You are on page 1of 33

July 2013 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Civil Law Posted on August 23, 2013 Posted in Civil Law,

, Philippines - Cases, Philippines - Law Here are select Jul 2013 rulings o! the "upre#e Court o! the Philippines in civil law$ Civil Code Agenc % apparent authorit o! an agent &ased on estoppel% concept' (n Woodchild Holdings, Inc. v. Roxas Electric and Construction Company, Inc. the Court stated that )persons dealing with an assu#ed agenc , whether the assu#ed agenc &e a general or special one, are &ound at their peril, i! the would hold the principal lia&le, to ascertain not onl the !act o! agenc &ut also the nature and e*tent o! authorit , and in case either is controverted, the &urden o! proo! is upon the# to esta&lish it'+ (n other words, when the petitioner relied onl on the words o! respondent Ale,andro without securing a cop o! the "PA in !avor o! the latter, the petitioner is &ound & the ris- acco#pan ing such trust on the #ere assurance o! Ale,andro' .he sa#e Woodchild case stressed that apparent authorit &ased on estoppel can arise !ro# the principal who -nowingl per#it the agent to hold hi#sel! out with authorit and !ro# the principal who clothe the agent with indicia o! authorit that would lead a reasona&l prudent person to &elieve that he actuall has such authorit ' Apparent authorit o! an agent arises onl !ro# )acts or conduct on the part o! the principal and such acts or conduct o! the principal #ust have &een -nown and relied upon in good !aith and as a result o! the e*ercise o! reasona&le prudence & a third person as clai#ant and such #ust have produced a change o! position to its detri#ent'+ (n the instant case, the sale to the "pouses La,arca and other transactions where Ale,andro allegedl represented a considera&le #a,orit o! the co-owners transpired a!ter the sale to the petitioner% thus, the petitioner cannot rel upon these acts or conduct to &elieve that Ale,andro had the sa#e authorit to negotiate !or

the sale o! the su&,ect propert to hi#' Reman Recio v. Heirs of Spouses Aguego and aria Altamirano, /'0' 1o'122334, Jul 23, 2013' Agenc % de!inition under the Civil Code% !or# o! contract' Article 1252 o! the Civil Code de!ines a contract o! agenc as a contract where& a person )&inds hi#sel! to render so#e service or to do so#ething in representation or on &ehal! o! another, with the consent or authorit o! the latter'+ (t #a &e e*press, or i#plied !ro# the acts o! the principal, !ro# his silence or lac- o! action, or his !ailure to repudiate the agenc , -nowing that another person is acting on his &ehal! without authorit ' As a general rule, a contract o! agenc #a &e oral' However, it #ust &e written when the law re6uires a speci!ic !or#' "peci!icall , Article 1273 o! the Civil Code provides that the contract o! agenc #ust &e written !or the validit o! the sale o! a piece o! land or an interest therein' 8therwise, the sale shall &e void' A related provision, Article 1272 o! the Civil Code, states that special powers o! attorne are necessar to conve real rights over i##ova&le properties' Sally !oshi"a#i v. $oy %raining Center of Aurora, Inc', /'0' 1o' 173472, Jul 31, 2013' Agenc % general power o! attorne % an agenc couched in general ter#s co#prises onl acts o! ad#inistration' .he certi!ication is a #ere general power o! attorne which co#prises all o! Jo .raining9s &usiness' Article 1277 o! the Civil Code clearl states that ):a;n agenc couched in general ter#s co#prises onl acts o! ad#inistration, even if the principal should state that he withholds no power or that the agent may e ecute such acts as he may consider appropriate! or even though the agency should authori"e a general and unlimited management#$ Sally !oshi"a#i v. $oy %raining Center of Aurora, Inc', /'0' 1o' 173472, Jul 31, 2013'

Agenc % sale o! propert & a supposed agent is unen!orcea&le i! there is reall no agenc to sell such propert % persons dealing with an agent #ust ascertain not onl the !act o! agenc , &ut also the nature and e*tent o! the agent9s authorit ' 1ecessaril , the a&sence o! a contract o! agenc renders the contract o! sale unen!orcea&le% Jo .raining e!!ectivel did not enter into a valid contract o! sale with the spouses <oshi=a-i' "all cannot also clai# that she was a &u er in good !aith' "he #isapprehended the rule that persons dealing with a registered land have the legal right to rel on the !ace o! the title and to dispense with the need to in6uire !urther, e*cept when the part concerned has actual -nowledge o! !acts and circu#stances that would i#pel a reasona&l cautious #an to #a-e such in6uir ' .his rule applies when the ownership o! a parcel o! land is disputed and not when the !act o! agenc is contested' Sally !oshi"a#i v. $oy %raining Center of Aurora, Inc', /'0' 1o' 173472, Jul 31, 2013' Agenc % special power o! attorne % #ust e*press the powers o! the agent in clear and un#ista-a&le language% when there is an reasona&le dou&t that the language so used conve s such power, no such construction shall &e given the docu#ent' >e une6uivoca&l declared in Cosmic &um'er Corporation v. Court of Appeals that a special power o! attorne must e press the powers of the agent in clear and unmista%a&le language !or the principal to con!er the right upon an agent to sell real estate' >hen there is an reasona&le dou&t that the language so used conve s such power, no such construction shall &e given the docu#ent' .he purpose o! the law in re6uiring a special power o! attorne in the disposition o! i##ova&le propert is to protect the interest o! an unsuspecting owner !ro# &eing pre,udiced & the unwarranted act o! another and to caution the &u er to assure hi#sel! o! the speci!ic authori=ation o! the putative agent' Sally !oshi"a#i v. $oy %raining Center of Aurora, Inc', /'0' 1o' 173472, Jul 31, 2013' Agenc % special power o! attorne !or sale o! propert % #ust e*pressl #ention a sale or include a sale as a necessar ingredient o! the authori=ed act' .he special power o! attorne #andated & law must &e

one that e pressly mentions a sale or that includes a sale as a necessary ingredient of the authori"ed act# >e une6uivoca&l declared in Cosmic &um'er Corporation v. Court of Appeals that a special power o! attorne must e press the powers of the agent in clear and unmista%a&le language !or the principal to con!er the right upon an agent to sell real estate' >hen there is an reasona&le dou&t that the language so used conve s such power, no such construction shall &e given the docu#ent' .he purpose o! the law in re6uiring a special power o! attorne in the disposition o! i##ova&le propert is to protect the interest o! an unsuspecting owner !ro# &eing pre,udiced & the unwarranted act o! another and to caution the &u er to assure hi#sel! o! the speci!ic authori=ation o! the putative agent' Sally !oshi"a#i v. $oy %raining Center of Aurora, Inc', /'0' 1o' 173472, Jul 31, 2013' Agenc % special power o! attorne % re6uired !or an agent to sell an i##ova&le propert % authorit #ust &e in writing, otherwise sale is void' (n Alcantara v. (ido, the Court e#phasi=ed the re6uire#ent o! an "PA &e!ore an agent #a sell an i##ova&le propert ' (n the said case, 0evelen was the owner o! the su&,ect land' Her #other, respondent ?rigida 1ido accepted the petitioners9 o!!er to &u 0evelen9s land at .wo Hundred Pesos @P200'00A per s6 #' However, 1ido was onl authori=ed ver&all & 0evelen' .hus, the Court declared the sale o! the said land null and void under Articles 1273 and 1272 o! the Civil Code' Reman Recio v. Heirs of Spouses Aguego and aria Altamirano, /'0' 1o'122334, Jul 23, 2013' Arrastre operator% !unctions% dut to ta-e good care o! goods and to turn the# over to the part entitled to their possession' .he !unctions o! an arrastre operator involve the handling o! cargo deposited on the whar! or &etween the esta&lish#ent o! the consignee or shipper and the ship9s tac-le' ?eing the custodian o! the goods discharged !ro# a vessel, an arrastre operator9s dut is to ta-e good care o! the goods and to turn the# over to the part entitled to their possession' Handling cargo is #ainl the arrastre operator9s principal wor- so its driversBoperators or

