Cases: 1. Joaquin v Navarro a. Jr. died before mother b.

The evidence of survivorship need not be direct, it may be indirect, Circumstantial or inferential. Where there are facts, known or knowable, from which a rational conclusion can be made, the presumption does not step in, and the rules of preponderance of evidence controls. Barlin v Ramirez a. The Roman catholic Church is a juridical person in the Philippine Islands b. Prior to the cession of the Philippines to the US, the King of Spain was not the owner of the consecrated churches therein and had no right to the possession thereof. The exclusive right to such possession was in the Roman Catholic Church and such right has continued since such cession and now exists. 2. Camid v Office of the President a. It has been opined that municipal corporations may exist by prescription where it is shown that the community has claimed and exercised corporate functions, with the knowledge and acquiescence of the legislature, and without interruption or objection for period long enough to afford title by prescription. 3.Catalan v Basa a. A person suffering from schizophrenia does not necessarily lose his competence to intelligently dispose his property b. In order for donation of property to be valid, what is crucial is the donor’s capacity to give consent at the time of the donation. assumed by them or to seek their annulment. 2.Bambalan v Maramba a.The sale is void as to the plaintiff, because he was a minor at the time of execution.

b.The doctrine of Mercado v Espiritu is not applicable to this case, because the plaintiff did not pretend to be of age, and the defendant knew him to be a minor. 3.Suan and Chiao v Alcantara a.Under the doctrine laid down by Mercado v Espiritu, herein followed, to bind a minor who represents himself to be of legal age, it is not necessary for his vendee to actually part with cash, as long as the contract is supported by a valid consideration. b.The circumstance that about one month after the date of the conveyance, The appellee informed the appeallants of his minority, is of no moment, because appellee’s previous misrepresentation had already estopped him from disavowing the contract. 4.Braganza v Villa Abrille a.The failure of the minor to disclose his minority when making a contract does not per se, constitute a fraud which can be made a basis of an action of deceit. b.Although the written contract is UNENFORCEABLE because of non-age, however, the minor shall make restitution to the extent that he may have profited by the thing he received. c.If a person is benefited although incapacitated (minor, insane, etc.) to enter a contract, he must pay back/return it. 1.US v Vaguilar a.Insanity distinguished from Passion, Anger or Remorse – Testimony of eye-witnesses to a parricide, which goes no further than to indicate that the accused was moved by a wayward or hysterical burst of anger or passion, and other testimony to the effect that, while in confinement awaiting trial, defendant acted absentmindedly at times, is not sufficient to establish the defense of insanity. (condition produced by remorse) 2.People v Rafanan a.Standard of Legal insanity by People v Formigones (2distinguishable tests):

the word "incompetent" includes persons suffering the penalty of civil interdiction or who are hospitalized lepers. even though they have lucid intervals. b. disease.There was no direct proof that showed that at the date of the giving of the bond. which. Husband and wife shall sue or be sued jointly. 1995) a.The law presumes every man to be sane." . 3. that is. has not been proved in this case. away from home. slightly incompetent b.PRODIGAL = “gambler”.Test of cognition –complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the [criminal] act. 1908. The witnesses who as physicians. and other similar causes.i. December 15. Villaneva v CA (May 26. and such capacity is presumed to continue so long contrary is not proved. ROC92(2):Meaning of word "incompetent. and persons not being of unsound mind. the appellant was incapable of acting because of insanity. deaf and dumb who are unable to read and write. testified that they observed insane periods in Villanueva twice prior to 1903.Capacity to act must be supposed to attach to a person who has not previously been declared incapable. A person accused of a crime has the burden of proving his affirmative allegation of insanity. weak mind.Under this rule.It was also shown that the wife never before sought to legally deprive her husband management over his estate knowing full well that he was insane. ii. 1908. but none at the time of the execution of the said bond on December 15. c. prodigals. at the time of his acting he was incapable. cannot. except as provided by law. . crazy or out of his mind. those who are of unsound mind. take care of themselves and manage their property. becoming thereby an easy prey for deceit and exploitation Case: 1. without outside aid. but by reason of age.Husband and wife cannot sell or donate to each other c. in the opinion of the court. once on 1908.Standard oil v arenas a.Test of violation – that there be a total deprivation of the will b.Affinity by blood oAlways start from self oParents – 1st degree oBrothers/Sisters – 2nd oCousins – 4th oGrandparents – 2nd Aunts/Uncles – 3rd oYour brother’s wife is not your relative! (by blood or affinity) RCP3 S4: Spouses as parties.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful