CIVIL LAW REVIEW (MC LEGARDA) 2nd SEMESTER, SY 2012-2013 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES I INTRODUCTION II EFFECT AND APPLICATION

OF LAWS T$n$d$ +& T,+"-$ (1985) A W!"n #$%& '$(" "))"*' Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to compel public officials to publish in the Official Gazette various P s! "O#s! $eneral orders! proclamations! %Os! letter of implementation and administrative orders& 'espondents contend that publication in the Official Gazette is not a sine (ua non re(uirement for the effectivit) of laws where the laws themselves provide for their own effectivit) dates& 0O- issued and implemented 4emorandum /o& 956278 without publication& *he 4emo directed $ovt personnel to cause the disallowance of an) pa)ment of an) form of additional compensation or remuneration to cabinet secretaries! their deputies and assistants! or their representatives! in violation of the rule on multiple positions! and to effect the refund of an) and all such additional compensation $iven to and received b) the officials concerned! or their representatives! from the time of the finalit) of the 8upreme 0ourt rulin$ in Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary to the present& /-0 was contendin$ that the memorandum cannot be implemented without satisf)in$ the re(uirement of publication& 8enate le$islative in(uiries are bein$ (uestioned for havin$ no published rules of procedure as re(uired b) 8ec& .1! -rt :# of the 0onsti& *here was publication of the rules in newspapers of $eneral circulation onl) in 1995 and in .22; 'espondents <ustif) their non6observance of the constitutionall) mandated publication b) ar$uin$ that the rules have never been amended since 1995 and! despite that! the) are published in booklet form available to an)one for free! and accessible to the public at the 8enate=s internet web pa$e&& *arciano sold a part of con<u$al propert) to sps >uentes where the si$nature of his wife 'osario in the affidavit of consent was for$ed& *arciano and 'osario $ot married in 1952? the sale of the propert) was in 1989& 0ivil 0ode@ 8ale is voidable within 12 )ears& >amil) 0ode@ 8ale is void& *he phrase +unless it is otherwise provided, in -rticle . of the /00 does not preclude the re(uirement of publication in the Official Gazette! even if the law itself provides for the date of its effectivit)& *he publication of all presidential issuances 1of a public nature1 or 1of $eneral applicabilit)1 is mandated b) law& #t is needless to add that the publication of presidential issuances 1of a public nature1 or 1of $eneral applicabilit)1 is a re(uirement of due process& #t is a rule of law that before a person ma) be bound b) law! he must first be officiall) and specificall) informed of its contents& 0O- 4emorandum /o& 956278 is merel) an internal and interpretative re$ulation or letter of instruction which does not need publication to be effective and valid& #nterpretative re$ulations and those merel) internal in nature! that is! re$ulatin$ onl) the personnel of the administrative a$enc) and not the public! need not be published& /either is publication re(uired of the so6called letters of instructions issued b) administrative superiors concernin$ the rules or $uidelines to be followed b) their subordinates in the performance of their duties& 0O- 4emorandum /o& 956278 does not! in an) manner or on its own! rule a$ainst or affect the ri$ht of an) individual! e9cept those provided for under the 0onstitution& #t is not an implementin$ rule or re$ulation of a statute but a directive issued b) the 0O- to its auditors to enforce the self6e9ecutin$ prohibition imposed b) 8ection 17! -rticle :## of the 0onstitution on the President and his official famil)! their deputies and assistants! or their representatives from holdin$ multiple offices and receivin$ double compensation&

N$'./n$# A0n"&'1 C/00.&&./n +& COA (.223)

G$-*.##$n/ +& H/,&" /) R"2-"&"n'$'.+"& (.228)

*he 8enate cannot be allowed to continue with the conduct of the (uestioned le$islative in(uir) without dul) published rules of procedure& *he absence of an) amendment to the rules cannot <ustif) the 8enate=s defiance of the clear and unambi$uous lan$ua$e of the 0onstitution& *he publication of the Rules of Procedure in the website of the 8enate! or in pamphlet form available at the 8enate! is not sufficient under the Taada v. Tuvera rulin$ which re(uires publication either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of $eneral circulation&

F,"n'"& +& R/*$ (.212)

*he law that applies to this case is the >amil) 0ode& *he sale is void& *he >amil) 0ode provisions were also made to appl) to alread) e9istin$ con<u$al partnerships without pre<udice to vested ri$hts& 0onse(uentl)! when *arciano sold the con<u$al lot to the >uentes spouses on Aanuar) 11! 1989! the law that $overned the disposal of that lot was alread) the >amil) 0ode&

5$&.#$4 +& R/d-.4,"6 (1979)

E#"4$d/ + C/,-' /) A22"$#& (1787)

3 I4n/-$n*" /) '!" #$% -mbrosio and Basila$ enetered into a mort$a$e a$reement& *he stipulations were verball) modified b) the same parties in the sense that Basila$ would take possession of the land and would benefit b) the fruits thereof on condition that he would condone the pa)ment of interest upon the loan and he would attend to the pa)ment of the land ta9& *hese pacts made b) the parties independentl) were calculated to alter the mort$a$e! convertin$ the latter into a contract of antichresis& *he contract of antichresis! bein$ a real encumbrance burdenin$ the land! is ille$al and void because it is le$al and valid& 0an Basila$ be considered a possessor in $ood faithC Darren *a)lor Graham a forei$ner and former resident of the Philippines died and left certain shares of stock in the Philippines& *wo ta9 returns were filed under his name& *he first b) forei$n law)ers amountin$ to P95k! which was left unpaid and the second! which was instituted b) %le$ado! a >ilipino law)er who was in char$e of the decedent=s estate in the Philippines& %le$ado ar$ued that the) could not be char$ed under the first estate ta9 return since the forei$n law)ers did not know Philippine ta9 law&

Basila$ is a possessor in $ood faith based on his e9cusable i$norance of the law& Gross and ine9cusable i$norance of law ma) not be the basis of $ood faith! but possible! e9cusable i$norance ma) be such basis& Basila$ is not conversant with the laws because he is not a law)er& #n acceptin$ the mort$a$e of the improvements he proceeded on the well6$rounded belief that he was not violatin$ the prohibition re$ardin$ the alienation of the land& #n takin$ possession thereof and in consentin$ to receive its fruits! he did not know! as clearl) as a <urist does! that the possession and en<o)ment of the fruits are attributes of the contract of antichresis&

*he first estate ta9 return is valid& >orei$ners cannot be an) less bound b) our laws in our own countr)

A09.#, :- + S$nd.4$n9$1$n (2011) C F-.+$#d/ + C/00.&&./n /n E#"*'./n& (199;) R"'-/$*'.+.'1 /) #$%& >rivaldo contends that he is (ualified to assume the position of Governor for which he was elected since he was able to re$ain his >ilipino citizenship b) repatriation on the same da) that he was supposed to take his oath of office&

>rivaldo is (ualified to assume the position of Governor P 5.5 ! the law re$ardin$ repatriation! is curative or remedial in nature and thus should be $iven retroactive effect& 0urative statutes are those which undertake to cure errors and irre$ularities which otherwise would not produce their intended conse(uences b) reason of some statutor) disabilit) or failure to compl) with some technical re(uirement& On the other hand! remedial or procedural laws are statutes relatin$ to remedies or modes of procedure which do not create new or take awa) vested ri$hts! but onl) operate in furtherance of the remed) or confirmation of such ri$hts& #n this case! P 5.5 both creates a new ri$ht to natural born >ilipino citizen who lost their citizenship and provides a new remed) to ac(uire such citizenship& #t is not onl) the law which is to be $iven retroactive effect but the repatriation $ranted under the said

A-,"4/ :- + C/,-' /) A22"$#&

On 1987! -rue$o and his sister! both minors! filed for compulsor) reco$nition as ille$itimate children of their father who died prior to the institution of the case& On 199.! the *0 ruled the) were the deceased=s ille$itimate children& *he le$itimate children of the deceased contended that the *0 lost <urisdiction of the case when the >amil) 0ode took effect on -u$ust 7! 1988& Fnder the >0! reco$nition of the child should be brou$ht at the lifetime of the father& On -u$ust 7! 1988! *eresita >rancisco filed a suit for annulment of $eneral power of attorne) of her husband %usebio=s propert) that were $ranted to %usebio=s children from his first marria$e& *he *0 ruled a$ainst >rancisco! due to her failure to prove that the properties were con<u$al in nature& 8he ar$ues that the pertinent law applied should be >0 11;! which repealed 00 158 an 1;2 #n the 1992s! 0han instituted a criminal action under GP .. a$ainst %duardo 8imon& #n -u$ 7! .222! a civil action for collection of the amount under 00 77 was filed b) 0han& *he '*0 dismissed the complaint since under under the 'ules of 0ourt! 0han did not reserve the ri$ht to institute a separate action and thus amounted to litis pendentia& *he 0- reversed and ruled that under the 'evised 'ules on 0riminal Procedure which became effective on ecember 1! .222! there is no need for reservation to file a separate civil action under 00 77& 8imon thus contests that the 'evised 'ules on Procedure cannot be $iven retroactive effect&

law& >rivaldo=s act of re6ac(uirin$ his citizenship retroacts to the date he filed his application& Ee is therefore deemed (ualified to run and assume office& *he *0 did not lose <urisdiction over the case& *he 0ivil 0ode is still the applicable law& *he >amil) 0ode cannot be $iven retroactive effect since its application will pre<udice the vested ri$ht of the -rue$o and his sister to be reco$nized as ille$itimate children& Aurisdiction of a court! once attached! cannot be ousted b) subse(uent events! althou$h of a character which would have prevented <urisdiction from attachin$ in the first instance&

(199;)

F-$n*.&*/ + C/,-' /) A22"$#& (1998)

*he 0ivil 0ode is the applicable law& *he repeal of 0ivil 0ode provisions b) the >amil) 0ode does not operate to pre<udice or affect the ri$hts which have become vested or accrued while the said provisions were in force& *he ri$hts accrued survive the repeal&

H".- /) S.0/n + C!$n (.211)

*he 'evised 'ules ma) be $iven retroactive effect& *he retroactive application of procedural laws do not violate an) ri$ht of a person who ma) feel adversel) affected since as a $eneral rule! no vested ri$ht ma) attach to or arise from procedural laws& -n) new rules ma) validl) be made applicable to cases pendin$ at the time of promul$ation since no part) to an action has a vested ri$ht in the rules of procedure e9cept in criminal cases if the) permit a lesser (uantum of evidence to convict! since it would amount to an e9 post facto law which is unconstitutional&

L#$+" + R"2,9#.* (.211)

On 4a) 71! 1958! Hora)da married 8en& *amano in both civil and 4uslim rites& On >ebruar) 3! 1955! the 4uslim 0ode took effect& Fnder this 0ode! 8en& *amano alle$edl) divorced Hora)da On 4a) .5! 1997! *amano married %stralita& Hora)da filed a petition for declaration of nullit) of marria$e on the $round of bi$am)&

*he marria$e should be declared void since at the time *amano and Hora)da married! onl) the 0ivil 0ode and not the 4uslim 0ode was in effect& *he 4uslim 0ode took effect on >ebruar) 3! 1955& *his law cannot retroactivel) override the 0ivil 0ode which alread) bestowed certain ri$hts on the marria$e of 8en& *amano and Hora)da& *he 4uslim 0ode e9plicitl) provided for its prospective application&

D M$nd$'/-1 /- P-/!.9.'/-1 L$%& D M C/n&,n;. + CA (.221) E W$.+"- /- -.4!'& - construction worker of &4& 0onsun<i! #nc&! fell 13 floors from the 'enaissance *ower to his death& Eis wife filed in the '*0 of Pasi$ a complaint for dama$es a$ainst the deceasedIs emplo)er! &4& 0onsun<i! #nc& *he emplo)er raised! amon$ other defenses! the widowIs prior availment of the benefits from the 8tate #nsurance >und& *he '*0 rendered a decision in favor of the widow 4aria Aue$o! orderin$ the defendant to pa) plaintiff& id wife waive remed) under the 0ivil 0ode when she availed benefits from the 8tate #nsurance >undC /O& W$.+"- .& '!" -"#.n<,.&!0"n' /) $ 5NOWN -.4!' In '!.& *$&", %.)" %$& n/' $%$-" /) !"- -.4!' ,nd"- '!" C.+.# C/d" $nd '!,& */,#d n/' %$.+" '!" &$0" *he $eneral rule under under the DorkmenIs 0ompensation "aw is that a claim thereunder is one that e9cludes all further claims under other laws& #n the course of availin$ the remedies provided under the Dorkmen=s 0ompensation law! the claimants are deemed to have waived their known ri$ht of the remedies provided b) other laws& EOD%:%'! this case falls under the e9ception since the wife was unaware of petitionerIs ne$li$ence when she filed her claim for death benefits from the 8tate #nsurance >und& Ead the claimant been aware! she would=ve opted to avail of a better remed) than that of which she alread) had& W$.+"- /) !"-"d.'$-1 -.4!'& .n+$#.d Daiver of Eereditar) 'i$hts and #nterest Over a 'eal Propert) (8till Fndivided) e9ecuted in favor of petitioner as not valid and that same cannot be the source of an) ri$ht or create an) obli$ation between them for bein$ violative of the second para$raph of -rticle 1735 of the 0ivil 0ode! which provides that /o contract ma) be entered into upon future inheritance e9cept in cases e9pressl) authorized b) law& 'espondents were deprived of their ri$ht of first refusal when! without their knowled$e! -lbano sold the propert) to the petitioners& *he contention of the petitioners that the respondents had waived their ri$ht of first refusal is not supported b) the evidence& >or a waiver of ri$hts to e9ist! three elements are essential@ (a) e9istence of a ri$ht? (b) the knowled$e of the evidence thereof? and (c) an intention to relin(uish such ri$ht& #n People v. odoso! this 0ourt held that@ #t is elementar) that the e9istence of waiver must be positivel) demonstrated since a waiver b) implication cannot be presumed& *he standard of waiver re(uires that it 1not onl) must be voluntar)! but must be knowin$! intelli$ent! and done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likel) conse(uences&1 *here must thus be persuasive evidence of an actual intention to relin(uish the ri$ht& 4ere silence of the holder of the ri$ht should not be easil) construed as surrender thereof? the courts must indul$e ever) reasonable presumption a$ainst the e9istence and validit) of such waiver& *hus! the petitioners and -lbano failed to adduce sufficient! competent and credible evidence that the respondents had waived their ri$ht of first refusal to bu) the propert)& F R"2"$# /) #$%& Dife abandoned husband and took their child with her& Eusband filed a petition for habeas corpus with '*0 4akati but it was denied since child was alle$edl) in Gasilan& Eusband could not find the child in Gasilan& *he cellphone records of the wife

F"--"- + D.$6 (.212)

*here was a loan where the debtor was made to si$n a Daiver of Eereditar) 'i$hts and #nterest Over a 'eal Propert) (still undivided) in favor of the creditor&

V$#d"-$0$ + M$*$#d" (.225)

"essees had ri$ht of first refusal! $ranted b) law! of the lot on which their house was built& "essor sold the lot to petitioners! instead of the lessees&

T!/-n'/n + T!/-n'/n (.223)

RA 83=7 d.d n/' -"2"$# RA >702 SC, CA $nd RTC !$+" */n*,--"n' ;,-.&d.*'./n /+"- 2"'.'./n& )/- !$9"$& */-2,& )/- *,&'/d1 /) 0.n/-& *he two laws must be absolutel) incompatible! and a clear findin$ thereof must surface! before the inference of implied repeal ma) be drawn& *he provisions of '- 87;9 reveal no manifest intent to

L#"d/ + L#"d/ (.212)

revealed that she was movin$ in different re$ions in the Philippines& Eusband then filed a petition for habeas corpus with the 0-& #t was denied since the 0- on the $round that it did not have <urisdiction over the case& #t ruled that since '- 87;9 (*he >amil) 0ourts -ct of 1995) $ave famil) courts e9clusive ori$inal <urisdiction over petitions for habeas corpus! it impliedl) repealed '- 592. (-n -ct %9pandin$ the Aurisdiction of the 0ourt of -ppeals) and Gatas Pambansa 1.9 (*he Audiciar) 'eor$anization -ct of 1982)& 0omplainant=s father who was a clerk of court! was dismissed from service after his wife filed an administrative case a$ainst him for immoralit)! abandonment! conduct unbecomin$ a public official& -s a result of his dismissal! there was a forfeiture of his G8#8 benefits& Eistor) of G8#8 law as to effects of dismissal@ 1& 0ommonwealth -ct 182@ automatic forfeiture of benefits e9cept K of cash surrender value .& -mendment of 0- 182@ entitled to premiums 7& P 113;@ no similar provision 3& '- 8.91@ continue to be member of G8#8 and entitled to benefits&

revoke the <urisdiction of the 0ourt of -ppeals and 8upreme 0ourt to issue writs of habeas corpus relatin$ to the custod) of minors& >urther! it cannot be said that the provisions of '- 87;9! '- 529. and GP 1.9 are absolutel) incompatible since '- 87;9 does not prohibit the 0ourt of -ppeals and the 8upreme 0ourt from issuin$ writs of habeas corpus in cases involvin$ the custod) of minors& *hus! the provisions of '- 87;9 must be read in harmon) with '- 52.9 and GP 1.9 J that famil) courts have concurrent <urisdiction with the 0ourt of -ppeals and the 8upreme 0ourt in petitions for habeas corpus where the custod) of minors is at issue&

T!"-" %$& n/ .02#."d -"2"$# /) CA 180 91 '!" &,9&"<,"n' #$%& /ature of repealin$ clause of '- 8.91@ #t is certainl) not an e9press repealin$ clause because it fails to identif) or desi$nate the act or acts that are intended to be repealed& 'ather! it is an e9ample of a $eneral repealin$ provision& #t is a clause which predicates the intended repeal under the condition that a substantial conflict must be found in e9istin$ and prior acts& *he failure to add a specific repealin$ clause indicates that the intent was not to repeal an) e9istin$ law! unless an irreconcilable inconsistenc) and repu$nanc) e9ist in the terms of the new and old laws& *his latter situation falls under the cate$or) of an implied repeal& *here is no manifest inconsistenc) between 8ection 11(d) of 0ommonwealth -ct /o& 18;! as amended! and 8ection 3 of '&-& /o& 8.91& *he latter provision is a $eneral statement intended to cover members separated from the service whether the separation is voluntar) or involuntar)! and whether the same was for cause or not& 4oreover! the same deals onl) with the benefits the member is entitled to at the time of separation& >or the latter law to be deemed as havin$ repealed the earlier law! it is necessar) to show that the statutes or statutor) provisions deal with the same sub<ect matter and that the latter be inconsistent with the former& *here must be a showin$ of repu$nance! clear and convincin$ in character& *he lan$ua$e used in the later statute must be such as to render it irreconcilable with what had been formerl) enacted& -n inconsistenc) that falls short of that standard does not suffice&

P"/2#" + L.*"-$ (1955)

G :,d.*.$# D"*.&./n& "icera was convicted with ille$al possession of a rifle& Eis defense was that he was a peace officer and thus e9empt from re(uirements relatin$ to issuance of license to possess firearms pursuant to the 1959 case of People v 4acarandan$& Ee also alle$es that the court erred in rel)in$ on the later 19;5 case of People v 4apa which was not applicable to him at the time of the offense&

People v 4acarandan$ applies& -rticle 8 of the 0ivil 0ode of the Philippines decrees that <udicial decisions appl)in$ or interpretin$ the laws or the 0onstitution form part of this <urisdictionLs le$al s)stem& *hese decisions! althou$h in themselves not laws! constitute evidence of what the laws mean& *he application or interpretation placed b) the 0ourt upon a law is part of the law as of the date of the enactment of the said law since the 0ourtLs application or interpretation merel) establishes the contemporaneous le$islative intent that the construed law purports to carr) into effect& -t the time of "iceraLs desi$nation as secret a$ent in 19;1 and at the time of his apprehension for possession of the Dinchester rifle without the re(uisite license or permit therefor in 19;5! the !acarandan" rule M the 0ourts interpretation of section 859 of the 'evised -dministrative 0ode 6 formed part of our <urisprudence and! hence! of this <urisdictionLs le$al s)stem& !apa revoked the !acarandan" precedent onl) in 19;5& 0ertainl)! where a new doctrine abro$ates an old rule! the new doctrine should operate respectivel) onl) and should not adversel) affect those favored b) the old rule! especiall) those who relied thereon and acted on the faith thereof& *his holds more especiall) true in the application or interpretation of statutes in the field of penal law! for! in this area! more than in an) other! it is imperative that the punishabilit) of an act be reasonabl) foreseen for the $uidance of societ)&

P"&*$ + P"&*$ (.221)

D" C$&'-/ + :3C (.212)

Petitioner N 'espondent were married! and she was bein$ beat up so she left with her children& 8he later sued 'espondent for the declaration of nullit) of their marria$e& *he 0- ruled for its validit)& Petitioner states that the doctrine enunciated in 8antos vs& 0- and the $uidelines set out in 'epublic vs& 0- and 4olina should have no retroactive application& *his case is about +midni$ht appointment, which attended the AG0=s nomination of candidates to fill the vacanc) to be created b) the retirement of then 0A Puno& *he Petitioners herein filed respective 4otion(s) for 'econsideration! contestin$ the previous rulin$ of the 80 that the midni$ht appointment ban in the 0onstitution does not e9tend to appointments to the <udicial branch& H D,'1 '/ -"nd"- ;,d40"n' *he -ccused challen$ed his conviction of rape with homicide! which involved a 1.)o& $irl who had been alle$edl) raped and later died because of a forei$n ob<ect left inside her va$inal canal&

*he interpretation or construction placed b) the courts establishes the contemporaneous le$islative intent of the law& *he latter as so interpreted and construed would thus constitute a part of that law as of the date the statute is enacted& #t is onl) when a prior rulin$ of this 0ourt finds itself later overruled! and a different view is adopted! that the new doctrine ma) have to be applied prospectivel) in favor of parties who have relied on the old doctrine and have acted in $ood faith in accordance therewith&

- principle underl)in$ the decision in one case is deemed of imperative authorit)! controllin$ the decisions of like cases in the same court and in lower courts within the same <urisdiction! unless and until the decision in (uestion is reversed or overruled b) a court of competent authorit)& #n a hierarchical <udicial s)stem like ours! the decisions of the hi$her courts bind the lower courts! but the courts of co6ordinate authorit) do not bind each other& *he 0ourt! as the hi$hest court of the land! ma) be $uided but is not controlled b) precedent! bein$ invested with the innate authorit) to rule accordin$ to its best li$hts&

P"/2#" + R.''"(1991)

80 ac(uitted -ccused on criminal char$es! but it did not i$nore his acts? the 80 ad<ud$ed him to be civill) liable and ordered that deportation proceedin$s be instituted a$ainst him& #t does not necessaril) follow that the appellant is also free from civil liabilit)! which is impliedl) instituted with the criminal action& *he well6settled doctrine is that a person while not criminall) liable! ma) still be civill) liable&

M$-'.n"6 + V$n 3,&(.-(

I P-"&,02'./n $nd A2#.*$9.#.'1 /) C,&'/0& *he efendantLs wa$on N horses ran into the Plaintiff& *his happened because the horses were previousl) fri$htened and ran awa) without the driver! who was unloadin$ the car$o& *his case involves two lots alle$edl) co6owned b) Petitioner and >ien$& 'espondent filed a case for unlawful detainer a$ainst Petitioners& Petitioners alle$ed that one of the properties was named under >ien$ due to it bein$ common practice and custom in 0hina %t&at properties intended for t&e c&ildren are placed in t&e na$e of t&e eldest c&ild'& 'espondent is an heir of who owns the propert) in (uestion& 4edina sold this propert) to Petitioner& *he heirs tried to redeem the propert)! but 4edina refused& -n adverse rulin$ was rendered a$ainst Petitioner& Ee maintains that the written notice re(uired b) law to be $iven to ad<oinin$ owner was no lon$er necessar)! because there was alread) actual notice&

C/ G./( L,n + C/ (.211)

*he 80 found that leavin$ the horses to unload the merchandise was the custom of all drivers! which custom was sanctioned b) their emplo)ers& -cts whose performance is not destructive or in<urious and which have been ac(uiesced b) societ) for so lon$ that the) have ripened into custom! cannot be held to be unreasonable or imprudent& *o hold that the actor is necessaril) ne$li$ent because an act once resulted in accident or in<ur) is to $o far& *he doctrine of res ipsa lo#uitur at most onl) creates a pri$a facie case& Petitioners were not able to prove the e9istence of the alle$ed 0hinese custom of placin$ properties in the name of the eldest child! as provided under -rticle 1.11 of the 0ivil 0ode& #n contrast! 'espondents were able to show documents of sale from the ori$inal owners of the Gubat propert)! renderin$ the claim of custom as immaterial& *he) also established that >ien$ was the re$istered owner of the properties while Petitioner was merel) an administrator&

3$-*"##/n$ + 3$?$& (.211)

*he disre$ard of the mandator) written rule was an e9ception due to the peculiar circumstance of the case %of (lon)o'? the strict letter of the law must therefore appl)& - departure from it should onl) be for e9traordinar) reasons& >urthermore! interpretation of the law should be resorted to onl) where a literal interpretation would be either impossible or absurd or would lead to an in<ustice&

CIR + P-.0"'/%n (.225)

: L"4$# 2"-./d& Primetown Propert) Group applied for the refund or credit of income ta9 it paid in 1995& 0*- dismissed the petition ar$uin$ that it was filed be)ond the two6 )ear prescriptive period for filin$ a <udicial claim for ta9 refund or ta9 credit&

- )ear is composed of 1. months& -s between the 0ivil 0ode! which provides that a )ear is e(uivalent to 7;5 da)s! and the -dministrative 0ode of 1985! which states that a )ear is composed of 1. calendar months! it is the latter that must prevail bein$ the more recent law! followin$ the le$al ma9im! "e9 posteriori dero$ate priori&

III C/n)#.*' /) L$%& A6n$- + G$-*.$ #n the will of 0hristensen! he instituted an acknowled$ed natural dau$hter as his onl) heir but (19;7) left a le$ac) of some mone) in favor of Eelen 0hristensen Garcia who! in a decision rendered b) the 8upreme 0ourt had been declared as an acknowled$ed natural dau$hter of his& 0ounsel of Eelen claims that under -rt& 1; (.) of the civil code! 0alifornia law should be applied! the matter is returned back to the law of domicile! that Philippine law is ultimatel) applicable! that the share of Eelen must be increased in view of successional ri$hts of ille$itimate children under Philippine laws& On the other hand! counsel for dau$hter 4aria ! in as much that it is clear under -rt! 1; (.) of the 4ew 0ivil 0ode! the national of the deceased must appl)! our courts must appl) internal law of 0alifornia on the matter& Fnder 0alifornia law! there are no compulsor) heirs and conse(uentl) a testator should dispose an) propert) possessed b) him in absolute dominion& A0/& +& 3"##.& -mos G& Gellis was a citizen and resident of *e9as at the time of his death& Gefore he died! he made (19;5) two wills! one disposin$ his *e9as properties! the other disposin$ his Philippine properties& #n both wills! the reco$nized ille$itimate children were not $iven an) share& *e9as has no conflict rule ('ule of Private #nternational "aw) $overnin$ successional ri$hts& >urthermore! under *e9as law! there are no compulsor) heirs& T$1$4 +& #donah Perkins! an -merican citizen who died! left 3"n4,"' amon$ others! two stock certificates issued b) C/n&/#.d$'"d Gen$uet 0onsolidated! a corporation domiciled in the Philippines& -s ancillar) administrator of (19;8) Perkins= estate in the Philippines! *a)a$ now wants to take possession of these stock certificates but 0ount) *rust 0ompan) of /ew Oork! the domiciliar) administrator! refused to part with them& *hus! the probate court of the Philippines was forced to issue an order declarin$ the stock certificates as lost and orderin$ Gen$uet

0hristensen bein$ domiciled outside 0alifornia! the law of his domicile! the Philippines is ou$ht to be followed& *he 8upreme 0ourt decidin$ to $rant more successional ri$hts to Eelen 0hristensen Garcia said in effect that there be two rules in 0alifornia on the matter& 1& *he conflict rule which should appl) to 0alifornian=s outside the 0alifornia! and .& *he internal "aw which should appl) to 0alifornia domiciles in 0alifornia& *he 0alifornia conflict rule! found on -rt& 93; of the 0alifornia 0ivil code 8tates that +if there is no law to the contrar) in the place where personal propert) is situated! it is deemed to follow the decree of its owner and is $overned b) the law of the domicile&,

*he said ille$itimate children are not entitled to their le$itimes& Fnder *e9as law! there are no le$itimes& %ven if the other will was e9ecuted in the Philippines! his national law! still! will $overn the properties for succession even if it is stated in his testate that it shall be $overned b) the Philippine law&

Probate court has authorit) to issue the order enforcin$ the ancillar) administrator=s ri$ht to the stock certificates when the actual situs of the shares of stocks is in the Philippines& *he authorit) of the probate court to re(uire that ancillar) administrator=s ri$ht to the stock certificates is be)ond (uestion for appellant is a Philippine corporation owin$ full alle$iance and sub<ect to the unrestricted <urisdiction of local courts& #ts shares of stock cannot be considered as immune from lawful court orders&

5$6,!.-/ H$&"4$%$ + 5.'$0,-$ (.225) R$1'!"/n + R/,6." (.228)

0onsolidated to issue new stock certificates representin$ Perkins= shares& Gen$uet 0onsolidated ar$ues that the stock certificates are not lost as the) are in e9istence and currentl) in the possession of the 0ountr) *rust 0ompan) of /ew Oork& /ippon %n$ineerin$ and Bitamura entered into an #ndependent 0ontractor -$reement& Ease$awa informed Bitamura that the compan) had no more intention of renewin$ his #0-& Bitamura initiated an action for specific performance& 'ouzie (an -merican citizen) and Grand 4arine 8ervices #nc (G48#) entered into 0O/*'-0* wherein 'ouzie was assi$ned as G48#Ls representative to ne$otiate in sale of services in several $ovLt pro<ects in 'P for *+, of t&e "ross receipts& 'ouzie secured from 'P GovLt a service contract but he was alle$edl) not paid his commission& 'ouzie filed 0O4P"-#/* >O' -4-G%8 #/ '*0 Hamoranos ! a 'oman 0atholic! married e Aesus! a 4uslim convert! in 4a) 198. under #slamic ri$hts& *he) wed a$ain on Aune 198. under civil rites at the '*0& #n 1987! the) obtained a divorce b) tala( and the dissolution of their marria$e was confirmed b) the 8haria 0ourt which issued a ecree of ivorce in 199.& Hamorano married Pacasum in 1989 under #slamic ri$ht and then a$ain in 199. under civil rites& *he) had 7 children& *he) were de facto separated on 1998& #n 1999! the) entered into a compromise a$reement vestin$ custod) of their children to Hamoranos with Pacasum havin$ visitorial ri$ht& Pacasum sued Hamoranos sa)in$ that since her first marria$e was not dissolved and that their marria$e is bi$amous! she bein$ the $uilt) spouse should forfeit custod) of their children and her share in the -0P and inheritance from pacasum& #88F%@ -pplication of 4uslim 0ode and the 0ivil 0ode on the case& #s the marria$e bi$amousC 'a)ra) seeks to annul his marria$e with 0hae! whose whereabouts are unknown& *he case was dismissed b) the '*0 rulin$ that the court could not nullif) a marria$e contracted abroad (Borea)&

#nvocation of choice of law is premature because there is no showin$ )et of an) conflict between the laws of Aapan and Philippines& Gefore determinin$ which law should appl)! 1st there should e9ist a conflict of laws situation re(uirin$ the application of the conflict of laws rules& -lso! when the law of a forei$n countr) is invoked to provide the proper rules for the solution of a case! the e9istence of such law must be pleaded and proved& *hat the sub<ect contract included a stipulation that the same shall be $overned b) the laws of 0onnecticut does not su$$est that the Philippine 0ourts are precluded from hearin$ the civil action& *he 0ourt outlined three consecutive phases involved in <udicial resolution of conflicts6of6laws problems! namel)@ <urisdiction! choice of law! and reco$nition and enforcement of <ud$ments& *hus! in the instances where the 0ourt held that the local <udicial machiner) was ade(uate to resolve controversies with a forei$n element! the followin$ re(uisites had to be proved@ (1) that the Philippine 0ourt is one to which the parties ma) convenientl) resort? (.) that the Philippine 0ourt is in a position to make an intelli$ent decision as to the law and the facts? and (7) that the Philippine 0ourt has or is likel) to have the power to enforce its decision& Hamoranos= divorce from e Guzman! as confirmed b) an Fstadz and Aud$e Aainul of the 8hari=a 0ircuit 0ourt! and attested to b) Aud$e Fsman! was valid! and! thus! entitled her to remarr) Pacasum in 1989& #f both parties are 4uslims! there is a presumption that the 4uslim 0ode or 4uslim law is complied with& #f to$ether with it or in addition to it! the marria$e is likewise solemnized in accordance with the 0ivil 0ode of the Philippines! in a so6called combined 4uslim60ivil marria$e rites whichever comes first is the validatin$ rite and the second rite is merel) ceremonial one& Gut! in this case! as lon$ as both parties are 4uslims! this 4uslim 0ode will appl)& #n effect! two situations will arise! in the application of this 4uslim 0ode or 4uslim law! that is! when both parties are 4uslims and when the male part) is a 4uslim and the marria$e is solemnized in accordance with 4uslim 0ode or 4uslim law& - third situation occurPsQ when the 0ivil 0ode of the Philippines will $overn the marria$e and divorce of the parties! if the male part) is a 4uslim and the marria$e is solemnized in accordance with the 0ivil 0ode&

@AMORANOS + PEOPLE (2011)

RAYRAY + CHAE (17==)

*his is an action in rem! for it concerns the status of the parties herein! and status affects or binds the whole word& *he res in the present case is the relation between said parties! or their marria$e tie&; Aurisdiction over the same depends upon the nationalit) or domicile of the parties! not the place of celebration of marria$e! or the locus celebrationis&5 Plaintiff here is a citizen of the Philippines! domiciled therein& Eis status is! therefore! sub<ect to our <urisdiction! on both counts& *rue that

defendant was and M under plaintiffLs M theor) still is a non6resident alien& Gut! this fact does not deprive the lower court of its <urisdiction to pass upon the validit) of her marria$e to plaintiff herein& #ndeed! marria$e is one of the cases of double status! in that the status therein involves and affects two persons& One is married! never in abstract or a vacuum! but! alwa)s to somebod) else& Eence! a <udicial decree on the marria$e status of a person necessaril) reflects upon the status of another and the relation between them& *he prevailin$ rule is! accordin$l)! that a court has <urisdiction over the res! in an action for annulment of marria$e! provided! at least! one of the parties is domiciled in! or a national of! the forum&8 8ince plaintiff is a >ilipino! domiciled in the Philippines! it follows that the lower court had <urisdiction over the res! in addition to its <urisdiction over the sub<ect6matter and the parties& #n other words! it could validl) in(uire into the le$alit) of the marria$e between the parties herein& *he institution of le$atees in this will is conditional! and the condition is that the instituted le$atees must respect the testatorLs will to distribute his propert)! not in accordance with the laws of his nationalit)! but in accordance with the laws of the Philippines& #f this condition as it is e9pressed were le$al and valid! an) le$atee who fails to compl) with it! as the herein oppositor who! b) his attitude in these proceedin$s has not respected the will of the testator! as e9pressed! is prevented from receivin$ his le$ac)& *he fact is! however! that the said condition is void! bein$ contrar) to law! for article 59. of the civil 0ode provides the followin$@ #mpossible conditions and those contrar) to law or $ood morals shall be considered as not imposed and shall not pre<udice the heir or le$atee in an) manner whatsoever! even should the testator otherwise provide& -nd said condition is contrar) to law because it e9pressl) i$nores the testatorLs national law when! accordin$ to article 12 of the civil 0ode above (uoted! such national law of the testator is the one to $overn his testamentar) dispositions& 8aid condition then! in the li$ht of the le$al provisions above cited! is considered unwritten! and the institution of le$atees in said will is unconditional and conse(uentl) valid and effective even as to the herein oppositor& #t results from all this that the second clause of the will re$ardin$ the law which shall $overn it! and to the condition imposed upon the le$atees! is null and void! bein$ contrar) to law&

MICIANO + 3RIMO (172>)

-ndre Grimo! brother of the deceased opposes the scheme of partition of the estate of Grimo alle$in$ that the provisions of the will are not in accordance with the laws of his *urkish nationalit)& *he will sa)s that even if he is *urkish! Philippine laws will appl) to his will& Oppositor did not prove that said testamentar) dispositions are not in accordance with the *urkish laws! inasmuch as he did not present an) evidence showin$ what the *urkish laws are on the matter! and in the absence of evidence on such laws! the) are presumed to be the same as those of the Philippines&

IV H,0$n R"#$'./n& Dassmer and :elez decided to be married& WASSMER + Dasmer then received a note from :elez tellin$ her VELE@ that the) had to postpone the weddin$ because his mother opposes and that he is leavin$ for 0onvair (19;3) that da)& 8he received a tele$ram sa)in$ nothin$ chan$ed and he is returnin$ soon& *hen he disappeared& Dasmer sued for dama$es&

#t must not be overlooked! however! that the e9tent to which acts not contrar) to law ma) be perpetrated with impunit)! is not limitless for -rticle .1 of said 0ode provides that 1an) person who wilfull) causes loss or in<ur) to another in a manner that is contrar) to morals! $ood customs or public polic) shall compensate the latter for the dama$e&1 8urel) this is not a case of $ere breach of promise to marr)& -s stated! mere breach of promise to marr) is not an actionable wron$& Gut to formall)1 set a weddin$ and $o throu$h all the above6 described preparation and publicit)! onl) to walk out of it when the matrimon) is about to be solemnized! is (uite different& *his is palpabl) and un<ustifiabl) contrar) to $ood customs for which defendant must be held answerable in dama$es in accordance with -rticle .1 aforesaid& Over and above the partisan alle$ations! the facts stand out that for one whole )ear! from 1958 to 1959! the plaintiff6appellee! a woman of adult a$e! maintained intimate se9ual relations with

TAN:ANCO +
1

*an<anco courted 8antos promisin$ und)in$ love and affection& #n consideration of aid promises!