e#plo ees should o&serve the standards and #easures necessar to prevent losses and da#age to ship#ents under its custod ' Asian %erminals, Inc. v. )hilam Insurance Co., Inc. *no+ Chartis )hilippines Insurance Inc.,- )hilam Insurance Co., Inc. *no+ Chartis )hilippines Insurance Inc., v. West+ind Shipping Corporation and Asian %erminals, Inc.- West+ind Shipping Corporation v. )hilam Insurance Co., Inc. and Asian %erminals, Inc., /'0' 1os' 121153B121252B121314, Jul 23, 2013' Attorne 9s !ees% dual concept' (n order to resolve the issues in this case, it is necessar to discuss the two concepts o! attorne 9s !ees C ordinar and e*traordinar ' (n its ordinar sense, it is the reasona&le co#pensation paid to a law er & his client !or legal services rendered' (n its e*traordinar concept, it is awarded & the court to the success!ul litigant to &e paid & the losing part as inde#nit !or da#ages' .rancisco &. Rosario, $r. v. &ellani /e 0u"man, Arleen /e 0u"man, et al., /'0' 1o' 141237, Jul 10, 2013' Attorne 9s !ees !or pro!essional services rendered% #a &e clai#ed in the ver action itsel! or in a separate action% prescription !or oral contract o! attorne 9s !ees is 5 ears% concept o! 6uantu# #eruit% guidelines under the Code o! Pro!essional 0esponsi&ilit ' .he Court now addresses two i#portant 6uestions$ @1A How can attorne 9s !ees !or pro!essional services &e recoveredD @2A >hen can an action !or attorne 9s !ees !or pro!essional services &e !iledD .he case o! .raders 0o al ?anE#plo ees Fnion-(ndependent v' 1L0C is instructive$ As an ad,unctive episode o! the action !or the recover o! &onus di!!erentials in 1L0C-1C0 Certi!ied Case 1o' 0355, private respondent9s present clai# !or attorne 9s !ees #a &e !iled &e!ore the 1L0C even though or, &etter stated, especiall a!ter its earlier decision had &een reviewed and partiall a!!ir#ed' (t is well settled that a clai# !or attorne 9s !ees #a &e asserted either in the ver action in which the services o! a law er had &een rendered or in a separate action'

>ith respect to the !irst situation, the re#ed !or recovering attorne 9s !ees as an incident o! the #ain action #a &e availed o! onl when so#ething is due to the client' Attorne 9s !ees cannot &e deter#ined until a!ter the #ain litigation has &een decided and the su&,ect o! the recover is at the disposition o! the court' .he issue over attorne 9s !ees onl arises when so#ething has &een recovered !ro# which the !ee is to &e paid' >hile a clai# !or attorne 9s !ees #a &e !iled &e!ore the ,udg#ent is rendered, the deter#ination as to the propriet o! the !ees or as to the a#ount thereo! will have to &e held in a&e ance until the #ain case !ro# which the law er9s clai# !or attorne 9s !ees #a arise has &eco#e !inal' 8therwise, the deter#ination to &e #ade & the courts will &e pre#ature' 8! course, a petition !or attorne 9s !ees #a &e !iled &e!ore the ,udg#ent in !avor o! the client is satis!ied or the proceeds thereo! delivered to the client' (t is apparent !ro# the !oregoing discussion that a law er has two options as to when to !ile his clai# !or pro!essional !ees' Hence, private respondent was well within his rights when he #ade his clai# and waited !or the !inalit o! the ,udg#ent !or holida pa di!!erential, instead o! !iling it ahead o! the award9s co#plete resolution' .o declare that a law er #a !ile a clai# !or !ees in the sa#e action onl &e!ore the ,udg#ent is reviewed & a higher tri&unal would deprive hi# o! his a!orestated options and render ine!!ective the !oregoing pronounce#ents o! this Court' (n this case, petitioner opted to !ile his clai# as an incident in the #ain action, which is per#itted & the rules' As to the ti#eliness o! the !iling, this Court holds that the 6uestioned #otion to deter#ine attorne 9s !ees was seasona&l !iled' .he records show that the August 2, 1443 0.C decision &eca#e !inal and e*ecutor on 8cto&er 31, 2007' .here is no dispute that petitioner !iled his Gotion to Heter#ine Attorne 9s Iees on "epte#&er 2, 2004, which was onl a&out one @1A ear and eleven @11A #onths !ro# the !inalit o! the 0.C decision' ?ecause petitioner clai#s to have had an

oral contract o! attorne 9s !ees with the deceased spouses, Article 113J o! the Civil Code15 allows hi# a period o! si* @5A ears within which to !ile an action to recover pro!essional !ees !or services rendered' 0espondents never asserted or provided an evidence that "pouses de /u=#an re!used petitioner9s legal representation' Ior this reason, petitioner9s cause o! action &egan to run onl !ro# the ti#e the respondents re!used to pa hi# his attorne 9s !ees, as si#ilarl held in the case o! Anido v' 1egado' >ith respect to petitioner9s entitle#ent to the clai#ed attorne 9s !ees, it is the Court9s considered view that he is deserving o! it and that the a#ount should &e &ased on 6uantu# #eruit' Kuantu# #eruit C literall #eaning as #uch as he deserves C is used as &asis !or deter#ining an attorne 9s pro!essional !ees in the a&sence o! an e*press agree#ent' .he recover o! attorne 9s !ees on the &asis o! 6uantu# #eruit is a device that prevents an unscrupulous client !ro# running awa with the !ruits o! the legal services o! counsel without pa ing !or it and also avoids un,ust enrich#ent on the part o! the attorne hi#sel!' An attorne #ust show that he is entitled to reasona&le co#pensation !or the e!!ort in pursuing the client9s cause, ta-ing into account certain !actors in !i*ing the a#ount o! legal !ees' 0ule 20'01 o! the Code o! Pro!essional 0esponsi&ilit lists the guidelines !or deter#ining the proper a#ount o! attorne !ees, to wit$ 0ule 20'1 C A law er shall &e guided & the !ollowing !actors in deter#ining his !ees$ aA .he ti#e spent and the e*tent o! the services rendered or re6uired% &A .he novelt and di!!icult o! the 6uestions involved% cA .he i#portance o! the su&,ect #atter% dA .he s-ill de#anded%

eA .he pro&a&ilit o! losing other e#plo #ent as a result o! acceptance o! the pro!!ered case% !A .he custo#ar charges !or si#ilar services and the schedule o! !ees o! the (?P chapter to which he &elongs% gA .he a#ount involved in the controvers and the &ene!its resulting to the client !ro# the service% hA .he contingenc or certaint o! co#pensation% iA .he character o! the e#plo #ent, whether occasional or esta&lished% and ,A .he pro!essional standing o! the law er' .rancisco &. Rosario, $r. v. &ellani /e 0u"man, Arleen /e 0u"man, et al., /'0' 1o' 141237, Jul 10, 2013' Attorne 9s !ees% recovera&le in actions !or inde#nit under wor-#en9s co#pensation and e#plo er9s lia&ilit laws' However, the Court !inds that the petitioner is entitled to attorne 9s !ees pursuant to Article 2202@2A o! the Civil Code which states that the award o! attorne 9s !ees is ,usti!ied in actions !or inde#nit under wor-#en9s co#pensation and e#plo er9s lia&ilit laws' Camilo A. Esguerra v. 1nited )hilippines &ines, Inc., et al., /'0' 1o' 144432, Jul 3, 2013' Attorne 9s !ees% when recovera&le' .he Court o! Appeals right!ull upheld the 1L0C9s a!!ir#ance o! the grant o! attorne 9s !ees to "an Giguel' .here& , the 1L0C did not co##it an grave a&use o! its discretion, considering that "an Giguel had &een co#pelled to litigate and to incur e*penses to protect his rights and interest' (n Producers ?an- o! the Philippines v' Court o! Appeals, the Court ruled that attorne 9s !ees could &e awarded to a part who# an un,usti!ied act o! the other part co#pelled to litigate or to incur e*penses to protect his interest' (t was plain that petitioner9s re!usal to reinstate "an Giguel with

