UNIVERSITY OF SAN JOSE – RECOLLETOS

COLLEGE OF LAW

Civil Law Review 2

December 8, 2019

1. The Law on Obligations and Contracts, specifically, Articles 1156-1198

of the New Civil Code.

2. Civil Law Reviewer by Rabuya, Volume 2, pp. 93-212;

3. The following cases:

(a) Ang Yu Asuncion v. CA, G.R. # 109125; Dec. 2, 1994;

(b) Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Ana Grace Rosales,
et. al., G.R. No. 183204. January 13, 2014;
(c) Daisy B. Tiu v. Platinum Plans Philippines, Inc., G.R.# 163512,
February 28, 2007;
(d) Prudential Bank v. Ronald Rapanot, et. al., GR# 191536,
January 16, 2017;
(e) Vil-Rey Planners and Builders v. Lexber, Inc., GR No. 189401,
June 15, 2016;
(f) Philippine Export and Foreign Loan Guarantee Corporation v.
V.P. Eusebio Construction, Inc., et. al., G.R.#140047, July 13,
2004;
(g) Selegna Management and Development Corporation v. United
Coconut Planters Bank, G.R.# 165662, May 3, 2006;
(h) United Coconut Planters Bank v. Spouses Samuel and Odette
Beluso, G.R.# 159912, August 17, 2007;
(i) Teresita I. Buenaventura v. Metropolitan Bank & Trust
Company, G.R.# 167082, August 3, 2016;
(j) Megaworld Globus Asia, Inc. v. Mila Tanseco, G.R.# 181206,
October 9, 2009;
(k) Polo Pantaleon v. American Express International, Inc., G.R.#
174269, May 8, 2009;
(l) ASJ Corporation, et. al., v. Spouses Efren & Maura
Evangelista, G.R. No. 158086, February 14, 2008;
(m) Antonio Cortes v. CA, G.R.# 126083, July 12, 2006;
(n) GF Equity, Inc., v. Arturo Valenzona, G.R.# 156841, June 30,
2005;
(o) Carlos Lim, et. al., v. Development Bank of the Philippines,
G.R.# 177050, July 1, 2013;
(p) Sps. Jaime and Matilde Poon v. Prime Savings Bank, G.R.#
183794, June 13, 2016;
(q) Rolando T. Catungal, et. al. v. Angel S. Rodriguez, G.R.#
146839, Mar. 23, 2011;
(r) Wellex Group, Inc., v. U-Land Airlines Co., Ltd., G.R.# 167519,
January 14, 2015;