& #nvitations were printed and distributed to relatives! friends and ac(uaintances (*sn&! 5? %9h& 0)& *he bride6to6beLs trousseau! part) drsrses and other apparel for the important occasion were purchased (*sn&! 568)& resses for the maid of honor and the flower $irl were prepared& - matrimonial bed! with accessories! was bou$ht& Gridal showers were $iven and $ifts received (*sn&! ;? %9h& %)& -nd then! with but two da)s before the weddin$! defendant! who was then .8 )ears old!@ simpl) left a note for plaintiff statin$@ 1Dill have to postpone weddin$ M 4) mother opposes it &&& 1 Ee enplaned to his home cit) in 4indanao! and the ne9t da)! the da) before the weddin$! he wired plaintiff@ 1/othin$ chan$ed rest assured returnin$ soon&1 Gut he never returned and was never heard from a$ain

CA (19;;)

8anto $ave in to the plea of *an<anco for them to have se9& *he) had se9 re$ularl) for . )ears due to his promises of looooooove and then she $ot pre$nant& *o avoid humiliation! she resi$ned from her <ob& *hen he refused to marr) her&

3A5SH + COURT OF APPEALS (1997)

Private 'espondent filed a complaint for dama$es a$ainst the petitioner for the alle$ed violation of their a$reement to $et married& Private respondent alle$ed that she accepted his love on the condition that the) would $et married& 8he also alle$ed that petitioner forced her to live with him in his house& *he lower court appl)in$ -rt .1 rendered a decision in favor of the private respondent orderin$ the petitioner to pa) moral dama$es! attorne)=s fees and liti$ation e9penses&

appellant! with repeated acts of intercourse& 8uch conduct is incompatible with the idea of seduction& Plainl) there is here voluntariness and mutual passion? for had the appellant been deceived! had she surrendered e9clusivel) because of the deceit! artful persuasions and wiles of the defendant! she would not have a$ain )ielded to his embraces! much less for one )ear! without e9actin$ earl) fulfillment of the alle$ed promises of marria$e! and would have cut chart all se9ual relations upon findin$ that defendant did not intend to fulfill his promises& Eence! we conclude that no case is made under -rticle .1 of the 0ivil 0ode! and no other cause of action bein$ alle$ed! no error was committed b) the 0ourt of >irst #nstance in dismissin$ the complaint& *he award of dama$es is proper& *he e9istin$ rule is that a breach of promise to marr) per se is not an actionable wron$& Gut where a man=s promise to marr) is in fact the pro9imate cause of the acceptance of his love b) a woman and his representation to fulfill that promise thereafter becomes the pro9imate cause of the $ivin$ of herself unto him in a se9ual con$ress! proof that he had! in realit)! no intention of marr)in$ her and that the promise was onl) a subtle scheme or deceptive device to entice or invei$le her to accept him and to obtain her consent to se9ual act! could <ustif) the award of dama$es pursuant to -rt .1 not because of such promise to marr) but because of the fraud and deceit behind it and the willful in<ur) to her honor and reputation which followed thereafter& #t is essential! however! that such in<ur) should have been committed in a manner contrar) to morals! $ood customs or public polic)& *he acts complained of cannot be considered as dis$raceful or $rossl) immoral conduct& 4ere se9ual relations between two unmarried and consentin$ adults are not enou$h to warrant administrative sanction for illicit behavior& *he court has repeatedl) held that voluntar) intimac) between a man and a woman who are not married! where both are not under an) impediment to marr) and where no deceit e9ists! is neither a criminal nor an unprincipled act that would warrant disbarment or disciplinar) action

A3ANAG + MA3UTE (.211)

-n administrative case has been filed a$ainst a 0ourt 8teno$raher for is$raceful and #mmoral 0onduct& *he complainant alle$ed that the respondent courted her and professed his und)in$ love for her& 'el)in$ on respondent=s promise that he would marr) her! she a$reed to live with him& 8he became pre$nant but respondent brou$ht her to a +man$hihilot, and tried to force her to take dru$s to abort her bab)&

PERSON I C$2$*.'1 '/ A*' CATALAN + 3ASA (.225) 1 P-"&,02'./n /) *$2$*.'1 >eliciano 0atalan was dischar$ed from active militar) service due to his schizophrenic reaction& - )ear after he $ot married& *hen subse(uentl)! he alle$edl) donated to his a piece of real propert) to his sister& *hen >eliciano was declared incompetent b) the court& >eliciano=s $uardian filed a case for declaration of /ullit) of ocuments! 'ecover) of possession and ownership& #t averred that the donation to his sister is void as he was not of sound mind and therefore was incapable of $ivin$ consent *he donation is :-"# & #n order for donation of propert) to be valid! what is crucial is the donor=s capacit) to $ive consent at the time of the donation& 0ertainl)! there lies no doubt in the fact that insanit) impin$es on consent freel) $iven& Eowever! the burden of provin$ such incapacit) rests upon the person who alle$es it? if no sufficient proof to this effect is presented! capacit) will be presumed& >rom scientific studies it can be deduced that a person sufferin$ from schizophrenia does not necessaril) lose his competence to intelli$entl) dispose his propert)& G) merel) alle$in$ the e9istence of schizophrenia! petitioners failed to show substantial proof that at the date of the donation! >eliciano had lost total control of his mental faculties& *hus! the lower courts correctl) held that >eliciano was of sound mind at that time and that his condition continued to e9ist until proof to the contrar) was adduced&

MERCADO V ESPIRITU (1915)

2 R"&'-.*'./n& /n *$2$*.'1 '/ $*' ($) M.n/-.'1 Plaintiffs assail the validit) of the deed of sale the) e9ecuted on the $round that the) were minors when the) e9ecuted it! notwithstandin$ the fact that the deed was drawn up b) the notar) b) their representation that the) were of le$al a$e&

*he eed of 8ale is :-"# & *he sale of real estate! made b) minors who pretend to be of le$al a$e! when in fact the) are not! is valid! and the) will not be permitted to e9cuse themselves from the fulfillment of the obli$ation contracted b) them! or to have them annulled in pursuance of the provisions of "aw ;! title 19! of the ;th partida? and the <ud$ment that holds such a sale to be valid and absolves the purchaser from the complaint filed a$ainst him does not violate the laws relative to the sale of minors= propert)! nor the <udicial rules established in consonance therewith& 0-'8O/! concurrin$ Gut in order to avoid misunderstandin$! it is well to indicate that the $eneral statement! in the prevailin$ opinion to the effect that the makin$ of false representations as to his a$e b) an infant e9ecutin$ a contract will preclude him from disaffirmin$ the contract or settin$ up the defense of infanc)! must be understood as limited to cases wherein! on account of the minor=s representations as to his ma<orit)! and because of his near approach thereto! the other part) had $ood reason to believe! and did in fact believe the minor capable of contractin$ *he conviction was affirmed but the penalt) imposed on the minor was reduced due to the fact of his minorit) at the time of the commission of the crime& Fnder -rt .38 of the 'P0! the penalt) for murder is reclusion perpetua to death& Gut reclusion perpetua was not the correct penalt) for 4ontreal due to his bein$ a minor over 15 but under 18 )ears of a$e& Pursuant to -rt ;8 (.) of the 'P0! when the offender is over 15 and under 18 )ears of a$e! the penalt) ne9t lower than that prescribed b) law is imposed& Gased on -rt ;1(.) of the 'P0! reclusion temporal is the penalt) ne9t lower than reclusion perpetua to death&

ATI@ADO V PEOPLE (.212)

- minor! to$ether with an adult! was convicted of murder and sentenced to an imprisonment of reclusion perpetua and ordered to pa) civil indemnit) and reimburse the heirs of the victim&

HERNANDE@ V SANTOS (.229)

(9) In&$n.'1 "ulu inherited real properties estimated to be worth PEP 524 from her maternal uncle& Gecause she was of weak mind! her dad! and later on her half6 siblin$s! e9ercised actual administration of her propert) even after she reached the a$e of ma<orit)& -fter her dad died! "ulu was maltreated at home and her properties were bein$ sold without her consent& "ulu=s maternal first cousin was $ranted $uardianship over her person and propert)& "ulu was later abducted b) her half6 siblin$s&

PEOPLE 3ULAGAO

Gula$ao was char$ed with . counts of rape of ---! a 136)ear6old $irl! on two separate dates in Aune .222&

"ulu is an incompetent who re(uires the appointment of a <udicial $uardian over her person and propert)& "ulu=s half6siblin$s= claims that she should have been presumed to be of sound mind andRor in full possession of her mental capacit) is incorrect& Fnder 8ection 52! 'ule 127 of the 'ules of 0ourt! an ordinar) witness ma) $ive his opinion on the mental sanit) of a person with whom he is sufficientl) ac(uainted& "uluLs attendin$ ph)sicians spoke and interacted with her& 8uch occasions allowed them to thorou$hl) observe her behavior and conclude that her intelli$ence level was below avera$e and her mental sta$e below normal& *heir opinions were admissible in evidence& >urthermore! where the sanit) of a person is at issue! e9pert opinion is not necessar)& *he observations of the trial <ud$e coupled with evidence establishin$ the personLs state of mental sanit) will suffice& Fnder 8ection .! 'ule 9. of the 'ules of 0ourt! persons who! thou$h of sound mind but b) reason of a$e! disease! weak mind or other similar causes are incapable of takin$ care of themselves and their propert) without outside aid! are considered as incompetents who ma) properl) be placed under $uardianship& *he '*0 and the 0- both found that "ulu was incapable of takin$ care of herself and her properties without outside aid due to her ailments and weak mind& *hus! since determinin$ whether or not "ulu is in fact an incompetent would re(uire a ree9amination of the evidence presented in the courts a #uo- it undoubtedl) involves (uestions of fact& *here was no proof that the mental condition Gula$ao alle$edl) e9hibited when he was e9amined b) the ps)chiatrist was alread) present at the time of the rape incidents&

(.211)

--- was later presented for the defense& 8he recanted her statement and claimed that Gula$ao didn=t force himself upon her and that he had +a little defect in his mind,& - clinical ps)cholo$ist testified that Gula$ao was sufferin$ from mental retardation&

-n)one who pleads the e9emptin$ circumstance of insanit) bears the burden of provin$ it with clear and convincin$ evidence& Gesides! this 0ourt observes that neither the acts of the accused6appellant proven before the court! nor his answers in his testimon)! show a complete deprivation of intelli$ence or free will& #nsanit) presupposes that the accused was completel) deprived of reason or discernment and freedom of will at the time of the commission of the crime& Onl) when there is a complete deprivation of intelli$ence at the time of the commission of the crime should the e9emptin$ circumstance of insanit) be considered&

(*) D"$)-M,'.&0 (d) P-/d.4$#.'1 (") C.+.# In'"-d.*'./n ()) F$0.#1 R"#$'./n& (4) A#."n$4" OLAGUER V PURUGGANAN (.225) (!) A9&"n*" Ola$uer e9ecuted an 8P- in 1959! appointin$ as his attorne)s6in6fact "ocsin! Aoa(uin and EofileSa for the purpose of sellin$ or transferrin$ his shares of stock with Gusinessda)& Ola$uer was later arrested for alle$edl) committin$ arson! and durin$ his detention! his shares of stock were transferred to "ocsin& Ola$uer claimed that the authorit) $ranted under the 8P- was e9ceeded! since the sale of his shares was limited to the followin$ conditions@ (1) in the event of the petitioner=s absence and incapacit)? and (.) for the limited purpose of appl)in$ the proceeds of the sale to the satisfaction of petitioner=s subsistin$ obli$ations with the companies adverted to in the 8P-& Ee sou$ht to impose a strict construction of the 8P- b) limitin$ the definition of the word 1absence1 to the one provided under 00781& efinin$ 1absence1 b) its ever)da) usa$e makes for a reasonable construction! that is! 1the state of not bein$ present1! $iven the conte9t that the 8P- authorizes the a$ents to attend stockholders= meetin$s and vote in behalf of Ola$uer! to sell the shares of stock! and other related acts& #t is a $eneral rule that a power of attorne) must be strictl) construed? the instrument will be held to $rant onl) those powers that are specified! and the a$ent ma) neither $o be)ond nor deviate from the power of attorne)& Eowever! the rule is not absolute and should not be applied to the e9tent of destro)in$ the ver) purpose of the power& #f the lan$ua$e will permit! the construction that should be adopted is that which will carr) out instead of defeat the purpose of the appointment& 0lauses in a power of attorne) that are repu$nant to each other should be reconciled so as to $ive effect to the instrument in accordance with its $eneral intent or predominant purpose& *he instrument should alwa)s be deemed to $ive such powers as essential or usual in effectuatin$ the e9press powers&

UMALE V AS3 REALTY (.211)

(!) In&/#+"n*1 $nd T-,&'""&!.2 -meth)st Pearl was wholl) owned b) -8G 'ealt)& *here is no provision in P 92.6- or in 'ule 59 of the 'ules of 0ourt that divests corporate officers of #n 199;! -meth)st Pearl e9ecuted a eed of their power to sue upon the appointment of a rehabilitation receiver& -ssi$nment in "i(uidation of a lot in favor of -8G! which $ot a *0* in its name& #n .227! -8G sued 8ection 13 ! 'ule 3 of the #nterim 'ules e9pressl) limits the receiver=s power b) providin$ that the rehabilitation Fmale for unlawful detainer! since the latter receiver does not take over the mana$ement and control of the corporation but shall closel) oversee and continued to occup) the lot despite the e9piration of monitor the operations of the debtor& >urther! the 8%0 'ules of Procedure on 0orporate 'ecover)! the rules the lease& applicable to the instant case! do not include amon$ the receiver=s powers the e9clusive ri$ht to file suits for the Fmale claimed he had a verbal contract of lease corporation& with -meth)st Pearl& Ee also (uestioned -8G=s personalit) to recover the propert) since -8G had 0orporations! such as -8G 'ealt)! are <uridical entities that e9ist b) operation of law& -s a creature of law! the been placed under receivership? a rehabilitation powers and attributes of a corporation are those set out! e9pressl) or impliedl)! in the law& -mon$ the $eneral receiver had been dul) appointed& powers $ranted b) law to a corporation is the power to sue in its own name& *his power is $ranted to a dul)6 or$anized corporation! unless specifically revoked b) another law& *he laws on corporate rehabilitation T particularl) P 92.6-! as amended! and its correspondin$ rules of procedure T do not forfeit the power to sue

from the corporate officers and Goard of irectors& 0orporate rehabilitation is defined as +the restoration of the debtor to a position of successful operation and solvenc)! if it is shown that its continuance of operation is economicall) feasible and its creditors can recover b) wa) of the present value of pa)ments pro<ected in the plan more if the corporation continues as a $oin$ concern than if it is immediatel) li(uidated&, *he intention of the P 92.6- is +to effect a feasible and viable rehabilitation b) preservin" a flounderin$ business as a "oin" concern! because the assets of a business are often more valuable w&en so $aintained than the) would be when li(uidated&, *his concept of preservin$ the corporation=s business as a $oin$ concern while it is under$oin$ rehabilitation is called debtor6in6possession or debtor6in6place& *his means that the debtor corporation! throu$h its Goard of irectors and corporate officers! remains in control of its business and properties, sub<ect onl) to the monitorin$ of the appointed rehabilitation receiver& (.) G"nd"A N$',-$# 2"-&/n& GELU@ V CA /ita :illanueva had three abortions done b) Geluz! in 1952! 1957 and 1955& Eer husband! who did not (19;1) know of this third abortion! sued Geluz for dama$es& *he '*0 $ranted dama$es based on 00..2;! which fi9ed a minimum award of PEP 7!222 for the death of a person& C/n'.n"n'$# S'""# +& M/n'$n/ (2007) Eortillano filed a claim for + eath and -ccident #nsurance for ependent, a$ainst his emplo)er 0ontinental 8teel based on the death of his unborn child that was prematurel) delivered b) his wife and which died durin$ labor& 0ontinental 8teel denied the claim& Eortillano ar$ued that the provisions of the collective bar$ainin$ a$reement between him and 0ontinental 8teel did not specificall) state that the dependent should have been born alive or must have ac(uired <uridical personalit) so that hisRher subse(uent death could be covered b) the 0G- death benefits& 0ontinental 8teel answered that the e9press provision of the 0G- did not contemplate the death of an unborn child! a fetus! without le$al personalit)& #t added that onl) one with le$al personalit) could die& *he Public 8ervice 0ommission issued a certificate of public convenience to the #ntestate %state of the deceased Pedro >ra$ante! authorizin$ the said intestate estate throu$h its 8pecial or Audicial -dministrator! appointed b) the proper court of competent <urisdiction! to maintain and operate an ice plant with a dail) productive capacit) of two and one6half (.61R.) tons in the 4unicipalit) of 8an Auan and to sell the ice produced from the said

*here is no basis for an award of dama$es& /o action for such dama$es could be instituted on behalf of the unborn child on account of the in<uries it received! and no such ri$ht of action could derivativel) accrue to its parents or heirs& %ven if a cause of action did accrue on behalf of the unborn child! the same was e9tin$uished b) its pre6 natal death! since no transmission to an)one can take place from on that lacked <uridical personalit)& 0032 doesn=t appl) to this case! because it e9pressl) limits such provisional personalit) b) imposin$ the condition that the child should be subse(uentl) born alive& #n the present case! there is no dispute that the child was dead when separated from its motherLs womb Dhile the 0ivil 0ode e9pressl) provides that civil personalit) ma) be e9tin$uished b) death! it does not e9plicitl) state that onl) those who have ac(uired <urisdical personalit) could die& .eat& has been defined as the cessation of life& "ife is not s)non)mous with civil personalit)& One need not ac(uire civil personalit) first before heRshe could die& %ven a child inside the womb alread) has life& /o less than the 0onstitution reco$nizes the #.)" /) '!" ,n9/-n )-/0 */n*"2'./n A that the 8tate must protect e(uall) with the life of the mother& #f the unborn alread) has life! then the cessation thereof even prior to the child bein$ delivered! (ualifies as deat&&

L.0;/*/ +& In'"&'$'" E&'$'" /) F-$4-$n'" (17B8)

*he estate of >ra$rante must be e9tended an artificial <udicial personalit)& #f >ra$rante had lived! in view of the evidence of record! would have obtained from the commission the certificate for which he was appl)in$& *he situation has not chan$ed e9cept for his death! and the economic abilit) of his estate to appropriatel) and ade(uatel) operate and maintain the service of an ice plant was the same that it received from the decedent himself& *he reason for this le$al fiction! that the estate of the deceased person is considered a 1person1! as deemed to include artificial or <uridical persons! is the avoidance of in<ustice or pre<udice resultin$ from the impossibilit) of e9ercisin$ such le$al ri$hts and fulfillin$ such le$al obli$ations of the decedent as survived after his death unless the fiction is indul$ed&

D,0#$/ +& C,$#.'1 P#$&'.*& (17>=)

E,4"n./ +& V"#"6 (1770)

:/$<,.n +& N$+$--/ (17D3)

plant in the 4unicipalities of 8an Auan! 4andalu)on$! 'izal! and Uuezon 0it)? that >ra$ante=s intestate estate is financiall) capable of maintainin$ the proposed service& Oria! after his death! was made one of the defendants in a civil case for foreclosure of bond& 8ome of his properties were also levied upon and sold b) the 8heriff& Oria died in 1958 while the summons was served on 19;2 upon 8oliven! who received it on behalf of his co6defendants (which includes Oria)& *he court! as well as respondent Uualit) Plastics! had no idea that Oria was alread) dead& #t was onl) until after <ud$ment when it was found out that Oria has lon$ been deceased& Eence! testamentar) heirs of Oria filed an action for the annulment of the <ud$ment a$ainst Oria and the e9ecution of his land& :italiana :ar$as= brothers and sisters! unaware of the former=s death on -u$ust .8! 1988 filed a petition for Eabeas 0orpus on 8eptember .5! 1988 before the '*0 of 4isamis Oriental alle$in$ that she was forcible taken from her residence sometime in 1985 and was confined b) petitioner *omas %u$enio in his residence in 4isamis Oriental& *he court then issued a writ of habeas corpus but petitioner refused to surrender :italiana=s bod) on the $round that a corpse cannot be sub<ected to habeas corpus proceedin$s& :italiana died of heart failure due to to9emia of pre$nanc) in %u$enio=s residence& *he court ordered that the bod) should be delivered to a funeral parlor for autops) but %u$enio assailed the lack of <urisdiction of the court& *his was a summar) proceedin$ to resolve the order of the deaths of Aoa(uin /avarro Ar& and his mother -n$ela& Dhile the battle for the liberation of 4anila was ra$in$! the whole famil) sou$ht refu$e at the German 0lub& Dhile sta)in$ there! it was set on fire and the Aapanese were shootin$ at the fleein$ refu$ees& 7 dau$hters were shot dead! -n$ela refused to leave the place while A/ Ar&! wife! >" N A/ 8r& fled& A/ Ar& was shot while comin$ out& 4oments later! the German 0lub collapsed& 0- said that the mother died before the son on the basis that she could have died immediatel) after for a variet) of causes&

/o <urisdiction was ac(uired over Oria! thus! the <ud$ment a$ainst him is a patent nullit)& "ower court=s <ud$ment a$ainst Oria is void for lack of <urisdiction over his person as far as Oria was concerned& Ee had no more civil personalit) and his <uridical capacit) which is the fitness to be the sub<ect of le$al relations was lost throu$h death&

Dhen the petition for &abeas corpus was filed before the lower court! it was not certain whether :italiana was dead or alive& Dhile &abeas corpus is a writ of ri$ht! it will not issue as a matter of course or as a mere perfimetor) operation on the filin$ of the petition& Audicial discretion is e9ercised in its issuance! and such facts must be made to appear to the <ud$e to whom the petition is presented as! in his <ud$ment! pri$a facie entitle the petitioner to the writ& *he court held that the custod) of the dead bod) of :italiana was correctl) awarded to the survivin$ brothers and sisters pursuant to 8ection 1127 of the 'evised -dministrative 0ode which provides@ +Persons char$ed with dut) of burial6 if the deceased was an unmarried man or woman or a child and left an) kin? the dut) of the burial shall devolve upon the nearest kin of the deceased&,

Gased on the available evidence! a fair inference can be arrived at that A/ Ar& died before his mother& *he presumption that -n$ela died before her son was based on speculations! not evidence& Gau$ed b) the doctrine of preponderance of evidence b) which civil cases are decided! this inference should prevail& %vidence of survivorship ma) be (1) direct (.) indirect (7) circumstantial or (3) inferential& -rt& 37 8peaks about resolvin$ doubt when . or more persons are called to succeed each other as to which of them died first& #n the 0ivil 0ode! in the absence of proof! it is presumed that the) died at the same time! and there shall be no transmission of ri$hts from one to another& #n the 'ules of 0ourt! in cases of calamit)! there is a hierarch) of survivorship&

3 :,-.d.*$# 2"-&/n& "E*#,d"d )-/0 3$- */+"-$4" 3$-#.n + R$0.-"6 Post68panish era! the town of "a$ono)! -mbos (170=) 0amarines decided to sever ties with the Pope

*he 'oman 0atholic 0hurch owns the properties! b) the ro)al order of the 8panish $overnment&

when the) read in the papers that the Pope refused to reco$nize the ri$hts of >ilipino cler$)& Parish priest :icente 'amirez refused to turn over the church! the convent! and other properties when /ueva 0aceras diocese head Aor$e Garlin ordered his replacement with -$ripino Pisino& 'amirez wanted to transfer alle$iance to the >ilipino #ndependent 0hurch! unless the Pope reco$nized the ri$hts of >ilipino cler$)& Garlin sued 'amirez for the reconve)ance of the properties& *he municipalit) intervened! claimin$ that the) were the real owners of the propert)& II C.'.6"n&!.2 $nd D/0.*.#" R/0,$#d"6#melda 4arcos filed her candidac) for M$-*/& + con$ressman of the first district of "e)te! statin$ in COMELEC the application that she had been a resident for seven months& Eer rivals contested that she failed (177D) the re(uirements! whereupon she tried to chan$e start of her residenc) to +since childhood,& *he 0O4%"%0 main office dis(ualified #melda& 8he appealed! sa)in$ that this was an +honest misinterpretation or honest mistake,! as she had thou$ht that (uestion referred to *olosa! outside of the first district! rather than in *acloban 0it)! where she was born& #melda appealed to the 80& S$#,d/ + AMEF -niceto 8aludo filed a complaint for dama$es a$ainst -4%V in the '*0 of 4aasin! "e)te! for (200=) dishonor of his credit card several times abroad& -lle$edl)! -4%V cancelled his account for default in pa)ment& #n its answer! -4%V raised the affirmative defense of improper venue because 8aludo was not a resident of "e)te& *he communit) certificate he presented was from Pasa) 0it)& *he 0ourt of -ppeals held that venue was improperl) laid& 8aludo appealed to the 80& V.#$nd/ + HRET Aocel)n "imkaichon$ won and was proclaimed con$ressman of the first district of /e$ros Oriental& (2011) :ilando et al filed a (uo warranto case a$ainst her for bein$ a 0hinese citizen (her father was a 0hinaman)& E'%* dismissed the complaint& R"2,9#.* + S$4,n (F"9-$,-1 1D, 2012) /ora 8a$un was born to a 0hinese father and a >ilipino mother! and under the 1975 0onstitution& 8he was denied a >ilipino passport because it was alle$ed she was 0hinese& *he '*0 $ranted her petition to be declared >ilipino (b) election under the old 0onstitution)! but the O8G appealed to the 80&

*he '0 0hurch as well as municipalities as <uridical entities can own propert)! as lon$ as the) can show some semblance of ri$ht to the e9clusive possession and control of the same& #n this case! the municipalit)& %ven thou$h it was the $overnment which caused the construction and ac(uisition of the properties! this was for the en<o)ment and use of the 0hurch! and lar$el) funded b) tithes&

#melda retained her domicile in the first district of "e)te! even has she took on several residences due to necessit) such as marria$e& omicile and residenc) ma) be distin$uished accordin$ to intent Pin this case! to return! or animus revertendiQ& Persons ac(uire residenc) b) birth! for political purposes! and should be deemed to continue unless 1& -n actual removal or an actual chan$e of domicile? .& - bona fide intention of abandonin$ the former place of residence and establishin$ a new one? and 7& -cts which correspond with the purpose& 4arria$e ma) compel such actual chan$e of residenc)! but it was stated that a married woman automaticall) reverts to her residence of birth when her husband dies& 8aludo was a resident of the "e)te! b) virtue of his bein$ a representative in the lower house& *he matter of residence can be taken b) <udicial notice&! because it was common knowled$e he was an elected official from there -lso! he ma) have man) residences for man) purposes! but one domicile onl) for a specific purpose&

"imkaichon$ is not dis(ualified as a member of the Eouse? and an)wa) the E'%*=s decisions are be)ond <udicial interference unless the decisions are arbitrar) or improvident& "imkaichon$ was born under the 1975 0onstitution! and thus she can ac(uire the >ilipino citizenship of her mother b) choice (one of the modes & %ven if her mother $ot an -lien 0ertificate of 'e$istration! it did not constitute forfeiture of citizenship& 8a$un cannot be declared a >ilipino citizen for failure to compl) with procedural re(uirements for valid and effective election of >ilipino citizenship& 8he had not e9ecuted a sworn statement of her election of Philippine citizenship& *he onl) documentar) evidence submitted b) respondent in support of her claim of alle$ed election was her oath of alle$iance! e9ecuted 1. )ears after she reached the a$e of ma<orit)! which was unre$istered& 4ore so! e9ecution was not within a reasonable time after respondent attained the a$e of ma<orit) and not re$istered with the nearest civil re$istr) as re(uired under 8ection 1 of 0&-& /o& ;.5&

+'easonable time, had earlier been interpreted as within three (7) )ears from reachin$ the a$e of ma<orit)& III S,-n$0"& Y$&.n + H/n :,d4" S!$-.G$ C/,-' (1995)

Eatima 0& Oasin! a divorcee! filed a summar) case to resume the use of her maiden name& *he 8hari=a court denied this! holdin$ that she needed to $o throu$h a <udicial process under 'ule 127 of the 'ules of 0ourt for a chan$e of name&

'ule 127 of the 'ules of 0ourt finds no application to the ri$ht of a divorced female to reuse her maiden name and surname& - woman marr)in$ a man is not re(uired to seek <udicial authorit) to use her husband=s name& #n the same wa)! when the marria$e ties no lon$er e9ists! in case of death or divorce! as authorized in the 4uslim 0ode! the widowRdivorcee need not seek <udicial confirmation of the chan$e in her civil status in order to reuse her maiden name& %ven under the 0ivil 0ode! the use of the husband=s surname durin$ the marria$e (-rt& 752)! after annulment of the marria$e (-rt 751)! and after the death of the husband (-rt& 757)! is permissive and not obli$ator)! e9cept in the case of le$al separation (-rt& 75.)& 8tephanie is allowed the use of both her parents= names& One of the effects of adoption is that the adopted is deemed to be a le$itimate child of the adapter for all intents and purposes pursuant to -rticle 189 of the >amil) 0ode and 8ection 15 of -rticle : of '- 8555& Gein$ a le$itimate b) virtue of her adoption! it follows that 8tephanie is entitled to all the ri$hts provided b) law to a le$itimate child without discrimination of an) kind! includin$ the ri$ht to bear the surname of her father and her mother& *his is consistent with the intention of the members of the 0ivil 0ode and >amil) "aw 0ommittees& #n fact! it is a >ilipino custom that the initial or surname of the mother should immediatel) precede the surname of the father&

In -" Ad/2'./n /) S'"2!$n." N$'!1 A&'/-4$ G$-*.$ (.225)

D$2$3.$&*$n (.223)

Eonorato G& 0atindi$ filed a petition to adopt his minor ille$itimate child 8tephanie -stor$a Garcia& Ee averred that 8tephanie was born on Aune .;! 1993? that 8tephanie had been usin$ her mother=s middle name and surname? and that he is now a widower and (ualified to be her adoptin$ parent& Ee pra)ed that 8tephanie=s middle name be chan$ed to Garcia! her mother=s surname! and that her surname +Garcia, be chan$ed to +0atindi$, his surname& *he '*0 $ranted the petition for adoption! and ordered that pursuant to article 189 of the >amil) 0ode! the minor shall be known as 8tephanie /ath) 0atindi$& Eonorato filed a motion for classification andRor reconsideration pra)in$ that 8tephanie be allowed to use the surname of her natural mother (Garcia) as her middle name& *he lower court denied petitioner=s motion for reconsideration holdin$ that there is no law or <urisprudence allowin$ an adopted child to use the surname of his biolo$ical mother as his middle name& Gloria "& Giascan! married to 4ario Giascan! sued Henaida apar Giascan! alle$in$! amon$ others! that Henaida=s use of the surname +Giascan, is a usurpation of surname under -rticle 755 of the 0ivil 0ode& Henaida was 4ario=s lover durin$ the latter=s sta) as a contract worker in 8audi -rabia subse(uent to his marria$e to Gloria&