&ac-wages and other &ene!its to which he had &een legall entitled was un,usti!ied, there& entitling hi# to recover attorne 9s !ees' 2uellig .reight and Cargo Systems v. (ational &a'or Relations Commission, et al., /'0' 1o' 1J7400, Jul 22, 2013 Attorne 9s !ees% when recovera&le' >ith respect to the award o! attorne 9s !ees, Article 2202 o! the Civil Code provides, a#ong others, that such !ees #a &e recovered when e*e#plar da#ages are awarded, when the de!endant9s act or o#ission has co#pelled the plainti!! to litigate with third persons or to incur e*penses to protect his interest, and where the de!endant acted in gross and evident &ad !aith in re!using to satis! the plainti!!s9 plainl valid, ,ust and de#anda&le clai#' $oyce 3. Ardiente v. Spouses $avier and a. %heresa )astofide, /'0' 1o' 151421, Jul 17, 2013' Co##on carriers% e*traordinar diligence in vigilance o! goods transported% cargoes while &eing unloaded generall re#ain under the custod o! the carrier' Co##on carriers, !ro# the nature o! their &usiness and !or reasons o! pu&lic polic , are &ound to o&serve e*traordinar diligence in the vigilance over the goods transported & the#' "u&,ect to certain e*ceptions enu#erated under Article 1733 o! the Civil Code, co##on carriers are responsi&le !or the loss, destruction, or deterioration o! the goods' .he e*traordinar responsi&ilit o! the co##on carrier lasts !ro# the ti#e the goods are unconditionall placed in the possession o!, and received & the carrier !or transportation until the sa#e are delivered, actuall or constructivel , & the carrier to the consignee, or to the person who has a right to receive the#' Asian %erminals, Inc. v. )hilam Insurance Co., Inc. *no+ Chartis )hilippines Insurance Inc.,- )hilam Insurance Co., Inc. *no+ Chartis )hilippines Insurance Inc., v. West+ind Shipping Corporation and Asian %erminals, Inc.- West+ind Shipping Corporation v. )hilam Insurance Co., Inc. and Asian %erminals, Inc., /'0' 1os' 121153B121252B121314, Jul 23, 2013'

Contract% a&solutel si#ulated contracts% void !ro# the &eginning' .he Court is in accord with the o&servation and !indings o! the @0.C, Lali&o, A-lanA thus$ ).he a#plitude o! !oregoing undisputed !acts and circu#stances clearl shows that the sale o! the land in 6uestion was purel si#ulated' (t is void !ro# the ver &eginning @Article 1335, 1ew Civil CodeA' (! the sale was legiti#ate, de!endant /lenda should have i##ediatel ta-en possession o! the land, declared in her na#e !or ta*ation purposes, registered the sale, paid realt ta*es, introduced i#prove#ents therein and should not have allowed plainti!! to #ortgage the land' .hese o#issions properl #ilitated against de!endant /lenda9s su&#ission that the sale was legiti#ate and the consideration was paid' /r. &orna C. .ormaran v. /r. 0lenda 4. 5ng and Solomon S. 5ng, /'0' 1o' 125253, Jul 2, 2013' Contract o! sale% ele#ents' A valid contract o! sale re6uires$ @aA a #eeting o! #inds o! the parties to trans!er ownership o! the thing sold in e*change !or a price% @&A the su&,ect #atter, which #ust &e a possi&le thing% and @cA the price certain in #one or its e6uivalent' Reman Recio v. Heirs of Spouses Aguego and aria Altamirano, /'0' 1o'122334, Jul 23, 2013' Contract to sell% pa #ent o! the price% positive suspension condition% e!!ect o! !ailure to pa ' Clearl , the 0.C arrived at the a&ove-6uoted conclusion &ased on its #ista-en pre#ise that rescission is applica&le to the case' Hence, its deter#ination o! whether there was su&stantial &reach' As #a &e recalled, however, the CA, in its assailed Hecision, !ound the contract &etween the parties as a contract to sell, speci!icall o! a real propert on install#ent &asis, and as such categoricall declared rescission to &e not the proper re#ed ' .his is considering that in a contract to sell, pa #ent o! the price is a positive suspensive condition, !ailure o! which is not a &reach o! contract warranting rescission under Article 1141 o! the Civil Code &ut rather ,ust an event

that prevents the supposed seller !ro# &eing &ound to conve title to the supposed &u er' Also, and as correctl ruled & the CA, Article 1141 cannot &e applied to sales o! real propert on install#ent since the are governed & the Gaceda Law' .here &eing no &reach to spea- o! in case o! non-pa #ent o! the purchase price in a contract to sell, as in this case, the 0.C9s !actual !inding that Lourdes was willing and a&le to pa her o&ligation C a conclusion arrived at in connection with the said court9s deter#ination o! whether the non-pa #ent o! the purchase price in accordance with the ter#s o! the contract was a su&stantial &reach warranting rescission C there!ore loses signi!icance' .he spouses ?onrostro9s reliance on the said !actual !inding is thus #isplaced' .he cannot invo-e their readiness and willingness to pa their o&ligation on 1ove#&er 23, 1443 as an e*cuse !ro# &eing #ade lia&le !or interest &e ond the said date' Sps. (ameal and &ourdes 4onrostro v. Sps. $uan and Constacia &una, /'0' 1o'172335, Jul 23, 2013' Ha#ages% da#ages !or loss o! earning capacit % #ust &e dul proven & docu#entar evidence% e*ceptions' .he "upre#e Court agrees with the Court o! Appeals when it re#oved the 0.C9s award respecting the inde#nit !or the loss o! earning capacit ' As it has alread previousl ruled that da#ages !or loss o! earning capacit is in the nature o! actual da#ages, which as a rule #ust &e dul proven & docu#entar evidence, not #erel & the sel!-serving testi#on o! the widow' ? wa o! e*ception, da#ages !or loss o! earning capacit #a &e awarded despite the a&sence o! docu#entar evidence when @1A the deceased is sel!-e#plo ed earning less than the #ini#u# wage under current la&or laws, and ,udicial notice #a &e ta-en o! the !act that in the deceased9s line o! wor- no docu#entar evidence is availa&le% or @2A the deceased is e#plo ed as a dail wage wor-er earning less than the #ini#u# wage under current la&or laws' )eople of the )hilippines v. 0arry 3ergara y 5riel and $oseph Incencio y )aulino, /'0' 1o' 177753, Jul 3, 2013

Ha#ages% e*e#plar da#ages% concept' As !or e*e#plar da#ages, Article 2224 provides that e*e#plar da#ages #a &e i#posed & wa o! e*a#ple or correction !or the pu&lic good' 1onetheless, e*e#plar da#ages are i#posed not to enrich one part or i#poverish another, &ut to serve as a deterrent against or as a negative incentive to cur& sociall deleterious actions' (n the instant case, the Court agrees with the CA in sustaining the award o! e*e#plar da#ages, although it reduced the a#ount granted, considering that respondent spouses were deprived o! their water suppl !or #ore than nine @4A #onths, and such deprivation would have continued were it not !or the relie! granted & the 0.C' $oyce 3. Ardiente v. Spouses $avier and a. %heresa )astofide, /'0' 1o' 151421, Jul 17, 2013' Ha#ages% e*e#plar da#ages% awarded i! there is an aggravating circu#stance, whether ordinar or 6uali! ing' Fnli-e the cri#inal lia&ilit which is &asicall a "tate concern, the award o! e*e#plar da#ages, however, is li-ewise, i! not pri#aril , intended !or the o!!ended part who su!!ers there& ' (t would #a-e little sense !or an award o! e*e#plar da#ages to &e due the private o!!ended part when the aggravating circu#stance is ordinar &ut to &e withheld when it is 6uali! ing' >ithal, the ordinar or 6uali! ing nature o! an aggravating circu#stance is a distinction that should onl &e o! conse6uence to the cri#inal, rather than to the civil, lia&ilit o! the o!!ender' (n !ine, relative to the civil aspect o! the case, an aggravating circu#stance, whether ordinar or 6uali! ing, should entitle the o!!ended part to an award o! e*e#plar da#ages within the un&ridled #eaning o! Article 2230 o! the Civil Code. )eople of the )hilippines v. 0arry 3ergara y 5riel and $oseph Incencio y )aulino, /'0' 1o' 177753, Jul 3, 2013' Ha#ages% interest thereon% where o&ligation does not constitute a loan or !or&earance o! #one ' .he CA erred in i#posing an interest rate o! 12M on the award o! da#ages' Fnder Article 2204 o! the Civil Code, when an o&ligation not constituting a loan or !or&earance o! #one is &reached, an interest on the a#ount o! da#ages awarded #a &e i#posed at the discretion o! the court at the rate o! 5M per annu#' (n the

