vs.RACHEL G. MANDAP, G.R. No. 196182,
September 1, 2014, J. Peralta
Article 1338 of the Civil Code provides that "[t]here is fraud when through insidious
words or machinationsof one of the contracting parties, the other is induced to enter
into a contract which, without them, he would not have agreed to."
150
152
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 quasi-delicts, 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.
153
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
Pending resolution of the case, both parties freely and voluntarily entered
into an agreement for the purpose of finally settling their dispute in this
case. As a contract, a compromise is perfected by mutual consent,
however, a judicial compromise, while immediately binding between the
parties upon its execution, is not executory until it is approved by the
court and reduced to a judgment.
LAGUNZAD vs. VDA. DE GONZALES, G.R. NO. L -32066 August 6,
1979
Petitioner takes the position that he was pressured into signing the
Agreement because of private respondent's demand, for payment for the
"exploitation" of the life story of Moises Padilla, otherwise, she would "call
a press conference declaring the whole picture as a fake, fraud and a
hoax and would denounce the whole thing in the press, radio, television
and that they were going to Court to stop the picture." It is necessary to
distinguish between real duress and the motive which is present when
one gives his consent reluctantly because a contract is valid e ven though
one of the parties entered into it against his own wish and desires, or
even against his better judgment.
VELASCO vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. NO. L-31018
June 29, 1973
The material averments of petitioners' complaint disclose lack of
complete "agreement in regard to the manner of payment" of the lot in
question. A definite agreement on the manner of payment of the
purchase price is an essential element in the formation of a binding and
enforceable contract of sale.
154
155
Although the contract states that the purchase price of 2,000.00 was
paid by Policronio to Alfonso for the subject properties, it has been
proven that no such payment was made. It is well-settled that where a
deed of sale states that the purchase price has been paid but in fact has
never been paid, the deed of sale is null and void for lack of
consideration.
III. FORM ALITIES
ART 1724
DUE OBSERVANCE OF PRESCRIBED FORMALITIES
WELDON CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION vs. COURT OF APPEALS,
G.R. NO. L-35721 October 12, 1987
There was no written agreement on the additional price to be paid for
said "extra works," hence, private respondent claims that the contractor
aG.R.eed to make the additions without additional cost.
In the absence of a written authority by the owner for the changes in the
plans and specifications of the building and of a written agreement
between the parties on the additional price to be paid to the contractor,
as required by Article 1724, the claim for the cost of additional works
must be denied.
LAO SOK vs. SABAYSABAY, G.R. NO. L-61898 August 9, 1985
Petitioner Lao Sok promised to give his employees their separation pay,
as soon as he receives the insurance proceeds for his burned building,
but contends that the contract was orally made hence unenforceable
since it does not comply with the Statute of Frauds. Contracts in
whatever form they may have been entered into are binding on the
parties unless form is essential for the validity and enforceability of that
particular contract.
ART 1356
GALLARDO vs.HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT,
G.R. NO. L-67742 October 29, 1987
156
The issue here is whether or not the unnotarized deed of sale can be
considered as a valid instrument for effecting the alienation by way of
sale of a parcel of land registerd under the Torrens System.
The general rule enunciated in said Art. 1356 is that contracts are
obligatory, in whatever form they may have been entered, provided all the
essential requisites for their validity are present, except when the law so
requires requiring a contract to be in some form for validity or
enforceability.
IV. STAGES , PERFECTION
Bugatti v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 138113. October 17, 2000
A contract undergoes three distinct stages preparation or negotiation,
its perfection, and finally, its consummation. Negotiation begins from
the time the prospective contracting parties manifest their interest in the
contract and ends at the moment of agreement of the parties. The
perfection or birth of the contract takes place when the parties agree
upon the essential elements of the contract. The last stage is the
consummation of the contract wherein the parties fulfill or perform the
terms agreed upon in the contract, culminating in the extinguishment
thereof.
ART 1315 , 1319
TONG BROTHERS CO., vs. IAC, G.R. NO. 73918 December 21, 1987
From the exchange of telegrams between the two parties, there was not
yet a meeting of the minds as to the cause of the contract. The cause of a
contract has been defined "as the essential reason which moves the
contracting parties to enter into it (8 Manresa, 5th Edition, p. 450). In
other words, the cause is the immediate, direct and proximate reason
which justifies the creation of an obligation thru the will of the
contracting parties (3 Castan, 4th Edition, p. 347)." (General Enterprises,
Inc. v. Lianga Bay Logging Co., Inc., 11 SCRA 733, 739). For the private
respondent, the cause of the contract was the repair of its vessel
Zamboanga-J while for the petitioner the cause would be its commitment
to repair the vessel and make it seaworthy. The telegrams dated January
17, January 20, and January 28, 1975 sent by the petitioner to the
private respondent, however, indicate that the former had not accepted
the repair of Zamboanga-J, the reason being that the extent of the repair
to be made necessitated a major expense so that the petitioner insisted
on the presence of the private respondent for evaluation before it
accepted the repair of the wooden vessel. That the petitioner had not yet
consented to the contract is e vident when on January 28, 1975, it sent a
157
law' are "inexistent and that "(T)hese contracts cannot be ratified, neither
can the right to set up the defense of illegality be waived."