Gloria is not entitled to dama$es for usurpation of surname under -rticle 755 of the 0ivil 0ode& *he usurpation of name under -rticle 755 of the 0ivil 0ode37 implies some in<ur) to the interests of the owner of the name& #t consists in the possibilit) of confusion of identit) between the owner and the usurper! and e9ists when a person desi$nates himself b) another name& *he elements are as follows@ (1) there is an actual use of another=s name b) the defendant? (.) the use is unauthorized? and (7) the use of another=s name is to desi$nate personalit) or identif) a person& /one of the fore$oin$ e9ist in the case at bar& 'espondent Gloria Giascan did not claim that the petitioner ever attempted to impersonate her& #n fact! the trial court found that respondent 4ario Giascan allowed the petitioner to use his surname& Once a married woman opted to adopt her husband=s surname in her passport! she ma) not revert to the use of her maiden name! e9cept in the cases enumerated in 8ection 5(d) of '- 8.79& #n the case of renewal of passport! a married woman ma) either adopt her husband=s surname or continuousl) use her maiden name& #f she chooses to adopt her husband=s surname in her new

R"0/ + S"*-"'$-1 /) F/-".4n A))$.-& (.212)

Prior to the e9pir) of the validit) of her passport! 4aria :ir$ina :& 'emo! a >ilipino citizen whose marria$e still subsists! applied for the renewal of her passport with a re(uest to revert to her maiden name and surname in the replacement passport&

passport! the >- additionall) re(uires the submission of an authenticated cop) of the marria$e certificate& Otherwise! if she prefers to continue usin$ her maiden name! she ma) still do so& *he >- will not prohibit her from continuousl) usin$ her maiden name& *he cases enumerated in 8ection 5(d) of '- 8.79 are@ (1) death of husband! (.) divorce! (7) annulment! or (3) nullit) of marria$e& 8ince petitioner=s marria$e to her husband subsists! she ma) not resume her maiden name in the replacement passport& Otherwise stated! a married woman=s reversion to the use of her maiden name must be based onl) on the severance of the marria$e& %ven assumin$ '- 8.79 conflicts with the 0ivil 0ode! the provisions of '- 8.79 which is a special law specificall) dealin$ with passport issuance must prevail over the provisions of *itle V### of the 0ivil 0ode which is the $eneral law on the use of surnames& IV E0$n*.2$'./n V R,#"& G/+"-n.n4 P"-&/n& %!/ $-" A9&"n' R"1"& + %rlinda 'e)noso 'e)es sou$ht in a petition before A#";$nd-/ the 0avite 0># to declare her husband 'oberto "& 'e)es an absentee& 'oberto had left the con<u$al (198;) home in 19;. and has not been heard from since& 8he also alle$ed that 'oberto did not leave an) wills nor an) propert) in his name nor debts& *he lower court dismissed the petition& EASTERN SHIPPING V LUCERO (.228) Dife of the captain of the +lost, vessel refused to receive the death benefits because she still claimed the salar) due her husband until the ship reached 4anila! since accordin$ to her! the contract of her husband was a vo)a$e6to6vo)a$e contract which will terminate upon the vessel=s arrival in 4anila& 8he claims that her husband can=t be presumed dead since 3 )ears hasn=t elapsed )et& Gut the 0ompan) maintained that she was no lon$er entitled to such allotments becaus the "lo)ds of "ondon had alread) confirmed the total loss of the vessel and had in fact settled the compan)Ls insurance claim& EDUARDO MANUEL PEOPLE V 4anuel is char$ed with bi$am) for contractin$ a second marria$e& Ee claims that he hasn=t seen his first wife for .2 )ears after she was imprisoned thus believin$ that he is free to marr) because his wife is presumed dead& Ee relied on -rt& 792& +-fter an absence of seven )ears! it bein$ unknown whether or not! the absentee still lives! he shall be presumed dead for all purposes! e9cept for those of succession&, Audicial declaration of presumptive death of the absentee must first be secured for someone to be able to marr) a$ain and avoid bein$ char$ed for bi$am)& #t was the burden of the petitioner to prove his defense that when he married a$ain! he was of the well6$rounded belief that his first wife was alread) dead! as he had not heard from her for more than .2 )ears since 1955& Ee should have adduced in evidence a decision of a competent court declarin$ the presumptive death of his first wife as re(uired b) -rticle 739 of the 'evised Penal 0ode! in relation to -rticle 31 of the >amil) 0ode& Dith the effectivit) of the >amil) 0ode! the period of seven )ears under the first para$raph of -rticle 792 of the 0ivil 0ode was reduced to four consecutive )ears& *hus! before the spouse present ma) #t is not necessar) to have 'oberto "& 'e)es declared an absentee in this case& *he need to have a person <udiciall) declared an absentee is when he has properties which have to be taken cared of or administered b) a representative appointed b) the 0ourt (-rticle 783! 0ivil 0ode)? the spouse of the absentee is askin$ for separation of propert) (-rticle 191! 0ivil 0ode) or his wife is askin$ the 0ourt that the administration of all classes of propert) in the marria$e be transferred to her (-rticle 19;! 0ivil 0ode)& *he petition to declare the husband an absentee and the petition to place the mana$ement of the con<u$al properties in the hands of the wife ma) be combined and ad<udicated in the same proceedin$s (Pe)er vs& 4artinez! 88 Phil& 5.! 82)& *he presumption of death under -rticle 791 (1) (unheard of for 3 )ears) must )ield to the rule of preponderance of evidence& *here is thus enou$h evidence (messa$es from the captain that the vessel is in dan$er of sinkin$ because of the bad weather and that the) need immediate assistance) to show the circumstances attendin$ the loss and disappearance of the vessel and its crew& *he fore$oin$ facts! (uite lo$icall) and are sufficient to lead the court to a moral certaint) that the vessel had sunk and that the persons aboard had perished with it&

(.225)

contract a subse(uent marria$e! he or she must institute summar) proceedin$s for the declaration of the presumptive death of the absentee spouse! without pre<udice to the effect of the reappearance of the absentee spouse& *he followin$ conditions must be fulfilled@ (a) *he prior spouse of the contractin$ part) must have been absent for four consecutive )ears! or two )ears where there is dan$er of death under the circumstances stated in -rticle 791 of the 0ivil 0ode at the time of disappearance? (b) the spouse present has a well6founded belief that the absent spouse is alread) dead? and (c) there is! unlike the old rule! a <udicial declaration of presumptive death of the absentee for which purpose the spouse present can institute a summar) proceedin$ in court to ask for that declaration& PANTOLLANO V 5ORPHIL (.211) 1993 6 Pantollano went missin$ while on dut) as en$ineer of the vessel& #n .221! when his wife claimed death benefits! the 0ompan) ar$ued that he committed suicide and was thus not covered b) the death benefits& Ee was last seen to be deep in thou$ht and talkin$ to himself& 0- ruled that #melda should have filed her claim within 7 )ears from the time her husband disappeared& *he heirs of a missin$ seaman ma) file their claim for death compensation benefits within the 76)ear period fi9ed b) law from the time the seaman has been presumed dead #melda Ls cause of action accrued onl) on -u$ust .!1998 and not on -u$ust .! 1993 (when her husband disappeared)& On -u$ust .! 1993! it cannot as )et be presumed that :edasto is alread) dead& *he boat was not lost& *his opens up a number of possibilities& - person missin$ under the circumstances as those of :edasto ma) not le$all) be considered as dead until the lapse of the period fi9ed b) law on presumption of death! and conse(uentl) #melda cannot )et be considered as a widow entitled to compensation under the law& -rticle 791@ P'%8F4% %- 6 (1) - person on board a vessel lost durin$ a sea vo)a$e! or an aeroplane which is missin$! who has not been heard of for four )ears since the loss of the vessel or aeroplane?

VI F,n"-$#& VII En'-."& .n '!" C.+.# R"4.&'":ENIE SAN .225 6 Dhen Aenie applied for re$istration of her :UAN DELA child=s birth (child with omini(ue! her live6in6 CRU@ V partner)! she sou$ht to use the famil) name of RONALD omini(ue& 8he attached the +-ffidavit to Fse the GARCIA 8urname of the >ather W -ffidavit of -cknowled$ement e9ecuted b) omini(ue=s father (.229) that he was an acknowled$ed ille$itimate child& 8he also submitted the +autobio$raph), written b) omini(ue acknowled$in$ that Aenie was pre$nant with his child& Eer re$istration was denied! +the child cannot use the surname of his father because he was born out of wedlock and the father unfortunatel) died prior to his birth and has no more capacit) to acknowled$e his paternit) to the child (either throu$h the back of 4unicipal >orm /o& 12.), 15.&.@ -n admission of le$itimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and si$ned b) the parent concerned& 8pecial circumstances e9ist to hold that omini(ue=s -utobio$raph)! thou$h unsi$ned b) him! substantiall) satisfies the re(uirement of the law& >irst! omini(ue died about two months prior to the child=s birth& 8econd! the relevant matters in the -utobio$raph)! un(uestionabl) handwritten b) omini(ue! correspond to the facts culled from the testimonial evidence Aenie proffered& *hird! Aenie=s testimon) is corroborated b) the -ffidavit of -cknowled$ment of omini(ue=s father omin$o -(uino and testimon) of his brother Aoseph Gutch -(uino whose hereditar) ri$hts could be affected b) the re$istration of the (uestioned reco$nition of the child& *hese circumstances indicatin$ omini(ue=s paternit) of the child $ive life to his statements in his -utobio$raph)

MA CRISTINA TORRES 3RA@A + THE CITY CIVIL REGISTRAR

>irst wife (4a& 0ristina) filed a complaint for correction of entries of a certain Patrick=s birth certificate alle$in$ that Patrick can=t use the name of his father (4a& 0ristina=s husband) because he was an ille$itimate and unacknowled$ed child& Eis status wasn=t le$itimated even thou$h there was a

#n a special proceedin$ for correction of entr) under 'ule 128 (0ancellation or 0orrection of %ntries in the Ori$inal 'e$istr))! the trial court has no <urisdiction to nullif) marria$es and rule on le$itimac) and filiation& 'ule 128 of the 'ules of 0ourt vis a vis -rticle 31. of the 0ivil 0ode charts the procedure b) which an entr) in the civil re$istr) ma) be cancelled or corrected& *he proceedin$ contemplated therein

(.229)

+marria$e, between 4a& 0ristina=s husband and Patrick=s mother because this marria$e was void as 4a& 0ristina was still le$all) married to her husband&

ma) $enerall) be used onl) to correct clerical! spellin$! t)po$raphical and other innocuous errors in the civil re$istr)& - clerical error is one which is visible to the e)es or obvious to the understandin$? an error made b) a clerk or a transcriber? a mistake in cop)in$ or writin$! or a harmless chan$e such as a correction of name that is clearl) misspelled or of a misstatement of the occupation of the parent& 8ubstantial or contentious alterations ma) be allowed onl) in adversarial proceedin$s! in which all interested parties are impleaded and due process is properl) observed& *he alle$ations of the petition filed before the trial court clearl) show that petitioners seek to nullif) the marria$e between 4a& 0ristina=s husband and Patrick=s mother on the $round that it is bi$amous and impu$n Patrick=s filiation in connection with which the) ask the court to order Patrick to be sub<ected to a /- test& Petition was denied as opposition was filed out of time& 8ince 'e)naldo was born on 72 October 1938! the late re$istration of his birth is outside of the covera$e of P& & /o& ;51! as amended& *he late re$istration of 'e)naldo=s birth falls under -ct /o& 7557! otherwise known as the 0ivil 'e$istr) "aw! which took effect on .5 >ebruar) 1971& -s a $eneral law! -ct /o& 7557 applies to the re$istration of all births! not otherwise covered b) P& & /o& ;51! as amended! occurrin$ from .5 >ebruar) 1971 onwards& 0onsiderin$ that the late re$istration of 'e)naldo=s birth took place in 1985! /ational 0ensus 8tatistics Office (/08O) -dministrative Order /o& 1! 8eries of 1987 $overns the implementation of -ct /o& 7557 in this case& Fnder /08O -&O& /o& 1687! the birth of a child shall be re$istered in the office of the local civil re$istrar within 72 da)s from the time of birth& -n) report of birth made be)ond the re$lementar) period is considered dela)ed& *he local civil re$istrar! upon receivin$ an application for dela)ed re$istration of birth! is re(uired to publicl) post for at least ten da)s a notice of the pendin$ application for dela)ed re$istration& #f after ten da)s no one opposes the re$istration and the local civil re$istrar is convinced be)ond doubt that the birth should be re$istered! he should re$ister the same& 'e)naldo=s certificate of live birth! as a dul) re$istered public document! is presumed to have $one throu$h the process prescribed b) law for late re$istration of birth& #t was onl) on 8 4arch 1995! after the lapse of ten lon$ )ears from the approval on 11 >ebruar) 1985 of the application for dela)ed re$istration of 'e)naldo=s birth! that /ieves re$istered her opposition& 8he should have done so within the ten6da) period prescribed b) law& 'ecords show that no less than /ieves herself informed the local civil re$istrar of the birth of 'e)naldo& -t the time of her application for dela)ed re$istration of birth! /ieves claimed that 'e)naldo was her son& Getween the facts stated in a dul) re$istered public document and the flip6floppin$ statements of /ieves! we are more inclined to stand b) the former& -pplications for dela)ed re$istration of birth $o throu$h a ri$orous process& *he books makin$ up the civil re$ister are considered public documents and are prima facie evidence of the truth of the facts stated there& -s a public document! a re$istered certificate of live birth en<o)s the presumption of validit)& #t is not for 'e)naldo to prove the facts stated in his certificate of live birth! but for petitioners who are assailin$ the certificate to prove its alle$ed falsit)& Petitioners miserabl) failed to do so& *hus! the trial court and the 0ourt of -ppeals correctl) denied for lack of merit the petition to cancel the late re$istration of 'e)naldo=s birth& '*0 correctl) ruled that the case falls under 'ule 128 as it simpl) sou$ht a correction of a misspelled $iven name& *o correct simpl) means +to make or set ari$ht? to remove the faults or error from&, *o chan$e means +to replace somethin$ with somethin$ else of the same kind or with somethin$ that serves as a substitute&,

3$#d/& + CA (.212)

'e)naldo Pillazar! alias 'e)naldo Galdos! was born on 72 October 1938& Eowever! his birth was not re$istered in the office of the local civil re$istrar until rou$hl) 7; )ears later or on 11 >ebruar) 1985& Eis certificate of live birth indicated /ieves Galdos as his mother and Gartolome Galdos as his father& /ieves Galdos also appeared as the informant on the certificate of live birth& On 8 4arch 1995! /ieves Galdos filed in the 'e$ional *rial 0ourt a complaint for cancellation of the late re$istration of 'e)naldo=s birth& 8he claimed that 'e)naldo was not reall) her son& Petitioners insist that the late re$istration of 'e)naldo=s birth is not authorized b) P& & /o& ;51& *he) claim that P& & /o& ;51 applies onl) to births within the period from 1 Aanuar) 1953 up to the date when the decree became effective& *he) point out that 'e)naldo was born on 72 October 1938! outside of the period covered b) the decree& Petitioners contend the late re$istration of 'e)naldo=s birth amounts to simulation of birth&

R"2,9#.* M"-*$d"-$ (.212)

On Aune ;! .225! 4erl)n 4ercadera (4ercadera) sou$ht the correction of her $iven name as it appeared in her 0ertificate of "ive Girth 6 from 4aril)n "& 4ercadera to 4erl)n "& 4ercadera before the Office of the "ocal 0ivil 'e$istrar of

ipolo$ 0it) pursuant to 'epublic -ct /o& 9238 ('&-& /o& 9238)& Fnder '&-& /o& 9238! the cit) or municipal civil re$istrar or consul $eneral! as the case ma) be! is now authorized to effect the chan$e of first name or nickname and the correction of clerical or t)po$raphical errors in civil re$istr) entries& +Fnder said law! <urisdiction over applications for chan$e of first name is now primaril) lod$ed with administrative officers& *he law now e9cludes the chan$e of first name from the covera$e of 'ules 127 until and unless an administrative petition for chan$e of name is first filed and subse(uentl) denied, and removes +correction or chan$in$ of clerical errors in entries of the civil re$ister from the ambit of 'ule 128&, Eence! what is left for the scope of operation of the rules are substantial chan$es and corrections in entries of the civil re$ister& *he Office of the "ocal 0ivil 'e$istrar of ipolo$ 0it)! however! refused to effect the correction unless a court order was obtained +because the 0ivil 'e$istrar therein is not )et e(uipped with a permanent appointment before he can validl) act on petitions for corrections filed before their office as mandated b) 'epublic -ct 9238&, 4ercadera was then constrained to file a Petition /or Correction of So$e Entries as (ppearin" in t&e Certificate of Live irt& under 'ule 128 before the 'e$ional *rial 0ourt of ipolo$ 0it) %RTC'. '*0 $ranted the petition& O8G interposed an appeal pra)in$ for the reversal and settin$ aside of the '*0 decision& >or the O8G! the correction in the spellin$ of 4ercadera=s $iven name mi$ht seem innocuous enou$h to $rant but +it is in truth a material correction as it would modif) or increase substantive ri$hts&, Dhat the lower court actuall) allowed was a chan$e of 4ercadera=s $iven name! which would have been proper had she filed a petition under 'ule 127 and proved an) of the $rounds therefor&

'ule 127 procedurall) $overns <udicial petitions for chan$e of $iven name or surname! or both! pursuant to -rticle 75; of the 0ivil 0ode& *his rule provides the procedure for an independent special proceedin$ in court to establish the status of a person involvin$ his relations with others! that is! his le$al position in! or with re$ard to! the rest of the communit)& #n petitions for chan$e of name! a person avails of a remed) to alter the +desi$nation b) which he is known and called in the communit) in which he lives and is best known&, Dhen $ranted! a person=s identit) and interactions are affected as he bears a new +label or appellation for the convenience of the world at lar$e in addressin$ him! or in speakin$ of! or dealin$ with him&, Audicial permission for a chan$e of name aims to prevent fraud and to ensure a record of the chan$e b) virtue of a court decree& *he proceedin$ under 'ule 127 is also an action in re$ which re(uires publication of the order issued b) the court to afford the 8tate and all other interested parties to oppose the petition& Dhen complied with! the decision binds not onl) the parties impleaded but the whole world& -s notice to all! publication serves to indefinitel) bar all who mi$ht make an ob<ection& +#t is the publication of such notice that brin$s in the whole world as a part) in the case and vests the court with <urisdiction to hear and decide it&, %ssentiall)! a chan$e of name does not define or effect a chan$e of one=s e9istin$ famil) relations or in the ri$hts and duties flowin$ therefrom& #t does not alter one=s le$al capacit) or civil status& 'ule 128! on the other hand! implements <udicial proceedin$s for the correction or cancellation of entries in the civil re$istr) pursuant to -rticle 31. of the 0ivil 0ode& %ntries in the civil re$ister refer to +acts! events and <udicial decrees concernin$ the civil status of persons!, also as enumerated in -rticle 328 of the same law& Gefore! onl) mistakes or errors of a harmless and innocuous nature in the entries in the civil re$istr) ma) be corrected under 'ule 128 and substantial errors affectin$ the civil status! citizenship or nationalit) of a part) are be)ond the ambit of the rule& -rticle 31.! which 'ule 128 implements! contemplates all kinds of issues and all t)pes of procedures because +the provision does not sa) that it applies onl) to non6controversial issues and that the procedure to be used is summar) in nature&, +#f the purpose of the petition is merel) to correct the clerical errors which are visible to the e)e or obvious to the understandin$! the court ma)! under a summar) procedure! issue an order for the correction of a mistake& Eowever! as repeatedl) construed, c&an"es w&ic& $ay affect t&e civil status fro$ le"iti$ate to ille"iti$ate- as well as sex- are substantial and controversial alterations which can onl) be allowed after appropriate adversar) proceedin$s dependin$ upon the nature of the issues involved& C&an"es w&ic& affect t&e civil status or citi)ens&ip of a party are substantial in c&aracter and should be threshed out in a proper action dependin$ upon the nature of the issues in controvers)! and wherein all the parties who ma) be affected b) the entries are notified or represented and evidence is submitted to prove the alle$ations of the complaint! and proof to the contrar) admitted 9 9 9&, +Dhere such a chan$e is ordered! the 0ourt will not be establishin$ a substantive ri$ht but onl) correctin$ or rectif)in$ an erroneous entr) in the civil re$istr) as authorized b) law& #n short! 'ule 128 of the 'ules of 0ourt provides onl) the procedure or mechanism for the proper enforcement of the substantive law embodied in -rticle 31. of the 0ivil 0ode and so does not violate the 0onstitution&, *he +chan$e of name, contemplated under -rticle 75; and 'ule 127 must not be confused with -rticle 31. and 'ule 128& - chan$e of one=s name under 'ule 127 can be $ranted! onl) on $rounds provided b) law& #n order to <ustif) a re(uest for chan$e of name! there must be a proper and compellin$ reason for the chan$e and proof that the person re(uestin$ will be pre<udiced b) the use of his official name& *o assess the sufficienc) of the $rounds invoked therefor! there must be adversarial proceedin$s&

R"2,9#.* M$42$1/ (.211)

Aulian %dward %merson 0oseten$ 4a$pa)o (respondent) is the son of >ulvio 4& 4a$pa)o Ar& and -nna omini(ue 4ar(uez6"im 0oseten$ who! as respondent=s certificate of live birth shows& 0laimin$! however! that his parents were never le$all) married! respondent filed on Aul) ..! .228 at the 'e$ional *rial 0ourt ('*0) of Uuezon 0it) a Petition to chan$e his name to Aulian %dward %merson 4ar(uez "im 0oseten$& #n support of his petition! respondent submitted a certification from the /ational 8tatistics Office statin$ that his mother -nna omini(ue +does not appear in PitsQ /ational #ndices of 4arria$e&, 'espondent also submitted his academic records from elementar) up to colle$e showin$ that he carried the surname +0oseten$!, and the birth certificate of his child where +0oseten$, appears as his surname& #n the 1998! .221 and .223 %lections! respondent ran and was elected as 0ouncilor of Uuezon 0it)=s 7rd istrict usin$ the name +AF"#-/ 4&"& 0O8%*%/G&, *he 'epublic contends that the deletion of the entr) on the date and place of marria$e of respondent=s parents from his birth certificate has the effect of chan$in$ his civil status from le$itimate to ille$itimate! hence! an) chan$e in civil status of a person must be effected throu$h an appropriate adversar) proceedin$& 'espondent counters that the proceedin$ before the trial court was adversarial in nature& 8it) -isa Garan$ai 4olok (respondent) and 0ol& -$akhan 4& 4olok contracted marria$e& *he marria$e was re$istered at the "ocal 0ivil 'e$istrar of avao 0it)& -$akhan 4olok! then a member of the Philippine -rm)! died in General 8antos 0it)& Dhen respondent went to the Philippine -rm) office to claim the death benefits of her late husband! she discovered that there was another claimant! 'osemarie 8alma -ra$oncillo64olok (petitioner)! a resident of Poblacion! Pikit!

#n petitions for correction! onl) clerical! spellin$! t)po$raphical and other innocuous errors in the civil re$istr) ma) be raised& 0onsiderin$ that the enumeration in 8ection .! 'ule 128 also includes +chan$es of name!, the correction of a patentl) misspelled name is covered b) 'ule 128& 8uffice it to sa)! not all alterations allowed in one=s name are confined under 'ule 127& 0orrections for clerical errors ma) be set ri$ht under 'ule 128& 0han$e of name was not allowed& *he chan$e bein$ sou$ht in respondent=s petition $oes so far as to affect his le"al status in relation to &is parents. #t seeks to chan$e his le$itimac) to that of ille$itimac)& 'ule 127 then would not suffice to $rant respondent=s supplication& - person can effect a chan$e of name under 'ule 127 (0E-/G% O> /-4%) usin$ valid and meritorious $rounds includin$ (a) when the name is ridiculous! dishonorable or e9tremel) difficult to write or pronounce? (b) when the chan$e results as a le$al conse(uence such as le$itimation? (c) when the chan$e will avoid confusion? (d) when one has continuousl) used and been known since childhood b) a >ilipino name! and was unaware of alien parenta$e? (e) a sincere desire to adopt a >ilipino name to erase si$ns of former aliena$e! all in $ood faith and without pre<udicin$ an)bod)? and (f) when the surname causes embarrassment and there is no showin$ that the desired chan$e of name was for a fraudulent purpose or that the chan$e of name would pre<udice public interest& 'espondent=s reason for chan$in$ his name cannot be considered as one of! or analo$ous to! reco$nized $rounds! however& Republic v. Labrador mandates that +a petition for a &,9&'$n'.$# correction or chan$e of entries in the civil re$istr) should have as respondents the civil re$istrar! as well as all ot&er persons w&o &ave or clai$ to &ave any interest t&at would be affected t&ereby&, #t cannot be $ainsaid that chan$e of &'$',& /) $ *!.#d .n -"#$'./n '/ !.& 2$-"n'& is a substantial correction or chan$e of entr) in the civil re$istr)&

M/#/( + M/#/( (.211)

*he 0ourt finds that petitioner was indeed denied her ri$ht to due process& Petitioner was merel) notified of the hearin$ of respondent=s petition on 4arch .8! .225 b) Order of Aanuar) .3! .225& /either respondent nor the trial court furnished petitioner with a cop) of respondent=s petition and its anne9es! despite her plea therefor& #ndeed! when the trial court i$nored her plea! throu$h her +4anifestation (Dith pra)er for reconsideration of the Aanuar) .P3Q! .225 Order), dated 4arch 1;! .225! that she be furnished with a cop) of respondent=s petition and its anne9es so that she could file her opposition thereto! petitioner was denied her da) in court& Dh) petitioner=s plea was unheeded! no reason was proffered b) the trial court& #t need not be underlined that her plea was meritorious! $iven the adversarial nature of

0otabato! who declared herself as the wife of -$akhan 4olok b) virtue of a 0ertificate of 4arria$e e9ecuted in 4etro 4anila& Fpon in(uir)! respondent found out that there was no record of the second marria$e& 8he also discovered that the solemnizin$ officer! Fstadz 4oha6imen Flama! never solemnized the supposed marria$e of petitioner and -$akhan 4olok& 'espondent thus filed on October 15! .223 a verified petition +for cancellation of re$istration of the alle$ed marria$e, of petitioner and -$akhan 4olok& G) ecision of Aune .8! .225! the trial court found for respondent& #t noted that petitioner +has not filed an) formal opposition, to petitioner=s petition& Eence! this direct recourse to this 0ourt via petition for review on certiorari! contendin$ that! amon$ other thin$s! the trial court! in renderin$ its decision solel) on the basis of respondent=s petition! violated her constitutional ri$ht to due process& FAMILY RELATIONS I M$--.$4" E&'-$d$ E&*-.'/(.227) + 0omplainant re(uested for an investi$ation of rumors that respondent 8oledad %scritor! court interpreter in said court! is livin$ with a man not her husband& *he) alle$edl) have a child of ei$hteen to twent) )ears old& Ee filed the char$e a$ainst %scritor as he believes that she is committin$ an immoral act that tarnishes the ima$e of the court! thus she should not be allowed to remain emplo)ed therein as it mi$ht appear that the court condones her act& 'espondent %scritor testified that when she entered the <udiciar) in 1999! she was alread) a widow! her husband havin$ died in 1998& 8he admitted that she has been livin$ with "uciano Uuilapio! Ar& without the benefit of marria$e for twent) )ears and that the) have a son& Gut as a member of the reli$ious sect known as the Aehovah=s Ditnesses and the Datch *ower and Gible *ract 8ociet)! their con<u$al arran$ement is in conformit) with their reli$ious beliefs& #n fact!

the proceedin$s under 'ule 128& #n raisin$ the issue of denial of due process in petitioner=s motion for reconsideration of the decision! the trial court! b) Order of Aul) .5! .225! did not specificall) address the same& Oddl)! said Order was issued on 0uly 12- 1++2- when petitioner=s motion for reconsideration was set for hearin$ )et on Septe$ber *- 1++2! albeit no hearin$ was held since? as stated earlier! it was a non6workin$ 4uslim holida)! and despite the 0lerk of 0ourt=s assurance that petitioner would be advised of the date of resettin$ of the hearin$&

A T!" */n*"2' /) H0$--.$4"H %scritor was not held to be administrativel) liable& *he case at bar bein$ one of first impression! we now sub<ect the respondent=s claim of reli$ious freedom to the I*/02"##.n4 &'$'" .n'"-"&'J '"&' )-/0 $ 9"n"+/#"n' n",'-$#.'1 &'$n*" 6 i&e& entertainin$ the possibilit) that respondent=s claim to reli$ious freedom would warrant carvin$ out an e9ception from the 0ivil 8ervice "aw? necessaril)! her defense of reli$ious freedom will be unavailin$ should the $overnment succeed in demonstratin$ a more compellin$ state interest& In $22#1.n4 '!" '"&', '!" ).-&' .n<,.-1 .& %!"'!"- -"&2/nd"n'G& -.4!' '/ -"#.4./,& )-""d/0 !$& 9""n 9,-d"n"d T!" &"*/nd &'"2 .& '/ $&*"-'$.n -"&2/nd"n'G& &.n*"-.'1 .n !"- -"#.4./,& 9"#.") #ndeed! it is inappropriate for the complainant! a private person! to present evidence on the compellin$ interest of the state& *he burden of evidence should be dischar$ed b) the proper a$enc) of the $overnment which is the Office of the 8olicitor General& *o properl) settle the issue in the case at bar! the $overnment should be $iven the opportunit) to demonstrate the compellin$ state interest it seeks to uphold in opposin$ the respondent=s stance that her con<u$al arran$ement is not immoral and punishable as it comes within the scope of free e9ercise protection& S!/,#d '!" C/,-' 2-/!.9.' $nd 2,n.&! !"- */nd,*' %!"-" .' .& 2-/'"*'"d 91 '!" F-"" EE"-*.&" C#$,&", '!" C/,-'G& $*'./n %/,#d 9" $n ,n*/n&'.','./n$# "n*-/$*!0"n' /) !"- -.4!' '/ -"#.4./,& )-""d/0 De cannot therefore simpl) take a passin$ look at respondent=s claim of reli$ious freedom! but must instead appl) the +compellin$ state interest, test& *he $overnment must be heard on the issue as it has not been $iven an opportunit) to dischar$e its burden of demonstratin$ the

after ten )ears of livin$ to$ether! she e9ecuted on Aul) .8! 1991 a + eclaration of Pled$in$ >aithfulness&, %scritor=s partner! Uuilapio! e9ecuted a similar pled$e on the same da)& Goth pled$es were e9ecuted in -timonan! Uuezon and si$ned b) three witnesses& -t the time %scritor e9ecuted her pled$e! her husband was still alive but livin$ with another woman& Uuilapio was likewise married at that time! but had been separated in fact from his wife& Petitioner (wife) and respondent (husband) were married in the cit) of 4anila on Aanuar) 5! 1915 and thereafter established their residence where the) lived to$ether for about a month when petitioner returned to the home of her parents! claimin$ that her husband demanded of her to perform unchaste and lascivious acts& Petitioner is now demandin$ support from her husband outside of the con<u$al domicile& *he husband claims that he is not obli$ed to $ive support since it is the wife who left the con<u$al home& Petitioner is a male transse9ual who who underwent se9 reassi$nment sur$er) to become anatomicall) female& Ee filed a petition for a chan$e of name and se9 appearin$ in the birth certificate to reflect the result of the sur$er) and so that he can marr) his fiancX& *he '*0 $ranted the petition but this was reversed b) the 0-& :ictoriano was char$ed with the crime of Parricide in an #nformation& *he '*0 convicted :ictoriano as $uilt) of such crime! which was affirmed b) the 0-&

state=s compellin$ interest which can override respondent=s reli$ious belief and practice& *o repeat! this is a case of first impression where we are appl)in$ the +compellin$ state interest, test in a case involvin$ purel) reli$ious conduct& *he careful application of the test is indispensable as how we will decide the case will make a decisive difference in the life of the respondent who stands not onl) before the 0ourt but before her Aehovah God&

GOITA VS CAMPOS RUEDA (191;)

*he mere act of marria$e creates an obli$ation on the part of the husband to support his wife& 4arria$e is somethin$ more than a mere contract& #t is a new relation! the ri$hts! duties! and obli$ations of which rest not upon the a$reement of the parties but upon the $eneral law which defines and prescribes those ri$hts! duties! and obli$ations& 4arria$e is an institution! in the maintenance of which in its purit) the public is deepl) interested& #t is a relation for life and the parties cannot terminate it at an) shorter period b) virtue of an) contract the) ma) make& *he reciprocal ri$hts arisin$ from this relation! so lon$ as it continues! are such as the law determines from time to time and none other #n this case! a <ud$ment for separate maintenance is not due and pa)able either as dama$es or as a penalt)& /or is it a debt in the strict le$al sense of the term! but rather a <ud$ment callin$ for the performance of a dut) made specific b) the mandate of the soverei$n& *he chan$es sou$ht b) petitioner will have serious and wide6ran$in$ le$al and public conse(uences& 4arria$e! one of the most sacred social institutions! is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman& One of its essential re(uisites is the le$al capacit) of the contractin$ parties who must be make and female& *o $rant the chan$e sou$ht b) petitioner will substantiall) reconfi$ure and $reatl) alter the laws on marria$e and famil) relations& #t will allow the union of a man with another man who was under$one se9ual reassi$nment& *he ke) element of parricide! other than the fact of killin$! is the relationship of the offender of the victim& #n the case of Parricide of a spouse! the best proof of the relationship between the accused and the deceased would be the marria$e certificate& #n this case! the testimon) of the accused that he was married to the victim! in itself! is ample proof of such relationship as the testimon) can be taken as an admission a$ainst penal interest& 0learl)! then! it was established that :ictoriano and his wife -nna were husband and wife&

SILVERIO VS REPU3LIC

(.225)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS VICTORIANO DELA CRU@

(.212) DE SANTIS VS INTESTATE ESTATE OF :ALANDONI

On appeal in this case is the decision of the 0nullif)in$ the Orders of the '*0 allowin$ petitioners and their siblin$s to intervene in the estate proceedin$s of the late 'odolfo Aalandoni& Petitioners claim that their deceased $randmother #sabel was! at the time of 'odolfo=s death! the le$al spouse of the latter and for which reason #sable is

Petitioners and their siblin$s failed to offer sufficient evidence to establish that #sabel was the le$al spouse of 'odolfo& *he ver) evidence of the petitioners and their siblin$s ne$ate their claim that #sabel has interest in 'odolfo=s estate& 0ontrar) to the position taken b) the petitioners! the e9istence of a previous marria$e between #sabel and Aohn esantis was ade(uatel) established& *his holds true notwithstandin$ the fact that no marria$e certificate between #sabel and Aohn esantis e9ists on record&

(.212)

entitled to a share in the estate of 'odolfo& /ote that petitioners are the children of 8)lvia! who is the dau$hter of #sabel with one Aohn esantis& *he petitioners presented two marria$e certificates between #sable and 'odolfo and the birth certificate of their mother 8)lvia&

