Duman, Paulyn \ Oblicon \ I-E \ Prof. Morales \ Page 1
I. DEFINITION AND CONCEPTA.DefinitionArt. 115 in relation to Art. 2236B.Distinguished from natural obligationArt. 1156 in relation to 1423C.ElementsD.Sources of ObligationSagrada Orden Vs Nacoco –Kinuha ng Haponang lupa.
Action to recover parcel of land owned by P, andthen because of Japanese war was acquired byother parties, then possessed by the US govt thruits custodian then possessed by the defendantwithout agreement with the US or with theplaintiff, and def then leased a part of the land.Issue: WON defendant is liable to Sagrada andmust pay the rentals.Held: No. If liable at all must arise from any of the four sources of obligations. APA was a trusteeof the US and if def liable, not to plaintiff but toUS govt. But defendant not liable for rentals becno express agreement bet the APA and Nacoco.Existence of implied agreement is contrary tothe circumstances.Source: Contract. But there was none.
Pelayo vs. Lauron –husband vs. in-laws
1906-Pelayo complained against Lauron andAbella. Pelayo a doctor, rendered service todaughter-in-law then demanded P500 from def.Issue: WON Lauron is liable.Held: No. Husband liable. Art. 142 and 143 orFamily Code. Rendering medical assistance,mutual oblig. Oblig not presumed. Thoseexpressly determined in the Code or in speciallaws are the only demandable ones.Source: Laws. Family Code.
Leung Ben vs. O’Brien - Gambling
O’ Brien filed an action in the court of CFGI of Manila to recover from Leung Ben the sum of P15,000 alleged to have been lost by O’Brien toLeung Ben in a series of gambling, banking andpercentage games:Issue: WON O’Brien can recover the money fromLeung Ben.Held: Yes. Upon general principles, recognizedboth in the civil and common law, money lost ingambling and voluntary paid by the loser to thewinner cannot, in the absence of statute, berecovered in a civil action. But Act. No. 1757 of the Phil. Comm, which defines and penalizeddifferent forms of gambling contains numerousprovisions recognizing the right to recover moneylost in gambling. It must therefore be assumedthat the action of plaintiff was based upon theright to recovery given by section 7 of said Act,which declares that an action may be broughtagainst the banker by any person losing money ata banking or percentage game.Source: Law. Phil Comm and Civil Code.
People’s Car Inc. vs. Commando SecurityService Agency. –Sekyu nangarap magdrive ngkotseng hindi kanya, naaksidente.
P and D entered into a contract where D washired to render security services to P andsafeguard and protect business premise. One of the guards of D took one of the cars undercustody of P and drove it and lost control. Theowner demands damages from P but P claims Dshould be liable, solely.Issue: WON P is liable to owner.Held: Yes. Owner has no privy or contract with Donly with P. Owner can demand from P and P candemand from D liabilities.Source: Contract.
Pichel vs Alonzo – coconut fruits.
Board of Liquidators filed annulment of Deed of Sale of Alonzo to Pichel. Accdg to the law whichawarded the land to Alonzo, RA 477, the landcannot be encumbered to anybody. Alonzo soldthe coconut fruits of the coconut land.Issue: WON there was a violation of the lawwhich gave the land to Alonzo.Held. No. It was not the land that wasencumbered but the coconut fruits. Possession of the coconut trees cannot be said to be thepossession and enjoyment of the land itself.Accessory vs. Principal=transfer of accessory nottransfer of principal. Accessory follows principaland not the other way around. Law does notprohibit the disposition of industrial or naturalfruits.Source: Law**What are the essential elements of a contractto make it valid?
Del Rio vs. Palanca – Hindi naman ikaw angtatay, bakit ka nagbibigay.
Del Rio wanted to recover money which hefurnished to the family of defendant for thesupport and subsistence of the def’s 5 children.Issue: WON P can recover money.Held: No. There are qualifications: a) supportgiven to dependent of one who is bound to give