si#ilar case o! ?elgian 8verseas Chartering and "hipping 1N v' Philippine Iirst (nsurance Co', lnc', the Court reduced the rate o! interest on the da#ages awarded to the carrier therein to 5M !ro# the ti#e o! the !iling o! the co#plaint until the !inalit o! the decision' Asian %erminals, Inc. v. )hilam Insurance Co., Inc. *no+ Chartis )hilippines Insurance Inc.,- )hilam Insurance Co., Inc. *no+ Chartis )hilippines Insurance Inc., v. West+ind Shipping Corporation and Asian %erminals, Inc.West+ind Shipping Corporation v. )hilam Insurance Co., Inc. and Asian %erminals, Inc., /'0' 1os' 121153B121252B121314, Jul 23, 2013' Ha#ages% #oral da#ages% when recovera&le' (n )hilippine (ational 4an# v. Spouses Rocamora, the "upre#e Court said that$ Goral da#ages are not recovera&le si#pl &ecause a contract has &een &reached' .he are recovera&le onl i! the de!endant acted !raudulentl or in &ad !aith or in wanton disregard o! his contractual o&ligations' .he &reach #ust &e wanton, rec-less, #alicious or in &ad !aith, and oppressive or a&usive' Li-ewise, a &reach o! contract #a give rise to e*e#plar da#ages onl i! the guilt part acted in a wanton, !raudulent, rec-less, oppressive or #alevolent #anner' Carlos &im, et al. v. /evelopment 4an# of the )hilippines, /'0' 1o' 1770J0, Jul 1, 2013' Ha#ages% #oral da#ages% awarded where the victi# o! a cri#e su!!ered a violent death, even in the a&sence o! proo! o! #ental and e#otional su!!ering o! the victi#9s heirs' .he "upre#e Court sustained the 0.C9s award !or #oral da#ages in the a#ount o! PJ0,000'00 even in the a&sence o! proo! o! #ental and e#otional su!!ering o! the victi#9s heirs' As &orne out & hu#an nature and e*perience, a violent death invaria&l and necessaril &rings a&out e#otional pain and anguish on the part o! the victi#9s !a#il ' >hile no a#ount o! da#ages #a totall co#pensate the sudden and tragic loss o! a loved one it is nonetheless awarded to the heirs o! the deceased to at least assuage the#' )eople of

the )hilippines v. 0arry 3ergara y 5riel and $oseph Incencio y )aulino, /'0' 1o' 177753, Jul 3, 2013 Ha#ages% #oral and e*e#plar da#ages in clai#s !or disa&ilit &ene!its% not recovera&le where e#plo er was not negligent in a!!ording the e#plo ee with #edical treat#ent, and e#plo er did not !orsa-e e#plo ee during the period o! disa&ilit ' .he CA correctl denied an award o! #oral and e*e#plar da#ages' .he respondents were not negligent in a!!ording the petitioner with #edical treat#ent neither did the !orsa-e hi# during his period o! disa&ilit ' Camilo A. Esguerra v. 1nited )hilippines &ines, Inc., et al., /'0' 1o' 144432, Jul 3, 2013' Hu#an 0elations% a&use o! rights% Article 14 o! the Civil Code% concept% da#ages as relie!s' .he principle o! a&use o! rights as enshrined in Article 14 o! the Civil Code provides that ever person #ust, in the e*ercise o! his rights and in the per!or#ance o! his duties, act with ,ustice, give ever one his due, and o&serve honest and good !aith' (n this regard, the Court9s ruling in !uchengco v. %he )u'lishing Corporation is instructive, to wit$ **** .his provision o! law sets standards which #ust &e o&served in the e*ercise o! one9s rights as well as in the per!or#ance o! its duties, to wit$ to act with ,ustice% give ever one his due% and o&serve honest and good !aith' (n 0lo'e ac#ay Ca'le and Radio Corporation v. Court of Appeals, it was elucidated that while Article 14 )la s down a rule o! conduct !or the govern#ent o! hu#an relations and !or the #aintenance o! social order, it does not provide a re#ed !or its violation' /enerall , an action !or da#ages under either Article 20 or Article 21 would &e proper'+ .he Court said$ anila Chronicle

8ne o! the #ore nota&le innovations o! the 1ew Civil Code is the codi!ication o! )so#e &asic principles that are to &e o&served !or the right!ul relationship &etween hu#an &eings and !or the sta&ilit o! the social order'+ :0EP80. 81 .HE C8HE C8GG(""(81 81 .HE P08P8"EH C(N(L C8HE 8I .HE PH(L(PP(1E", p' 34;' .he !ra#ers o! the Code, see-ing to re#ed the de!ect o! the old Code which #erel stated the e!!ects o! the law, &ut !ailed to draw out its spirit, incorporated certain !unda#ental precepts which were )designed to indicate certain nor#s that spring !ro# the !ountain o! good conscience+ and which were also #eant to serve as )guides !or hu#an conduct :that; should run as golden threads through societ , to the end that law #a approach its supre#e ideal, which is the swa and do#inance o! ,ustice'+ *Id., Iore#ost a#ong these principles is that pronounced in Article 14 * * *' **** .his article, -nown to contain what is co##onl re!erred to as the principle o! a&use o! rights, sets certain standards which #ust &e o&served not onl in the e*ercise o! one9s rights, &ut also in the per!or#ance o! one9s duties' .hese standards are the !ollowing$ to act with ,ustice% to give ever one his due% and to o&serve honest and good !aith' .he law, there!ore, recogni=es a pri#ordial li#itation on all rights% that in their e*ercise, the nor#s o! hu#an conduct set !orth in Article 14 #ust &e o&served' A right, though & itsel! legal &ecause recogni=ed or granted & law as such, #a nevertheless &eco#e the source o! so#e illegalit ' >hen a right is e*ercised in a #anner which does not con!or# with the nor#s enshrined in Article 14 and results in da#age to another, a legal wrong is there& co##itted !or which the wrongdoer #ust &e held responsi&le' ?ut while Article 14 la s down a rule o! conduct !or the govern#ent o! hu#an relations and !or the #aintenance o! social order, it does not provide a re#ed !or its violation' /enerall , an action !or da#ages under either Article 20 or Article 21 would &e proper' $oyce 3. Ardiente v. Spouses $avier and a. %heresa )astofide, /'0' 1o' 151421, Jul 17, 2013'

Hu#an 0elations% civil case !or !raud% Article 33 o! the Civil Code provides that a civil case !or da#ages &ased on !raud #a proceed independentl o! the cri#inal case there!or% said civil case will not operate as a pre,udicial 6uestion that will ,usti! the suspension o! a cri#inal case' (t is well settled that a civil action &ased on de!a#ation, !raud and ph sical in,uries #a &e independentl instituted pursuant to Article 33 o! the Civil Code, and does not operate as a pre,udicial 6uestion that will ,usti! the suspension o! a cri#inal case' .his was precisel the Court9s thrust in /'0' 1o' 132143, thus$ Goreover, neither is there a pre,udicial 6uestion i! the civil and the cri#inal action can, according to law, proceed independentl o! each other' Fnder 0ule 111, "ection 3 o! the 0evised 0ules on Cri#inal Procedure, in the cases provided in Articles 32, 33, 33 and 2175 o! the Civil Code, the independent civil action #a &e &rought & the o!!ended part ' (t shall proceed independentl o! the cri#inal action and shall re6uire onl a preponderance o! evidence' (n no case, however, #a the o!!ended part recover da#ages twice !or the sa#e act or o#ission charged in the cri#inal action' (n the instant case, Civil Case 1o' 44-4J321, !or Ha#ages and Attach#ent on account o! the alleged !raud co##itted & respondent and his #other in selling the disputed lot to P?( is an independent civil action under Article 33 o! the Civil Code' As such, it will not operate as a pre,udicial 6uestion that will ,usti! the suspension o! the cri#inal case at &ar' Rafael $ose Consing, $r. v. )eople of the )hilippines, /'0' 1o' 15107J, Jul 1J, 2013' Letter o! credit% de!inition% nature' A letter o! credit is a !inancial device developed & #erchants as a convenient and relativel sa!e #ode o! dealing with sales o! goods to satis! the see#ingl irreconcila&le interests o! a seller, who re!uses to part with his goods &e!ore he is paid, and a &u er, who wants to have control o! his goods &e!ore pa ing' However, letters o! credit are e#plo ed & the parties desiring to enter into co##ercial transactions, not !or the &ene!it o! the issuing &an- &ut