Dhile a marria$e certificate is considered the primar) evidence of a marital union! it is not re$arded as the sole and e9clusive evidence of marria$e& Aurisprudence teaches that the fact of marria$e ma) be proven b) relevant evidence other than the marria$e certificate& Eence! even a person=s birth certificate ma) be reco$nized as competent evidence of the marria$e between his parents& #n the present case! the birth certificate of 8)lvia precisel) serves as the competent evidence of marria$e between #sabel and Aohn esantis& -s mentioned earlier! it contains the followin$ notable entries@ (a) that #sabel and Aohn esantis were 1married1 and (b) that 8)lvia is their 1le$itimate1 child& #n clear and cate$orical lan$ua$e! 8)lvia=s birth certificate speaks of a subsistin$ marria$e between #sabel and Aohn esantis& Pursuant to e9istin$ laws! the fore$oin$ entries are accorded prima facie wei$ht& *he) are presumed to be true&

3 R"<,.&.'"& Discussion SILVERIO VS REPU3LIC A D.))"-"n*" .n S"E Petitioner is a male transse9ual who who underwent se9 reassi$nment sur$er) to become anatomicall) female& Ee filed a petition for a chan$e of name and se9 appearin$ in the birth certificate to reflect the result of the sur$er) and so that he can marr) his fiancX& *he '*0 $ranted the petition but this was reversed b) the 0-& /o law allows the chan$e of entr) in the birth certificate as to se9 on the $round of se9 reassi$nment& *he determination of a person=s se9 appearin$ in his birth certificate is a le$al issue and the court must look to the statutes& Fnder the 0ivil 'e$ister "aw (-ct 7557)! a birth certificate is a historical record of the facts as the) e9isted at the time of birth& *hus! the se9 of a person is determined at birth! visuall) done b) the birth attendant (the ph)sician or midwife) b) e9aminin$ the $enitals of the infant& 0onsiderin$ that there is no law le$all) reco$nizin$ se9 reassi$nment! the determination fo a person=s se9 made at the time of his or her birth! if not attended b) error! is immutable& *he words +se9,! +male, and +female, as used in the 0ivil 'e$ister "aw and laws concernin$ the civil re$istr) (and even all other laws) should be understood in their common and ordinar) usa$e! there bein$ no le$islative intent to the contrar)& #n this connection! se9 is defined as +the sum of peculiarities of structure and function that distin$uish a male from a female, or +the distinction between male and female&, >emalie is +the se9 that produces ova or bears )oun$, and male is +the se9 that produces spermatozoa for fertilizin$ ova&, *hus the words male and female in ever)da) understandin$ do not include persons who have under$one se9 reassi$nment&

(.225)

M$-'.n"6 + T$n (1929)

3 S/0" F/-0 /) C"-"0/n1 4artinez is (uestionin$ the validit) of her marria$e with *an& 8he ar$ued that she si$ned the document believin$ it was to be used to ask for the consent of her parents for their marria$e and that it was si$ned in her home and not in the presence of the <ustice of the peace&

*he marria$e is valid& General order /o& ;8! section ; provides@ /o particular form from the ceremon) of marria$e is re(uired! but the parties must declare in the presence of the person solemnizin$ the marria$e! that the) take each other as husband and wife& *he petition si$ned b) the 4artinez and *an contained a positive statement that the) had mutuall) a$reed to be married and the) asked the <ustice of the peace to solemnize the marria$e& *he document si$ned b) them! and the <ustice of the peace! stated that the) ratified under oath! before the <ustice! the contents of the petition and that witnesses of the marria$e were produced&&

C L"4$# C$2$*.'1 1. Age

2. Relationship 3. Prior Marriage W."4"# + S"02./-D.1 'espondent Barl filed a petition for declaration of nullit) of his marria$e a$ainst petitioner "ilia on the $round the latter=s e9istin$ marria$e to one 4a9ion& "ilia ar$ues that her marria$e will 4a9ion was null and void since the) were onl) forced into it& 'espondnet /olasco filed a petition to declare his wife Parker presumptivel) dead or in the alternative declare their marria$e void ab initio& 4arria$e of petitioner to respondent is null and void& - prior marria$e thou$h void still needs accordin$ to the 0ourt a <udicial declaration of such fact& >or all le$al intents and purposes she would still be re$arded as a married woman at the time she contracted her marria$e with respondent *he marria$e is valid& *here are four (3) re(uisites for the declaration of presumptive death under -rticle 31 of the >amil) 0ode for the purposes of remarria$e@ 1& *hat the absent spouse has been missin$ for four consecutive )ears! or two consecutive )ears if the disappearance occurred where there is dan$er of death under the circumstances laid down in -rticle 791! 0ivil 0ode? .& *hat the present spouse wishes to remarr)? 7& *hat the present spouse has a well6founded belief that the absentee is dead? and 3& *hat the present spouse files a summar) proceedin$ for the declaration of presumptive death of the absentee& *he 7rd re(uisite is lackin$& 'espondent failed to establish that he had the well6founded belief re(uired b) law that his absent wife was alread) dead G$-*.$ + R"*./ 'ecio and 8amson! an -ustralian citizen were married in 1985 and subse(uentl) $ot a decree of divorce from an -ustralian 0ourt& #n 199.! 'ecio became an -ustralian citizen and married petitioner! wherein 'ecio declared his status as sin$le and a >ilipino& Petitioner filed a petition to declare her marria$e with respondent null and void on the $round of bi$am)& #n 1985! respondent married Aavier& Dithout havin$ it annulled! he contracted a second marria$e with petitioner in 199;& Ee also alle$edl) contracted a third marria$e with a certain Eernandez& *hus a case for bi$am) was filed a$ainst him& Ee claims that the validit) of the first marria$e is a pre<udicial (uestion which must first be tried before the criminal action ma) proceed& *he case is remanded to the lower court for reception of evidence& ivorces are of different t)pes& *he two basic ones are (1) absolute divorce or a vinculo$atri$onii and (.) limited divorce or a $ensa et t&oro. *he first kind terminates the marria$e! while the second suspends it and leaves the bond in full force& P35Q *here is no showin$ in the case at bar which t)pe of divorce was procured b) respondent& *he -ustralian divorce did not ipso facto restore the respondent=s capacit) to remarr)&

(.212) R"2,9#.* + N/#$&*/ (1997)

3/9.& + 3/9.&

(.222)

T" + CA, C!/$ (2000)

-rthur and "iliana were married althou$h the) did not live to$ether& -rthur contracted a second marria$e with Aulieta& "iliana filed a bi$am) case a$ainst -rthur& On the other hand! -rthur filed an

/o& #t is not a pre<udicial (uestion& -rticle 32 of the >amil) 0ode! effective at the time of celebration of the second marria$e! re(uires a prior <udicial declaration of nullit) of a previous marria$e before a part) ma) remarr)& Ee who contracts a second marria$e before the <udicial declaration of nullit) of the first marria$e assumes the risk of bein$ prosecuted for bi$am)! and in such a case the criminal case ma) not be suspended on the $round of the pendenc) of a civil case for declaration of nullit)& - marria$e thou$h void still needs a <udicial declaration of such fact before an) part) can marr) a$ain? otherwise the second marria$e will also be void& *he reason is that! without a <udicial declaration of its nullit)! the first marria$e is presumed to be subsistin$& *herefore! an) decision in the civil action for nullit) would not erase the fact that respondent entered into a second marria$e durin$ the subsistence of a first marria$e& Petition %/#% & Outcome of annulment case had no bearin$ on the determination of -rthur=s innocence or $uilt in bi$am) case& G-/,nd )/- $nn,#0"n' *.'"d 91 2"'.'./n"- %$& )/- +/.d$9#" 0$--.$4" & *herefore! at

M"-*$d/ + T$n (2000)

action for annulment on the $round that he was onl) forced to marr) "ilian& Ee also alle$ed that she concealed her pre$nanc) b) another man& r& :icent 4ercado was previousl) married with *helma Oliva in 195; before he contracted marria$e with 0onsuelo *an in 1991 which the latter claims she did not know& *an filed bi$am) a$ainst 4ercado and after a month the latter filed an action for declaration of nullit) of marria$e a$ainst Oliva& *he decision in 1997 declared marria$e between 4ercado and Oliva null and void& #n 1955 0lemente Gailon and -lice iaz married in Garcelona! 8orso$on& 15W )ears later! 0lemente filed an action to declare the presumptive death of -lice she bein$ an absentee& *he petition was $ranted in 1952& #n 1987! 0lemente married Aar(ue& *he two live to$ether untile 0lemente=s death in 1998& Aar(ue then sou$ht to claim her husband=s 888 benefits and the same were $ranted her& On the other hand! a certain 0ecilia Gaion6Oap who claimed that she is the dau$hter of Gailon to a certain %lisa Aa)ona petitioned before the 888 that the) be $iven the reimbursement for the funeral spendin$ for it was actuall) them who shouldered the burial e9penses of 0lemente& *he) further claim that 0lemente contracted three marria$es? one with -lice! another with %lisa and the other with Aar(ue& 0ecilia also averred that -lice is alive and kickin$ and -lice subse(uentl) emer$ed? 0ecilia claimed that 0lemente obtained the declaration of -lice=s presumptive death in bad faith for he was aware of the whereabouts of -lice or if not he could have easil) located her in her parent=s place& 8he was in 8orso$on all alon$ in her parents= place& 8he went there upon learnin$ that 0lemente had been havin$ e9tra6 marital affairs& 888 then ruled that Aar(ue should reimburse what had been $ranted her and to return the same to 0ecilia since she shouldered the burial e9penses and that the benefits should $o to -lice because her reappearance had terminated 0lemente=s marria$e with Aar(ue& >urther! 888 ruled that the '*0=s decision in declarin$ -lice to be presumptivel) death is erroneous& *eresita appealed the decision of the

the time he committed the crime of bi$am)! marria$e was still valid and subsistin$& 3.4$01 &.02#1 -"<,.-"& $ &"*/nd 0$--.$4" '/ 9" */n'-$*'"d %!.#" $ 2-./- /n" .& &,9&.&'.n4 Petition %/#% & - <udicial declaration of nullit) of a previous marria$e is necessar) before a subse(uent one can be le$all) contracted& One who enters into a subse(uent marria$e without first obtainin$ such <udicial declaration is $uilt) of bi$am)& *his principle applies even if the earlier union is characterized b) statute as +void&, #n the case at bar! 4ercado onl) filed the declaration of nullit) of his marria$e with Oliva ri$ht after *an filed bi$am) case& Eence! b) then! the crime had alread) been consummated& Ee contracted second marria$e without the <udicial declaration of the nullit)& *he fact that the first marria$e is void from the be$innin$ is not a defense in a bi$am) char$e& Petition %/#% & *here is no previous marria$e to restore for it is terminated upon 0lemente=s death& "ikewise there is no subse(uentmarria$e to terminate for the same is terminated upon 0lemente=s death& 888 is correct in rulin$ that it is inutile for -lice to pursue the recordin$ of her reappearance before the local civil re$istrar throu$h an affidavit or a court action& Gut it is not correct for the 888 to rule upon the declaration made b) the '*0& *he 880 or the 888 has no <udicial power to review the decision of the '*0& 888 is indeed empowered to determine as to who should be the ri$htful beneficiar) of the benefits obtained b) a deceased member in case of disputes but such power does not include the appellate power to review a court decision or declaration& #n the case at bar! the '*0 rulin$ is bindin$ and Aar(ue=s marria$e to 0lemente is still valid because no affidavit was filed b) -lice to make known her reappearance le$all)& -lice reappeared onl) after 0lemente=s death and in this case she can no lon$er file such an affidavit? in this case the bad faith Por $ood faithQ of 0lemente can no lon$er be raised T the marria$e herein is considered voidable and must be attacked directl) not collaterall) T it is however impossible for a direct attack since there is no lon$er amarria$e to be attacked for the same has been terminated upon 0lemente=s death&

SSS + :$-<," +d$ d" 3$.#/n (200=)

888 before the 8ocial 8ecurit) 0omission and the 880 affirmed 888& M/-.4/ + M/-.4/ (200B) *he 0- however ruled the contrar)& "ucio 4ori$o and "ucia Garrete were boardmates in Gohol& *he) lost contacts for a while but after receivin$ a card from Garrete and various e9chan$es of letters! the) became sweethearts& *he) $ot married in 1992& Garrete went back to 0anada for work and in 1991 she filed petition for divorce in Ontario 0anada! which was $ranted& #n 199.! 4ori$o married "umba$o& Ee subse(uentl) filed a complaint for <udicial declaration of nullit) on the $round that there was no marria$e ceremon)& 4ori$o was then char$ed with bi$am) and moved for a suspension of arrai$nment since the civil case pendin$ posed a pre<udicial (uestion in the bi$am) case& 4ori$o pleaded not $uilt) claimin$ that his marria$e with Garrete was void ab initio& Petitioner contented he contracted second marria$e in $ood faith& :eronico *enebro contracted marria$e with "eticia -nca<as on -pril 12! 1992& *he two were wed b) a <ud$e at "apu6"apu 0it)& *he two lived to$ether continuousl) and without interruption until the later part of 1991! when *enebro informed -nca<as that he had been previousl) married to a certain Eilda :illare)es on /ov& 12! 198;& *enebro showed -nca<as a photocop) of a marria$e contract between him and :illare)es& #nvokin$ this previous marria$e! petitioner thereafter left the con<u$al dwellin$ which he shared with -nca<as! statin$ that he was $oin$ to cohabit with :illare)es& On Aanuar) .5! 1997! petitioner contracted )et another marria$e! this one with a certain /ilda :ille$as& Dhen -nca<as learned of this third marria$e! she verified from :illare)es whether the latter was indeed married to the petitioner& :illare)es confirmed in handwritten letter that indeed *enebro was her husband& -nca<as thereafter filed a complaint for bi$am) a$ainst petitioner& urin$ trial! *enebro admitted havin$ married to :illare)es and produced two children& Eowever! he denied that he and :illare)es were validl) married to each other! claimin$ that no marria$e ceremon) took place& Ee alle$ed that he si$ned a marria$e contract merel) to enable her to $et the allotment from his office in connection with his work as a seaman& *he trial court found him $uilt) of bi$am)& Petition G'-/*% & "ucio -0UF#**% from the char$e of bi$am)& - <udicial declaration of nullit) of a previous marria$e is necessar) before a subse(uent one can be le$all) contracted& One who enters into a subse(uent marria$e without first obtainin$ such <udicial declaration is $uilt) of bi$am)& *his principle applies even if the earlier union is characterized b) statutes as 1void&1 4ori$o=s marria$e with Garrete is void ab initio considerin$ that there was no actual marria$e ceremon) performed between them b) a solemnizin$ officer instead the) <ust merel) si$ned a marria$e contract& *he petitioner does not need to file declaration of the nullit) of his marria$e when he contracted his second marria$e with "umba$o& Eence! he did not commit bi$am) and is ac(uitted in the case filed&

T"n"9-/ + CA (200B)

Petition

%/#% &

*enebro %$& 4,.#'1 /) 9.4$01 as he contracted a second marria$e while the first marria$e was subsistin$& Obtainin$ an $nn,#0"n' /) '!" &"*/nd 0$--.$4" d/"& n/' $9&/#+" !.0 )-/0 '!" *-.0"& *he prosecution was able to establish the validit) of the first marria$e& -s a second or subse(uent marria$e contracted durin$ the subsistence of petitioner=s valid marria$e to :illare)es! petitioner=s marria$e to -nca<as would be null and void ab initio completel) re$ardless of petitioner=s ps)cholo$ical capacit) or incapacit)& 8ince a marria$e contracted durin$ the subsistence of a valid marria$e is automaticall) void! the nullit) of this second marria$e is not per se an ar$ument for the avoidance of criminal liabilit) for bi$am)& Pertinentl)! -rticle 739 of the 'evised Penal 0ode criminalizes +an) person who shall contract a second or subse(uent marria$e before the former marria$e has been le$all) dissolved! or before the absent spouse has been declared presumptivel) dead b) means of a <ud$ment rendered in the proper proceedin$s,& - plain readin$ of the law! therefore! would indicate that the provision penalizes the mere act of contractin$ a second or a subse(uent marria$e durin$ the subsistence of a valid marria$e& : VITUG (S"2$-$'" O2.n./n) S.n*" 2&1*!/#/4.*$# .n*$2$*.'1, ,2/n '!" /'!"- !$nd, d/"& n/' -"#$'" '/ $n .n).-0.'1 .n '!" "#"0"n'&, ".'!"- "&&"n'.$# /- )/-0$#, .n */n'$*'.n4 $ +$#.d 0$--.$4", '!" d"*#$-$'./n /) n,##.'1 &,9&"<,"n' '/ '!" 9.4$0/,& 0$--.$4" d," '/ '!$' 4-/,nd, %.'!/,' 0/-", %/,#d 9" .n*/n&"<,"n'.$# .n $ *-.0.n$# *!$-4" )/- 9.4$01 & *he <udicial declaration of nullit) of a bi$amous marria$e on the $round of ps)cholo$ical incapacit) merel) nullifies the "))"*'& of the marria$e but it does not ne$ate the fact of 2"-)"*'./n of the bi$amous marria$e& #ts subse(uent declaration of nullit) dissolves the relationship of the spouses but! bein$ alien to the re(uisite conditions for the perfection of the marria$e! the <ud$ment of the court is no defense on the part of the offender who had entered into it& : CARPIO (D.&&"n'.n4 O2.n./n)

NOLLORA PEOPLE (.211)

/ollora was married and contracted a second one with Geraldino& *he trial court found him $uilt) of bi$am) under 'P0 739& /ollora put up his 4uslim reli$ion as his sole defense& Ee alle$ed that his reli$ion allows him to marr) more than once&

Ysorr) can=t find a cop)Y /ollora cannot den) that both marria$e ceremonies were not conducted in accordance with the 0ode of 4uslim Personal "aws (P 1287)! and therefore the >amil) 0ode applies *he circumstances in the present case satisf) all the elements of bi$am)& *he elements of the crime of bi$am) are@ 1& *hat the offender has been le"ally $arried& .& *hat the marria$e has not been le"ally dissolved or! in case his or her spouse is absent! theabsent spouse could not yet be presu$ed dead accordin$ to the 0ivil 0ode& 7& *hat he contracts a second or subse(uent marria$e 3& *hat the second or subse(uent marria$e has all the essential re#uisites for validity.

4. Crime . Ph!sical "ncapacit! :IMENE@ CANI@ARES (19;2) + Aoel filed for annulment on the $round that the office of his wife=s $enitals or va$ina was too small to allow penetration of male or$an or penis for copulation& 'emedios was summoned to submit to a ph)sical e9amination to determine her capacit) for copulation& 'emedios did not compl)& '*0 $ranted annulment& & Petitioner filed a 0omplaint for the annulment of her marria$e to 'espondent ! who almost never resided with Petitioner& Petitioner alle$ed that 'espondent was therefore ph)sicall) incapable of consummatin$ his marria$e with her& *he impotence of the wife cannot be satisfactoril) determined from the statement of husband& >ilipinas are b) nature co)! bashful and sh) and would not submit to a ph)sical e9amination unless compelled b) authorit)& 8he is not bein$ compelled to be a witness a$ainst herself&

ALCA@AR ALCA@AR (.229)

*he burden falls upon Petitioner! not <ust to prove that 'espondent suffers from a ps)cholo$ical disorder! but also that such renders him trul) inco$nitive of the basic marital covenants that must be assumed and dischar$ed b) the parties to the marria$e& Ps)cholo$ical incapacit) must be more than <ust a 1difficult)!1 a 1refusal!1 or a 1ne$lect1 in the performance of some marital obli$ations&

3. Psyc&olo"ical incapacity SANTOS + CA (1995) Petitioner filed with the '*0 a complaint for 1:oidin$ of marria$e Fnder -rticle 7; of the >amil) 0ode&, Private 'espondent! his wife! alwa)s (uarreled with him and never returned home from workin$ in the F&8&-? she also never communicated with him durin$ her sta) thereat CHI MING TSOI + CA (1995) Private 'espondent filed this case a$ainst Petitioner in the '*0! which decreed the annulment of the marria$e on the $round of ps)cholo$ical incapacit)& 8he alle$es that Petitioner has never tried to have se9ual intercourse with her& 8he claims that he is impotent! a closet homose9ual& *his ps)cholo$ical condition must e9ist at the time the marria$e is celebrated& *he law does not evidentl) envision! upon the other hand! an inabilit) of the spouse to have se9ual relations with the other& Ps)cholo$ical incapacit) must refer to mental (not ph)sical) incapacit) to comprehend basic mental covenants characterized b) a) $ravit)! b) <uridical antecedence! and c) incurabilit)! e9istin$ at the time of the marria$e& Gasic marital covenants (>0 ;8) T mutual obli$ations to live to$ether! observe love! respect and fidelit) and render help and support& One of the essential marital obli$ations under the >amil) 0ode is to procreate children& 0onstant non6fulfillment of this obli$ation will destro) the inte$rit) or wholeness of the marria$e& #n the case at bar! the senseless and protracted refusal of one of the parties to fulfill the above marital obli$ation is e(uivalent to ps)cholo$ical incapacit)& -fter almost 12 months of cohabitation! the admission that the husband is reluctant or unwillin$ to perform the se9ual act with his wife whom he professes to love and who has not posed an) insurmountable resistance to his alle$ed approaches! is indicative of a hopeless situation! and of a serious personalit) disorder that constitutes ps)cholo$ical incapacit) to dischar$e the basic marital

R"2,9#.* + M/#.n$ 1995

Olaviano was married to 'e)naldo in 1985& *he) have a son& 'e)naldo showed si$ns of +immaturit) and irresponsibilit), on the earl) sta$es of the marria$e! observed from his tendenc) to spend time with his friends and s(uanderin$ his mone) with them! from his dependenc) from his parents! and his dishonest) on matters involvin$ his finances& 'e)naldo was relieved of his <ob in 198;! 'oridel became the sole breadwinner& #n 4arch 1985! 'oridel resi$ned from her <ob in 4anila and proceeded to Ga$uio 0it)& 'e)naldo left her and their child a week later& *he couple is separated6in6 fact for more than three )ears& *he issue is Dhether conflictin$ personalities should be construed as ps)cholo$ical incapacit)&

covenants within the contemplation of the >amil) 0ode& *he marria$e subsists and remains valid& #n the present case! there is no clear showin$ to us that the ps)cholo$ical defect spoken of is an incapacit)& #t appears to us to be more of a 1difficult)!1 if not outri$ht 1refusal1 or 1ne$lect1 in the performance of some marital obli$ations& 4ere showin$ of 1irreconciliable differences1 and 1conflictin$ personalities1 in no wise constitutes ps)cholo$ical incapacit)& #t is not enou$h to prove that the parties failed to meet their responsibilities and duties as married persons? it is essential that the) must be shown to be incapable of doin$ so! due to some ps)cholo$ical (nor ph)sical) illness& *he 0ourt! in this case! promul$ated the $uidelines in the interpretation and application of -rticle 7; of the >amil) 0ode! removin$ an) visa$es of it bein$ the most liberal divorce procedure in the world@ (1) *he burden of proof belon$s to the plaintiff? (.) the root cause of ps)cholo$ical incapacit) must be medicall) or clinicall) identified! alle$ed in the complaint! sufficientl) proven b) e9pert! and clearl) e9plained in the decision? (7) *he incapacit) must be proven e9istin$ at the time of the celebration of marria$e? (3) the incapacit) must be clinicall) or medicall) permanent or incurable? (5) such illness must be $rave enou$h? (;) the essential marital obli$ation must be embraced b) -rticles ;8 to 51 of the >amil) 0ode as re$ards husband and wife! and -rticles ..2 to ..5 of the same code as re$ards parents and their children? (5) interpretation made b) the /ational -ppellate 4atrimonial *ribunal of the 0atholic 0hurch! and (8) the trial must order the fiscal and the 8olicitor6General to appeal as counsels for the 8tate&

An'/n./ + R"1"&

(.225)

-ntonio and 'e)es married& 'e)es persistentl) lied about herself! the people around her! her occupation! income! educational attainment and other events or thin$s& *he) eventuall) separated& -ntonio wants their marria$e declared null and void on the basis on -rticle 7; of the >amil) 0ode&

*he marria$e was declared null and void under -rticle 7;& 'espondent=s fantastic abilit) to invent and fabricate stories and personalities enabled her to live in a world of make6believe& *his made her ps)cholo$icall) incapacitated as it rendered her incapable of $ivin$ meanin$ and si$nificance to her marria$e& *he root cause of respondent=s ps)cholo$ical incapacit) has been medicall) or clinicall) identified! alle$ed in the complaint! sufficientl) proven b) e9perts! and clearl) e9plained in the trial court=s decision& *he marria$e was declared null and void under -rticle 7;& *he ps)cholo$ist who provided e9pert testimon) found both parties ps)cholo$icall) incapacitated& Petitioner=s behavioral pattern falls under the classification of dependent personalit) disorder! and respondent=s! that of the narcissistic and antisocial personalit) disorder& *here is no re(uirement that the person to be declared ps)cholo$icall) incapacitated be personall) e9amined b) a ph)sician! if the totalit) of evidence presented is enou$h to sustain a findin$ of ps)cholo$ical incapacit)&

*e v *e (.229)

*e was initiall) attracted to 'owena=s close friend but! as the latter alread) had a bo)friend! *e decided to court 'owena& #t was 'owena who asked that the) elope but %dward refused bickerin$ that he was )oun$ and <obless& Eer persistence! however! made him relent& *he) left 4anila and sailed to 0ebu that month& *he) decided to $o back to 4anila in -pril 199;& 'owena proceeded to her uncle=s house and %dward to his parents= home& %ventuall) the) $ot married but without a marria$e license& %dward was prohibited from $ettin$ out of the house unaccompanied and was threatened b) 'owena and her uncle& -fter a month! %dward escaped from the house! and sta)ed with his parents&

%dward=s parents wanted them to sta) at their house but 'owena refused and demanded that the) have a separate abode& #n Aune 199;! she said that it was better for them to live separate lives and the) then parted wa)s& -fter four )ears in Aanuar) .222! %dward filed a petition for the annulment of his marria$e to 'owena on the basis of the latter=s ps)cholo$ical incapacit)& A6*,"'$ + RP (.229) 4arietta averred that 'odolfo was ps)cholo$icall) incapacitated to compl) with the essential obli$ations of marria$e& 4arietta complained that despite her encoura$ement! 'odolfo never bothered to look for a <ob and alwa)s depended on his mother for financial assistance and for his decisions& *he) had se9 onl) once a month which 4ariett anever en<o)ed& Dhen the) discussed this! 'odolfo told 4arietta that se9 was sacred and should not be en<o)ed or abused& 'odolfo also told her he was not read) for a child& Petitioner "ester Gen<amin 8& Ealili filed a petition to declare his marria$e to respondent 0hona 4& 8antos6Ealili null and void on the basis of his ps)cholo$ical incapacit) to perform the essential obli$ations of marria$e& Ee alle$ed that he wed respondent in civil rites thinkin$ that it was a <oke& -fter the ceremonies! the) never lived to$ether as husband and wife! but maintained the relationship& Eowever! the) started fi$htin$ constantl) a )ear later! at which point petitioner decided to stop seein$ respondent and started datin$ other women& #mmediatel) thereafter! he received prank calls tellin$ him to stop datin$ other women as he was alread) a married man& #t was onl) upon makin$ an in(uir) that he found out that the marria$e was not fake& Ee stressed that the evidence he presented! especiall) the testimon) of his e9pert witness! was more than enou$h to sustain the findin$s and conclusions of the trial court that he was and still is ps)cholo$icall) incapable of compl)in$ with the essential obli$ations of marria$e& 'espondent 'e)es is the husband of petitioner& Petitioner filed a case for declaration of nullit) of marria$e on the $round of ps)cholo$ical incapacit)& -ccordin$ to the findin$s of the trial court& Over the course of their marria$e! respondent (uit workin$ for the famil) business *he marria$e was declared null and void under -rticle 7;& 'odolfo was ps)cholo$icall) incapacitated to perform hismarital duties because of his ependent Personalit) isorder& - person afflicted with a ps)cholo$ical disorder cannot compl) with or assume the essential marital obli$ations& #t ma) be stressed that the infliction of ph)sical violence! constitutional indolence or laziness! dru$ dependence or addiction! and ps)chose9ual anomal) are manifestations of a sociopathic personalit) anomal)&

H$#.#. + H$#.#. (2007)

*he marria$e was declared null and void under -rticle 7;& Gb) the ver) nature of -rticle 7;! courts! despite havin$ the primar) task and burden of decision6 makin$! must consider as essential the e9pert opinion on the ps)cholo$ical and mental disposition of the parties& r& a)an stated that petitioner=s dependent personalit) disorder was evident in the fact that petitioner was ver) much attached to his parents and depended on them for decisions&

M$ S/*/--/ C$0$*!/-R"1"& +& R$0/n R"1"& (2010)

*he respondent is sufferin$ from ps)cholo$ical incapacit) to fulfill essential marital obli$ations? hence the marria$e should be declared null and void& #n the instant case! respondent=s pattern of behavior manifests an inabilit)! na)! a ps)cholo$ical incapacit) to perform the essential marital obli$ations as shown b) his@ (1) sporadic financial support? (.) e9tra6marital affairs? (7) substance abuse? (3) failed business attempts? (5) unpaid

despite havin$ no other source of income& Dhen he en$a$ed in other businesses (which often failed) he would be $one for weeks without contactin$ his famil)& Dhen his last business failed! petitioner refused to $o back to work for the famil) business despite havin$ no source of income to support his famil)& #n two instances! first when petitioner suffered a miscarria$e and second! when petitioner had an operation to remove her c)st! respondent was nonchalant and uncarin$! not pa)in$ attention to petitioner=s re(uest that she be accompanied to the operatin$ room&

mone) obli$ations? (;) inabilit) to keep a <ob that is not connected with the famil) businesses? and (5) criminal char$es of estafa& 8ide6issue@ *he lack of personal e9amination and interview of the respondent! or an) other person dia$nosed with personalit) disorder! does not per se invalidate the testimonies of the doctors& /either do their findin$s automaticall) constitute hearsa) that would result in their e9clusion as evidence& >or one! marria$e! b) its ver) definition! necessaril) involves onl) two persons& *he totalit) of the behavior of one spouse durin$ the cohabitation and marria$e is $enerall) and $enuinel) witnessed mainl) b) the other& #n this case! the e9perts testified on their individual assessment of the present state of the parties= marria$e from the perception of one of the parties! herein petitioner& 0ertainl)! petitioner! durin$ their marria$e! had occasion to interact with! and e9perience! respondent=s pattern of behavior which she could then validl) rela) to the clinical ps)cholo$ists and the ps)chiatrist& >or another! the clinical ps)cholo$ists= and ps)chiatrist=s assessment were not based solel) on the narration or personal interview of the petitioner& Other informants such as respondent=s own son! siblin$s and in6laws! and sister6in6law (sister of petitioner)! testified on their own observations of respondent=s behavior and interactions with them! spannin$ the period of time the) knew him& *hese were also used as the basis of the doctors= assessments&

R/&$#.n/ M$-$9#" M1-n$ M$-$9#" (2011)

L +& F

Petitioner filed a case for declaration of nullit) of marria$e on the $round of his ps)cholo$ical incapacit)& Petitioner averred that he came from a poor famil) and was alread) e9posed to the hardships of farm life at an earl) a$e& Eis father! althou$h responsible and supportive! was a compulsive $ambler and womanizer& Eis father left their famil) to live with another woman with whom he had seven other children& *his caused petitioner=s mother and siblin$s to suffer immensel)& *hus! petitioner became obsessed with attention and worked hard to e9cel so he would be noticed& espite his success at work! he alle$ed that his miser) and loneliness as a child lin$ered as he e9perienced a void in his relationship with his own famil)& Petitioner also averred that he previousl) had a marital affair! and that it was due to his father bein$ a womanizer that he became a womanizer&

Petitioner is not ps)cholo$icall) incapacitated& *he term 1ps)cholo$ical incapacit)1 to be a $round for the nullit) of marria$e under -rticle 7; of the >amil) 0ode! refers to a serious ps)cholo$ical illness afflictin$ a part) even before the celebration of the marria$e& *hese are the disorders that result in the utter insensitivit) or inabilit) of the afflicted part) to $ive meanin$ and si$nificance to the marria$e he or she has contracted& Ps)cholo$ical incapacit) must refer to no less than a mental (not ph)sical) incapacit) that causes a part) to be trul) inco$nitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantl) must be assumed and dischar$ed b) the parties to the marria$e& #n the instant case! petitioner completel) relied on the ps)cholo$ical e9amination conducted b) r& *a)a$ on him to establish his ps)cholo$ical incapacit)& *he result of the e9amination and the findin$s of r& *a)a$ however! are insufficient to establish petitionerLs ps)cholo$ical incapacit)& #n cases of annulment of marria$e based on -rticle 7; of the >amil) 0ode! as amended! the ps)cholo$ical illness and its root cause must be proven to e9ist from the inception of the marria$e& Eere! the appellate court correctl) ruled that the report of r& *a)a$ failed to e9plain the root cause of petitioner=s alle$ed ps)cholo$ical incapacit)& *he evaluation of r& *a)a$ merel) made a $eneral conclusion that petitioner is sufferin$ from an -nti6social Personalit) isorder but there was no factual basis stated for the findin$ that petitioner is a sociall) deviant person! rebellious! impulsive! self6centered and deceitful& *he evaluation of r& *a)a$ falls short of the re(uired proof which the 0ourt can rel) on as basis to declare as void petitioner=s marria$e to respondent& *he report did not clearl) specif) the actions of petitioner which are indicative of his alle$ed ps)cholo$ical incapacit)& 4ore importantl)! there was no established link between petitioner=s acts to his alle$ed ps)cholo$ical incapacit)& #t is indispensable that the evidence must show a link! medical or the like! between the acts that manifest ps)cholo$ical incapacit) and the ps)cholo$ical disorder itself& #t was in fact shown that petitioner acted responsibl) durin$ the marria$e& Ee worked hard durin$ the marria$e to provide for his famil)& -lso! when his wife found out that he was havin$ an affair! he immediatel) terminated it& *he infidelit) was not s)mptomatic of a $rave ps)cholo$ical disorder that would render him incapable of performin$ his marital obli$ations& 'espondent is not ps)cholo$icall) incapacitated&

C1n'!.$

Petitioner averred that throu$h all the )ears of their

Y$09$/ +& R"2,9#.* /) '!" P!.#.22.n"& $nd P$'-.*./ E Y$09$/ (2011)