Civil Law Review, S.Y. 2019-2020, 2nd Semester

Jennoh H. Tequillo
 (s) Sergio R. Osmena III v. Power Sector Assets and Liabilities
Management Corporation, et. al., G.R.# 212686, Oct. 5, 2016;
(t) Development Bank of the Philippines v. Sta. Ines Melale Forst
Products Corporation, et. al., G.R. Nos. 193068 and 193099,
February 1, 2017;
(u) Anunciacion Vda. de Ouano, et. al., v. The Republic of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 168770, February 9, 2011;
(v) Renato Peralta v. Jose Roy Raval, G.R. Nos. 188467 & 188464,
March 29, 2017;
(w) Gotesco Properties, Inc., et. al. v. Sps. Eugenio and Angelina
Fajardo, GR No. 201167, February 27, 2013;
(x) Consolidated Industrial Gases, Inc., v. Alabang Medical
Center, G.R. No. 181983, November 13, 2013;
(y) Rogelio Nolasco, et. al., v. Celerino Cuerpo, et. al., G.R. No.
210215, December 9, 2015;
(z) EDS Manufacturing, Inc., v. Health Check International, Inc.,
G.R. No. 162802, October 9, 2013;
(aa) Philippine Economic Zone Authority v. Pilhino Sales
Corporation, G.R. No. 185765, September 28, 2016;
(bb) Spouses Delfin and Aurora Tumibay, et. al., v. Spouses Melvin
and Rowena Lopez, G.R. No. 171692, June 3, 2013;
(cc) F.F. Cruz & Co., Inc., v. HR Construction Corp., GR No.
187521, , March 14, 2012;
(dd) Spouses Lino & Guia Francsisco v. Deac Construction, et. al.,
G.R. No. 171312, February 4, 2008;
(ee) Spouses Fernando and Lourdes Villoria v. Continental
Airlines, Inc., G.R. No. 188288, January 16, 2012;
(ff) Goldloop Properties, Inc., v. Government Service Insurance
System, G.R. No. 171076, August 1, 2012;
(gg) George C. Fong v. Jose V. Duenas, G.R. No. 185592, June 15,
2015;
(hh) Manila International Airport Authority v. Olongapo
Maintenance Services, Inc., G.R. Nos. 146184-146185, January
31, 2008;
(ii) Solar Harvest, Inc., v. Davao Corrugated Carton Corp., G.R.
No. 176868, July 26, 2010;
(jj) Rogelio Nogales v. Capitol Medical Center, G.R. No. 142625,
December 19, 2006;
(kk) Roberto B. Sicam, et. al. v. Lulu V. Jorge, et. al., G.R.
No.159617, August 8, 2007;
(ll) Jimmy Co v. CA, G.R. No.124922, June 22, 1998;
(mm) Emmanuel B. Aznar v. Citibank, N.A., G.R. No. 164273,
March 28, 2007; and
(nn) Lotto Restaurant Corp., v. BPI Family Savings Bank Corp.,
G.R. No. 177260, March 30, 2011;

Lastly, study the following sample Final Exams questions:

1. To pay for the tuition of their children, Ogie and Regine pledged their
wedding rings at RF Pawnshop in Manalili St., Cebu City. Two weeks after
submitting their wedding rings for pledge, armed robbers looted the safety
deposit box of RF Pawnshop, including the wedding rings of Ogie and
Regine. When Ogie and Regine came to redeem their rings, RF
Pawnshop informed them that they could no longer return these rings,
because of the fortuitous events of armed robbery. Ogie and Regie,
henceforth, sued RF Pawnshop for Damages. In its Defense, RF
Civil Law Review, S.Y. 2019-2020, 2nd Semester
Jennoh H. Tequillo
 Pawnshop proved only one fact, that the Robbery was beyond their
control, and argued that being so, they are excused from liability because
of the fortuitous event. You are the Honorable Presiding Judge. In whose
favor will you rule?

2. Dr. and Mrs. Almeda are prominent citizens of the country and are
frequent travelers abroad. In 1996, they booked round-trip business class
tickets for the Manila-Hong Kong-Manila route of the Pinoy Airlines, where
they are holders of Gold Mabalos Class Frequent Flier cards. On their
return flight, Pinoy Airlines upgraded their tickets to first class without their
consent and, inspite of their protestations to be allowed to remain in the
business class so that they could be with their friends, they were told that
the business class was already fully booked, and that they were given
priority in upgrading because they are elite members/holders of Gold
Mabalos Class cards. Since they were embarrassed at the discussions
with the flight attendants, they were forced to take the flight at the first
class section apart from their friends who were in the business class.
Upon their return to Manila, they demanded a written apology from Pinoy
Airlines. When it went unheeded, the couple sued Pinoy Airlines for
breach of contract claiming moral and exemplary damages, as well as
attorney’s fees. Will the action prosper? Give reasons.

3. A had a contract with DPWH. He subcontracted with B without DPWH

approval, in violation of the law. A then reneged on his agreement with B
and refused to pay him, contending that their agreement was an illegal
contract and that B could not collect under the principle of in pari delicto. Is
B barred from recovering?

4. George C. Sellner (G), was the owner of a farm which was contiguous to a
farm owned by the plaintiff Lamberto Songco (L). Both properties had a
considerable quantity of the sugar cane ready to be cut. Upon this point it
is proved that L estimated that this cane would produce 3,000 piculs of the
sugar and that G bought the crop believing this estimate to be
substantially correct. As the crop turned out it produced 2,017 piculs,
gross, and after the toll for milling was deducted the net left to G was very
much less. Was the estimation made by Songco fraudulent as to
constitute fraud to invalidate the sale?