#ainl !or the &ene!it o! the parties to the original transaction, in these cases, 1ichi#en Corporation as the seller and Fniversal Gotors as the &u er' Hence, the latter, as the &u er o! the 1issan CLH parts, should &e regarded as the person entitled to deliver o! the goods' Accordingl , !or purposes o! rec-oning when notice o! loss or da#age should &e given to the carrier or its agent, the date o! deliver to Fniversal Gotors is controlling' Asian %erminals, Inc. v. )hilam Insurance Co., Inc. *no+ Chartis )hilippines Insurance Inc.,- )hilam Insurance Co., Inc. *no+ Chartis )hilippines Insurance Inc., v. West+ind Shipping Corporation and Asian %erminals, Inc.- West+ind Shipping Corporation v. )hilam Insurance Co., Inc. and Asian %erminals, Inc., /'0' 1os' 121153B121252B121314, Jul 23, 2013' Gortgage% includes all natural or civil !ruits and i#prove#ents !ound on the #ortgaged propert when the secured o&ligation &eco#es due% in case o! non-pa #ent o! the secured de&t, !oreclosure proceedings shall cover not onl the h pothecated propert &ut all its accessions and accessories as well% indispensa&le re6uisite that #ortgagor &e the a&solute owner o! the encu#&ered propert ' 0ent, as an accessor , !ollows the principal' (n !act, when the principal propert is #ortgaged, the #ortgage shall include all natural or civil !ruits and i#prove#ents !ound thereon when the secured o&ligation &eco#es due as provided in Article 2127 o! the Civil Code, vi"6 Art' 2127' .he #ortgage e*tends to the natural accessions, to the i#prove#ents, growing !ruits, and the rents or inco#e not et received when the o&ligation &eco#es due, and to the a#ount o! the inde#nit granted or owing to the proprietor !ro# the insurers o! the propert #ortgaged, or in virtue o! e*propriation !or pu&lic use, with the declarations, a#pli!ications and li#itations esta&lished & law, whether the estate re#ains in the possession o! the #ortgagor, or it passes into the hands o! a third person' Conse6uentl , in case o! non-pa #ent o! the secured de&t, !oreclosure proceedings shall cover not onl the h pothecated propert &ut all its

accessions and accessories as well' .his was illustrated in the earl case o! Cu 1n7ieng e Hi7os v. a'alacat Sugar Co. where the Court held$ .hat a #ortgage constituted on a sugar central includes not onl the land on which it is &uilt &ut also the &uildings, #achiner , and accessories installed at the ti#e the #ortgage was constituted as well as the &uildings, #achiner and accessories &elonging to the #ortgagor, installed a!ter the constitution thereo! * * * :'; Appl ing such pronounce#ent in the su&se6uent case o! Spouses )aderes v. Court of Appeals, the Court declared that the i#prove#ents constructed & the #ortgagor on the su&,ect lot are covered & the real estate #ortgage contract with the #ortgagee &an- and thus included in the !oreclosure proceedings instituted & the latter' However, the rule is not without 6uali!ications' (n Castro, $r. v. CA the Court e*plained that Article 2127 is predicated on the presu#ption that the ownership o! accessions and accessories also &elongs to the #ortgagor as the owner o! the principal' A!ter all, it is an indispensa&le re6uisite o! a valid real estate #ortgage that the #ortgagor &e the a&solute owner o! the encu#&ered propert ' )hilippine (ational 4an# v. Sps. 4ernard and Cresencia ara8on, /'0'1o' 124315, Jul 1, 2013' Gortgage% #ortgagee in good !aith% right to have #ortgage lien carried over and annotated on the new certi!icate o! title' .he protection a!!orded to P1? as a #ortgagee in good !aith re!ers to the right to have its #ortgage lien carried over and annotated on the new certi!icate o! title issued to "pouses GaraOon as so ad,udged & the 0.C' .herea!ter, to en!orce such lien thru !oreclosure proceedings in case o! nonpa #ent o! the secured de&t, as P1? did so pursue' .he principle, however, is not the singular rule that governs real estate #ortgages and !oreclosures attended & !raudulent trans!ers to the #ortgagor' )hilippine (ational 4an# v. Sps. 4ernard and Cresencia ara8on, /'0'1o' 124315, Jul 1, 2013'

8&ligations% conditions% !ul!ill#ent thereo!% dee#ed !ul!illed when o&ligor voluntaril prevents it !ul!ill#ent% re6uisites' .he spouses ?onrostro want to &e relieved !ro# pa ing interest on the a#ount o! P213,342'52 which the spouses Luna paid to ?liss as a#orti=ations & asserting that the were prevented & the latter !ro# !ul!illing such o&ligation' .he invo-e Art' 1125 o! the Civil Code which provides that )the condition shall &e dee#ed !ul!illed when the o'ligor voluntaril prevents its !ul!ill#ent'+ However, the Court !inds Art' 1125 inapplica&le to this case' .he said provision e*plicitl spea-s o! a situation where it is the o&ligor who voluntaril prevents !ul!ill#ent o! the condition' Here, Constancia is not the o&ligor &ut the o&ligee' Goreover, even i! this signi!icant detail is to &e ignored, the #ere intention to prevent the happening o! the condition or the #ere placing o! ine!!ective o&stacles to its co#pliance, without actuall preventing !ul!ill#ent is not su!!icient !or the application o! Art' 1125' .wo re6uisites #ust concur !or its application, to wit$ @1A intent to prevent !ul!ill#ent o! the condition% and, @2A actual prevention o! co#pliance' Sps. (ameal and &ourdes 4onrostro v. Sps. $uan and Constacia &una, /'0' 1o'172335, Jul 23, 2013' 8&ligations% constructive !ul!ill#ent% Article 1125 o! the Civil Code% re6uisites' As aptl pointed out & the CA, Article 1125 o! the Civil Code, which states that )the condition shall &e dee#ed !ul!illed when the o&ligor voluntaril prevents its !ul!ill#ent,+ does not appl in this case, vi"6 Article 1125 enunciates the doctrine o! constructive !ul!ill#ent o! suspensive conditions, which applies when the !ollowing three @3A re6uisites concur, vi"6 @1A .he condition is suspensive% @2A .he o&ligor actuall prevents the !ul!ill#ent o! the condition% and @3A He acts voluntaril ' "uspensive condition is one the happening o! which gives rise to the o&ligation' (t will &e irrational !or an ?an- to provide a suspensive condition in the Pro#issor 1ote or the 0estructuring

Agree#ent that will allow the de&tor-pro#issor to &e !reed !ro# the dut to pa the loan without pa ing it' Carlos &im, et al. v. /evelopment 4an# of the )hilippines, /'0' 1o' 1770J0, Jul 1, 2013' 8&ligations% i! an o&ligation consists o! pa #ent o! #one , and the de&tor incurs in dela , the inde#nit !or da#ages, there &eing no stipulation to the contrar , shall &e the pa #ent o! the interest agreed upon, and in the a&sence o! stipulation, the legal interest' Fnder Article 2204 o!the Civil Code, ):i;!the o&ligation consists in the pa #ent o! a su# o! #one , and the de&tor incurs in dela , the inde#nit !or da#ages, there &eing no stipulation to the contrar , shall &e the pa #ent o! the interestP agreed upon, and in the a&sence o! stipulation, the legal interest * * *'+ .here &eing no stipulation on interest in case o!dela in the pa #ent o!a#orti=ation, the CA thus correctl i#posed interest at the legal rate which is now 12Mper annum. Sps. (ameal and &ourdes 4onrostro v. Sps. $uan and Constacia &una, /'0' 1o'172335, Jul 23, 2013' Penalties and interest rates% penalties and interest rates should &e e*pressl stipulated in writing' As to the i#position o! additional interest and penalties not stipulated in the Pro#issor 1otes, this should not &e allowed' Article 14J5 o! the Civil Code speci!icall states that )no interest shall &e due unless it has &een e*pressl stipulated in writing'+ .hus, the pa #ent o! interest and penalties in loans is allowed onl i! the parties agreed to it and reduced their agree#ent in writing' Carlos &im, et al. v. /evelopment 4an# of the )hilippines, /'0' 1o' 1770J0, Jul 1, 2013' Prescription% Article 1133 o! the Civil Code' >e concur with the CA9s ruling that respondent9s action did not et prescri&e' .he legal provision governing this case was not Article 1135 o! the Civil Code, &ut Article 1133 o! the Civil Code, which states$