:/&" R"1n$#d/ 3 O*!/&$ +& 3/n$ : A#$n/ $nd R"2,9#.* /) '!" P!.#.22.n"& (2011)

married life! she was the onl) one who earned a livin$ and took care of the children& 'espondent! she alle$ed! did nothin$ but eat and sleep all da)! and spend time with friends& Dhen respondent would find a <ob! he would not be able to sta) in it for lon$& "ikewise! respondent went into several business ventures! which all failed& #n addition! respondent loved to $amble and would $amble awa) whatever mone) would come his wa)& Petitioner also claimed that! when their children were babies! respondent did not even help to chan$e their diapers or feed them! even while petitioner was recoverin$ from her caesarean operation! profferin$ the e9cuse that he knew nothin$ about children& "ater! respondent became insecure and <ealous and would $et mad ever) time he would see petitioner talkin$ to other people! even to her relatives& Dhen respondent started threatenin$ to kill petitioner! she decided to leave the con<u$al abode and live separatel) from him&12 8he then consulted a ps)chiatrist who concluded that respondent was indeed ps)cholo$icall) incapacitated to compl) with the essential marital obli$ations Petitioner and respodent are husband and wife& Petitioner! bein$ a member of the ->P! would be assi$ned to different parts of the 'espondent as part of his duties& Gona would not live with him in his posts& %ventuall)! Petitioner was $iven housin$ in >ort Gonifacio& #t appears that respondent was an unfaithful spouse& %ven at the onset of their marria$e when petitioner was assi$ned in various parts of the countr)! she had illicit relations with other men& 'espondent apparentl) did not chan$e her wa)s when the) lived to$ether at >ort Gonifacio? she entertained male visitors in her bedroom whenever petitioner was out of their livin$ (uarters& On one occasion! respondent was cau$ht b) emetrio Ga<et ) "ita! a securit) aide! havin$ se9 with petitioner=s driver! 0orporal Ga$arin& 'umors of respondent=s se9ual infidelit) circulated in the militar) communit)&

#n this case! there is no showin$ that respondent was sufferin$ from a ps)cholo$ical condition so severe that he was unaware of his obli$ations to his wife and famil)& On the contrar)! respondent=s efforts (tr)in$ to find a <ob! but failin$ due to old a$e and lack of a colle$e de$ree)! thou$h few and far between the) ma) be! showed an understandin$ of his dut) to provide for his famil)! albeit he did not meet with much success& Dhether his failure was brou$ht about b) his own indolence or irresponsibilit)! or b) some other e9ternal factors! is not relevant& Dhat is clear is that respondent! in showin$ an awareness to provide for his famil)! even with his man) failin$s! does not suffer from ps)cholo$ical incapacit)& *hat respondent! accordin$ to petitioner! 1lackPedQ effective sense of rational <ud$ment and responsibilit)1 does not mean he is incapable to meet his marital obli$ations& Eis refusal to help care for the children! his ne$lect for his business ventures! and his alle$ed unbearable <ealous) ma) indicate some emotional turmoil or mental difficult)! but none have been shown to amount to a ps)cholo$ical abnormalit)& "ikewise militatin$ a$ainst petitioner=s cause is the findin$ of the trial court! and the same was affirmed b) the 0-! that respondent never committed infidelit) or ph)sicall) abused petitioner or their children& #n fact! considerin$ that the children lived with both parents! it is safe to assume that both made an impact in the children=s upbrin$in$& -nd still! as found b) the '*0 and the 0-! the parties were able to raise three children into adulthood 1without an) ma<or parentin$ problems&1 8uch fact could hardl) support a proposition that the parties= marria$e is a nullit)&

'espondent is not ps)cholo$icall) incapacitated& Petitioner tries to assert that the se9ual infidelit) repeatedl) committed b) respondent has <uridical antecedence& Ee avers that respondent havin$ a womanizer for a father and a battered woman for a mother caused her constant se9ual infidelit)& *he ps)cholo$ical assessment of respondent=s pre6 marital histor) was onl) from information provided b) petitioner& 'espondent=s d)sfunctional famil) portrait which brou$ht about her Eistrionic Personalit) isorder as painted b) the ps)cholo$ist was based solel) on the assumed truthful knowled$e of petitioner! the spouse who has the most to $ain if his wife is found to be indeed ps)cholo$icall) incapacitated& /o other witness testified to respondent=s famil) histor) or her behavior prior to or at the be$innin$ of the marria$e& #n fact! all the witnesses presented b) petitioner onl) knew the respondent durin$ the marria$e& >or a determination thou$h of a part)=s complete personalit) profile! information comin$ from persons with personal knowled$e of the <uridical antecedents ma) be helpful& *his is an approach in the application of -rticle 7; that allows fle9ibilit)! at the same time that it avoids! if not totall) obliterate! the credibilit) $aps spawned b) supposedl) e9pert opinion based entirel) on doubtful sources of information& *he 0ourt has also ruled in past decisions that to make conclusions and $eneralizations on a spouse=s ps)cholo$ical condition based on the information fed b) onl) one side! similar to the case at bar is not different from admittin$ hearsa) evidence as proof of the truthfulness of the content of such evidence& Auv) is not ps)cholo$icall) incapacitated& *he respondent=s testimon) failed to show that Auv)=s condition is a manifestation of a disordered personalit) rooted in some incapacitatin$ or debilitatin$ ps)cholo$ical condition that rendered her unable to dischar$e her essential marital obli$ation& #n this li$ht! the acts attributed to Auv) onl) showed indications of immaturit) and lack of sense of responsibilit)! resultin$ in nothin$ more than

R"2,9#.* /) '!" P!.#.22.n"& +& N"&'/- G$#$n4 (20110

'espondent was married to Auv) on 4arch 9! 1993& Ee filed a petition for declaration of nullit) of marria$e on -u$ust 3! 1999& alle$ed that Auv) was ps)cholo$icall) incapacitated to e9ercise the essential obli$ations of marria$e! as she was a

kleptomaniac and a swindler& Ee claimed that Auv) stole his -*4 card and his parents= mone)! and often asked mone) from their friends and relatives on the prete9t that 0hristopher (their child) was confined in a hospital& -ccordin$ to the respondent! Auv) suffers from 1mental deficienc)! innate immaturit)! distorted discernment and total lack of care! love and affection Ptowards him and theirQ child&1 Ee posited that Auv)=s incapacit) was 1e9tremel) serious1 and 1appears to be incurable&1 - ps)cholo$ist was also presented b) respondent who testitifed that the incapacit) of the defendant is manifested PinQ such a manner that the defendant6 wife@ (1) bein$ ver) irresponsible and ver) laz) and doesn=t manifest an) sense of responsibilit)? (.) her involvement in $amblin$ activities such as mah<on$ and kuwaho? (7) bein$ an estafador which e9hibits her behavioral and personalit) disorders? (3) her ne$lect and show no care attitude towards her husband and child? (5) her immature and ri$id behavior? (;) her lack of initiative to chan$e and above all! the fact that she is unable to perform her marital obli$ations as a lovin$! responsible and carin$ wife to her famil)& *here are <ust few reasons to believe that the defendant is sufferin$ from incapacitated mind and such incapacit) appears to be incorri$ible&

the difficult)! refusal or ne$lect in the performance of marital obli$ations& #n like manner! Auv)=s acts of falsif)in$ the respondent=s si$nature to encash a check! of stealin$ the respondent=s -*4! and of s(uanderin$ a hu$e portion of the P15!222&22 that the respondent entrusted to her! while no doubt reprehensible! cannot automaticall) be e(uated with a ps)cholo$ical disorder! especiall) when the evidence shows that these were mere isolated incidents and not recurrin$ acts& /either can Auv)=s penchant for pla)in$ mah<on$ and kuwaho for mone)! nor her act of solicitin$ mone) from relatives on the prete9t that her child was sick! warrant a conclusion that she suffered from a mental malad) at the time of the celebration of marria$e that rendered her incapable of fulfillin$ her marital duties and obli$ations& *he respondent! in fact! admitted that Auv) en$a$ed in these behaviors ($amblin$ and what the respondent refers to as 1swindlin$1) onl) two (.) )ears after their marria$e! and after he let her handle his salar) and mana$e their finances& *he evidence also shows that Auv) even tried to au$ment the famil)=s income durin$ the earl) sta$es of their marria$e b) puttin$ up a sari6sari store and b) workin$ as a manicurist& Ps)cholo$ist=s *estimon)@ *he ps)cholo$ist admitted in her report that she derived her conclusions e9clusivel) from the information $iven her b) the respondent& %9pectedl)! the respondent=s description of Auv) would contain a considerable de$ree of bias? thus! a ps)cholo$ical evaluation based on this one6sided description alone can hardl) be considered as credible or sufficient& #t was declared in the 4arcos case that the person sou$ht to be declared ps)cholo$icall) incapacitated need not be e9amined b) the ps)cholo$ist as a condition precedent to arrive at a conclusion& #f the incapacit) can be proven b) independent means! no reason e9ists wh) such independent proof cannot be admitted to support a conclusion of ps)cholo$ical incapacit)! independentl) of a ps)cholo$ist=s e9amination and report& #n this case! however! no such independent evidence has ever been $athered and adduced& *o be sure! evidence from independent sources who intimatel) knew Auv) before and after the celebration of her marria$e would have made a lot of difference and could have added wei$ht to the ps)cholo$ist=s report& *he report was also severel) lackin$ because it did not mention an) sort of ps)cholo$ical test that was administered on the respondent& #t must also be stressed that the acts alle$ed to have been committed b) Auv) occurred durin$ the marria$e& Petition is %/#% & 0- committed no reversible error in settin$ aside the *0=s decision for lack of le$al and factual basis& Ps)cholo$ical incapacit) is the downri$ht incapacit) or inabilit) to take co$nizance of and to assume the basic marital obli$ations& *he burden of provin$ ps)cholo$ical incapacit) is on the plaintiff& *he plaintiff must prove that the incapacitated part)! based on his or her actions or behavior! suffers a serious ps)cholo$ical disorder that completel) disables him or her from understandin$ and dischar$in$ the essential obli$ations of the marital state& *he ps)cholo$ical problem must be $rave! must have e9isted at the time of marria$e! and must be incurable& #n the case at bar! *)rone failed to prove that his wife suffers from ps)cholo$ical incapacit)& Ee presented the testimonies of two supposed e9pert witnesses who concluded that 4al)n is ps)cholo$icall) incapacitated! but the conclusions of these witnesses were premised on the alle$ed acts or behavior of 4al)n which had not been sufficientl) proven& *)rone=s alle$ations! which served as the bases or underl)in$ premises of the conclusions of his e9perts! were not actuall) proven& #n fact! 4al)n presented contrar) evidence refutin$ these alle$ations of the *)rone&

5$#$% F"-n$nd"6 (2011)

*)rone Balaw and 4al)n >ernandez were married and had 3 children& 4al)n left the con<u$al home some time after their last child was born because she learned that *)rone was havin$ an e9tramarital affair& -fter 9 )ears of de facto separation! *)rone filed a declaration of nullit) of marria$e based on >0 7; alle$in$ that the ps)cholo$ical incapacit) of 4al)n was manifested b) her immaturit) and irresponsibilit) (pla)in$ mah<on$ all da)! part)in$ all ni$ht! havin$ an affair) towards him and their children& 4al)n denied the alle$ations and as an affirmative defense said that it was *)rone sufferin$ from ps)cholo$ical incapacit) as manifested b) his dru$ dependence! habitual drinkin$! womanizin$ and ph)sical violence&

Goth parties presented ps)cholo$ists as witnesses& '*0@ 4arria$e void ab initio! both parties bein$ ps)cholo$icall) incapacitated to perform their marital obli$ations& 0-@ 'eversed the '*0 decision sa)in$ it is not supported b) the facts on record& D C/n&"n' P"/2#" + 3,#$4$/ (2011) Gula$ao was accused b) --- (13 )ears old) of rape& --- was +adopted, (not formal) b) the parents of Gula$ao& 8he alle$ed that on two occasions she was raped b) Gula$ao with the (ualif)in$ circumstance of use of deadl) weapon (knife)& urin$ the course of the trial! --- recanted! modified! reiterated her testimon)& Fltimatel) '%0-/*#/G the claim of rape& Gula$ao claimed that the act was consensual and he was claimin$ as defense 4%/*-" '%*-' -*#O/ or #/8-/#*O& '*0@ Guilt) be)ond reasonable doubt of . counts of rape& 8aid that --- ma) have recanted because she had nowhere else to $o but to the home of Gula$ao& n/'"d '!$' '!" 2&1*!/#/4.*$# "E$0.n$'./n /) $**,&"d-$22"##$n' %$& */nd,*'"d 0/-" '!$n $ */,2#" /) 1"$-& $)'"'!" d$'"& /) '!" */02#$.n"d /) .n*.d"n'& T!"-" %$& n/ &!/%.n4 )-/0 '!" ).nd.n4& /) '!" 2&1*!/#/4.&' '!$' $**,&"d-$22"##$n' !$d '!" &$0" 0"n'$# /- 2&1*!/#/4.*$# */nd.'./n $' '!" '.0" /) '!" &$.d .n*.d"n'& %ven assumin$ that accused6appellant was of such mental state at the time of the incidents! '!" 2&1*!/#/4.&' '"&'.)."d '!$' $**,&"d-$22"##$n' !$d '!" *$2$*.'1 '/ d.&*"-n -.4!' )-/0 %-/n4& 0-@ -ffirmed with modification of penalt) in view of '- 973; prohibitin$ imposition of death penalt)& -urora and >ernando were married& - )ear after! >ernando filed for annulment on the $round that his */n&"n' %$& /9'$.n"d '!-/,4! )/-*" $nd .n'.0.d$'./n& -urora claimed that prior to their marria$e? >ernando had divul$ed to her that he had a pre6marital relationship with a close relative& -ppeal rape& %/#% & 0- decision modified that Gula$ao must pa) e9emplar) dama$es for each count of

'ecantation was not accepted considerin$ the circumstance that --- was sta)in$ at the home of Gula$ao and his parents as she had nowhere to $o& T!"-" %$& n/ 2-//) '!$' '!" 0"n'$# */nd.'./n 3,#$4$/ $##"4"d#1 "E!.9.'"d %!"n !" %$& "E$0.n"d 91 *#.n.*$# 2&1*!/#/4.&', Y/#$nd$ P$#0$, %$& $#-"$d1 2-"&"n' $' '!" '.0" /) '!" -$2" .n*.d"n'& An1/n" %!/ 2#"$d& '!" "E"02'.n4 *.-*,0&'$n*" /) .n&$n.'1 9"$-& '!" 9,-d"n /) 2-/+.n4 .' %.'! *#"$- $nd */n+.n*.n4 "+.d"n*" Gesides! this 0ourt observes that n".'!"- '!" $*'& /) 3,#$4$/ 2-/+"n 9")/-" '!" */,-', n/- !.& $n&%"-& .n !.& '"&'.0/n1, &!/% $ */02#"'" d"2-.+$'./n /) .n'"##.4"n*" /- )-"" %.##& #nsanit) presupposes that the accused was completel) deprived of reason or discernment and freedom of will at the time of the commission of the crime& On#1 %!"n '!"-" .& $ */02#"'" d"2-.+$'./n /) .n'"##.4"n*" $' '!" '.0" /) '!" */00.&&./n /) '!" *-.0" &!/,#d '!" "E"02'.n4 *.-*,0&'$n*" /) .n&$n.'1 9" */n&.d"-"d

An$1$ + P$#$-/$n (17>0)

O' %' of the *0 -ffirmed& *he re(uirements for )-$,d to be a vice of consent in marria$e are enumerated in NCC A-' 8D (B) N/n-d.&*#/&,-" /) $ !,&9$ndG& 2-"-0$-.'$# -"#$'./n&!.2 %.'! $n/'!"- %/0$n .& n/' /n" "n,0"-$'"d *.-*,0&'$n*"& '!$' %/,#d */n&'.','" $ 4-/,nd )/- $nn,#0"n' ! it is further e9cluded b) the last para$raph of the article@ +no other misrepresentation or deceit as to chastit),

shall $ive $round to annul a marria$e& V.##$n,"+$ + CA (200=) *0@ ismissed the complaint to invalidate marria$e& Orlando and "ilia were married& 3 )ears after! Orlando filed for annulment on $round he was under '!-"$'& /) +./#"n*" $nd d,-"&& )/-*" when he married her because "ilia was alread) pre$nant& Orlando denies fatherhood& On her counterclaim! "ilia ar$ued that Orlando voluntaril) married her& '*0 and 0- dismissed petition& Petition P-'*"O G'-/*% & 0- decision affirmed! award of moral and e9emplar) dama$es %"%*% for lack of basis& >orce and intimidation is no moment since he was a securit) $uard& #n the li$ht of appellant=s admission that he had a se9ual intercourse with his wife in Aanuar) 1988! and !.& )$.#,-" '/ $''-.9,'" '!" #$''"-G& 2-"4n$n*1 '/ $n1 /'!"- 0$n, appellant cannot complain that he was deceived b) the appellee into marr)in$ her&

%& -uthorit) of the 8olemnizin$ Officer A-$n"& + O**.$n/ (2002) Petitioner 4ercedita 4ata -ranes char$ed respondent Aud$e Occiano with $ross i$norance of the law& Occiano is the presidin$ <ud$e in 0ourt of Galatan! 0amarines 8ur& Eowever! he solemnized the marria$e of -ranes and ominador Orobia on >ebruar) 15! .222 at the couple=s residence in /abua! 0amarines 8ur which is outside his territorial <urisdiction and without the re(uisite of marria$e license& #t appeared in the records that petitioner and Orobia filed their application of marria$e license on Aanuar) 5! .222 and was stamped that it will be issued on Aanuar) 15! .222 but neither of them claimed it& #n addition! no record also appeared with the Office of the 0ivil 'e$istrar General for the alle$ed marria$e& Gefore Aud$e Occiano started the ceremon)! he carefull) e9amined the documents and first refused to conduct the marria$e and advised them to reset the date considerin$ the absence of the marria$e license& Eowever! due to the earnest pleas of the parties! the influ9 of visitors and fear that the postponement of the weddin$ mi$ht a$$ravate the ph)sical condition of Orobia who <ust suffered from stroke! he solemnized the marria$e on the assurance of the couple that the) will provide the license that same afternoon& Occiano denies that he told the couple that their marria$e is valid& 4a)or /avarro filed an administrative case a$ainst 40*0 Aud$e oma$to) in relation to . specific acts@ (1) he solemnized a weddin$ knowin$ that the $room was merel) separated from his wife and (.) he solemnized another marria$e in apa! which is outside his <urisdiction& Aud$e Occiana fined Php5!222 with a 8*%'/ D-'/#/G that a repetition of the same or similar offense in the future will be dealt with more severel)& 4arria$e solemnized %.'!/,' $ 0$--.$4" #.*"n&" and /,'&.d" /) ;,-.&d.*'./n (part)=s house) is VOID& Aud$es can onl) solemnize marria$es within their <urisdiction& 4arria$e can onl) be held outside a <ud$e=s chamber or courtroom if@ (a) at the point of death (b) in remote places (c) re(uest of both parties in writin$ N sworn statement (-rt& 8 >0)& *he court held that +'!" '"--.'/-.$# ;,-.&d.*'./n /) -"&2/nd"n' ;,d4" .& #.0.'"d '/ '!" 0,n.*.2$#.'1 /) 3$#$'$n, C$0$-.n"& S,-& Eis act of solemnizin$ the marria$e of petitioner and Orobia in /abua! 0amarines 8ur therefore is contrar) to law and sub<ects him to administrative liabilit)& Eis act ma) not amount to $ross i$norance of the law for he alle$edl) solemnized the marria$e out of human compassion but nonetheless! he cannot avoid liabilit) for violatin$ the law on marria$e,&

N$+$--/ D/0$4'/1 (177=)

Aud$e

oma$to) acted in $ross i$norance of the law&

-n appellate court Austice or a Austice of this 0ourt has <urisdiction over the entire Philippines to solemnize marria$es! re$ardless of the venue! as lon$ as the re(uisites of the law are complied with& Eowever! Aud$es! who are appointed to specific <urisdictions! ma) officiate in weddin$s onl) within said areas and not be)ond& Dhere a <ud$e solemnizes a marria$e outside his courtLs <urisdiction! there is a resultant irre$ularit) in the formal re(uisite laid down in -rticle 7! which while it ma) not affect the validit) of the marria$e! ma) sub<ect the officiatin$ official to administrative liabilit)&

F M$--.$4" L.*"n&" S1 + CA (.222) >ilipina filed a petition for the declaration of nullit) of her marria$e to >ernando on the $round of ps)cholo$ical incapacit)& Fpon appeal to the 80! she raised the issue of the marria$e bein$ void for lack of a valid marria$e license at the time of its celebration pointin$ out that the date of the actual celebration of their marria$e and the date of issuance of their marria$e certificate and marria$e license are different and incon$ruous& 'estituto filed a petition for annulment of marria$e a$ainst 'osita& Ee alle$ed that the marria$e was celebrated without the parties securin$ a marria$e license& *he alle$ed marria$e license! procured in 0armona! 0avite! appearin$ on the marria$e contract! is a sham! as neither part) was a resident of 0armona! and the) never went to 0armona to appl) for a license with the local civil re$istrar of the said place& Fnder -rticle 82 of the 0ivil 0ode! the marria$e between >ilipina and >ernando is :O# be$innin$& - marria$e license is a formal re(uirement? its absence renders the marria$e void ab initio& from the

A#*$n'$-$ + A#*$n'$-$ (.225)

4arria$e is valid& *he cases where the court considered the absence of a marria$e license as a $round for considerin$ the marria$e void are clear6cut& *o be considered void on the $round of absence of a marria$e license! the law re(uires that the absence of such marria$e license must be apparent on the marria$e contract! or at the ver) least! supported b) a certification from the local civil re$istrar that no such marria$e license was issued to the parties& #n this case! the marria$e contract between the petitioner and respondent reflects a marria$e license number& - certification to this effect was also issued b) the local civil re$istrar of 0armona! 0avite& *he certification moreover is precise in that it specificall) identified the parties to whom the marria$e license was issued *he second marria$e is not covered b) the e9ception to the re(uirement of marria$e license hence it is :O# because of the absence of such element& *he five6)ear common6law cohabitation period! which is counted back from the date of celebration of marria$e! should be a period of le$al union had it not been for the absence of the marria$e& *his 56 )ear period should be the )ears immediatel) before the da) of the marria$e and it should be a period of cohabitation characterized b) e9clusivit) T meanin$ no third part) was involved at an) time within the 5 )ears and continuit) T that is unbroken& Otherwise! if that continuous 56)ear cohabitation is computed without an) distinction as to whether the parties were capacitated to marr) each other durin$ the entire five )ears! then the law would be sanctionin$ immoralit) and encoura$in$ parties to have common law relationships and placin$ them on the same footin$ with those who lived faithfull) with their spouse& *he case is barred b) res <udicata& #n 0ivil 0ase /o& 8P 3731695! petitioner impliedl) conceded that the marria$e had been solemnized and celebrated in accordance with law& Petitioner is now bound b) this admission& *he alle$ed absence of a marria$e license which petitioner raises now could have been presented and heard in the earlier case& *herefore! havin$ e9pressl) and impliedl) conceded the validit) of their marria$e celebration! petitioner is now deemed to have waived an) defects therein& 4arria$e invalid& *he falsit) of the affidavit cannot be considered as a mere irre$ularit) in the formal re(uisites of marria$e& *he law dispenses with the marria$e license re(uirement for a man and a woman who have lived to$ether and e9clusivel) with each other as husband and wife for a continuous and unbroken period of at least five )ears before the marria$e& *he aim of this provision is to avoid

N.?$# + 3$1$d/4 (.222)

*he 1st wife was shot b) Pepito resultin$ in her death& 1 )ear and 8 months thereafter! Pepito and Gada)o$ $ot married without an) marria$e license& #n lieu thereof! the) e9ecuted an affidavit statin$ that the) had lived to$ether as husband and wife for at least five )ears and were thus e9empt from securin$ a marria$e license& -fter their father=s death! children from the 1st marria$e filed a petition for declaration of nullit) of the marria$e of Pepito and Gada)o$ alle$in$ that the said marria$e was void for lack of a marria$e license& 4allion filed a petition for the declaration of nullit) of his marria$e to -lcantara on the $round of ps)cholo$ical incapacit)& '*0 denied the petition& -fter the decision attained finalit)! 4allion filed a .nd petition this time alle$in$ that his marria$e to -lcantara was null and void due to the fact that it was celebrated without a valid marria$e license& '*0 dismissed the case& 1& 'einel e castro and -nnabelle -ssidao6 e 0astro were sweethearts! .& *he) decided to $et married& 7& *he) applied for the necessar) license on 8eptember 1993& 3& *he) had their first se9ual relation sometime in

M$##./n + A#*$n'$-$ (.22;)

D" C$&'-/ +& D" C$&'-/ F"9-,$-1 13, 2008

October 1993! and had re$ularl) en$a$ed in se9 thereafter& 5& Dhen the couple went back to the Office of the 0ivil 'e$istrar! the marria$e license had alread) e9pired& ;& #n order to push throu$h with their plan of $ettin$ married! in lieu of a marria$e license! the) e9ecuted an affidavit dated 17 4arch 1995 statin$ that the) had been livin$ to$ether as husband and wife for at least five )ears& 5& *he couple $ot married on the same date 8& /evertheless! after the ceremon)! petitioner and respondent went back to their respective homes and did not live to$ether as husband and wife& 9& 1995@ respondent $ave birth to a child named 'einna *ricia -& e 0astro& 12& On 3 Aune 1998! respondent filed a complaint for support a$ainst petitioner before the 'e$ional *rial 0ourt of Pasi$ 0it) 11& Petitioner denied that he is married to respondent! claimin$ that their marria$e is void ab initio since the marria$e was facilitated b) a fake affidavit (since the) did not actuall) live to$ether for 5 )ears prior to the marria$e) #88F%@ #s the marria$e valid considerin$ that the facts stated in the affidavit that the) lived to$ether for 5 )ears prior to the marria$e was untrueC R"2,9#.* +& D$1/' M$-*! 28, 2008 1& .& .3 /ovember 198;@ Aose and >elisa were married& #n lieu of a marria$e license! Aose and >elisa e9ecuted a sworn affidavit! also dated .3 /ovember 198;! attestin$ that the) had lived to$ether as husband and wife for at least five )ears& Eowever! the contents of the affidavit were false for the) reall) did not cohabit for 5 )ears& #n fact! Aose and >elisa started livin$ to$ether onl) on Aune 198;! or barel) five months before the celebration of their marria$e& Petitioner Aose now wants to declare the marria$e void& Ee ar$ues that the re(uisites for the proper application of the e9emption from a marria$e license under -rticle 5; of the 0ivil 0ode were not full) attendant in the case at bar& #n particular! Aose cited the le$al condition that the man and the woman must have been livin$ to$ether as husband and wife

e9posin$ the parties to humiliation! shame and embarrassment concomitant with the scandalous cohabitation of persons outside a valid marria$e due to the publication of ever) applicant=s name for a marria$e license& #n the instant case! there was no +scandalous cohabitation, to protect? in fact! there was no cohabitation at all& *he false affidavit which petitioner and respondent e9ecuted so the) could push throu$h with the marria$e has no value whatsoever? it is a mere scrap of paper& *he) were not e9empt from the marria$e license re(uirement& *heir failure to obtain and present a marria$e license renders their marria$e void ab initio& octrine. (althou$h not related to the topic of marria$e license)@ /iSal vs & Ga)ado$@ the 0ourt ma) pass upon the validit) of a marria$e even in a suit not directl) instituted to (uestion the validit) of said marria$e! so lon$ as it is essential to the determination of the case& Eowever! evidence must be adduced! testimonial or documentar)! to prove the e9istence of $rounds renderin$ such a marria$e an absolute nullit)& #n the case at bar! althou$h the complaint is one for support! the court ma) still determine the validit) of the marria$e since the propriet) of the complaint for support hin$es on the validit) of the marria$e&

- false affidavit renders the marria$e void ab initio& >or the e9ception in -rticle 5; to appl)! it is a sine (ua non thereto that the man and the woman must have attained the a$e of ma<orit)! and that! bein$ unmarried! the) have lived to$ether as husband and wife for at least five )ears& /either did Aose and >elisa meet the e9plicit le$al re(uirement in -rticle 5;! that the) should have lived to$ether as husband and wife for at least five )ears! so as to be e9cepted from the re(uirement of a marria$e license& *he e9ception of a marria$e license under -rticle 5; of the 0ivil 0ode . applies onl) to those who have lived to$ether as husband and wife for at least five )ears and desire to marr) each other& *he 0ivil 0ode! in no ambi$uous terms! places a minimum period re(uirement of five )ears of cohabitation& /o other readin$ of the law can be had! since the lan$ua$e of -rticle 5; is precise& *he minimum re(uisite of five )ears of cohabitation is an indispensabilit) carved in the lan$ua$e of the law& >or a marria$e celebrated under -rticle 5; to be valid! this material fact cannot be dispensed with& #t is embodied in the law not as a director) re(uirement! but as one that partakes of a mandator) character& 8imilarl)! we are not impressed b) the ratiocination of the 'epublic that as a marria$e under a license is not invalidated b) the fact that the license was wron$full) obtained! so must a marria$e not be invalidated b) a fabricated statement that the parties have cohabited for at least five )ears as

7&

3&

Why the Civil Code and not the Family Code was applied - the marriage of Jose and Felisa was celebrated on 24 November 19 !" prior to the effectivity of the Family Code# $ccordingly" the Civil Code governs their %nion#

for at least five )ears before the marria$e& %ssentiall)! he maintained that the affidavit of marital cohabitation e9ecuted b) him and >elisa was false& #88F%@ Dhether or not a false affidavit would render the marria$e void ab initio&

re(uired b) law& *he contrast is fla$rant& *he former is with reference to an irre$ularit) of the marria$e license! and not to the absence of one& Eere! there is no marria$e license at all& >urthermore! the falsit) of the alle$ation in the sworn affidavit relatin$ to the period of Aose and >elisa=s cohabitation! which would have (ualified their marria$e as an e9ception to the re(uirement for a marria$e license! cannot be a mere irre$ularit)! for it refers to a (uintessential fact that the law precisel) re(uired to be deposed and attested to b) the parties under oath& #f the essential matter in the sworn affidavit is a lie! then it is but a mere scrap of paper! without force and effect& Eence! it is as if there was no affidavit at all&

II E))"*' /) D")"*'.+" M$--.$4"& /n '!" S'$',& /) '!" C!.#d-"n A I) 0$--.$4" .& +/.d$9#" 3 I) 0$--.$4" .& '"-0.n$'"d C I) 0$--.$4" .& +/.d III M$--.$4" C"-'.).*$'" IV Add.'./n$# R"<,.-"0"n'& )/- Ann,#0"n' /- D"*#$-$'./n /) N,##.'1 A,-"#./ +& A,-"#./ :,n" =, 2011 1& .& Petitioner and respondent were married on 4arch .7! 1988& On 4a) 9! .22.! respondent filed with the 'e$ional *rial 0ourt ('*0) of Uuezon 0it)! Granch 93! a Petition for eclaration of /ullit) of 4arria$e& #n her petition! respondent alle$ed that both she and petitioner were ps)cholo$icall) incapacitated of performin$ and compl)in$ with their respective essential marital obli$ations& On /ovember 8! .22.! petitioner filed a 4otion to ismiss the petition& Ee ar$ues that@ a& the alle$ations contained in respondent=s petition are insufficient to support a declaration of nullit) of marria$e based on ps)cholo$ical incapacit)& 8pecificall)! petitioner contends that the petition failed to compl) with three of the 4olina $uidelines! namel)@ i& that the root cause of the ps)cholo$ical incapacit) must be alle$ed in the complaint? ii& that such illness must be $rave enou$h to brin$ about the disabilit) of the part) to assume the essential obli$ations of marria$e? and iii& that the non6complied marital obli$ation must be stated in the petition& *he '*0 denied the 4* & On >ebruar) 1;! .223! petitioner appealed the '*0 decision to the 0- via petition for certiorari Oes& 0ase 'emanded& '*0 ordered to proceed with trial& Gefore an)thin$ else! it bears to point out that had respondent=s complaint been filed after 4arch 15! .227! this present petition would have been denied since 8upreme 0ourt -dministrative 4atter /o& 2.611612 prohibits the filin$ of a motion to dismiss in actions for annulment of marria$e& Ge that as it ma)! after a circumspect review of the ar$uments raised b) petitioner herein! this 0ourt finds that the petition is not meritorious& #n 'epublic v& 0ourt of -ppeals! this 0ourt created the 4olina $uidelines to aid the courts in the disposition of cases involvin$ ps)cholo$ical incapacit)! to wit@ (1) Gurden of proof to show the nullit) of the marria$e belon$s to the plaintiff& (.) *he root cause of the ps)cholo$ical incapacit) must be@ (a) medicall) or clinicall) identified! (b) alle$ed in the complaint! (c) sufficientl) proven b) e9perts and (d) clearl) e9plained in the decision& (7) *he incapacit) must be proven to be e9istin$ at 1the time of the celebration1 of the marria$e& (3) 8uch incapacit) must also be shown to be medicall) or clinicall) permanent or incurable& (5) 8uch illness must be $rave enou$h to brin$ about the disabilit) of the part) to assume the essential obli$ations of marria$e& (;) *he essential marital obli$ations must be those embraced b) -rticles ;8 up to 51 of the >amil) 0ode as re$ards the husband and wife! as well as -rticles ..2! ..1 and ..5 of the same 0ode in re$ard to parents and their children& 8uch non6 complied marital obli$ation(s) must also be stated in the petition! 2-/+"n 91 "+.d"n*" $nd .n*#,d"d .n '!" '"E' /) '!" d"*.&./n&

7&

3& 5&

;& 5&

under 'ule ;5 of the 'ules of 0ourt& *he 0- a$reed with the '*0 and said that it was proper that the 4* was denied Eence! this petition

(5) #nterpretations $iven b) the /ational -ppellate 4atrimonial *ribunal of the 0atholic 0hurch in the Philippines! while not controllin$ or decisive! should be $iven $reat respect b) our courts& (8) *he trial court must order the prosecutin$ attorne) or fiscal and the 8olicitor General to appear as counsel for the state& N/ d"*.&./n &!$## 9" !$nd"d d/%n ,n#"&& '!" S/#.*.'/- G"n"-$# .&&,"& $ *"-'.).*$'./n, %!.*! %.## 9" <,/'"d .n '!" d"*.&./n, 9-.")#1 &'$'.n4 '!"-".n !.& -"$&/n& )/- !.& $4-""0"n' /- /22/&.'./n, $& '!" *$&" 0$1 9", '/ '!" 2"'.'./n& *his 0ourt! pursuant to 8upreme 0ourt -dministrative 4atter /o& 2.611612! has modified the above pronouncements! particularl) 8ection .(d) thereof! statin$ that '!" *"-'.).*$'./n /) '!" S/#.*.'/- G"n"-$# -"<,.-"d .n '!" M/#.n$ *$&" .& d.&2"n&"d %.'! '/ $+/.d d"#$1& 8till! -rticle 38 of the >amil) 0ode mandates that the appearance of the prosecutin$ attorne) or fiscal assi$ned be on behalf of the 8tate to take steps to prevent collusion between the parties and to take care that evidence is not fabricated or suppressed& /O*%@ Please refer to this footnote7 on wh) the complaint complied with the 4olina doctrine

ISSUEK DR/ the complaint complied with the 4olina doctrine

V F/-".4n M$--.$4"& $nd D.+/-*"& S$#,d A-*$ +& 1& Aavier was a native born citizen of the Philippines who! A#)-"d/ :$+."in 1975! married 8alud '& -rca! another >ilipino citizen& :,#1 31, 17DB .& #n 19.5 appellant enlisted in the F&8& /av) and in 1978 sailed for the Fnited 8tates leavin$ behind his wife and child! 7& on -u$ust 17! 1932! he filed an action for divorce .n '!" C.-*,.' C/,-' /) M/9.#" C/,n'1, A#$9$0$, U S A&! alle$in$ as $round abandonment b) his wife& 3& Eavin$ received a cop) of the complaint! 8alud '& -rca filed an answer alle$in$! amon$ other thin$s! that appellant Aavier was not a resident of 4obile 0ount)! but of /aic! 0avite! Philippines! and that it was not true that the cause of their separation was abandonment on her part but that appellant was in the Fnited 8tates! without her! because he was then enlisted in the F&8&
&

/o& *he decrees of divorce obtained Aavier shall not be reco$nized here& '%-8O/ 1@ *he F8 -labama 0ourt has no <urisdiction over the persons of -cra and Aavier& #n essence! it was held that one of the essential conditions for the validit) of a decree of divorce is that the court must have <urisdiction over the sub<ect matter and in order that this ma) be ac(uired! plaintiff must be domiciled in $ood faith in the 8tate in which it is $ranted #t is true that 8alud '& -rca filed an answer in the divorce case instituted at the 4obile 0ount) in view of the summons served upon her in this <urisdiction! but this action cannot be interpreted as placin$ her under the <urisdiction of the court because its onl) purpose was to impu$n the claim of appellant&

First, contrary to petitioners assertion, this Court finds that the root cause of psychological incapacity was stated and alleged in the complaint. We agree with the manifestation of respondent that the family backgrounds of both petitioner and respondent were discussed in the complaint as the root causes of their psychological incapacity. Moreover, a competent and e pert psychologist clinically identified the same as the root causes. !econd, the petition likewise alleged that the illness of both parties was of such grave a nature as to bring about a disability for them to assume the essential obligations of marriage. "he psychologist reported that respondent suffers from #istrionic $ersonality %isorder with &arcissistic Features. $etitioner, on the other hand, allegedly suffers from $assive 'ggressive (&egativistic) $ersonality %isorder. "he incapacity of both parties to perform their marital obligations was alleged to be grave, incorrigible and incurable. *astly, this Court also finds that the essential marital obligations that were not complied with were alleged in the petition. 's can be easily gleaned from the totality of the petition, respondents allegations fall under 'rticle +, of the Family Code which states that -the husband and the wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support..t bears to stress that whether or not petitioner and respondent are psychologically incapacitated to fulfill their marital obligations is a matter for the /"C to decide at the first instance. A perusal of the Molina guidelines would show that the same contemplate a situation wherein the parties have presented their evidence, witnesses have testified, and that a decision has been reached by the court after due hearing. !uch process can be gleaned from guidelines 0, + and ,, which refer to a decision rendered by the /"C after trial on the merits. .t would certainly be too burdensome to ask this Court to resolve at first instance whether the allegations contained in the petition are sufficient to substantiate a case for psychological incapacity. *et it be remembered that each case involving the application of 'rticle 1+ must be treated distinctly and 2udged not on the basis of a priori assumptions, predilections or generali3ations but according to its own attendant facts. Courts should interpret the provision on a case4to4case basis, guided by e perience, the findings of e perts and researchers in psychological disciplines, and by decisions of church tribunals. 1, .t would thus be more prudent for this Court to remand the case to the RTC, as it would be in the best position to scrutinize the evidence as well as hear and weigh the evidentiary value of the testimonies of the ordinary witnesses and expert witnesses presented by the parties. Finally, the C' properly dismissed petitioners petition. 's a general rule, the denial of a motion to dismiss, which is an interlocutory order, is not reviewable by certiorari. $etitioners remedy is to reiterate the grounds in his motion to dismiss, as defenses in his answer to the petition for nullity of marriage, proceed trial and, in case of an adverse decision, appeal the decision in due time.

