Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Republic vs Grijaldo
Facts:
- D obtained loans from C secured by a chattel
mortgage on the standing crops of the land
owned by him. These crops were lost or
Millan vs Rio Olabarrieta
destroyed through enemy action during the war.
Facts:
Issue: Is Ds obligation to pay the loans - S sold to B an undivided interest in vessel for 36K.
extinguished?
10K was paid, 26K to be applied to installing
Ruling:
new engine. Vessel wrecked by a storm
- Held: No D is not to deliver a determinate thing,
Issue:
namely, the crops but to pay a generic thing
W/N B is released
sum of his loans, with interest. Chattel mortgage
Ruling:
is a surety.
- No. The true intention of the parties is that the
unpaid balance should be applied to the
Art. 1264. The courts shall determine
installation there was an obligation on his part
whether, under the circumstances, the
to pay the balance independently of the purpose
partial loss of the object of the obligation is
for which it was intended to be used;
so important as to extinguish the obligation.
(n)
Gutierrez Repide vs. Alzelius
- partial loss when only a portion of the thing is lost
Facts:
or destroyed or when it suffers depreciation or - S sold land to B, B failed to pay the first
deterioration. Partial loss is the equivalent of
installment, B alleged lack of funds for his failure
diffi culty of performance in obligations to do
and pleaded impossibility of performance.
- Example to deliver race horse, but the horse had
Issue:
broken leg
Is contention tenable?
Ruling:
Art. 1265. Whenever the thing is lost in the - No. stability of commercial transactions requires
possession of the debtor, it shall be
that the rights of the seller be protected just as
presumed that the loss was due to his fault,
effectively as the rights of the buyer.
unless there is proof to the contrary, and - mere pecuniary inability to fulfi ll an engagement
without prejudice to the provisions of article
does not discharge the obligation of the
1165. This presumption does not apply in
contract, nor does it constitute a defense to a
case of earthquake, flood, storm, or other
decree of specific performance.
natural calamity. (1183a)
Labayen vs. Talisay-Silay Milling Co
Facts:
W/N surety is liable
- S obligated to construct a railroad. It was shown
Ruling:
later that it is still possible was very dangerous. - No. Principal obligation has been extinguished by
Issue:
the action of the government in preventing such
May one obligate himself to do something too
return
dangerous to life and property?
Ruling:
NRCC vs CA
- No. Contract was a general contract limited in
Facts:
particular application not impeded by physical - D corporation agent of N in exporting rice and
impossibility.
corn and in importing certain collateral goods in
- Not to sanction would run counter to public policy
exchange therefore, to buy from N the said
and law
collateral goods.
- Almost half the goods were imported and D paid
Castui vs. Longa
for them. Because of the change of
Facts:
administration,
barter
transactions
were
- E lessee failed to comply with terms of his
suspended
contract for the lease due to an order of - D was able to import the remaining collateral
president suspending milling or prohibiting
goods
planting. Fact that E was prevented in doing so
Issue:
Issue:
D is liable to N for balance of value
Is E relieved?
Ruling:
Ruling:
- No the obligation of D to import and buy the
- Yes. if we take into account the fact that to
collateral goods became unenforceable when
produce or mill sugar cane at that time was
importation become legally impossible due to
contrary to public policy as it would be giving
suspension of barter
aid and comfort to the enemy
- It was the duty of N to make necessary
representations with the government to enable
Keng Hua Paper Product, Co., Inc. vs. Court
D to import the remaining collateral goods
of Appeals
- N has no cause of action until it has secured the
Facts:
necessary import permit and it brings the
- KHHP is obliged to receive and discharge the
remaining collateral goods worth
cargo from SLS vessel. Despite notices of arrival,
KHHP failed to discharge the shipment.
PNCC vs CA
Demurrage charges accrued.
Facts:
- KHPP alleged that it purchased 50 tons of waste - Lessee petitioner argued payment of rental would
paper from the shipper in HK, that SLS is asking
commence on the date of issuance of industrial
KHPP to accept 10 metrics ton more than the
clearance by the the (defunct) Ministry of
remaining balance.
Human Settlements and not from the date of the
- it would be violating Central Bank rules and
signing of the contract
regulations and customs and tariff laws
Issue:
Issue:
Has lessee has the right to refuse to pay?
Did KHPP violated the bill of lading?
Ruling:
Ruling:
- Suspensive condition fulfi lled. Petitioner was
- Yes. Petitioner liable for demurrage. Mere
held estopped from claiming that the Temporary
apprehension of violating said laws, without a
Use Permit was not the industrial clearance
clear demonstration that shipment has become
contemplated by the contract
legally impossible, cannot defeat the petitioners - Reason of petitioner was financial as well as
contractual obligation
technical
difficulties,
not
the
alleged
- Petitioners remedy against seller/shipper
insufficiency of the Temporary Use Permit
discrepancy in the invoice and bill cannot - Article 1266 not applicable contract did not
negate the petitioners obligation.
materialize due to unforeseen events and
- Private respondent, as carrier, had no knowledge
causes beyond its control
of the contents of the container. Petitioner is - fundamental rule that contracts, once perfected,
against shipper not the carrier.
bind both contracting parties,
- law recognizes exceptions, one is Art 1266
McCOnn vs Haragan
- unforeseen event not the legal or physical
Facts:
impossibilities contemplated in the said article
- Surety issued a bond in case D fails to return in - Parties assumed the risks of unfavorable
the Phil. DFA banned D from returning
developments
Issue:
- Pecuniary defense not a defense