5. Sometime in April 2001, ABC Development Inc. (ABC), through F,

contracted the services of Y Builders Corporation (Y Builders) to supply
labor, tools, equipment, and materials for the renovation of ABC’s building
in Cebu City. All the documents pertaining to the project, such as official
receipts of payment for the building permit application, are under the
names of ABC and F. Y Builders then finished the work in September
2001 and billed ABC. However, despite numerous demands, ABC failed to
pay. It contended that no written contract was ever entered into between
the parties and it was never informed of the estimated cost of the
renovation. Thus, Y Builders filed an action for Collection of Sum of Money
against ABC. The RTC and CA ruled in favor of Y Builders. Is ABC liable
to Y Builders for the damages claimed?

6. Ga, the Supreme Bishop of IFI, sold parcels of land owned by IFI to
Taeza. IFI filed for Annulment of Sale of the subject property against Ga
and Taeza. IFI maintains that there was no consent to the contract of sale
as Supreme Bishop Rev. Ga had no authority to give such consent
alleging that there was a violation Article IV (a) of their Canons which
Civil Law Review, S.Y. 2019-2020, 2nd Semester
Jennoh H. Tequillo
 provides: "All real properties of the Church located or situated in such
parish can be disposed of only with the approval and conformity of the
laymen's committee, the parish priest, the Diocesan Bishop, with sanction
of the Supreme Council, and finally with the approval of the Supreme
Bishop, as administrator of all the temporalities of the Church." Is
Supreme Bishop Rev. Ga, on his own, authorized to enter into a contract
of sale in behalf of IFI?

7. ABC is the owner and developer of a condominium. X purchased from

ABC an 82-square meter condominium unit for a pre-selling contract price
of ₱5M. X paid the full down-payment of ₱1.5M and had been paying the
monthly amortizations. Upon learning that construction works had
stopped, X likewise stopped paying their monthly amortization. Claiming to
have paid a total of ₱2.1 M to ABC, X demanded a full refund of their
payment with interest. ABC contended that they should not be made to
refund since their delay in the construction works is due to the 1997 Asian
financial crisis. Is ABC’s contention tenable?

8. A and B are the owners of Dos Hermanos, a hacienda in Talisay, Negros

Occidental. They entered into a contract with C, a big milling company,
also called the Central, for the milling of sugar canes from their hacienda.
Stipulated in the contract is the construction of a railroad with three and a
half meters right of way and maintenance of such railroad by C.
However, C was only able to construct a railroad reaching hacienda
Esmeralda No. 2, four kilometers away from hacienda Dos Hermanos. For
a railroad to extend to hacienda Dos Hermanos, the construction would
require a gradual elevation of 4.84% to 7%, would necessitate 26 curves
and would cost Php80,000.00. A civil engineer testifying in behalf of C
allege that to construct such would be possible but it would be very
dangerous. To get from the Hacienda Emeralda No. 2 to
the Hacienda Dos Hermanos, the railroad would have to pass through
the haciendas of Esteban de la Rama. But he would not grant permission
to use his land. This led to an action for damages in the amount of Php
28,620.00 by A and B for the alleged breach of contract to grind sugar
canes. Will the action for damages should prosper?

9. A, B, C, D were indebted to XYZ Financing Corp. for P118,814.49. After

non-payment of the said amount, XYZ filed a case against them. The RTC
issued a writ of execution wherein the personal and real properties of A
were levied and sold at public auction and that XYZ was the highest
bidder. Thereafter, a writ of possession was issued in favor of XYZ Corp.
Is the RTC correct when it issued the writ of execution and thereafter the
writ of possession against A only and assumed that their obligation is one
which is solidary?