/av)& /evertheless! the 0ircuit 0ourt of 4obile 0ount) rendered <ud$ment $rantin$ appellant a decree of divorce on -pril 9! 1931& ;& On Aul)! 1931 M that is after securin$ a divorce from plaintiff 8alud '& -rca on -pril 9! 1931 M defendant -lfredo Aavier married *helma >rancis! an -merican citizen 5& #n 1939! *helma >rancis! defendantLs -merican wife! obtained a divorce from him and was $ranted& 8& Eavin$ retired from the Fnited 8tates /av)! defendant -lfredo Aavier returned to the Philippines on >ebruar) 17! 1952& 9& -fter his arrival in the Philippines! armed with two decrees of divorce M one a$ainst his first wife 8alud '& -rca and the other a$ainst him b) his second wife *helma >rancis M issued b) the 0ircuit 0ourt of 4obile 0ount)! 8tate of -labama! F8-! defendant -lfredo Aavier married 4aria Odvina& 12& Ee was char$ed with bi$am) b) herein petitioner& 11& *he petitioner also asks for support& 8he alle$es that since the divorce decree is not valid and therefore their marria$e was still intact! all his subse(uent marria$es are bi$amous and void& 1.& *he respondent ar$ues that the divorce decrees obtained in the F8 has valid effect here& 5& ISSUEK oes the divorce decree of the first marria$e have valid effect in this <urisdictionC

*o $ive a court <urisdiction on the $round of the plaintiffLs residence in the 8tate or countr) of the <udicial forum! his residence must be bona fide& I) $ &2/,&" #"$+"& '!" )$0.#1 d/0.*.#" $nd 4/"& '/ $n/'!"- S'$'" )/- '!" &/#" 2,-2/&" /) /9'$.n.n4 $ d.+/-*", $nd %.'! no intention of remaining, !.& -"&.d"n*" '!"-" .& n/' &,)).*."n' '/ */n)"- ;,-.&d.*'./n /n '!" */,-'& /) '!" S'$'" *hat respondent never intended to live there permanentl) is shown b) the fact that after his marria$e to *helma >rancis in 1931! he moved to /ew Oork where he bou$ht a house and lot! and after his divorce from *helma in 1939 and his retirement from the F&8& /av)! he returned to the Philippines and married 4aria Odvina of /aic! '%-8O/ .@ T!" */,-'& .n '!" P!.#.22.n"& *$n 4-$n' d.+/-*" /n#1 /n '!" 4-/,nd /) $d,#'"-1 /n '!" 2$-' /) '!" %.)" /- */n*,9.n$4" /n '!" 2$-' /) '!" !,&9$nd, $nd .) '!" d"*-"" .& 2-"d.*$'"d /n $n/'!"- 4-/,nd, '!$' d"*-"" *$nn/' 9" "n)/-*"d .n '!.& ;,-.&d.*'./n Dhile the decisions of this court heretofore in refusin$ to reco$nize the validit) of forei$n divorce has usuall) been e9pressed in the ne$ative and have been based upon lack of matrimonial domicile or fraud or collusion! we have not overlooked the provisions of the 0ivil 0ode now enforced in these #slands& -rticle 9 thereof reads as follows@ 1*he laws relatin$ to famil) ri$hts and duties! or to the status! condition! and le$al capacit) of persons! are bindin$ upon 8paniards even thou$h the) reside in a forei$n countr)&1 1-nd -rticle 11! the last part of which reads 1& & & prohibitive laws concernin$ persons! their acts and their propert)! and those intended to promote public order and $ood morals shall not be rendered without effect b) an) forei$n laws or <ud$ments or b) an)thin$ done or an) a$reements entered into a forei$n countr)&1 1#t is therefore a serious (uestion whether an) forei$n divorce! -"#$'.n4 '/ *.'.6"n& /) '!" P!.#.22.n" I&#$nd&, will be reco$nized in this <urisdiction! e9cept it be for a cause! and under conditions for which the courts of the Philippine #slands would $rant a divorce&1 *he courts in the Philippines can $rant a divorce onl) on the $round of 1adulter) on the part of the wife or concubina$e on the part of the husband1 as provided for under section 1 of -ct /o& .512& *he divorce decree in (uestion was $ranted on the $round of desertion! clearl) not a cause for divorce under our laws& *he above pronouncement is sound as it is in keepin$ with the well known principle of Private #nternational "aw which prohibits the e9tension of a forei$n <ud$ment! or the law affectin$ the same! if it is contrar) to the law or fundamental polic) of the 8tate of the foru$& #t is also in keepin$ with our concept or moral values which has alwa)s looked upon marria$e as an institution& -nd such concept has actuall) cr)stallized in a more tan$ible manner when in the new 0ivil 0ode our people! throu$h 0on$ress! decided to eliminate alto$ether our law relative to divorce& Gecause of such concept we cannot but react adversel) to an) attempt to e9tend here the effect of a decree which is not in consonance with our customs! morals! and traditions&

T"n*!$+"6 +&

1&

*enchavez and %scano! both of le$al a$e! were

#nvalid

E&*$n/ N/+"09"- 27, 17=D

.& 7& 3&

5& ;& 5& 8&

9&

clandestinel) married (without the knowled$e of her parents) on .3 >ebruar) 1938 Eowever! as of Aune! 1938 the newl)weds were alread) estran$ed On .3 Aune 1952! without informin$ her husband! she applied for a passport! the application was approved! and she left for the Fnited 8tates& On .. -u$ust 1952! she filed a verified complaint for divorce a$ainst the herein plaintiff in the 8econd Audicial istrict 0ourt of the 8tate of /evada in and for the 0ount) of Dashoe! on the $round of 1e9treme cruelt)! entirel) mental in character&1 On .1 October 1952! a decree of divorce! 1final and absolute1! was issued in open court b) the said tribunal& On 17 8eptember 1953! :icenta married an -merican! 'ussell "eo 4oran! in /evada& 8he ac(uired -merican citizenship on 8 -u$ust 1958& Gut on 72 Aul) 1955! *enchavez had initiated the proceedin$s at bar b) a complaint a$ainst :icenta >& %scaSoaskin$ for a decree of le$al separation and one million pesos in dama$es& :icenta ar$ued that the divorce from plaintiff obtained in the F8 was valid and conse(uentl)! her marria$e to her present husband! 'ussell "eo 4oran was also valid&

*he valid marria$e between Pastor *enchavez and :icenta %scaSo remained subsistin$ and undissolved under Philippine law! notwithstandin$ the decree of absolute divorce that the wife sou$ht and obtained from the 8econd Audicial istrict 0ourt of Dashoe 0ount)! 8tate of /evada& A' '!" '.0" '!" d.+/-*" d"*-"" %$& .&&,"d, V.*"n'$ E&*$?/, #.(" !"- !,&9$nd, %$& &'.## $ F.#.2.n/ *.'.6"n S!" %$& '!"n &,9;"*' '/ P!.#.22.n" #$%, and -rticle 15 of the 0ivil 0ode of the Philippines ('ep& -ct /o& 78;)! alread) in force at the time! e9pressl) provided@ "aws relatin$ to famil) ri$hts and duties or to the status! condition and le$al capacit) of persons are bindin$ upon the citizens of the Philippines! even thou$h livin$ abroad& *he 0ivil 0ode of the Philippines! now in force! does not admit absolute divorce! #uo ad vinculo $atri$onii? and in fact does not even use that term! to further emphasize its restrictive polic) on the matter! in contrast to the precedin$ le$islation that admitted absolute divorce on $rounds of adulter) of the wife or concubina$e of the husband (-ct .512)& #nstead of divorce! the present 0ivil 0ode onl) provides for le"al separation (*itle #:! Gook 1! -rts& 95 to 128)! and! even in that case! it e9pressl) prescribes that 1the marria$e bonds shall not be severed1 (-rt& 12;! subpar& 1)& >or the Philippine courts to reco$nize and $ive reco$nition or effect to a forei$n decree of absolute divorce betiveen >ilipino citizens could be a patent violation of the declared public polic) of the state! speciall) in view of the third para$raph of -rticle 15 of the 0ivil 0ode that prescribes the followin$@ Prohibitive laws concernin$ persons! their acts or propert)! and those which have for their ob<ect public order! polic) and $ood customs! shall not be rendered ineffective b) laws or <ud$ments promul$ated! or b) determinations or conventions a$reed upon in a forei$n countr)& >rom this point of view! it is irrelevant that appellant Pastor *enchavez should have appeared in the /evada divorce court& Primaril) because the polic) of our law cannot be nullified b) acts of private parties (0ivil 0ode!-rt& 15! <am (uot&)? and additionall)! because '!" 0"-" $22"$-$n*" /) $ n/n--"&.d"n' */n&/-' *$nn/' */n)"- ;,-.&d.*'./n %!"-" '!" */,-' /-.4.n$##1 !$d n/n" (-rea vs& Aavier! 95 Phil& 559)& >rom the precedin$ facts and considerations! there flows as a necessar) conse(uence that in this <urisdiction :icenta %scaSoLs divorce and second marria$e are not entitled to reco$nition as valid? for her previous union to plaintiff *enchavez must be declared to be e9istent and undissolved& #t follows! likewise! that her refusal to perform her wifel) duties! and her denial of consortiu$ and her desertion of her husband constitute in law a wron$ caused throu$h her fault! for which the husband is entitled to the correspondin$ indemnit) (0ivil 0ode! -rt& .15;)& /either an unsubstantiated char$e of deceit nor an anon)mous letter char$in$ immoralit) a$ainst the husband constitute! contrar) to her claim! ade(uate e9cuse& Dherefore! her marria$e and cohabitation with 'ussell "eo 4oran is technicall) 1intercourse with a person not her husband1 from the standpoint of Philippine "aw! and entitles plaintiff6appellant *enchavez to a decree of 1le$al separation under our law! on the basis of adulter)1 DIVORCE IS VALID RICHARD IS NO LONGER THE HUS3AND OF ALICE AND HAS NO RIGHT ON THE LATTERLS 3USINESS

ISSUEK DR/ the divorce decree obtained b) :icenta in /evada is valid here&

V$n D/-n R/0.##/ (178D)

Petitioner! -lice :an orn! is a citizen of the Philippines& 'espondent! 'ichard Fpton! is a F8 0itizen& *he) were married in Eon$kon$ and resided in the Philippines& -lice and 'ichard were divorced in /evada! F8 in 198. and -lice

'emarried *heodore :an orn& #n 1987! 'ichard filed a case a$ainst -lice to order the latter to render an accountin$ on her business! the Galleon 8hop& 'ichard ar$ues that the business is their con<u$al propert) and that the court should $ive him the ri$ht to mana$e the con<u$al propert)& On the other hand! -lice ar$ues that the action is barred b) previous <ud$ment in the divorce proceedin$s wherein respondent had acknowled$ed that he and petitioner had 1no communit) propert)1 as of 198.& P.#$2.# S/0"-$ (1787) + Petitioner (#melda) is a >ilipino citizen& 'espondent (%rich) is a German /ational& *he) were married in German) and resided in the Philippines& 7 K )ears after the marria$e! respondent initiated a divorce proceedin$ in German)& Petitioner! on the other hand! filed an action for le$al separation! support and separation of propert)& #n 198;! German court $ranted the divorce decree and the custod) of the child to petitioner& 5 months after the divorce decree! respondent filed a case for adulter) in 4anila alle$in$ that petitioner had an affair with Dilliam 0hia as earl) as 198.& C,.'$ + CA (1778) >e Uuita and -rturo Padlan! both >ilipino were married in 1931& >e sued -rturo for divorce in F8-& #n 1953! she obtained a final <ud$ment of divorce& 7 weeks after! she married >eliz *upaz but also $ot divorced& 8he then married Dernimont& -rturo died& 'espondent! Glandina Padlan! claimin$ to be survivin$ spouse! and their children pra)ed for appointment as administrator of -rturo=s estate& *rial 0ourt ruled that Glandina is not the survivin$ spouse citin$ *enchavez v& %scaSo which held that 1a forei$n divorce between >ilipino citizens sou$ht and decreed after the effectivit) of the present 0ivil 0ode was not entitled to reco$nition as valid in this <urisdiction& *0 held that it is >e Uuita who is the survivin$ spouse and entitled to the estate& "orenzo /& "lorente was an enlisted serviceman of the Fnited 8tates /av)& Ee married Paula "lorente in 1975& #n 1937! "orenzo became a F8 0itizen& Eowever! when he returned to the Philippines to visit his famil)! he discovered that Paula was livin$ with 0eferino "lorente and was pre$nant& "orenzo went back to the F8 and filed for divorce which was $ranted in 195.& "orenzo returned to the Philippines and married -licia in

Pursuant to his national law! private respondent is no lon$er the husband of petitioner& Ee would have no standin$ to sue in the case below as petitionerLs husband entitled to e9ercise control over con<u$al assets& -s he is bound b) the ecision of his own countr)Ls 0ourt! which validl) e9ercised <urisdiction over him! and whose decision he does not repudiate! he is estopped b) his own representation before said 0ourt from assertin$ his ri$ht over the alle$ed con<u$al propert)& Owin$ to the nationalit) principle embodied in -rticle 15 of the 0ivil 0ode! onl) Philippine nationals are covered b) the polic) a$ainst absolute divorces the same bein$ considered contrar) to our concept of public police and moralit)& Eowever! aliens ma) obtain divorces abroad! which ma) be reco$nized in the Philippines! provided the) are valid accordin$ to their national law& COMPLAINT DISMISSED RESPONDENT IS NO LONGER THE HUS3AND OF PETITIONER WHEN THE COMPLAINT IS FILED 0rime of adulter)! as well as four other crimes a$ainst chastit)! cannot be prosecuted e9cept upon a sworn written complaint filed b) the /))"nd"d &2/,&"& #t is indispensable that the status and capacit) of the complainant to commence the action be definitel) established and such status or capacit) must indubitabl) "E.&' $& /) '!" '.0" !" .n.'.$'"& '!" $*'./n& *he -,#" is that after a divorce has been decreed! the innocent spouse no lon$er has the ri$ht to institute proceedin$s a$ainst the offenders where the statute provides that the innocent spouse shall have the e9clusive ri$ht to institute a prosecution for adulter)& Dhere! however! proceedin$s have been properl) commenced! a divorce subse(uentl) $ranted can have no le$al effect on the prosecution of the criminal proceedin$s to a conclusion& '%4-/ % *O *E% *'#-" 0OF'* >O' '%0%P*#O/ O> %:# %/0% *O P'O:% *E% E%'% #*-'O '#GE*8 O> P%*#*#O/%'& -liens ma) obtain divorces abroad! which ma) be reco$nized in the Philippines! provided the) are valid accordin$ to their national law& Once proved that she was no lon$er a >ilipino citizen at the time of their divorce! petitioner could ver) well lose her ri$ht to inherit from -rturo& Eence! case was remanded to trial court to receive evidence on citizenship of Petitioner when she obtained the divorce&

L#/-"n'" + CA (2000)

DIVORCE IS VALID REMANDED TO TRIAL COURT TO DETERMINE INTRINSIC VALIDITY OF THE WILL AND RECEPTION OF EVIDENCE OF THE FOREIGN LAW "orenzo became an -merican citizen lon$ before and at the time of@ (1) his divorce from Paula? (.) marria$e to -licia? (7) e9ecution of his will? and (3) death& ivorce obtained b) "orenzo from his first wife Paula was valid and reco$nized in this <urisdiction as a matter of comit)& /ow! the effects of this divorce (as to the succession to the

1958& -licia had no knowled$e of the first marria$e even if the) resided in the same town as Paula! who did not oppose the marria$e or cohabitation& "orenzo left a will be(ueathin$ his propert) to -licia and their children& G$-*.$ R"*./ (2001) 'espondent became an -ustralian citizen in 199.& Ee married Petitioner in 1993& Eowever! in 1995! the two lived separatel) without prior <udicial dissolution of their marria$e but their con<u$al assets were divided in 199; in accordance with their 8tatutor) eclarations secured in -ustralia& #n 1998! Petitioner filed a 0omplaint for eclaration of /ullit) of 4arria$e on the $round of Gi$am) alle$in$ that 'espondent had a prior subsistin$ marria$e at the time he married her in 1993& -lso in 1998! 'espondent was able to secure a divorce decree from a famil) court in 8)dne)! -ustralia& *he Orbecidos had a valid marria$e in the Philippines when the) were both >ilipinos& *he wife left for F8! was naturalized! obtained a divorce decree allowin$ her to remarr) and thereafter married an -merican& 'espondent husband sou$ht authorit) to remarr) from the 0ourt& + 'oderick 'ecio! a >ilipino! was married to %ditha 8amson! an -ustralian citizen& *he) resided in -ustralia& #n 1989! a decree of divorce was issued b) -ustralian >amil) 0ourt&

estate of the decedent) are matters best left to the determination of the trial court& -s to the validit) of the will! the intrinsic validit) and who shall inherit from "orenzo are issues best proved b) forei$n law which must be pleaded and proved& Dhether the will was e9ecuted in accordance with the formalities re(uired is answered b) referrin$ to Philippine law& REMANDED TO RECEIVE EVIDENCE TO SHOW RESPONDENTGS LEGAL CAPACITY TO MARRY PETITIONER AND IN FAILING THAT, DECLARE THEIR MARRIAGE VOID ON THE GROUND OF 3IGAMY ivorce is a (uestion of fact& - divorce obtained abroad b) an alien ma) be reco$nized in our <urisdiction! provided such decree is valid accordin$ to the national law of the forei$ner& Eowever! the divorce decree and the $overnin$ personal law of the alien spouse who obtained the divorce must be proven& Our courts do not take <udicial notice of forei$n laws and <ud$ments? hence! like an) other facts! both the divorce decree and the national law of the alien must be alle$ed and proven accordin$ to our law on evidence& Gefore a forei$n <ud$ment is $iven presumptive evidentiar) value! the document must first be presented and admitted in evidence& *he best evidence of a <ud$ment is the <ud$ment itself& *he decree purports to be a written act or record of an act of an official bod) or tribunal of a forei$n countr)& T!" F.#.2.n/ &2/,&" *$n -"0$--1 #n Uuita! which shared a similar factual pattern with this case! the 0ourt hinted! b) wa) of obiter dictu$! that a >ilipino divorced b) his naturalized forei$n spouse is no lon$er married under Philippine law and can thus remarr)& *akin$ into consideration the le$islative intent and appl)in$ the rule of reason! we hold that Para$raph . of -rticle .; should be interpreted to include cases involvin$ parties who! at the time of the celebration of the marria$e were >ilipino citizens! but later on! one of them becomes naturalized as a forei$n citizen and obtains a divorce decree& *he >ilipino spouse should likewise be allowed to remarr) as if the other part) were a forei$ner at the time of the solemnization of the marria$e& T!" $#."n &2/,&" *$n *#$.0 n/ -.4!' ,nd"- '!" 2 nd 2$- /) A-'.*#" 2= /) '!" FC $& '!" &,9&'$n'.+" -.4!' .' "&'$9#.&!"& .& .n )$+/- /) '!" F.#.2.n/ &2/,&" *he provision was included in the law to avoid the absurd situation where the >ilipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse who! after obtainin$ a divorce! is no lon$er married to the >ilipino spouse& *he le$islative intent is for the benefit of the >ilipino spouse! b) clarif)in$ his or her marital status! settlin$ the doubts created b) the divorce decree& *his action is not limited to the reco$nition of the forei$n divorce decree& #f the court finds that the decree capacitated the alien spouse to remarr)! the courts can declare that the >ilipino spouse is likewise capacitated to contract another marria$e& Eowever! no Philippine court can make a similar declaration for the alien spouse! whose status and le$al capacit) are $enerall) $overned b) his national law& S"n T$0$n/L& &,9&"<,"n' 0$--.$4" '/ E&'-"##.'$ .& +/.d $9 .n.'./ *he 0ivil 0ode $overns the marria$e of Hora)da and the late 8en& *amano? their marria$e was never invalidated b) P 1287& -rticle 17(1) thereof provides that the law applies to

RP + O-9"*.d/ (.225)

C/-2,6 + S'/ T/0$& (.212)

Eusband is a naturalized 0anadian& Ee married a >ilipino but found that she was cheatin$ on him& Ee $ot a divorce decree and desirin$ to marr) another >ilipina! he sou$ht to have the forei$n divorce decree reco$nized& *he '*0 denied the petition&

L#$+" + R"2,9#.* (.211)

4uslim 8en& *amano married Hora)da (first wife) before the effectivit) of the 4uslim 0ode in a civil ceremon)& Ee married %strellita durin$ the effectivit) of the 4uslim 0ode in both civil and 4uslim rites&

I#,2$ + A9d,##$! (.211)

#lupa filed a complaint a$ainst 0lerk of 0ourt -bdullah for havin$ issued a certificate of divorce& Ee claims the divorce is not allowed in this countr) and that -bdullah had a personal interest in his wife&

1marria$e and divorce wherein both parties are 4uslims! or wherein onl) the male part) is a 4uslim and the marria$e is solemnized in accordance with 4uslim law or this 0ode in an) part of the Philippines&1 Gut we alread) ruled in G'& /o& 1.;;27 that 1-rticle 17 of P 1287 does not provide for a situation where the parties were married both in civil and 4uslim rites&1 C/02#$.n' .& d"+/.d /) 0"-.' *he issuance of a certificate of divorce is within the respondent=s duties! as defined b) -rts& 81 and 87 of the 4uslim 0ode& #f both parties are 4uslims! there is a presumption that the 4uslim 0ode or 4uslim law is complied with& #f to$ether with it or in addition to it! the marria$e is likewise solemnized in accordance with the 0ivil 0ode of the Philippines! in a so6called combined 4uslim60ivil marria$e rites whichever comes first is the validatin$ rite and the second rite is merel) ceremonial one& Gut! in this case! as lon$ as both parties are 4uslims! this 4uslim 0ode will appl)& #n effect! two situations will arise! in the application of this 4uslim 0ode or 4uslim law! that is! when both parties are 4uslims and when the male part) is a 4uslim and the marria$e is solemnized in accordance with 4uslim 0ode or 4uslim law& - third situation occurPsQ when the 0ivil 0ode of the Philippines will $overn the marria$e and divorce of the parties! if the male part) is a 4uslim and the marria$e is solemnized in accordance with the 0ivil 0ode& T!" RTC -,#.n4 #$*(& #"4$# $nd )$*',$# 9$&"& Ps)cholo$ical incapacit) is the downri$ht incapacit) or inabilit) to take co$nizance of and to assume the basic marital obli$ations& - findin$ of ps)cholo$ical incapacit) must be supported b) well6established facts& #t is the plaintiffLs burden to convince the court of the e9istence of these facts& *he plaintiff must prove that the incapacitated part)! based on his or her actions or behavior! suffers a serious ps)cholo$ical disorder that completel) disables him or her from understandin$ and dischar$in$ the essential obli$ations of the marital state& *he ps)cholo$ical problem must be $rave! must have e9isted at the time of marria$e! and must be incurable& PetitionerLs alle$ations! which served as the bases or underl)in$ premises of the conclusions of his e9perts! were not actuall) proven& 45ote6 T&ere was no discussion relevant to forei"n $arria"es.7

5$#$% F"-n$nd"6 (.211)

Eusband and wife $ot married in Eon$kon$& *he) were separated de facto and husband be$an to live with another woman and had children out of the marria$e& Oears later! the husband filed a petition under -rt& 7; claimin$ that his wife is ps)cholo$icall) incapacitated& *he '*0 $ranted the petition and declared the marria$e void ab initio&

VI E))"*'& /) D")"*'.+" M$--.$4" VII R,#"& /n F/-)".',-" /) '!" S!$-" /) '!" G,.#'1 S2/,&" CUIAO V CUIAO (.21.) 'espondent 'ita 0& Uuiao filed a complaint for le$al separation a$ainst petitioner Gri$ido G& Uuiao& '*0 rendered a ecision declarin$ the le$al separation of the spouses& '*0 ordered that their properties be divided e(uall) between them sub<ect to the respective le$itimes of their children and the pa)ment of the unpaid con<u$al liabilities of PPQ35!532&22& 4oreover! the '*0 ordered that Gri$ido=s share of the net profits earned b) the con<u$al partnership be forfeited in favor of their common children& -rticle 1.9 of the >amil) 0ode applies to the present case since the partiesL propert) relation is $overned b) the s)stem of relative communit) or con<u$al partnership of $ains& #n other words! the computation and the succession of events will follow the provisions under -rticle 1.9 of the >amil) 0ode& -s to the definition of +net profits!, -rticle 12.(3) of the >amil) 0ode is noted! since it e9pressl) provides that for purposes of computin$ the net profits sub<ect to forfeiture under -rticle 37! /o& (.) and -rticle ;7! /o& (.)! -rticle 12.(3) applies& #n this provision! net profits +shall be the increase in value between the market value of the communit) propert) at the time of the celebration of the marria$e and the market value at the time of its dissolution&, *hus! -rticle 12.(3) applies to both the dissolution of the absolute communit) re$ime under -rticle 12. of the >amil) 0ode! and to the dissolution of the con<u$al partnership re$ime under -rticle 1.9 of the >amil) 0ode& *he difference lies in the processes used under the dissolution of the absolute communit) re$ime under -rticle 12. of the >amil) 0ode! and in the processes used under the dissolution of the con<u$al partnership re$ime under -rticle 1.9 of the >amil) 0ode&

VIII W!"n '!"-" .& D"#.+"-1 /) '!" P-"&,02'.+" L"4.'..0"&

3UENAVENTUR A V COURT OF APPEALS (.225)

DIMO V DIMO (.211)

/oel Guenaventura filed a petition for declaration of nullit) of his marria$e to his wife #sabel on the $round that both he and his wife were ps)cholo$icall) incapacitated& *he '*0 declared the marria$e null and void and ordered the li(uidation of the assets of the con<u$al partnership propert)? ordered petitioner a re$ular support in favor of his son in the amount of 15!222 monthl)! sub<ect to modification as the necessit) arises! and awarded the care and custod) of the minor to his mother& Guenaventura appealed before the 0-& Dhile the appeal was pendin$! the 0-! upon respondent=s motion issued a resolution increasin$ the support pendants like to P.2! 222& *he 0affirmed the '*0 decision& -lain iSo and 4a& 0aridad iSo $ot married on 13 Aanuar) 1998& On 72 4a) .221! -lain filed an action for eclaration of /ullit) of 4arria$e a$ainst 0aridad citin$ ps)cholo$ical incapacit) under -rt& 7; of the >0& Petitioner alle$ed that respondent failed in her marital obli$ation to $ive love and support to him! and had abandoned her responsibilit) to the famil)! choosin$ instead to $o on shoppin$ sprees and $allivantin$ with her friends that depleted the famil) assets& *he trial court $ranted the petition and declared their marria$e void ab initio&

8ince the present case does not involve the annulment of a bi$amous marria$e! the provisions of -rticle 52 in relation to -rticles 31! 3. and 37 of the >amil) 0ode! providin$ for the dissolution of the absolute communit) or con<u$al partnership of $ains! as the case ma) be! do not appl)& 'ather! the $eneral rule applies! which is that in case a marria$e is declared void ab initio! the propert) re$ime applicable and to be li(uidated! partitioned and distributed is that of e(ual co6ownership& 8ince the properties ordered to be distributed b) the court a (uo were found! both b) the trial court and the 0ourt of -ppeals! to have been ac(uired durin$ the union of the parties! the same would be covered b) the co6ownership& /o fruits of a separate propert) of one of the parties appear to have been included or involved in said distribution& *he li(uidation! partition and distribution of the properties owned in common b) the parties herein as ordered b) the court a #uo should! therefore! be sustained! but on the basis of co6ownership and not of the re$ime of con<u$al partnership of $ains& -rticle 135 of the >amil) 0ode applies to the propert) relations between petitioner and respondent& >or -rticle 135 of the >amil) 0ode to appl)! the followin$ elements must be present@ (1) *he man and the woman must be capacitated to marr) each other? (.) *he) live e9clusivel) with each other as husband and wife? and (7)*heir union is without the benefit of marria$e! or their marria$e is void& #n this case! petitioner=s marria$e to respondent was declared void under -rticle 7; of the >amil) 0ode and not under -rticle 32 or 35& *hus! what $overns the li(uidation of properties owned in common b) petitioner and respondent are the rules on co6ownership& *he rules on co6ownership appl) and the properties of the spouses should be li(uidated in accordance with the 0ivil 0ode provisions on co6ownership& Fnder -rticle 39; of the 0ivil 0ode! 1PpQartition ma) be made b) a$reement between the parties or b) <udicial proceedin$s& 9 9 9&1 #t is not necessar) to li(uidate the properties of the spouses in the same proceedin$ for declaration of nullit) of marria$e& Aud$e 'e)es60arpio did not den) the reception of evidence on custod)! support! and propert) relations but merel) deferred it! based on the e9istin$ rules issued b) this 0ourt! to a time when a decision $rantin$ the petition is alread) at hand and 9")/-" $ ).n$# d"*-"" is issued& 0onversel)! the trial court! or more particularl) the famil) court! shall proceed with the li(uidation! partition and distribution! custod)! support of common children! and deliver) of their presumptive le$itimes upon entr) of <ud$ment $rantin$ the petition& -nd followin$ the pertinent provisions of the 0ourt En anc 'esolution in -&4& /o& 2.611612680! this act is undoubtedl) consistent with -rticles 52 and 51 of the >amil) 0ode! contrar) to what petitioner asserts& Particularl)! -rts& 52 and 51 of the >amil) 0ode state@ -rticle 52& 9 9 9 *he ).n$# ;,d40"n' .n &,*! *$&"& &!$## 2-/+.d" )/- '!" #.<,.d$'./n, 2$-'.'./n $nd d.&'-.9,'./n /) '!" 2-/2"-'."& /) '!" &2/,&"&, '!" *,&'/d1 $nd &,22/-' /) '!" */00/n *!.#d-"n, $nd '!" d"#.+"-1 /) '!".- 2-"&,02'.+" #"4.'.0"&! unless such matters had been ad<udicated in the previous <udicial proceedin$s& 9999 -rticle 51& #n said partition! the value of the presumptive le$itimes of all common children! */02,'"d $& /) '!" d$'" /) '!" ).n$# ;,d40"n' /) '!" '-.$# */,-' ! shall be delivered in cash! propert) or sound securities! unless the parties! b) mutual a$reement <udiciall) approved! had alread) provided for such matters&