Article 1133' .he !ollowing actions #ust &e &rought within ten ears !ro# the ti#e the cause o! action accrues$ @1AFpon a written contract% @2A Fpon an o&ligation created & law% @3AFpon a ,udg#ent' 3ector Shipping Corporation, et al. v. American Home Assurance Co., et al., /'0' 1o' 1J4213, Jul 3, 2013' Propert % co-ownership% sale o! co-owned propert % i! onl one coowner agreed to the sale, said co-owner onl sold his ali6uot share in the su&,ect propert ' ?ut as held & the appellate court, the sale &etween the petitioner and Ale,andro is valid inso!ar as the ali9uot share o! respondent Ale,andro is concerned' ?eing a co-owner, Ale,andro can validl and legall dispose o! his share even without the consent o! all the other co-heirs' "ince the &alance o! the !ull price has not et &een paid, the a#ount paid shall represent as pa #ent to his ali9uot share' .his then leaves the sale o! the lot o! the Alta#iranos to the "pouses La,arca valid onl inso!ar as their shares are concerned, e*clusive o! the ali9uot part o! Ale,andro, as ruled & the CA' Reman Recio v. Heirs of Spouses Aguego and aria Altamirano, /'0' 1o'122334, Jul 23, 2013' Propert % patri#onial propert and propert o! pu&lic do#inion% patri#onial propert o! the "tate #a &e the o&,ect o! prescription, however, those intended !or so#e pu&lic service or the develop#ent o! national wealth are propert o! pu&lic do#inion, which are not suscepti&le to ac6uisition & prescription% pu&lic do#ain lands &eco#e patri#onial propert onl i! there is a declaration that these are aliena&le or disposa&le, together with an e*press govern#ent #ani!estation that the propert is alread patri#onial or no longer retained !or pu&lic service or the develop#ent o! national wealth' Fnder Article 322 o! the Civil Code, pu&lic do#ain lands &eco#e patri#onial propert onl i! there is a declaration that these are aliena&le or disposa&le, together with an e*press govern#ent #ani!estation that the propert is alread patri#onial or no longer retained !or pu&lic service or the develop#ent

o! national wealth' 8nl when the propert has &eco#e patri#onial can the prescriptive period !or the ac6uisition o! propert o! the pu&lic do#inion &egin to run' Also under "ection 13@2A o! Presidential Hecree @P'H'A 1o' 1J24, it is provided that &e!ore ac6uisitive prescription can co##ence, the propert sought to &e registered #ust not onl &e classi!ied as aliena&le and disposa&le, it #ust also &e e*pressl declared & the "tate that it is no longer intended !or pu&lic service or the develop#ent o! the national wealth, or that the propert has &een converted into patri#onial' A&sent such an e*press declaration & the "tate, the land re#ains to &e propert o! pu&lic do#inion' /ream 3illage (eigh'orhood Association, Inc., represented 'y its Incum'ent )resident 0reg Seriego v. 4ases Conversion /evelopment Authority , /'0' 1o'142245, Jul 23, 2013' 0ent% civil !ruit% right!ul recipient' 0ent is a civil !ruit that &elongs to the owner o! the propert producing it & right o! accession' .he right!ul recipient o! the disputed rent in this case should thus &e the owner o! the su&,ect lot at the ti#e the rent accrued' )hilippine (ational 4an# v. Sps. 4ernard and Cresencia ara8on, /'0'1o' 124315, Jul 1, 2013' "u&rogation% &asis% de!inition' Consistent with the pertinent law and ,urisprudence, there!ore, E*hi&it ( was alread enough & itsel! to prove the pa #ent o! P7,3JJ,321'00 as the !ull settle#ent o! Calte*9s clai#' .he pa #ent #ade to Calte* as the insured &eing there& dul docu#ented, respondent &eca#e su&rogated as a #atter o! course pursuant to Article 2207 o! the Civil Code. (n legal conte#plation, su&rogation is the )su&stitution o! another person in the place o! the creditor, to whose rights he succeeds in relation to the de&t%+ and is )independent o! an #ere contractual relations &etween the parties to &e a!!ected & it, and is &road enough to cover ever instance in which one part is re6uired to pa a de&t !or which another is pri#aril answera&le, and which in e6uit and conscience ought to &e discharged & the latter'+ 3ector Shipping Corporation, et al. v. American Home Assurance Co., et al., /'0' 1o' 1J4213, Jul 3, 2013'

"u&rogation in insurance cases% accrues si#pl upon pa #ent & the insurance co#pan o! the insurance clai#% pa #ent & the insurer to the insured operates as an e6uita&le assign#ent to the insurer o! all re#edies that the insured #a have against the third part whose negligence or wrong!ul act caused the loss' .he Court holds that petitioner Phila# has ade6uatel esta&lished the &asis o! its clai# against petitioners A.( and >estwind' Phila#, as insurer, was su&rogated to the rights o! the consignee, Fniversal Gotors Corporation, pursuant to the "u&rogation 0eceipt e*ecuted & the latter in !avor o! the !or#er' .he right o! su&rogation accrues si#pl upon pa #ent & the insurance co#pan o! the insurance clai#' Petitioner Phila#9s action !inds support in Article 2207 o! the Civil Code, which provides as !ollows$ Art' 2207' (! the plainti!!9s propert has &een insured, and he has received inde#nit !ro# the insurance co#pan !or the in,ur or loss arising out o! the wrong or &reach o! contract co#plained o!, the insurance co#pan shall &e su&rogated to the rights o! the insured against the wrongdoer or the person who has violated the contract' * * *' <et, even with the e*clusion o! Garine Certi!icate 1o' 702-2005717-3, the "u&rogation 0eceipt, on its own, is ade6uate proo! that petitioner Phila# paid the consignee9s clai# on the da#aged goods' Petitioners A.( and >estwind !ailed to o!!er an evidence to controvert the sa#e' (n Gala an (nsurance Co', (nc' v' Al&erto, the Court e*plained the e!!ect o! pa #ent & the insurer o! the insurance clai# in this wise$ >e have held that pa #ent & the insurer to the insured operates as an e6uita&le assign#ent to the insurer o! all the re#edies that the insured #a have against the third part whose negligence or wrong!ul act caused the loss' .he right o! su&rogation is not dependent upon, nor does it grow out o!, an privit o! contract' (t accrues si#pl upon pa #ent & the insurance co#pan o! the insurance clai#' .he doctrine o! su&rogation has its roots in e6uit ' (t is designed to pro#ote and acco#plish ,ustice% and is the #ode that e6uit adopts to co#pel the ulti#ate pa #ent o! a de&t & one who, in ,ustice, e6uit , and good

conscience, ought to pa ' Asian %erminals, Inc. v. )hilam Insurance Co., Inc. *no+ Chartis )hilippines Insurance Inc.,- )hilam Insurance Co., Inc. *no+ Chartis )hilippines Insurance Inc., v. West+ind Shipping Corporation and Asian %erminals, Inc.- West+ind Shipping Corporation v. )hilam Insurance Co., Inc. and Asian %erminals, Inc., /'0' 1os' 121153B121252B121314, Jul 23, 2013' .ender o! pa #ent% concept% tender o! pa #ent, i! re!used without ,ust cause, will discharge the de&tor onl a!ter a valid consignation with the court% when tender o! pa #ent is not acco#panied & the #eans o! pa #ent, and the de&tor did not ta-e an i##ediate step to #a-e a consignation, then interest is not suspended !ro# the ti#e o! such tender' .ender o! pa #ent )is the #ani!estation & the de&tor o! a desire to co#pl with or pa an o&ligation' (! re!used without ,ust cause, the tender o! pa #ent will discharge the de&tor o! the o&ligation to pa &ut onl a!ter a valid consignation o! the su# due shall have &een #ade with the proper court'+ )Consignation is the deposit o! the :proper a#ount with a ,udicial authorit ; in accordance with rules prescri&ed & law, a!ter the tender o! pa #ent has &een re!used or &ecause o! circu#stances which render direct pa #ent to the creditor i#possi&le or inadvisa&le'+ ).ender o! pa #ent, without #ore, produces no e!!ect'+ ):.;o have the e!!ect o! pa #ent and the conse6uent e*tinguish#ent o! the o&ligation to pa , the law re6uires the co#panion acts o! tender o! pa #ent and consignation'+ As to the e!!ect o! tender o! pa #ent on interest, noted civilist Arturo G' .olentino e*plained as !ollows$ >hen a tender o! pa #ent is #ade in such a !or# that the creditor could have i##ediatel reali=ed pa #ent i! he had accepted the tender, !ollowed & a pro#pt atte#pt o! the de&tor to deposit the #eans o! pa #ent in court & wa o! consignation, the accrual o! interest on the o&ligation will &e suspended !ro# the date o! such tender' 'ut when the tender of payment is not accompanied &y the means of payment!

