Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Oblicon Case Tricklers

Oblicon Case Tricklers



|Views: 3,252|Likes:
Published by Sui

More info:

Published by: Sui on Aug 11, 2008
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Duman, Paulyn \ Oblicon \ I-E \ Prof. Morales \ Page 1
Case Ticklers
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
Duman, Paulyn \ Oblicon \ I-E \ Prof. Morales \ Page 2
support but fails to do so b) support supplied bya stranger c) support was given without theknowledge of the person charged with the duty.3
req lacking. Def knew about support and evendisagrees with it.Source: Law. Article 1894 of CC which givesqualifications.
People vs. Ritter –Rape!
Rape of a 12-yr-old girl allegedly by Appellantwho inserted a foreign into her vagina causingher death. Criminal case and civil case was filedagainst the defendant.Issue: WON def liable on both cases.Held: No. Only with regard to the civil case.Crim case requires evidence beyond reasonabledoubt. While civil cases require onlypreponderance of evidence.Source: Criminal offenses. Acts or omissionpunished by the law.**Institution of Civil Case while pending criminalcase, is reservation to the right to file theformer necessary or can file anytime within thependency of the criminal case?
Andamo vs IAC – Water Overflow
P owner of parcel of land adjacent to the land of Missionaries of our Lady of Lasalletta. Latterconstructed waterpaths and contrivances whicheroded petitioner’s land and damaged crops,plans. Criminal action was instituted and thenfiled a civil action.Issue: WON filing of the civil case was proper.Held: Yes. Art. 2176, by fault or negligence.Separate civil action lies against the offender ina criminal act whether or not he is criminallyprosecuted and found guilty or not. Only that theoffended party not allowed to recover damageson both scores.Source: Quasi-Delict, Law.** Distinguish civil liability arising from crime andthat from quasi-delict.
Federation of Free Farmers vs. CA—PalayIncrease
There are 4 parties in this case: a. FFF (unionrepresenting the farmers) b. Planters (the groupwhich harvests the lands where the farmerswork) c. Santos and Tikol (individual planters) d.Central or Victorias (milling corp, Planters bringtheir harvest here to be milled).The law, Sugar Act of 1952 - RA 809 stipulatesthat any increase in the share of proceeds of milled sugarcane and derivatives obtained byplanters from the Central, 60% of said increaseshould be paid by planters to their respectivelaborers.1.FFF alleged that they have not been paidfrom 1952-53 despite the 10% increaseand from 1953-1974 with the 4%increase. CA ruled planters and Victoriasjointly and severally liable. FFF claimedtoo that Planters and Victorias enteredinto an agreement when they have nolegal right bec the law has alreadyprovided the ratio of division.2.Victorias claimed that they should not beheld jointly and severally liable. Theaction filed was not founded on torts buton either an obligation created by acontract or by law, and even if on torts,the action has prescribed. They havepaid the Planters so the Planters shouldonly be the one sued.3.Planters claim they have freedom tostipulate ration as they might agree. Andthat they have paid the laborers.Issue: a. WON Planters and Victorias should beseverally liableb. WON agreement bet Planters and Victoriaswere permissible under RA 809Held: a. NO. Legal basis is that arising from lawwhich does not impose upon Centrals anyliability, whether expressly or impliedly, anyjoint and several liability. No contract bet sugarmill and the laborers. Principal liability onPlanters and secondarily on Dept or Labor.b. YES. RA 809 applicable only in the absence of a written milling agreement or in the absence of any stipulation on the benefits which thelaborers are entitled.Source: Law and Contract
**Brinas vs. People –Maling Sigaw ng Konduktor
Brinas convicted for double homicide thrureckless imprudence but acquitted Bunecamino(asst conductor) and Millan (engineman), Brinaswas the conductor. Brinas told the passengersthat they are near the town but before thevictims were able to alight, train already caughtup speed. During the pendency of the criminalaction, the heirs of deceased filed separate civilaction against Manila Railroad Company.Issue: WON the civil action can be pursued onthe pendency of the civil action.Held: Yes. Source of obligation is that of a culpa-contractual and not an act or omissionpunishable by law. Two different sources of oblig. Institution of criminal action on the casedoes not interrupt the separate civil action fordamages based on quasi-delict for the sameaccident. Reckless Imprudence vs. Quasi-Delict.Reckless imprudent—Principal, Art. 2176 personwho caused the crime liable, Art. 2180 solidaryliability of employer.Source: Culpa-Contractual.
Duman, Paulyn \ Oblicon \ I-E \ Prof. Morales \ Page 3
**Tan vs. Nifatan –Isa-isa na silang namamatay,na-acquit pa.
Lim of a wealthy family was shot dead by the Tanbrothers. But the Tan brothers one by one diedbefore the instant petition could be filed. Thewife of Lim with the children instituted an actionfor damages against charged 10 years from thehappening of the crime. Tan’s filed motion todismiss because of acquittal.ISSUE: a. WON the action has prescribed.b. WON civil action would still prosper evenwhen the accused were acquitted.Held: a. No. Action for prescription for liabilitiesand charges of crimes is 20 years.b. Yes. The reason for acquittal was not stated orexplained and Art. 33 allows independent civilaction in case of physical injuries includingdeath. (ROC?).10 years prescription for actions when source iscreated by law. 5 years when not fixed by theCode or other laws. 20 years for crimes or delictsas source of obligations.Source: Delict or Crimes.
People vs Abungan – namatay yung kriminal
Abungan convicted of murder sentenced to RPand ordered to pay indemnity of P50,000.Abungan died.Issue: WON death of Abungan extinguishes hiscriminal and civil liabilityHeld: Yes. Extinguised based on delicts. Art.89(1) of RPC, death of convict occurs beforefinal judgment, extinguished. But only criminalliability is extinguished and also the civil liabilitydirectly arising from and based solely on offense.Claim for Civil liability survives if the same mayalso be predicated on a source of oblig otherthan delict.Source: Crimes or Delicts. Acts or omission.
DBP vs CA –Restructuring of Debt
DBP granted PHUMACO and PHILICO an industrialloan for P2.5M, 2M in bonds and 500k in cash.Promissory note executed and a mortgage overtheir present and future properties. DBP grantedanother loan of 1.7M reflected in the amendedmortgage contract. After 7 yrs the outstandingbalance was restructured bec Resp failed to pay.Resp still failed to pay under the restructuredpayment. DBP refinanced the matured obligationand granted 3 foreign currency denominatedloans. Apart from interest, there are additionalcharges and penalties in case of default. After 10years, DBP initiated for forclosure of mortgagedprop and the balance shoot up to P63M. Respclaim that reason for non-payment is becausefinancial rehabilitation from a contract with themilitary didn’t push thru.Issue: WON the resp can claim without fault indefault of the non-happening of the contractwith the military.Held: NO. DBP is no party to resp and AFP’scontract. Resp can claim from AFP but withoutprejudice to its contract with DBP. DBP has givenResp all the possible options for payment.Source: Contract
II. NATURE AND EFFECTS OF OBLIGATIONA.Obligation to give1.Determinate ThingEquatorial vs. Mayfair—Right of First Refusal
Carmelo owned a parcel of land with 2-storeybuilding and leased said portions to Mayfair. Ontheir contract, stipulation that Mayfair has 30-day exclusive option to purchase the sameshould the lessor decide to sell the leasedpremises. But Carmelo wanted to sell the wholeproperty. He sold entire prop to Equatorial.Mayfair filed for annulment of sale bec of lack of consideration. Mayfair claimed that he toldCarmelo that it is willing to purchase the sameand that it has the right of first refusal.Issue: WON the sale can be nullified because of Mayfair’s actionHeld: The contract is deemed rescinded.Rescission a relief allowed for protection of oneof the contracting parties and even 3
personsfrom injury or to protect some incompatible andpreferred right by the contract. Mayfair has theopportunity to negotiate.Determinate Thing: There is a problem becausedetermination cannot be made bec prop isindivisible. You cannot pinpoint which is the 25%of the property. Determination of the exactportion of the building.
De Leon vs. Soriano—bigyan ng palay si nanay.
Natural children of Soriano agreed that they areto deliver certain number of cavanes of palayeach year to Soriano and shall only cease upondeath of mother. But deliveries were of 3,400cavanes and children claimed that due to Huktroubles in Central Luzon.Issue: WON inability to deliver was permissibledue to force majeureHeld: No. The object to be delivered was genericand set no bounds or limits to the palay to bepaid. Any palay of the same quality can replace.Impossibility must consist in the nature of thething to be done and not the inability of theparty to do it.

Activity (63)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
ferosiac liked this
Leia Veracruz liked this
Aileen Camiña liked this
Zandro Steve liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->