YU V REYESCARPIO (.211)

- petition for declaration of nullit) of marria$e was filed b) %ric F& Ou a$ainst 0aroline *& Ou& *he issue in this case is the procedure to be followed as re$ards the reception of evidence on the issues of propert) relations! custod) and support& Petitioner %ric opposes the fact that the main issue on declaration of nullit) was submitted for decision in the '*0 when he has not )et presented evidence on the issues on propert) relations! custod) and support& '*0 Aud$e 'e)es60arpio e9plained that it is more prudent to rule first on the petitioner=s petition and respondent=s counter6petition for declaration of nullit) of marria$e on the $round of each other=s ps)cholo$ical incapacit) to perform their respective marital obli$ations& #f the 0ourt eventuall) finds that the parties= respective petitions for declaration of nullit) of marria$e is indeed meritorious on the basis of either or both of the parties= ps)cholo$ical incapacit)! then the parties shall proceed to compl)

with -rticlePsQ 52 and 51 of the >amil) 0ode before a final decree of absolute nullit) of marria$e can be issued IF L"4$# S"2$-$'./n 1 G-/,nd& )/- #"4$# &"2$-$'./n 5ALAW V FERNANDE@ (.211) (supra) *he 0ourt finds no factual basis for the conclusion of ps)cholo$ical incapacit)& Dhat transpired between the parties is acrimon) and! perhaps! infidelit)! which ma) have constrained them from dedicatin$ the best of themselves to each other and to their children& *here ma) be $rounds for le$al separation! but certainl) not ps)cholo$ical incapacit) that voids a marria$e& Petitioner failed to prove that his wife (respondent) suffers from ps)cholo$ical incapacit)& Ee presented the testimonies of two supposed e9pert witnesses who concluded that respondent is ps)cholo$icall) incapacitated! but the conclusions of these witnesses were premised on the alle$ed acts or behavior of respondent which had not been sufficientl) proven& - fair assessment of the facts would show that respondent was not totall) remiss and incapable of appreciatin$ and performin$ her marital and parental duties& /ot once did the children state that the) were ne$lected b) their mother& On the contrar)! the) narrated that she took care of them! was around when the) were sick! and cooked the food the) like& #t appears that respondent made real efforts to see and take care of her children despite her estran$ement from their father& *here was no testimon) whatsoever that shows abandonment and ne$lect of familial duties& 2 D")"n&"& .n $*'./n& )/- #"4$# &"2$-$'./n L$2,6 + E,)"0./ (17>2) 0armen filed a petition for le$al separation a$ainst4acario cannot substitute the deceased and case should be dismissed& her husband %ufemio for the latter=s cohabitation with another woman& Gefore the trial could be completed! -n action for le$al separation is purel) personal& Gein$ personal in character! it follows that the death 0armen died in a vehicular accident& of on part) to the action causes the death of the action itself T actio personalis $oritur cu$ persona. 4acario! father and heir of 0armen! sou$ht to substitute the deceased& 8ocorro married Hoilo& *he) failed to a$ree on how to 0omplaint is dismissed for bein$ filed out of time& live as husband and wife& *he) a$reed to live separatel) and e9ecuted an a$reement towards the-rticle 12. of the new 0ivil 0ode provides@ same& #n the a$reement! the) barred all claims -n action for le$al separation cannot be filed e9cept within one )ear from and after the date on which a$ainst each other arisin$ from concubina$e! adulter)the plaintiff became co$nizant of the cause and within five )ears from after the date when cause and support& occurred& *he complaint was filed outside the periods provided for b) the above -rticle& Hoilo cohabited with -suncion& 8ocorro discovered this in Aanuar) 1955& 8he filed complaint on -pril 195;& #a$ Consent M$',9.& + P-$E"d"& 8ocorro married Hoilo& *he) failed to a$ree on how to 0omplaint is dismissed also because 8ocorro consented to cohabitation& live as husband and wife& *he) a$reed to live separatel) and e9ecuted an a$reement towards the*he law (-rt& 122 0ivil 0ode)! specificall) provides that le$al separation ma) be claimed onl) b) the

M$',9.& + P-$E"d"& (17=0)

(17=0)

same& #n the a$reement! the) barred all claimsinnocent spouse! provided there has been no condonation of or consent to the adulter) or a$ainst each other arisin$ from concubina$e! adulter)concubina$e& Eavin$ condoned andRor consented in writin$! the plaintiff is now undeservin$ of the and support& courtLs s)mpath) Hoilo cohabited with -suncion& 8ocorro discovered this in Aanuar) 1955& 8he filed complaint on -pril 195;& Frsula and 4ariano were married with one child&0ase is dismissed as 4ariano consented to the adulterous relations& 4ariano left his wife and child for 7 )ears without writin$ or sendin$ them support& Frsula and her childFnder -rt& 733! the offended part in crimes of adulter) and concubina$e cannot institute criminal were taken in b) another man named 4arcelo& prosecution if he shall have consented& G) his conduct and seven )ears of ac(uiescence! he is not authorized b) law to institute the criminal proceedin$s& 4ariano returned and successfull) filed char$es for adulter) a$ainst Frsula and 4arcelo& -fter servin$ sentence! Frsula be$$ed 4ariano=s pardon& Ee told her to do whatever she liked and abandoned them a$ain for 5 )ears& Frsula went back to cohabitin$ with 4arcelo& 4ariano returned and filed another complaint for adulter)& 'odolfo married %lena& -fter 5 )ears! the) a$reed to 'odolfo should be ac(uitted because %lena consented to his act& live separatel) due to incompatibilit)& *he) e9ecuted an a$reement (in 8panish) to that effect& *he document e9ecuted b) and between the accused and the complaint in which the) a$reed to be 1en completa libertad de accion en cual(uier acto ) en todos conceptos!1 while ille$al for the purpose for 'odolfo obtained an invalid divorce decree from which it was e9ecuted! constitutes nevertheless a valid consent to the act of concubina$e& *his 0hihuaha! 4e9ico and contracted marria$e with Aulia&operates! within the plain lan$ua$e and manifest polic) of the law! to bar the offended part) from Ee was prosecuted for concubina$e& prosecutin$ the offense& #b$ Condonation

P"/2#" + S$n&$n/ (1733)

P"/2#" + S*!n"*("n9"-4 "(17B1)

G.n"6 + 3,4$1/n4 (17D=)

Eusband Gu$a)on$ was married to Ginez& Dhile on 0ondonation is the conditional for$iveness or remission of one part) of a matrimonial offense which the militar) dut)! husband received letters informin$ him other part) committed& of his wife=s infidelities& Ee sou$ht his wife and after findin$ her! the) lived to$ether as husband and wife *he onl) $eneral rule in -merican <urisprudence is that an) cohabitation with the $uilt) part)! after the for two ni$hts and one da)& *he ni$ht after! the) commission of the offense! and with the knowled$e or belief on the part of the in<ured part) of its continued to live to$ether but the ne9t da)! when he commission! will amount to conclusive evidence of condonation? but this presumption ma) be rebutted (uestioned her about her illicit affairs! she desertedb) evidence him& Ee took this as confirmation of her infidelities& On /ovember! he filed a complaint for le$al separation& -merican doctrines@ *he court ordered the dismissal of the action based on his condonation of his wife=s acts& 8in$le voluntar) act of marital intercourse between the parties ordinaril) is sufficient to constitute condonation! and where the parties live in the same house! it is presumed that the) live on terms of matrimonial cohabitation& - divorce suit will not be $ranted for adulter) where the parties continue to live to$ether after it was known or there is se9ual intercourse after knowled$e of adulter) or sleepin$ to$ether for a sin$le ni$ht& *he resumption of marital cohabitation as a basis of condonation will $enerall) be inferred! nothin$ appearin$ to the contrar)! from the fact of the livin$ to$ether as husband and wife! especiall) as a$ainst the husband&

*here is no rulin$ on this matter in our <urisprudence but we have no reason to depart from the

doctrines laid down in the decisions of the various supreme courts of the Fnited 8tates above (uoted& #c$ Recrimination 3-/%n + Y$09$/ (17D>) Grown alle$es that while he was interned b) the Eis petition cannot prosper for two reasons@ (1) prescriptive period is over since he learned of his wife=s Aapanese from 193. to 1935! his wife had en$a$ed inrelations in 1935 and onl) filed a complaint after ten )ears? and (.) Eis cohabitation with another adulterous relationships from which she be$ot a child&woman bars him from claimin$ le$al separation& >ailure of the wife to set up a defense ma) be Ee learned of it after his release& >rom then on the) considered circumstantial evidence of collusion between them& 0onsent and connivance no lon$er decided to live separatel) from each other and need to be proven there bein$ two established statutor) $rounds to $rant the decree of le$al e9ecuted! to this effect! an a$reement li(uidatin$ separation& con<u$al partnership! even $ivin$ the errin$ wife a share& On Aul)! he filed a suit for le$al separation pra)in$ for confirmation of said a$reement! custodial ri$hts and dis(ualification of wife from succession of plaintiff& Eer wife was declared in default for not havin$ answered on time& Dhen cross6e9amined b) the assistant cit) fiscal! it was revealed however that Grown! after the liberation from the internment! had also lived with another woman with whom he has be$otten children& *he court refused to $rant the petition on the basis of prescription! commission of similar offense b) petitioner! and involvement of consent and connivance& Dife "ucita filed a 0omplaint for "e$al 8eparation 1-lso without merit is the ar$ument of Dilliam that since "ucita has abandoned the famil)! a decree of alle$in$ that her life with husband Dilliam was le$al separation should not be $ranted! followin$ -rt& 5;! par& (3) of the >amil) 0ode which provides marked b) ph)sical violence! threats! intimidation andthat le$al separation shall be denied when both parties have $iven $round for le$al separation& *he $rossl) abusive conduct& abandonment referred to b) the >amil) 0ode is abandonment without <ustifiable cause for more than one )ear&32 -s it was established that "ucita left Dilliam due to his abusive conduct! such does not Eusband countered that "ucita abandoned theirconstitute abandonment contemplated b) the said provision& famil) hence the petition should be denied& #d$ Collusion%Mutual Consent 3-/%n + Y$09$/ O*$02/ + F#/-"n*.$n/ (19;2) (supra) 0ollusion in matrimonial cases bein$ 1the act of married persons in procurin$ a divorce b) mutual consent! whether b) preconcerted commission b) one of a matrimonial offense! or b) failure! in pursuance of a$reement to defend divorce proceedin$s& Aose Ocampo was married to >lorenciano and had0ollusion in divorce or le$al separation means the a$reement between husband and wife for one of several children to$ether& Eusband discovered onthem to commit! or to appear to commit! or to be represented in court as havin$ committed! a several occasions that his wife was havin$ illicitmatrimonial offense! or to suppress evidence of a valid defense! for the purpose of enablin$ the other relations with one Aose -rcalas and one /estor to obtain a divorce& *his a$reement! if not e9press! ma) be implied from the acts of the parties& #t is a Orzame& Eusband filed a petition for le$al separation& $round for den)in$ the divorce& Gecause the wife did not answer the char$e! the '*0 declared her in default& *he 0-! held that a#n this case! there would be collusion if the parties had arran$ed to make it appear that a matrimonial confession of <ud$ment on the part of the wife offense had been committed althou$h it was not! or if the parties had connived to brin$ about a le$al a$reein$ with the husband si$nified collusion between separation even in the absence of $rounds therefor& the parties and thus bars the ri$ht to procurin$ a separation& Eere! the offense of adulter) had reall) taken place! accordin$ to the evidence& 0ollusion ma) not be inferred from the mere fact that the $uilt) part) confesses to the offense and thus enables the other part) to procure evidence necessar) to prove it&

On4 + On4 (.22;)

E&2.n/&$ + O0$n$ (.211)

Proof that the defendant desires the divorce and makes no defense! is not b) itself collusion& Gar iscipline case about a law)er that facilitated the-s to 0ollusionR4utual 0onsent@ e9ecution of a document entitled +Basunduan n$ Pa$hihiwala), between spouses %spinsa and%9tra<udicial dissolution of the con<u$al partnership without <udicial approval is void& - notar) public subse(uentl) notarized the same& should not facilitate the disinte$ration of a marria$e and the famil) b) encoura$in$ the separation of the spouses and e9tra<udiciall) dissolvin$ the con<u$al partnership! which is e9actl) what OmaSa did in this 8pouses filed the instant case after findin$ out that case& their contract of separation was void& 0itin$ 8elanova v& Aud$e 4endoza! other cases where the law)er was sanctioned for notarizin$ similar documents as the contract in this case@ +notarizin$ a document between the spouses which permitted the husband to take a concubine and allowed the wife to live with another man! without opposition from each other? ratif)in$ a document entitled +"e$al 8eparation, where the couple a$reed to be separated from each other mutuall) and voluntaril)! renouncin$ their ri$hts and obli$ations! authorizin$ each other to remarr)! and renouncin$ an) action that the) mi$ht have a$ainst each other?preparin$ a document authorizin$ a married couple who had been separated for nine )ears to marr) a$ain! renouncin$ the ri$ht of action which each ma) have a$ainst the other? and preparin$ a document declarin$ the con<u$al partnership dissolved, 3 C/,-' 2-/*"d,-" .n #"4$# &"2$-$'./n B E))"*' /) 2"nd"n*1 /) '!" 2"'.'./n D E))"*'& /) d"*-"" /) #"4$# &"2$-$'./n = R"*/n*.#.$'./n > E))"*'& /) -"*/n*.#.$'./n

F R.4!'& $nd O9#.4$'./n& /) S2/,&"& 1 G"n"-$# -,#" $nd "E*"2'./n& G/.'.$ +& *his is an action b) the wife a$ainst her husband C$02/&-R,"d$ for support outside of the con<u$al domicile& *he wife left the husband after about a month of (191;) cohabitation because he +demanded of her that she perform unchaste and lascivious acts on his $enital or$ans, *he husband ar$ued that he cannot be compelled to support the plaintiff! e9cept in his own house! unless it be b) virtue of a <udicial decree $rantin$ her a divorce or separation from the defendant& A--/1/ +& *he wife left the common home and lived V$&<,"6-A--/1/ separatel) from the husband& *he husband initiated the action to compel her to return to the (19.1) matrimonial home and live with him as a dutiful wife&

Eusband can be compelled to provide support& *he husband who is obli$ed to support his wife ma)! at his option! do so b) pa)in$ her a fi9ed pension or b) receivin$ and maintainin$ her in his own home& 4a) the husband! on account of his conduct toward his wife! lose this option and be compelled to pa) the pension& Gut the option is not so absolute as to prevent cases bein$ considered wherein! either because this ri$ht would be opposed to the e9ercise of a preferential ri$ht or because of the e9istence of some <ustifiable cause morall) opposed to the removal of the part) en<o)in$ the maintenance! the ri$ht of selection must be understood as bein$ thereb) restricted& De are unable to hold that 4ariano G& -rro)o in this case is entitled to the unconditional and absolute order for the return of the wife to the marital domicile! which is sou$ht in the petitor) part of the complaint? thou$h he is! without doubt! entitled to a <udicial declaration that his wife has absented herself without sufficient cause and that it is her dut) to return& #t is not within the province of the courts of this countr) to attempt to compel one of the spouses to cohabit with! and render con<u$al ri$hts to! the other& Of course where the propert) ri$hts of one of the pair are invaled! an action for restitution of such ri$hts can be maintained& Gut we are disinclined to sanction the doctrine that an order! enforcible b) process of contempt! ma) be entered to compel the

I#,&/-./ +& 3.#dn"(.222)

%rlinda and Potenciano $ot married and lived to$ether for 72 )ears& On 4a) 71! 1998! after attendin$ a corporate meetin$ in Ga$uio 0it)! Potenciano #lusorio did not return to -ntipolo 0it) and instead lived at 0leveland 0ondominium! 4akati& On 4arch 11! 1999! %rlinda filed with the 0ourt of -ppeals a petition for &abeas corpus to have the custod) of law)er Potenciano

restitution of the purel) personal ri$hts of consortiu$& 4arital ri$hts includin$ coverture and livin$ in con<u$al dwellin$ ma) not be enforced b) the e9tra6 ordinar) writ of &abeas corpus. /o court is empowered as a <udicial authorit) to compel a husband to live with his wife& 0overture cannot be enforced b) compulsion of a writ of &abeas corpus carried out b) sheriffs or b) an) other mesne process& *hat is a matter be)ond <udicial authorit) and is best left to the man and woman=s free choice&

2 D"&.4n$'./n /) d/0.*.#" 3 :/.n' 0$n$4"0"n' /) )$0.#1 #.)" B :/.n' /9#.4$'./n '/ &,22/-' SSS +& D" #/& -ntonio and Gloria were married in 19;3& "ess S$n'/& than one (1) )ear after! Gloria left -ntonio and contracted another marria$e with a certain (.228) omin$o *alens in /ueva %ci<a& 8ometime in 19;9! Gloria went back to -ntonio and lived with him until 1987& *he) had 7 children& #n 1987! Gloria left -ntonio and went F8& On 4a) 8! 198;! she filed for divorce a$ainst -ntonio with the 8uperior 0ourt of Oran$e! 8ta& -na! 0alifornia& On 4a) .1! 1987! she e9ecuted a document waivin$ all her ri$hts to their con<u$al properties and other matters& *he divorce was $ranted on /ovember 5! 198;& On 4a) .7! 1985! -ntonio married 0irila& Ee also amended his records in the 888 and desi$nated another beneficiar) in place of Gloria& Fpon -ntonio=s death! Gloria filed a claim with the 888 (denied) D T!" -.4!' '/ "E"-*.&" $ 2-/)"&&./n /- *$##.n4 = R"#$'"d -.4!'&N/9#.4$'./n& Y$&.n +& Eatima Oasin filed a petition to resume the use of S!$-.$! C/,-' her maiden name& 8he was divorced in accordance with #slamic law& *he 8haria=h court denied the (1995) petition sa)in$ that Eatima did not follow the procedure in 'ule 127 of the 'O0 for chan$e of name& #ssue@ Dhether or not in the case of annulment of marria$e! or divorce under the 0ode of 4uslim Personal "aws of the Philippines! and the husband is married a$ain to another woman and the former desires to resume her maiden name or surname! is she re(uired to file a petition for chan$e of name and compl) with the formal re(uirements of 'ule 127 of the 'ules of 0ourt&

-/ %8*'-/G% wife who was not dependent upon her deceased husband for support is not (ualified to be his beneficiar)& -s found b) both the 880 and the 0-! the divorce obtained b) respondent a$ainst the deceased -ntonio was not bindin$ in this <urisdiction& Fnder Philippine law! onl) aliens ma) obtain divorces abroad! provided the) are valid accordin$ to their national law& *he divorce was obtained b) respondent Gloria while she was still a >ilipino citizen and thus covered b) the polic) a$ainst absolute divorces& #t did not sever her marria$e ties with -ntonio& Eowever! althou$h Gloria was the le$al spouse of the deceased! De find that she is still d.&<,$#.)."d to be his primar) beneficiar) under the 88 "aw& 8he fails to fulfill the re(uirement of dependenc) upon her deceased husband -ntonio& -lthou$h a husband and wife are obli$ed to support each other! whether one is actuall) dependent for support upon the other cannot be presumed from the fact of marria$e alone& - wife who left her famil) until her husband died and lived with other men! was n/' dependent upon her husband for support! financial or otherwise! durin$ the entire period&

/o& Dhile it is true that under -rticle 75; of the 0ivil 0ode! no person can chan$e his name or surname without <udicial authorit)! nonetheless! the onl) name that ma) be chan$ed is the true and official name recorded in the 0ivil 'e$ister& #n the instant petition! petitioner does not seek to chan$e her re$istered maiden name but! instead! pra)s that she be allowed to resume the use of her maiden name in view of the dissolution of her marria$e to Ead<i #dris Oasin! b) virtue of a decree of divorce $ranted in accordance with 4uslim law& %ven under the 0ivil 0ode! the use of the husbandLs surname durin$ the marria$e (-rt& 752! 0ivil 0ode)! after annulment of the marria$e (-rt& 751! 0ivil 0ode) and after the death of the husband (-rt& 757! 0ivil 0ode) is permissive and not obli$ator) e9cept in case of le$al separation (-rt& 75.! 0ivil 0ode)& Dhen a woman marries a man! she need not appl) andRor seek <udicial authorit) to use her husbandLs name b) prefi9in$ the word 14rs&1 before her husbandLs full name or b) addin$ her husbandLs surname to her maiden first name& *he law $rants her such ri$ht (-rt& 752! 0ivil 0ode)& 8imilarl)! when the marria$e ties or vinculu$ no lon$er e9ists as in the case of death of the husband or divorce as authorized b) the 4uslim 0ode! the widow or divorcee need not seek <udicial confirmation of the chan$e in her civil status in order to revert to her maiden name as the use of her former husbandLs

name is optional and not obli$ator) for her FI P-/2"-'1 R"#$'./n& /) '!" S2/,&"& A M$--.$4" &"''#"0"n'& 1 F/-0 O -"4.&'-$'./n -"<,.-"0"n' V$#"n*.$ + *he spouses "oc(uiao e9ecuted a deed of L/<,.$/ donation propter nuptias which was written in the #locano dialect! denominated as #nventario *i 8a$ut (.227) in favor of their son! respondent Genito "oc(uiao and his bride $ivin$ them the contested land Eowever! upon their death! petitioner 'omana! one of their children! alle$ed that the donation did not observe the form re(uired b) law as there was no written acceptance on the document itself or in a separate public instrument&

*he donation propter nuptias is valid& Fnlike ordinar) donations! donations propter nuptias or donations b) reason of marria$e are those 1made before its celebration! in consideration of the same and in favor of one or both of the future spouses& Fnder the Old 0ivil 0ode! donations propter nuptias must be made in a public instrument in which the propert) donated must be specificall) described& Eowever! -rticle 1772 of the same 0ode provides that 1acceptance is not necessar) to the validit) of such $ifts1& #n other words! the celebration of the marria$e between the beneficiar) couple! in tandem with compliance with the prescribed form! was enou$h to effectuate the donation propter nuptias under the Old 0ivil 0ode& Fnder the 0ivil 0ode! -rticle 1.5 provides that the form of donations propter nuptias are re$ulated b) the 00 1327 (8tatute of >rauds)& -rticle 1327 (.) re(uires that the contracts mentioned need be in writin$ onl) to be enforceable& Eowever! as provided in -rticle 1.9! e9press acceptance 1is not necessar) for the validit) of these donations&1 *hus! implied acceptance is sufficient& #t is settled that onl) laws e9istin$ at the time of the e9ecution of a contract are applicable and not later statutes! unless the latter are specificall) intended to have retroactive effect& *hus the Old 0ivil 0ode which does not re(uire acceptance is applicable& %ven if the 0ivil 0ode applies! implied acceptance of a donation propter nuptias suffices&

S/#.& + S/#.& (19.8)

2 D/n$'./n& 2-/2'"- n,2'.$& *he spouses "ambino e9ecuted a donation of propter nuptias of land to their son -le<o and his bride in a private document& One of the conditions of this donation is that in case of the death of one of the donees! one6half of these lands thus donated would revert to the donors while the survivin$ donee would retain the other half& On the same )ear both their son -le<o and his father!the donor Auan died& -fter the latterLs death! his wife! 4a9ima Garroso! recovered possession of the donated lands& *he survivin$ done filed an action to recover the K land transferred to her&

*he donation propter nuptias is not valid& - donation propter nuptias is $overned b) the rules on donations& Fnder 0ivil 0ode! it must be made in a public instrument in order to be valid& 8ince the donation was made in a private instrument the donation is invalid& - donation propter nuptias cannot be considered as an onerous contract& #n donations propter nuptias! the marria$e is reall) a consideration! but not in the sense of bein$ necessar) to $ive birth to the obli$ation& *his ma) be clearl) inferred from article 1777! which makes the fact that the marria$e did not take place a cause for the revocation of such donations! thus takin$ it for $ranted that there ma) be a valid donation propter nuptias! even without marria$e! since that which has not e9isted cannot be revoked& -nd such a valid donation would be forever valid! even if the marria$e never took place! if the proper action for revocation were not instituted! or if it were instituted after the lapse of the statutor) period of prescription& *his is! so because the marria$e in a donation propter nuptias is rather a resolutor) condition which! as such! presupposes the e9istence of the obli$ation which ma) be resolved or revoked! and it is not a condition necessar) for the birth of the obli$ation& *he *0 did not lose <urisdiction over the case& *he 0ivil 0ode is still the applicable law& *he >amil) 0ode cannot be $iven retroactive effect since its application will pre<udice the vested ri$ht of the -rue$o and his sister to be reco$nized as ille$itimate children&

M$'"/ + L$4,$

*he spouses "a$ua donated a parcel of land to their son in consideration of his marria$e to Gonifacia 4ateo& Eowever! the other children of the spouses "a$ua

(19;9)

alle$e that the donation was inofficious since it pre<udiced their le$itime&

Aurisdiction of a court! once attached! cannot be ousted b) subse(uent events! althou$h of a character which would have prevented <urisdiction from attachin$ in the first instance&

M$'$9,"n$ C"-+$n'"& (1951)

3 P$-'."& '/ $ 0$--.$4" &"''#"0"n' B W!.*! #$% 4/+"-n& 2-/2"-'1 -"#$'./n& D V/.d d/n$'./n 91 '!" &2/,&"& + >eli9 4atabuena donated a piece of lot to his common6law spouse! Petronila 0ervantes& *his was e9ecuted si9 )ears before their marria$e& Fpon >eli9= death! his sister! filed a claim over the propert) alle$in$ that the donation was invalid since it was between spouses&

*he donation is not valid& Dhile -rticle 177 of the 0ivil 0ode considers as void a donation between the spouses durin$ marria$e! polic) consideration of the most e9i$ent character as well as the dictates of moralit) re(uires that the same prohibition should appl) to a common6law relationship& -s stated in Guenaventura vs& Gautista (52 OG 7;59! 1953)! if the polic) of the law is to prohibit donations in favor of the other consort and his descendants because of fear of undue and improper pressure and influence upon the donor! then there is ever) reason to appl) the same prohibitive polic) to persons livin$ to$ether as husband and wife without the benefit of nuptials& *he lack of validit) of the donation b) the deceased to appellee does not necessaril) result in appellant havin$ e9clusive ri$ht to the disputed propert)& -s a widow! 0ervantes is entitled to one6half of the inheritance! and the survivin$ sister to the other half&

S,09$d + CA (1999)

Dhen -$ata *ait died in 197;! her husband Geor$e *ait 8r&! lived in common6law relationship with 4aria *ait to whom he donated land to in 1953& Geor$e died in 1955 and 4aria died in 1988& *he followin$ )ear! %milie 8umbad and Geatrice *ait sou$ht an action for (uietin$ of title! nullification of the deed of sale! and recover) of possession of dama$es b) virtue of bein$ compulsor) heirs of Geor$e=s first marria$e to -$ata& *he) alle$e that 4aria sold the lots included in the propert) to Okoren! et& al&! despite warnin$ the respondents that 4aria was not the real owner of the propert)& Petitioners ar$ue that the deed of donation contravenes -rt& 177 of the 0ivil 0ode which provides@ -rt& 177& %ver) donation between the spouses durin$ the marria$e shall be void& V99

D/n$'./n +$#.d N/ +./#$'./n /) A-' 133 (n/' FC A-' 8>) #n !atabuena v& Cervantes that the prohibition in -rt& 177 e9tends to common6law relations& #ndeed! it is now provided in -rt& 85 of the >amil) 0ode@ -rt& 85& %ver) donation or $rant of $ratuitous advanta$e! direct or indirect between the spouses durin$ the marria$e shall be void! e9cept moderate $ifts which the spouses ma) $ive the spouses ma) $ive each other on the occasion of an) famil) re<oicin$& T&e pro&ibition s&all apply to persons livin" to"et&er as &usband and wife wit&out a valid $arria"e& (%mphasis added)& *his point is bein$ raised for the first time in this 0ourt& *ime and a$ain! this 0ourt has ruled that liti$ants cannot raise an issue for the first time on appeal as this would contravene the basic rules of fair pla) and <ustice& %ven assumin$ that the) are not thus precluded! petitioners were unable to present evidence in support of such a claim& *he evidence on record does not show whether Geor$e B& *ait! 8r& was married to 4aria >& *ait and! if so! when the marria$e took place& #f! as petitioner claim! 4aria >& *ait was not married to their father! evidence should have been presented to show that at the time the deed of donation was e9ecuted! their father and 4aria >& *ait were still maintainin$ common6law relations& Geatrice *aitLs testimon) is onl) to the effect that in 1931 4aria >& *ait became their stepmother& *here is no evidence on record that Geor$e B& *ait! 8r& and 4aria >& *ait continuosl) maintained common6law relations until -pril .! 1953 when the donation was made& D"&.4n$'./n /) &"*/nd %.)" %$& +$#.d N/ +./#$'./n /) A-' >37 Dithout decidin$ whether the namin$ of a beneficiar) of the benefits accruin$ from membership in the 8ocial 8ecurit) 8)stem is a donation! or that it creates a situation analo$ous to the relation of an insured and the beneficiar) under a life insurance polic)! it is enou$h! for the purpose of the instant

SSS + D$+$* (19;;)

avac was an 888 member who desi$nated his alle$ed wife 0andelaria as his beneficiar)& Dhen he died! both his first wife! "ourdes and his second wife! 0andelaria filed claims for the death

benefits& *he appellant contends that the desi$nation made in the person of the second and bi$amous wife is null and void! because (1) it contravenes the provisions of the 0ivil 0ode! and (.) it deprives the lawful wife of her share in the con<u$al propert) as well as of her own and her childLs le$itime in the inheritance& -ppellant ar$ues that a beneficiar) under the 8ocial 8ecurit) 8)stem partakes of the nature of a beneficiar) in life insurance polic) and! therefore! the same (ualifications and dis(ualifications should be applied& -rticle 579 and .21. of the 0ivil 0ode prohibits persons who cannot receive donations from bein$ beneficiaries of a polic)& Dhen >rancicsco=s wife died! havin$ no children to take care of him after his retirement! he asked his niece "eticia! the latter=s cousin "uzviminda and petitioner 0irila -rcaba! to take care of his house and store& 0onflictin$ testimonies were offered as to the nature of the relationship between 0irila and >rancisco& "eticia said that the previous part) were lovers since the) slept in the same room while %rlinda claimed that >rancisco told her that 0irila was his mistress& On the other hand! 0irila said she was mere helper and that >rancisco was too old for her& - few months before >rancisco=s death! he e9ecuted an instrument denominated + eed of onation #nter :ivos, in which he ceded a portion of the lot to$ether with is house to 0irila! who accepted the donation in the same instrument& *he deed stated that the donation was bein$ made in consideration of the +faithful services she had rendered over the past ten )ears&, *hereafter! >rancisco died and the respondents filed a complaint a$ainst 0irila for declaration of nullit) of a deed of donation inter vivos! recover) of possession and dama$es& 'espondents! who are nieces! nephews and heirs b) intestate succession of >rancisco! alle$ed that 0irila was the common6 law wife of >rancisco and the donation inert vivos is void under -rticle 85 of the >amil) 0ode& C!.n4 G/1$n(/ + 0hildren assail the validit) of a contract of sale of propert) e9ecuted b) their father! Go)anko! in favor

case! to state that the dis(ualification mentioned in -rticle 579 is not applicable to herein appellee 0andelaria avac (.nd wife) because she was not $uilt) of concubina$e! there bein$ no proof that she had knowled$e of the previous marria$e of her husband Petronilo -ccordin$ to '- 11;1! the beneficiar) 1as recorded1 b) the emplo)eeLs emplo)er is the one entitled to the death benefits&

A-*$9$ + T$9$n*,-$ (.221)

D/n$'./n +/.d 'espondents havin$ proven b) a preponderance of evidence that 0irila and >rancisco lived to$ether as husband and wife without a valid marria$e! the inescapable conclusion is that the donation made b) >rancisco in favor of 0irila is void under -rt& 85 of the >amil) 0ode& 10ohabitation1 or 1livin$ to$ether as husband and wife1 means not onl) residin$ under one roof! but also havin$ repeated se9ual intercourse& 0ohabitation! of course! means more than se9ual intercourse! especiall) when one of the parties is alread) old and ma) no lon$er be interested in se9& -t the ver) least! cohabitation is public assumption b) a man and a woman of the marital relation! and dwellin$ to$ether as man and wife! thereb) holdin$ themselves out to the public as such& 8ecret meetin$s or ni$hts clandestinel) spent to$ether! even if often repeated! do not constitute such kind of cohabitation? the) are merel) meretricious& #n this <urisdiction! this 0ourt has considered as sufficient proof of common6law relationship the stipulations between the parties! a conviction of concubina$e! or the e9istence of le$itimate children& Das 0irila >ranciscoLs emplo)ee or his common6law wifeC 0irila admitted that she and >rancisco resided under one roof for a lon$ time! #t is ver) possible that the two consummated their relationship! since 0irila $ave >rancisco therapeutic massa$e and "eticia said the) slept in the same bedroom& -t the ver) least! their public conduct indicated that theirs was not <ust a relationship of care$iver and patient! but that of e9clusive partners akin to husband and wife& Other indications that 0irila and >rancisco were common6law spouses@ documents apparentl) si$ned b) 0irila usin$ the surname 10omille1( an application for a business permit to operate as a real estate lessor! a sanitar) permit to operate as real estate lessor with a health certificate! and the death certificate of >rancisco) 8imilarl)! in the answer filed b) >ranciscoLs lessees in 1%rlinda *abancura! et al& vs& Gracia -driatico 8) and -ntonio 8)!1 (for collection of rentals)! these lessees referred to 0irila as 1the common6law spouse of >rancisco&1 >inall)! the fact that 0irila did not demand from >rancisco a re$ular cash wa$e is an indication that she was not simpl) a care$iver6emplo)ee! but >ranciscoLs common law spouse& 8he was! after all! entitled to a re$ular cash wa$e under the law&