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.
MANOTOK REALTY, INC., vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R.
NO. L-45038 April 30, 1987
Don Legarda sold the paraphernal property of Dona Clara to the
respondent. It was sold three months after he was appointed as
administrator of the estate of Dona Clara Tambunting. The sale between
Don Vicente Legarda and the private respondent is void ab initio, the
former being neither an owner nor administrator of the subject property,
160
and the sale cannot be the subject of the ratification by the probate
court.
PORTUGAL vs. IAC, G.R. NO. 73564 March 25, 1988
Respondent, through fraudulent means was able to transfer the lot from
his parents to himself without consideration or cause through a
purported deed of The IAC held that the action had already prescribed
because an action to annul a contract based on fraud prescribes in four
years. The SC, however, held that the alleged contract of sale is vitiated
by the total absence of a valid cause or consideration which is an
indispensable requisite for the existence of a valid contract. Thus, Article
1410 of the Civil Code provides that '(T)he action or defense for the
declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe.
PHILIPPINE BANKING CORPORATION vs. LUI SHE, G.R. NO. L 17587, September 12, 1967
The illicit purpose becomes the illegal causa rendering the contracts void.
TEJA M ARKETING vs. IAC, G.R. NO. L-65510 M arch 9, 1987
The parties operated under an arrangement, commonly known as the
"kabit system" whereby a person who has been granted a certificate of
public convenience allows another person who owns motor vehicles to
operate under such franchise for a fee.
Although not outrightly
penalized as a criminal offense, the kabit system is invariably recognized
as being contrary to public policy and, therefore, void and in existent and
it is a fundamental principle that the court will not aid either party to
enforce an illegal contract, but will leave both where it finds then.
B. VOIDABLE CONTRACTS
ART 1327
FRANCISCO vs. HERRERA, G.R. NO. 139982, November 21, 2002
The vendor Eligio, Sr. entered into an agreement with petitioner, but that
the formers capacity to consent was vitiated by senile dementia. Insane
or demented persons cannot give consent to a contract, but if an insane
or demented person does enter into a contract, the legal effect is that the
contract is voidable or annullable.
161
162
163
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
The conveyances made by Sadorra in favor of his son-in-law were
fraudulent since about seven months after a judgment was rendered
against him in and without paying any part of that judgment, Sadorra
sold the only two parcels of land belonging to the conjugal partnership to
his son-in-law. Contracts by virtue of which the debtor alienates
property by gratuitous title or alienations by onerous title when made by
persons against whom some judgment has been rendered in any
instance or some writ of attachment has been issued, are presumed to be
made in fraud of creditors, and the decision or attachment need not refer
to the property alienated and need not have been obtained by the party
seeking rescission.
AIR FRANCE vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. NO. 10 4234
June 30, 1995
Petitioner moved for the issuance of an alias writ of execution on the
ground of unsatisfied judgment against respondents and It likewise
moved to declare the sale to a third party of a parcel of land in the name
of the private respondent as one in fraud of creditors which was granted
by the lower court. Rescissible contracts, not being void, they remain
legally effective until set aside in a rescissory action and may convey title,
and an action for rescission may not be raised or set up in a summary
proceeding through a motion, but in an independent civil action and only
after a full-blown trial.
VII. EFFECT OF CONTRACTS
DOCTRINES , PRINCIPLES
1. CONSENSUALITY OF CONTRACTS
ART 1306 , 1336 , 1337
164
3. M UTUALITY OF CONTRACTS
BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS vs. NAVARRO, G.R. NO. L -46591, 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 vs. SPOUSES AGUSTIN, G.R. NO.
164549
September 18, 2009
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 Monetary
Board must be included, otherwise, the change carries no binding effect.
4. RELATIVITY , PRIVITY OF CONTRACTS
DKC HOLDINGS CORPORATION vs. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. NO.
118248
April 5, 2000
Being an heir there is privity of interest between the heir and the
deceased, hence, heirs are bound by contracts entered into by their
167
168
IX.
BONIFACIO BROS., INC., ET AL., vs. M ORA, ET AL., G.R. NO. L 20853
M ay 29, 1967
The appellants seek to recover the insurance proceeds, relying upon the
insurance contract executed by and between the State Bonding &
Insurance Company, Inc. and Mora. Contracts take effect only between
the parties thereto, except where the contract contains some
stipulations, known as stipulations por atrui, in favor of a third person,
who is allowed to avail himself of a benefit granted to him by the terms of
the contract, provided that the contracting parties have clearly and
deliberately conferred a favor upon such person, however such third
person not a party to the contract has no action zagainst the parties
thereto, and cannot generally demand the enforcement of the same, if he
did not communicate his acceptance thereto to the obligor before the
revocation.
FLORENTINO vs. ENCARNACION, SR., G.R. NO. L -27696 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
170
171