10. X, a businesswoman, borrowed money from Y, for which she issued a

posdated check as payment. Due, to business reversals the checks were,
on maturity, dishonored for the reason Account Closed. S, X’s husband
partially paid the obligation of X and to pay the remaining balance. More
than 2 and half years later, X failed to settle her obligations to Y. Y later on
filed a complaint for violation of BP 22 against X. X contended that her
obligation to Y has already been novated by her husband’s assumption of
her liabilities. Was there a novation in the case at bar.

11. Flora owned a 1,811-square meter parcel of land located at the corner of
Rama Avenue and Velez Street in Cebu City which Soledad leased a
Civil Law Review, S.Y. 2019-2020, 2nd Semester
Jennoh H. Tequillo
 portion of. Flora decided to sell the property to FGR Realty and stopped
accepting rental payments from Soledad because they wanted to
terminate the lease agreement. Because of this, Soledad filed a complaint
and consigned the rental payments with the RTC without notifying Flora
and FGR Realty. Flora and FGR Realty questioned the consignation since
there was no notice given to them. The RTC ruled in favor of Flora and
FGR Realty and demanded Flora to vacate the property for the reason
that were no prior notices of consignation (before deposit) and subsequent
notices of consignation (after deposit) made. Is the ruling of the RTC
correct?

12. In 1983, Cortes entered into a contract of sale with Villa over the three (3)
lots for P3,700,000.00. On various dates Villa advanced to Cortes
amounting to P1,230,000.00. The parties then agreed to execute a
contract of sale with the following terms: a) the Vendee shall pay unto the
Vendor P2,200,000.00 less all advances paid by the Vendee to the
Vendor in connection with the sale; b) The balance of P1,500,000.00 shall
be payable within ONE (1) YEAR from date of execution of the instrument.
The deed was retained by Cortes. In 1985, Villa filed a complaint for
specific performance seeking to compel Cortes to deliver the TCTs and
the original copy of the Deed of Absolute Sale. According to Villa, despite
its readiness and ability to pay the purchase price, Cortes refused delivery
of the sought documents. In his Answer, Cortes claimed that the owners
duplicate copy of the three TCTs were surrendered to Villa and it is the
latter which refused to pay in full the agreed down payment. The trial court
rendered a decision rescinding the sale and directed Cortes to return to
Villa the amount of P1,213,000.00. It ruled that pursuant to the contract of
the parties, Villa should have fully paid the amount of P2,200,000.00 upon
the execution of the contract of which he failed to do.

On appeal, the CA reversed the decision of the trial court and directed
Cortes to execute a Deed of Absolute Sale conveying the properties and
to deliver the same to Villa together with the TCTs, simultaneous with
Villa’s payment of the balance of the purchase price of P2,487,000.00. It
found that the parties agreed that Villa will fully pay the balance of the
down payment upon Cortes delivery of the three TCTs to Villa .The
records show that no such delivery was made neither could Cortes
present proofs of receipts of such documents, hence, Villa was not remiss
in the performance of its obligation and therefore justified in not paying the
balance. Is CA correct?

13. Peter, a resident of Cebu City, sent through Reliable Pera Padala (RPP)
the amount of P20,000.00 to his daughter, Paula, for the payment of her
tuition fee. Paula went to an RPP branch but was informed that there was
no money remitted to her name. Peter inquired from RPP and was
informed that there was a computer glitch and the money was credited to
another person. Peter and Paula sued RPP for actual damages, moral
damages and exemplary damages. The trial court ruled that there was no
proof of pecuniary loss to the plaintiffs but awarded moral damages of
P20,000.00 and exemplary damages of P5,000.00. On appeal, RPP
questioned the award of moral and exemplary damages. Is the trial court
correct in awarding moral and exemplary damages? Explain.

Thanks,

Civil Law Review, S.Y. 2019-2020, 2nd Semester

Jennoh H. Tequillo
 J.H. Tequillo

Civil Law Review, S.Y. 2019-2020, 2nd Semester

Jennoh H. Tequillo