and the de&tor did not ta%e any immediate step to ma%e a consignation! then interest is not suspended from the time of such tender# * * * * @E#phasis suppliedA Sps. (ameal and &ourdes 4onrostro v. Sps. $uan and Constacia &una, /'0' 1o'172335, Jul 23, 2013' Special Laws Act 1o' 313J% !oreclosure sale% personal notice to the #ortgagor in e*tra,udicial !oreclosure proceedings is necessar where there is a stipulation to this e!!ect, and !ailure to co#pl with the stipulated notice re6uire#ent is a contractual &reach su!!icient to render the !oreclosure sale null and void' (t has &een consistentl held that unless the parties stipulate, )personal notice to the #ortgagor in e*tra,udicial !oreclosure proceedings is not necessar + &ecause "ection 3117 o! Act 313J onl re6uires the posting o! the notice o! sale in three pu&lic places and the pu&lication o! that notice in a newspaper o! general circulation' (n this case, the parties stipulated in paragraph 11 o! the Gortgage that$ 11' All correspondence relative to this #ortgage, including de#and letters, su##ons, su&poenas, or noti!ication o! an ,udicial or e*tra,udicial action shall &e sent to the Gortgagor at *** or at the address that #a herea!ter &e given in writing & the Gortgagor or the Gortgagee% However, no notice o! the e*tra,udicial !oreclosure was sent & H?P to petitioners a&out the !oreclosure sale scheduled on Jul 11, 1443' .he letters dated Januar 22, 1443 and Garch 11, 1443 advising petitioners to i##ediatel pa their o&ligation to avoid the i#pending !oreclosure o! their #ortgaged properties are not the notices re6uired in paragraph 11 o! the Gortgage' .he !ailure o! H?P to co#pl with their contractual agree#ent with petitioners, i'e', to send notice, is a &reach su!!icient to invalidate the !oreclosure sale' Carlos &im, et al. v. /evelopment 4an# of the )hilippines, /'0' 1o' 1770J0, Jul 1, 2013'

?ases Conversion Hevelop#ent Authorit @?CHAA% ?CHA holds title to Iort ?oni!acio% Hrea# Nillage sits on the a&andoned C-J 0oad, which lies outside the areas declared in Procla#ation 1os' 2375 and 172 as aliena&le and disposa&le' .hat the ?CHA has title to Iort ?oni!acio has long &een decided with !inalit ' (n Samahan ng asang )ilipino sa a#ati, Inc. v. 4C/A, it was categoricall ruled as !ollows$ Iirst, it is une6uivocal that the Philippine /overn#ent, and now the ?CHA, has title and ownership over Iort ?oni!acio' .he case o! Acting Registrars of &and %itles and /eeds of )asay City, )asig and a#ati is !inal and conclusive on the ownership o! the then Hacienda de Garica&an estate & the 0epu&lic o! the Philippines' Clearl , the issue on the ownership o! the su&,ect lands in Iort ?oni!acio is laid to rest' 8ther than their view that the F"A is still the owner o! the su&,ect lots, petitioner has not put !orward an clai# o! ownership or interest in the#' /ream 3illage (eigh'orhood Association, Inc., represented 'y its Incum'ent )resident 0reg Seriego v. 4ases Conversion /evelopment Authority, /'0' 1o'142245, Jul 23, 2013' Co##on Carrier% Carriage o! /oods & "ea Act @C8/"AA% prescriptive period !or !iling an action !or loss or da#age o! goods' .he prescriptive period !or !iling an action !or the loss or da#age o! the goods under the C8/"A is !ound in paragraph @5A, "ection 3, thus$ @5A Fnless notice o! loss or da#age and the general nature o! such loss or da#age &e given in writing to the carrier or his agent at the port o! discharge &e!ore or at the ti#e o! the re#oval o! the goods into the custod o! the person entitled to deliver thereo! under the contract o! carriage, such re#oval shall &e pri#a !acie evidence o! the deliver & the carrier o! the goods as descri&ed in the &ill o! lading' (! the loss or da#age is not apparent, the notice #ust &e given within three da s o! the deliver ' "aid notice o! loss or da#age #a &e endorsed upon the receipt !or the goods given & the person ta-ing deliver thereo!' .he notice in writing need not &e given i! the state o! the goods has at the ti#e o! their receipt &een the su&,ect o! ,oint surve or inspection'

(n an event the carrier and the ship shall &e discharged !ro# all lia&ilit in respect o! loss or da#age unless suit is &rought within one ear a!ter deliver o! the goods or the date when the goods should have &een delivered$ Provided, .hat i! a notice o! loss or da#age, either apparent or concealed, is not given as provided !or in this section, that !act shall not a!!ect or pre,udice the right o! the shipper to &ring suit within one ear a!ter the deliver o! the goods or the date when the goods should have &een delivered' Asian %erminals, Inc. v. )hilam Insurance Co., Inc. *no+ Chartis )hilippines Insurance Inc.,- )hilam Insurance Co., Inc. *no+ Chartis )hilippines Insurance Inc., v. West+ind Shipping Corporation and Asian %erminals, Inc.- West+ind Shipping Corporation v. )hilam Insurance Co., Inc. and Asian %erminals, Inc., /'0' 1os' 121153B121252B121314, Jul 23, 2013' Co##on Carrier% Carriage o! /oods & "ea Act @C8/"AA% prescriptive period !or !iling an action !or loss or da#age o! goods' .he prescriptive period !or !iling an action !or the loss or da#age o! the goods under the C8/"A is !ound in paragraph @5A, "ection 3, thus$ @5A Fnless notice o! loss or da#age and the general nature o! such loss or da#age &e given in writing to the carrier or his agent at the port o! discharge &e!ore or at the ti#e o! the re#oval o! the goods into the custod o! the person entitled to deliver thereo! under the contract o! carriage, such re#oval shall &e pri#a !acie evidence o! the deliver & the carrier o! the goods as descri&ed in the &ill o! lading' (! the loss or da#age is not apparent, the notice #ust &e given within three da s o! the deliver ' "aid notice o! loss or da#age #a &e endorsed upon the receipt !or the goods given & the person ta-ing deliver thereo!' .he notice in writing need not &e given i! the state o! the goods has at the ti#e o! their receipt &een the su&,ect o! ,oint surve or inspection' (n an event the carrier and the ship shall &e discharged !ro# all lia&ilit in respect o! loss or da#age unless suit is &rought within one ear a!ter deliver o! the goods or the date when the goods should have &een delivered$ Provided, .hat i! a notice o! loss or da#age, either apparent

or concealed, is not given as provided !or in this section, that !act shall not a!!ect or pre,udice the right o! the shipper to &ring suit within one ear a!ter the deliver o! the goods or the date when the goods should have &een delivered' Asian %erminals, Inc. v. )hilam Insurance Co., Inc. *no+ Chartis )hilippines Insurance Inc.,- )hilam Insurance Co., Inc. *no+ Chartis )hilippines Insurance Inc., v. West+ind Shipping Corporation and Asian %erminals, Inc.- West+ind Shipping Corporation v. )hilam Insurance Co., Inc. and Asian %erminals, Inc., /'0' 1os' 121153B121252B121314, Jul 23, 2013' Ia#il Code% #arriage% void a& initio !or lac- o! a #arriage license% no inconsistenc in !inding the #arriage null and void a& initio and, at the sa#e ti#e, non-e*istent% contracts which are a&solutel si#ulated or !ictitious are ine*istent and void !ro# the &eginning' .here is no inconsistenc in !inding the #arriage &etween ?en,a#in and "all null and void a' initio and, at the sa#e ti#e, non-e*istent' Fnder Article 3J o! the Ia#il Code, a #arriage sole#ni=ed without a license, e*cept those covered & Article 33 where no license is necessar , )shall &e void !ro# the &eginning'+ (n this case, the #arriage &etween ?en,a#in and "all was sole#ni=ed without a license' (t was dul esta&lished that no #arriage license was issued to the# and that Garriage License 1o' 107J52 did not #atch the #arriage license nu#&ers issued & the local civil registrar o! Pasig Cit !or the #onth o! Ie&ruar 1422' .he case clearl !alls under "ection 3 o! Article 3J20 which #ade their #arriage void a' initio. .he #arriage &etween ?en,a#in and "all was also none*istent' Appl ing the general rules on void or ine*istent contracts under Article 1304 o! the Civil Code, contracts which are a&solutel si#ulated or !ictitious are )ine*istent and void !ro# the &eginning'+ .hus, the Court o! Appeals did not err in sustaining the trial court9s ruling that the #arriage &etween ?en,a#in and "all was null and void a' initio and non-e*istent' Sally 0o:4angayan v. 4en7amin 4angayan, $r., /'0' 1o' 201051, Jul 3, 2013' Ia#il Code% #arriage license% certi!ication !ro# the local civil registrar is ade6uate to prove the non-issuance o! a #arriage license and, a&sent

an suspicious circu#stance, the certi!ication en,o s pro&ative value' .he certi!ication !ro# the local civil registrar is ade6uate to prove the non-issuance o! a #arriage license and a&sent an suspicious circu#stance, the certi!ication en,o s pro&ative value, &eing issued & the o!!icer charged under the law to -eep a record o! all data relative to the issuance o! a #arriage license' Sally 0o:4angayan v. 4en7amin 4angayan, $r., /'0' 1o' 201051, Jul 3, 2013' Ia#il Code% propert relations in cases o! coha&itation without the &ene!it o! #arriage% rules' .he Court o! Appeals correctl ruled that the propert relations o! ?en,a#in and "all is governed & Article 132 o! the Ia#il Code which states$ Art' 132' (n cases o! coha&itation not !alling under the preceding Article, onl the properties ac6uired & &oth o! the parties through their actual ,oint contri&ution o! #one , propert , or industr shall &e owned & the# in co##on in proportion to their respective contri&utions' (n the a&sence o! proo! to the contrar , their contri&utions and corresponding shares are presu#ed to &e e6ual' .he sa#e rule and presu#ption shall appl to ,oint deposits o! #one and evidences o! credit' (! one o! the parties is validl #arried to another, his or her share in the co-ownership shall accrue to the a&solute co##unit o! con,ugal partnership e*isting in such valid #arriage' (! the part who acted in &ad !aith is not validl #arried to another, his or her share shall &e !or!eited in the #anner provided in the last paragraph o! the preceding Article' .he !oregoing rules on !or!eiture shall li-ewise appl even i! &oth parties are in &ad !aith' ?en,a#in and "all coha&itated without the &ene!it o! #arriage' .hus, onl the properties ac6uired & the# through their actual ,oint contri&ution o! #one , propert , or industr shall &e owned & the# in co##on in proportion to their respective contri&utions' Sally 0o: 4angayan v. 4en7amin 4angayan, $r., /'0' 1o' 201051, Jul 3, 2013'

Land ownership% decree o! registration !or which an 8C. was issued is accorded greater weight as against ta* declarations and ta* receipts in the na#e o! another% ta* declarations and ta* receipts onl &eco#e the &asis o! a clai# o! ownership when coupled with proo! o! actual possession o! propert ' (n the case o! .errer:&ope" v. CA, the Court ruled that as against an arra o! proo!s consisting o! ta* declarations andBor ta* receipts which are not conclusive evidence o! ownership nor proo! o! the area covered therein, an original certi!icate o! title, which indicates true and legal ownership & the registered owners over the disputed pre#ises, #ust prevail' Accordingl , respondents9 Hecree 1o' 42442 !or which an original certi!icate o! title was issued should &e accorded greater weight as against the ta* declarations and ta* receipts presented & petitioners in this case' ?esides, ta* declarations and ta* receipts #a onl &eco#e the &asis o! a clai# !or ownership when the are coupled with proo! o! actual possession o! the propert ' Heirs of Ale7andra /elfin, namely, &eopoldo /elfin, et al. v. Avelina Ra'adon, /'0' 1o' 15J013, Jul 31, 2013' Land registration% decree o! registration &ars all clai#s and rights which arose or #a have e*isted prior to the decree o! registration' (t is an ele#ental rule that a decree o! registration &ars all clai#s and rights which arose or #a have e*isted prior to the decree o! registration' ? the issuance o! the decree, the land is &ound and title thereto 6uieted, su&,ect onl to certain e*ceptions under the propert registration decree' Heirs of Ale7andra /elfin, namely, &eopoldo /elfin, et al. v. Avelina Ra'adon, /'0' 1o' 15J013, Jul 31, 2013' 0epu&lic Act 1o' 25% reconstitution o! title% nature o! proceeding% .orrens s ste#% sources o! reconstitution% #andator re6uire#ents o! pu&lication, posting, and notice' At the outset, the Court notes that the present a#ended petition !or reconstitution is anchored on the owner9s duplicate cop o! .C. 1o' 2230 C a source !or reconstitution o! title under "ection 3@aA24 o! 0A 25 which, in turn, is governed & the provisions o! "ection 10 in relation to "ection 4 o! 0A 25 with respect to the pu&lication, posting, and notice re6uire#ents' "ection 10 reads$

"EC' 10' 1othing herein&e!ore provided shall prevent an registered owner or person in interest !ro# !iling the petition #entioned in section !ive o! this Act directl with the proper Court o! Iirst (nstance, &ased on sources enu#erated in sections 2@aA, 2@&A, 3@aA, 3@&A, andBor 3@aA o! this Act$ Provided, however, .hat the court shall cause a notice o! the petition, &e!ore hearing and granting the sa#e, to &e pu&lished in the #anner stated in section nine hereo!$ And, provided, !urther, .hat certi!icates o! title reconstituted pursuant to this section shall not &e su&,ect to the encu#&rance re!erred to in section seven o! this Act' Corollaril , "ection 4 reads in part$ "EC' 4' * * * .hereupon, the court shall cause a notice o! the petition to &e pu&lished, at the e*pense o! the petitioner, twice in successive issues o! the 8!!icial /a=ette, and to &e posted on the #ain entrance o! the provincial &uilding and o! the #unicipal &uilding o! the #unicipalit or cit in which the land lies, at least thirt da s prior to the date o! hearing, and a!ter hearing, shall deter#ine the petition and render such ,udg#ent as ,ustice and e6uit #a re6uire' * * *' .he !oregoing provisions, there!ore, clearl re6uire that @aA notice o! the petition should &e pu&lished in two @2A successive issues o! the 8!!icial /a=ette% and @&A pu&lication should &e #ade at least thirt @30A da s prior to the date o! hearing' "u&stantial co#pliance with this ,urisdictional re6uire#ent is not enough% it &ears stressing that the ac6uisition o! ,urisdiction over a reconstitution case is hinged on a strict co#pliance with the re6uire#ents o! the law' Repu'lic of the )hilippines v. Ricordito (. /e Asis, $r., /'0' 1o' 143273, Jul 23, 2013' .orrens s ste#% the issue on the validit o! title necessitates a re#and o! the case' .he Court recogni=es the i#portance o! protecting the countr 9s .orrens s ste# !ro# !a-e land titles and deeds' Considering that there is an issue on the validit o! the title o! petitioner N"H, which title is alleged to &e tracea&le to (C) *o# ++, registered on -pril 1+! 1+1.! which #other title was held to &e ine*istent in Manotok Realty,

Inc. v. CLT Realty Development Corporation, in the interest o! ,ustice, and to sa!eguard the correct titling o! properties, a re#and is proper to deter#ine which o! the parties derived valid title !ro# the legiti#ate (C) *o# ++, registered on /ay 3! 1+1.# "ince this Court is not a trier o! !acts and not capacitated to appreciate evidence o! the !irst instance, the Court #a re#and this case to the Court o! Appeals !or !urther proceedings, as it has &een si#ilarl tas-ed in Manotok Realty, Inc. v. CLT Realty Development Corporation. 3S/ Realty ; /evelopment Corporation v. 1ni+ide Sales, Inc. and /olores 4aello %e7ada, /'0' 1o' 170577, Jul 31, 2013 .orrens s ste#% .orrens title% lands under a .orrens title cannot &e ac6uired & prescription or adverse possession' Goreover, it is a settled rule that lands under a .orrens title cannot &e ac6uired & prescription or adverse possession' "ection 37 o! P'H' 1o' 1J24, the Propert 0egistration Hecree, e*pressl provides that no title to registered land in derogation o! the title o! the registered owner shall &e ac6uired & prescription or adverse possession' And, although the registered landowner #a still lose his right to recover the possession o! his registered propert & reason o! laches, nowhere has Hrea# Nillage alleged or proved laches, which has &een de!ined as such neglect or o#ission to assert a right, ta-en in con,unction with lapse o! ti#e and other circu#stances causing pre,udice to an adverse part , as will operate as a &ar in e6uit ' Put an wa , it is a dela in the assertion o! a right which wor-s disadvantage to another &ecause o! the ine6uit !ounded on so#e change in the condition or relations o! the propert or parties' (t is &ased on pu&lic polic which, !or the peace o! societ , ordains that relie! will &e denied to a stale de#and which otherwise could &e a valid clai#' /ream 3illage (eigh'orhood Association, Inc., represented 'y its Incum'ent )resident 0reg Seriego v. 4ases Conversion /evelopment Authority, /'0' 1o'142245, Jul 23, 2013' *Rose than#s Earla, .rances and Rory for assisting in the preparation of this post.,