S$#" +/.d

(.22;)

of his common6law6wife6herein petitioner 4aria G& 0hin$&

*he proscription a$ainst sale of propert) between spouses applies even to common law relationships& -rticle 1329 of the 0ivil 0ode states inter alia that@ contracts whose cause! ob<ect! or purposes is contrar) to law! morals! $ood customs! public order! or public polic) are void and inexistent from the ver) be$innin$& -rticle 175. also provides that@ 10ontracts without cause! or with unlawful cause- produce no effect w&atsoever& *he cause is unlawful if it is contrar) to law! morals! $ood customs! public order! or public polic)&1 Add.'./n$##1, '!" #$% "02!$'.*$##1 2-/!.9.'& '!" &2/,&"& )-/0 &"##.n4 2-/2"-'1 '/ "$*! /'!"&,9;"*' '/ *"-'$.n "E*"2'./n& S.0.#$-#1, d/n$'./n& 9"'%""n &2/,&"& d,-.n4 0$--.$4" $-" 2-/!.9.'"d -nd this is so because if transfers or conve)ances between spouses were allowed durin$ marria$e! that would destro) the s)stem of con<u$al partnership! a basic polic) in civil law& #t was also desi$ned to prevent the e9ercise of undue influence b) one spouse over the other! as well as to protect the institution of marria$e! which is the cornerstone of famil) law& T!" 2-/!.9.'./n& $22#1 '/ $ */,2#" #.+.n4 $& !,&9$nd $nd %.)" %.'!/,' 9"n").' /) 0$--.$4", /'!"-%.&", H'!" */nd.'./n /) '!/&" %!/ .n*,--"d 4,.#' %/,#d ',-n /,' '/ 9" 9"''"- '!$n '!/&" .n #"4$# ,n./n -s the conve)ance in (uestion was made b) Go)an$ko in favor of his common6 law6wife6herein petitioner! it was null and void& D/n$'./n +$#.d N/ +./#$'./n /) A-' 133 (n/' FC A-' 8>) #n !atabuena v& Cervantes that the prohibition in -rt& 177 e9tends to common6law relations& #ndeed! it is now provided in -rt& 85 of the >amil) 0ode@ -rt& 85& %ver) donation or $rant of $ratuitous advanta$e! direct or indirect between the spouses durin$ the marria$e shall be void! e9cept moderate $ifts which the spouses ma) $ive the spouses ma) $ive each other on the occasion of an) famil) re<oicin$& T&e pro&ibition s&all apply to persons livin" to"et&er as &usband and wife wit&out a valid $arria"e& (%mphasis added)& *his point is bein$ raised for the first time in this 0ourt& *ime and a$ain! this 0ourt has ruled that liti$ants cannot raise an issue for the first time on appeal as this would contravene the basic rules of fair pla) and <ustice& %ven assumin$ that the) are not thus precluded! petitioners were unable to present evidence in support of such a claim& *he evidence on record does not show whether Geor$e B& *ait! 8r& was married to 4aria >& *ait and! if so! when the marria$e took place& #f! as petitioner claim! 4aria >& *ait was not married to their father! evidence should have been presented to show that at the time the deed of donation was e9ecuted! their father and 4aria >& *ait were still maintainin$ common6law relations& Geatrice *aitLs testimon) is onl) to the effect that in 1931 4aria >& *ait became their stepmother& *here is no evidence on record that Geor$e B& *ait! 8r& and 4aria >& *ait continuosl) maintained common6law relations until -pril .! 1953 when the donation was made&

S,09$d + CA (1999)

Dhen -$ata *ait died in 197;! her husband Geor$e *ait 8r&! lived in common6law relationship with 4aria *ait to whom he donated land to in 1953& Geor$e died in 1955 and 4aria died in 1988& *he followin$ )ear! %milie 8umbad and Geatrice *ait sou$ht an action for (uietin$ of title! nullification of the deed of sale! and recover) of possession of dama$es b) virtue of bein$ compulsor) heirs of Geor$e=s first marria$e to -$ata& *he) alle$e that 4aria sold the lots included in the propert) to Okoren! et& al&! despite warnin$ the respondents that 4aria was not the real owner of the propert)& Petitioners ar$ue that the deed of donation contravenes -rt& 177 of the 0ivil 0ode which provides@ -rt& 177& %ver) donation between the spouses durin$ the marria$e shall be void& V99

3 A9&/#,'" */00,n.'1 /) 2-/2"-'1 (ACP) 1 W!"n $22#.*$9#" 2 C/00"n*"0"n' 3 W$.+"- d,-.n4 0$--.$4" B W$.+"- $)'"- 0$--.$4" D S,22#"'/-1 -,#"&K C/-/%n"-&!.2 = W!$' */n&'.','"& ACP ($) A## 2-/2"-'1 $' '!" '.0" /) 0$--.$4" (9) P-/2"-'1 $*<,.-"d &,9&"<,"n'#1 (*) W.nn.n4& )-/0 4$09#.n4

M,##"- + M,##"(.22;)

(d) P-"&,02'./n /) ACP Petitioner %lena Guenaventura 4uller and respondent Eelmut 4uller were married in Eambur$! German)& *he couple resided in German) at a house owned b) respondent=s parents but decided to move and reside permanentl) in the Philippines in 199.& G) this time! respondent had inherited the house in German) from his parents which he sold and used the proceeds for the purchase of a parcel of land in -ntipolo& *he -ntipolo propert) was re$istered in the name of petitioner& ue to incompatibilities and respondent=s alle$ed womanizin$! drinkin$! and maltreatment! the spouses eventuall) separated& 'espondent filed a petition for separation of properties & TCK court rendered a decision which terminated the re$ime of absolute communit) of propert) between the petitioner and respondent& #t also decreed the separation of properties between them and ordered the e(ual partition of personal properties located within the countr)! e9cludin$ those ac(uired b) $ratuitous title durin$ the marria$e& Dith re$ard to the -ntipolo propert)! the court held that it was ac(uired usin$ paraphernal funds of the respondent& Eowever! it ruled that respondent cannot recover his funds because the propert) was purchased in violation of 8ection 5! -rticle V## of the 0onstitution& Petitioners <ointl) bou$ht the sub<ect propert) in 1983! while the) were merel) cohabitin$& *heir famil) home was later built! and the Petitioners $ot married in 1985& 'espondent ac(uired the land b) e9ecution after winnin$ a case a$ainst Petitioners& 'espondent would later file a case for e<ectment a$ainst Petitioners! and the latter sou$ht his *0*=s cancellation& 'espondent (Aapanese) N %vel)n $ot married in 1989& 8he purchased a townhouse& 'espondent filed for the declaration of nullit) of his marria$e (in 4akati)& urin$ its pendenc)! %vel)n N her law)er voluntaril) undertook not to dispose of the properties durin$ the pendenc) of the case? this was annotated to the *0*! %vel)n obtained a loan from Petitioner and secured it with a mort$a$e over the townhouse& '*0 had! at this time! dissolved their marria$e and ordered li(uidation of the properties between them&

'espondent was aware of the constitutional prohibition and e9pressl) admitted his knowled$e thereof to this 0ourt& Ee declared that he had the -ntipolo propert) titled in the name of petitioner because of the said prohibition& Eis attempt at subse(uentl) assertin$ or claimin$ a ri$ht on the said propert) cannot be sustained& -s alread) observed! the findin$ that his wife had used her own mone) to purchase the propert) cannot! and will not! at this sta$e of the proceedin$s be reviewed and overturned& Gut even if it were a fact that said wife had used con<u$al funds to make the ac(uisition! the considerations <ust set out to militate! on hi$h constitutional $rounds! a$ainst his recoverin$ and holdin$ the propert) so ac(uired! or an) part thereof& -nd whether in such an event! he ma) recover from his wife an) share of the mone) used for the purchase or char$e her with unauthorized disposition or e9penditure of con<u$al funds is not now in(uired into? that would be! in the premises! a purel) academic e9ercise&

DE MESA + ACERO (.21.)

'espondent=s *0* ma) not be cancelled or nullified& *he propert) became a famil) home b) operation of law when the >amil) 0ode took effect and was thus prospectivel) e9empt from e9ecution& Eowever! while it is true that the famil) home is constituted on a house and lot from the time it is occupied as a famil) residence and is e9empt from e9ecution or forced sale! such claim for e9emption should be set up and proved to the 8heriff before the sale of the propert) at public auction& >ailure to do so would estop the part) from later claimin$ the e9emption& 'espondent has a cause of action in seekin$ annulment of the mort$a$e& *he defense that 'espondent is a forei$ner who cannot own real propert) does not ne$ate his ri$ht to rel) on the Order of the 4akati '*0 and to hold third persons to the annotations entered on the title& *he 4akati '*0 ruled on 'espondent=s and %vel)n=s ownership ri$hts over the townhouse! and embodied %vel)n=s commitment not to dispose of or encumber the propert)& *he Parana(ue '*0 cannot review this rulin$! bein$ a court of concurrent <urisdiction&

PACIFIC ACE + YANAGISAWA (.21.)

'espondent found out about the mort$a$e! so he filed for its annulment (in Parana(ue)& > W!$' .& "E*#,d"d )-/0 ACP 'espondents filed . cases a$ainst Petitioner! and he lost these cases! and his properties were levied upon& Petitioner filed a motion alle$in$ that the sheriff had levied properties belon$in$ to his children and Aoena (second wife)& Aoena alle$ed! inter alia! that the house and lot levied formed part of the absolute communit) of propert)! and so she should have been made a part)6in6interest to the proceedin$s& 8 C!$n4"& ,2/n ACP ($) F$0.#1 "E2"n&"& (9) D"9'& /) &2/,&"& (*) S,9&.d.$-1 #.$9.#.'."& Petitioners filed a complaint for dama$es a$ainst %rlinda! which ori$inated from her civil liabilit) from the criminal offense of slander& 8he was ordered to pa)! and their properties were e9ecuted upon! and Petitioners bou$ht the same at public auction& Eer husband then filed a complaint for annulment of said sale& (d) 8ole obli$ation of spouse (e) Gamblin$ losses (f)Other chan$es 9& -dministration and en<o)ment of -0O (a) Aoint administration YU 3UN GUAN Petitioner (husband) and 'espondent (wife) were married in 19;1! livin$ to$ether until he left them in + ONG 199.& #n 19;8! 'espondent bou$ht a lot! and she +sold, (.211) this to Petitioner who later failed to pa)& Petitioner filed a petition in to replace the title! alle$in$ that it was lost& 'espondent opposed& DAR + L"4$&'/ Private respondent /enita 0o Gautista filed a case for unlawful detainer a$ainst herein petitioners in (.222) the 4etropolitan *rial 0ourt! Uuezon 0it)& *he) were sued as +4r& and 4rs&, in the said case& *he 0- dismissed the petition because while petitioners 'onnie ar! 'and) -n$eles! Ao) 0onstantino and "ibert) 0ruz si$ned the 0ertification of /on6>orum 8hoppin$! their respective spouses did not si$n the same& Petitioners now contend that since what is involved in the instant case is their common ri$hts

A3RENICA + A3RENICA (.21.)

*he properties do not form part of Petitioner6spouses= absolute communit) of propert)& -rt& 9.! par& 7 of the >amil) 0ode e9cludes from the communit) propert) the propert) ac(uired before the marria$e of a spouse who has le$itimate descendants b) a former marria$e? and the fruits and the income! if an)! of that propert)& *he properties referred to herein do not belon$ the second marria$e? the) belon$ to the first marria$e! from which Aoena=s stepchildren were born&

3UADO + CA (.229)

*he properties under their con<u$al parternship cannot be levied upon! as the crime of slander did not redound to the benefit of the con<u$al partnership& *he contested propert) is con<u$al in nature& -rt& 1.. of the >amil) 0ode provides that pa)ment of personal debts contracted b) the husbandRwife beforeRdurin$ the marria$e shall not be char$ed to the con<u$al partnership! e9cept insofar as the) redounded to the benefit of the famil)& #n the s)stem of absolute communit)! liabilities incurred b) either spouse b) reason of a crime or #uasi8 delict is char$eable thereon& #n the s)stem of con<u$al partnership of $ains! in the absence or insufficienc) of the e9clusive propert) of the debtor6spouse! the same advanta$e is not accorded&

*he lot is 'espondent=s paraphernal propert)& 'espondent was able to prove that the mone) she used to ac(uire the propert) was paraphernal (from her <ob and paraphernal propert))! that her parents were well off! and that she had bou$ht several lots before her marria$e& Petitioner! on the other hand! was unable to prove the source of the mone) he alle$ed to have used to bu) the propert)! flip6floppin$ between possible sources durin$ his testimon)& #n the instant case! the 0ourt of -ppeals should have taken into consideration the fact that the petitioners were sued <ointl)! or as +4r& and 4rs&, over a propert) in which the) have a common interest& 8uch bein$ the case! the si$nin$ of one of them in the certification substantiall) complies with the rule on certification of non6forum shoppin$&

and interest to abode under the s)stem of absolute communit) of propert)! either of the spouses can si$n the petition& (9) S/#" $d0.n.&'-$'./n (1) In*$2$*.'1 (2) S"2$-$'./n .n )$*' (3) A9$nd/n0"n' (B) P"nd"n*1 /) #"4$# &"2$-$'./n 2-/*""d.n4 (*) D.&2/&.'./n $nd "n*,09-$n*" 'espondent Gen<amin -& *a)lor (Gen<amin)! a Gen<amin has no ri$ht to nullif) the -$reement of "ease between Aosel)n and petitioner& Gritish sub<ect! married Aosel)n 0& *a)lor (Aosel)n)! Gen<amin! bein$ an alien! is absolutel) prohibited from ac(uirin$ private and public lands in the a 156)ear old >ilipina&3 On Aune 9! 1989! while their Philippines& 0onsiderin$ that Aosel)n appeared to be the desi$nated 1vendee1 in the eed of 8ale of marria$e was subsistin$! Aosel)n bou$ht from said propert)! she ac(uired sole ownership thereto& *his is true even if we sustain Gen<amin=s claim that iosa 4& 4artin a 1!.93 s(uare6meter lot (Goraca) he provided the funds for such ac(uisition& Ee had and has no capacit) or personalit) to (uestion the propert)) situated at 4anoc64anoc! Goraca) subse(uent lease of the Goraca) propert) b) his wife on the theor) that in so doin$! he was merel) #sland! 4ala)! -klan! for and in consideration e9ercisin$ the prero$ative of a husband in respect of con<u$al propert)& *o sustain such a theor) would of P1.9!222&22&5 *he sale was alle$edl) financed countenance indirect controversion of the constitutional prohibition& #f the propert) were to be declared b) Gen<amin& Gen<amin and Aosel)n had a fallin$ con<u$al! this would accord the alien husband a substantial interest and ri$ht over the land! as he would out! and Aosel)n ran awa) with Bim Philippsen& On then have a decisive vote as to its transfer or disposition& *his is a ri$ht that the 0onstitution does not Aune 8! 199.! Aosel)n e9ecuted a 8pecial Power of permit him to have& -ttorne) (8P-) in favor of Gen<amin! authorizin$ the latter to maintain! sell! lease! and sub6lease and otherwise enter into contract with third parties with respect to their Goraca) propert)& Aosel)n as lessor and petitioner Philip 4atthews as lessee! entered into an -$reement of "ease 12 (-$reement) involvin$ the Goraca) propert) for a period of .5 )ears! with an annual rental of P1.!222&22& 0laimin$ that the -$reement was null and void since it was entered into b) Aosel)n without his (Gen<amin=s) consent! Gen<amin instituted an action for eclaration of /ullit) of -$reement of "ease with ama$es11 a$ainst Aosel)n and the petitioner& 10 E))"*' /) &"2$-$'./n d" )$*'/ 11 E))"*' /) $9$nd/n0"n' 12 D.&&/#,'./n /) ACP ($) D"$'! Protacio! Ar& e9ecuted an -ffidavit of 'enunciation and Daiver!1 whereb) he affirmed under oath that it was his father! Protacio Go! 8r& (Protacio! 8r&)! not he! who had purchased the two parcels of land (the propert))& Protacio! 8r& and his son 'ito G& Go sold a portion of the propert) %ster "& 8ervacio (8ervacio) for 5!;8;!5;8&22& *he petitioners demanded the return of the propert) but 8ervacio refused to heed their demand& *he petitioners averred that followin$ Protacio! Ar&=s renunciation! the propert) became con<u$al propert)? and that

M$''!"%& + T$1#/(.229)

H".-& /) G/ + G"-+$*./ (.211)

*he disposition b) sale of a portion of the con<u$al propert) b) the survivin$ spouse without the prior li(uidation mandated b) -rticle 172 of the /a$ily Code is not necessaril) void if said portion has not )et been allocated b) <udicial or e9tra<udicial partition to another heir of the deceased spouse& *he alienation made b) the survivin$ spouse of a portion of the communit) propert) is not wholl) void ab initio despite -rticle 127 of the >amil) 0ode! and shall be valid to the e9tent of what will be allotted! in the final partition! to the vendor& -nd ri$htl) so! because wh) invalidate the sale b) the survivin$ spouse of a portion of the communit) propert) that will eventuall) be hisRher share in the final partitionC Practicall) there is no reason for that view and it would be absurd&

the sale of the propert) to 8ervacio without the prior li(uidation of the communit) propert) between Protacio! 8r& and 4arta was null and void (9) L"4$# &"2$-$'./n (*) Ann,#0"n' $nd d"*#$-$'./n /) n,##.'1 (d) :,d.*.$# &"2$-$'./n /) 2-/2"-'1 "orea de F$alde (petitioner) and Aon de Osasi (respondent) $ot married& Petitioner and respondent a$reed to have their con<u$al partnership dissolved& *he 0># approved this -micable 8ettlement& Eowever! Aon married :ictoria %leanor 8mith& Eence! on "orea petitioned for the dissolution of their con<u$al partnership& Pendin$ appeal in 0-! a petition for Audicial eclaration of /ullit) of their 4arria$e was filed and $ranted for lack of a marria$e license& *he 0ertification of /ullit) was issued&

U4$#d" + Y&$&. (.228)

*he finalit) of the ; Aune 19;1 0># Order in 0ivil 0ase /o& 3591 resulted in the dissolution of the petitioner and respondent=s con<u$al partnership of $ains in accordance with -rticle 155 of the >amil) 0ode& *he -micable 8ettlement had become final as between petitioner and respondent when it was approved b) the 0># on ; Aune 19;1& *he 0>#=s approval of the 0ompromise -$reement on ; Aune 19;1 resulted in the dissolution of the con<u$al partnership of $ains between petitioner and respondent on even date&

13 E))"*'& /) d.&&/#,'./n ($) L.<,.d$'./n 2-/*"d,-" (9) F/- *$,&" /'!"- '!$n d"$'! (*) T"-0.n$'./n d," '/ d"$'! 3,"n$+"n',-$ + /oel Guenaventura filed a petition for the CA declaration of nullit) of marria$e on the $round that both he and his wife were ps)cholo$icall) (.225) incapacitated& *he '*0 in its decision! declared the marria$e entered into between petitioner and respondent null and violation ordered the li(uidation of the assets of the con<u$al partnership propert)& Plaintiff6appellant assails the order of the trial court for him to $ive one6half of his separationRretirement benefits from >ar %ast Gank N *rust 0ompan) and half of his outstandin$ shares in 4anila 4emorial Park and Provident Group of 0ompanies to the defendant6appellee as the latter=s share in the con<u$al partnership& *he trial court rendered a Partial ecision approvin$ the 0ompromise -$reement entered into b) the parties& #n the same 0ompromise -$reement! the parties had a$reed that henceforth! their con<u$al partnership is dissolved& *hereafter! no steps were taken for the li(uidation of the con<u$al partnership& inos started livin$ to$ether in 1983! separated in DINO + DINO 1993! $ot back to$ether in 199; and finall) married each other on 1998& #n .221! the husband filed an (.211) action for eclaration of /ullit) under -rt 7; of the >0 alle$in$ that the wife failed to $ive love and support! abandoned her responsibilities! was unfaithful and would at times violentl) hurt him& Ee

*he $eneral rule applies! which is in case a marria$e is declared void ab initio! the propert) re$ime applicable to be li(uidated! partitioned and distributed is that of e(ual co6ownership& 8ince the present case does not involve the annulment of a bi$amous marria$e! the provisions of article 52 in relation to articles 31! 3. and 37 of the >amil) 0ode! providin$ for the dissolution of the absolute communit) or con<u$al partnership of $ains! as the case ma)be! do not appl)& 8ince the properties ordered to be distributed b) the court a (uo were found! both b) the '*0 and the 0-! to have been ac(uired durin$ the union of the parties! the same would be covered b) the co6ownership& /o fruits of a separate propert) of one of the parties appear to have been included or involved in said distribution&

8ection 19(1) of the 'ule on eclaration of -bsolute /ullit) of /ull 4arria$es and -nnulment of :oidable 4arria$es (the 'ule) does not appl) to -rticle 135 of the >amil) 0ode& #n 9aldes v. RTC- ranc& *+1- :ue)on6 $ +/.d 0$--.$4"! re$ardless of its cause! the propert) relations of the parties durin$ the period of cohabitation .& 4/+"-n"d ".'!"- 91 A-'.*#" 1B> /- A-'.*#" 1B8 /) '!" F$0.#1 C/d"& -rticle 135 applies to union of parties who are le$all) capacitated and not barred b) an) impediment to contract marria$e! but whose marria$e is nonetheless void&

found out later in that his wife?s petition for divorce was $ranted b) the 8uperior 0ourt of 0alifornia in .221 and the she married -lcantara in the same )ear& *he '*0 $ranted his petition! dissolved the -0P and ruled that the decree shall be issued upon his compliance with -rt 52 and 51 of the >0& Fpon reconsideration! the '*0 ruled that the decree shall be issued after li(uidation! partition and distribution of properties under >0 135& #88F%@ DR/ the decree shall issue onl) after compliance with >0 135C Ou filed for declaration of nullit)& Dife ar$ues that the the incidents on custod) support and famil) relations are incidental and not essential in resolvin$ the incident on the declaration of nullit)& Ou opposes and sa)s that the) should be proceeded and be simultaneousl) resolved& #88F%@ DR/ there was error when the '*0 submitted the main issue of nullit) for resolution ahead of the reception of evidence on custod)! support and propert) relationsC N/& C C/n;,4$# 2$-'n"-&!.2 /) 4$.n& *his case involves the (uestion of ownership over 3ELCODERO + a piece of land ac(uired b) a husband w&ile livin$ CA with a paramour in 1939 and after havin$ deserted his lawful wife and children in 193;& Ee indicated in (1997) the deed that his civil status was married to his paramour& Ee married his paramour in 1958! without annullin$ his previous marria$e& Ee died in 19;5&

8ection 19(1) of the 'ule applies onl) to marria$es which are declared void ab initio or annulled b) final <ud$ment ,nd"- A-'.*#"& B0 $nd BD /) '!" F$0.#1 C/d"& #n short! -rticle 52 of the >amil) 0ode does not appl) to marria$es which are declared void ab initio under -rticle 7; of the >amil) 0ode! which should be declared void without waitin$ for the li(uidation of the properties of the parties& *he rules on co6ownership appl) and the properties of the spouses should be li(uidated in accordance with the 0ivil 0ode provisions on co6ownership& Fnder -rticle 39; of the 0ivil 0ode! 1PpQartition ma) be made b) a$reement between the parties or b) <udicial proceedin$s& 9 9 9&1 #t is not necessar) to li(uidate the properties of the spouses in the same proceedin$ for declaration of nullit) of marria$e&

YU + REYESCARPIO (.211)

#t must be noted that the <ud$e did not disallow the presentation of evidence on the incidents on custod)! support! and propert) relations but merel) deferred the reception of evidence based on the e9istin$ rules issued b) this 0ourt! to a time when a decision $rantin$ the petition is alread) at hand and 9")/-" $ ).n$# d"*-"" is issued& -&4& /o& 2.611612680 or the 'ule on eclaration of -bsolute /ullit) of :oid 4arria$es and -nnulment of :oidable 4arria$es& Particularl)! 8ecs& 19 and .1 of the 'ule clearl) allow the reception of evidence on custod)! support! and propert) relations after the trial court renders a decision $rantin$ the petition! or upon entr) of <ud$ment $rantin$ the petition

*he propert) remained as belon$in$ to the con<u$al partnership of -la)o and his le$itimate wife Auliana& Fnder both the new 0ivil 0ode (-rticle 1;2) and the old 0ivil 0ode (-rticle 1325)! 1 all property of the marria$e is presumed to belon$ to the con<u$al partnership! unless it be proved that it pertains e9clusivel) to the husband or to the wife&1 *his presumption has not been convincin$l) rebutted& #t cannot be seriousl) contended that! simpl) because the propert) was titled in the name of Aosefa at -la)oLs re(uest! she should thereb) be deemed to be its owner& *he propert) un(uestionabl) was ac(uired b) -la)o& -s re$ards the propert) relation between common6law spouses! -rticle 133 of the 0ivil 0ode merel) codified the law established throu$h <udicial precedents under the old code (4ar$aret 4a9e) vs& 0ourt of -ppeals! G&'& /o& "635852! 11 4a) 1983)& #n both re$imes! the co6ownership rule had more than once been repudiated when either or both spouses suffered from an impediment to marr) (Aeroniza vs& Aose! 89 80'- 72;)& *he present provisions under -rticle 135 and -rticle 138 of the >amil) 0ode did not much deviate from the old rules? in an) case! its provisions cannot appl) to this case without interdictin$ prior vested ri$hts (-rticle .5;! >amil) 0ode)& *he certificates of title show! on their face! that the properties were e9clusivel) %milio AocsonLs! the re$istered owner in his name alone& *his is so because the words 1married toL precedin$ 1-le<andra PobleteL are merel) descriptive of the civil status of %milio Aocson #t is thus clear that before 4oises Aocson ma) validl) invoke the presumption under -rticle 1;2 he must first present proof that the disputed properties were ac(uired durin$ the marria$e of %milio Aocson and -le<andra Poblete& *he certificates of title! however! upon which petitioner rests his claim is insufficient& *he fact that the properties were re$istered in the name of 1%milio Aocson! married to -le<andra

:OCSON + CA (1989)

*he parties are siblin$s& *he brother wants to annul documents e9ecuted b) their father $ivin$ a chunk of the con<u$al properties to his sister and wants that the properties be divided e(uall) between them as the onl) survivin$ heirs of the parents& (*he father died after the mother! and the mother=s intestate estate has not been partitioned)&

#t is the position of petitioner that since the properties sold to -$ustina Aocson6:as(uez under %9hibit 7 were re$istered in the name of 1%milio Aocson! married to -le<andra Poblete!1 the certificates of title he presented as evidence were enou$h proof to show that the properties covered therein were ac(uired durin$ the marria$e of their parents! and! therefore! under -rticle 1;2 of the 0ivil 0ode! presumed to be con<u$al properties& DR/ presumed con<u$alC /O&

Poblete1 is no proof that the properties were ac(uired durin$ the spousesL coverture& -c(uisition of title and re$istration thereof are two different acts& #t is well settled that re$istration does not confer title but merel) confirms one alread) e9istin$ (8ee *orela vs& *orela! supra)& #t ma) be that the properties under dispute were ac(uired b) %milio Aocson when he was still a bachelor but were re$istered onl) after his marria$e to -le<andra Poblete! which e9plains wh) he was described in the certificates of title as married to the latter& De are not unmindful that in numerous cases De consistentl) held that re$istration of the propert) in the name of onl) one spouse does not ne$ate the possibilit) of it bein$ con<u$al& Gut this rulin$ is not inconsistent with the above pronouncement for in those cases there was proof that the properties! thou$h re$istered in the name of onl) one spouse! were indeed con<u$al properties! or that the) have been ac(uired durin$ the marria$e of the spouses! and therefore! presumed con<u$al! without the adverse part) havin$ presented proof to rebut the presumption& #t is undisputed that the sum of P;7;&82 which is now in controvers) was derived from the paraphernal propert) of the appellee! 4ar$arita Uuintos de -nsaldo! the wife of the other appellee -n$el -& -nsaldo& #t therefore belon$s to the con<u$al partnership of the said spouses& *he provision of article 1328 of the 0ivil 0ode to the effect that the con<u$al partnership shall be liable for all the debts and obli$ations contracted durin$ the marria$e b) the husband must be understood as sub<ect to the (ualifications established b) article 178; of the same 0ode! which provides that@ *he fruits of the paraphernal propert) cannot be sub<ect to the pa)ment of personal obli$ations of the husband! unless it be proved that such obli$ation were productive of some benefit to the famil)& *he meanin$ of this article is clarified b) reference to the first para$raph of the precedin$ article 1785 which reads as follows@ *he fruit of the paraphernal propert) form part of the assets of the con<u$al partnership and are sub<ect to the pa)ment of the debts and e9penses of the spouses& 0onstruin$ the two articles to$ether! it seems clear that the fruits of the paraphernal propert) which become part of the assets of the con<u$al partnership are not liable for the pa)ment of personal obli$ations of the husband! unless it be proved that such obli$ations were productive of some benefit to the famil)& #n the case now before us no attempt has been made to prove that the obli$ations contracted b) the appellee! -n$el -& -nsaldo! were productive of some benefit to his famil)& #n the case at bench! the petitioners have been unable to present an) proof that the propert) in (uestion was ac(uired durin$ the marria$e of 8antia$o and 0onsuelo& *he) anchor their claim solel) on the fact that when the title over the land in (uestion was issued! 8antia$o was alread) married to 0onsuelo as evidenced b) the re$istration in the name of 18antia$o Garcia married to 0onsuelo Gaza1& #t has been repeatedl) held b) this 0ourt that the presumption under -rticle 1;2 of the 0ivil 0ode that all propert) of the marria$e belon$ to the con<u$al partnership applies onl) when there is proof that the propert) was ac(uired durin$ the marria$e& Otherwise stated! proof of ac(uisition durin$ the marria$e is a condition sine #ua non for the operation of the presumption in favor of the con<u$al partnership& Gein$ the e9clusive propert) of 8antia$o Garcia! it was the entire parcel of land in (uestion that formed part of his estate and which passed to his ten heirs b) compulsor) succession upon his death& Dhat could onl) be attached is the 1R12 share of 0onsuelo&

ANSALDO + SHERIFF (1975)

Philippine *rust compan) $ranted -$caoili credit account& -nsaldos $uaranteed such obli$ation to the suret)! >80P& -$caoili defaulted& >80P paid Phil*rust& >80P now wants to recover from -nsaldo& -fter obtainin$ a <ud$ment on its favor! >80P cause the sheriff to lev) on the <oint savin$s account in the name of the spouses -nsaldo in GP-& *he spouses contend that the mone) levied was part of the 0PG and is not liable for the pa)ment of personal obli$ations of the husband&

ESTONINA + CA (1995)

8ome si9 )ears after 8antia$o GarciaLs death! or on 4arch 12! 1957! the then 0># issued an order $rantin$ *rinidad %stoninaLs application for a writ of preliminar) attachment in 0ivil 0ase /o& 88372 entitled 1*rinidad %stonina et al&! plaintiffs 6versus6 0onsuelo Garcia et al&! defendants1& 0onse(uentl)! a notice of attachment was inscribed as a memorandum of encumbrance at the back of *0* /o& *619155 in favor of *rinidad %stonina coverin$ all the ri$hts! title! interest! and participation that 0onsuelo Garcia! the widow of 8antia$o Garcia! ma) have in and to the parcel of land covered b) the said title& *he other heirs of 8antia$o Garcia want to annul

DE MESA + ACERO (.211)

the sheriffs sale to %stonina (which was held after a favorable decision) and the *0* in the name of the latter contendin$ that the properties were in the name of 8antia$o alone and the land covered b) the same has been the sub<ect of previous sales& '*0 ruled that the properties were ac(uired durin$ the marria$e of 8antia$o and 0onsuelo! and as such are presumed con<u$al! K of the con<u$al share was transmitted to the heirs upon his death& *he heirs appealed to sa)in$ that it is not con<u$al& 0- ruled in their favor& Petitioners filed a$ainst the respondents a complaint to nullif) the *0* issued in favor of the respondents as bu)er in the public auction sale& *he petitioners asserted that the sub<ect propert) is a famil) home! which is e9empt from e9ecution under the >amil) 0ode and thus could not have been validl) levied upon&

*he famil) home ma) be levied upon& *he fore$oin$ rules on constitution of famil) homes! for purposes of e9emption from e9ecution! could be summarized as follows@ >#'8*! famil) residences constructed G%>O'% the effectivit) of the >amil) 0ode or before -u$ust 7! 1988 must be constituted as a famil) hme either <udiciall) or e9tra<udiciall) in accordance with the provisions of the 0ivil 0ode in order to be e9empt from e9ecution? 8%0O/ !famil) residences constructed after the effectivit) of the >amil) 0ode on -u$ust 7! 1988 are automaticall) deemed to be famil) homes and thus e9empt from e9ecution from the time it was constituted and lasts as lon$ as an) of its beneficiaries actuall) resides therein? *E#' ! famil) residences which were not <udiciall) or e9tra<udiciall) constituted as famil) home prior to the effectivit) of the >amil) 0ode! but were e9istin$ thereafter! are considered as famil) homes b) operation of law and are prospectivel) entitled to the benefits accorded to a famil) home under the >amil) 0ode& *he settled rule is that the ri$ht to e9emption or forced sale under -rt 157 of the >amil) 0ode is a personal privile$e $ranted to the <ud$ment debtor and as such it must be claimed not b) the sheriff! but b) the debtor himself before the sale of the propert) at public auction& #t is not sufficient that the person claimin$ e9emption merel) alle$es that such propert) is a famil) home& Eavin$ failed to set up and prove to the sheriff the supposed e9emption of the sub<ect propert) before the sale thereof at public auction! the petitioners now are barred from raisin$ the same& >ailure to do so estop them from later claimin$ the said e9emption&

1 W!"n CPG */00"n*"& $nd $22#."& ($) M$--.$4"& ,nd"- FC (9) M$--.$4"& 9")/-" FC (*) S,22#"'/-1 -,#"& 2 W!$' .& .n*#,d"d .n '!" CPG $ P-"&,02'./n /) CPG TITAN + DAVID *he husband filed a complaint for -nnulment of 0ontract and 'econve)ance a$ainst the bu)er! (.212) *itan! alle$in$ that the sale e9ecuted b) the wife was without his knowled$e and consent! and therefore void& *he bu)er claimed that it was a bu)er in $ood faith and for value because it relied on an 8P- alle$edl) si$ned b) the husband authorizin$ the wife to dispose of the propert)&

*he sale is :O# & *he propert) is part of the spouses= con<u$al partnership& *he 0ivil 0ode of the Philippines! the law in force at the time of the celebration of the marria$e provides that@ -rt 1;2& -ll propert) of the marria$e is presumed to belon$ to the con<u$al partnership! unless it be proved that it pertains e9clusivel) to the husband or wife& -rt 157& Of the civil code also provides@ -rt 157& *he followin$ are con<u$al partnership propert)@ (1) *hat which is ac(uired b) onerous title durin$ the marria$e at the e9pense of the common fund!

whether the ac(uisition be for the partnership! or for onl) one of the spouses? *hese provisions were carried over to the >amil) 0ode particularl) -rticle 115(1)& -rticle 11; of the >amil) 0ode is even more une(uivocal in that +all propert) ac(uired durin$ the marria$e! whether the ac(uisition appears to have been made! contracted or re$istered in the name of one or both spouses! is presumed to be con<u$al unless the contrar) is proved&, *he husband was not re(uired to prove that the propert) was ac(uired with funds of the partnership& 'ather! the presumption applies even when the manner in which the propert) was ac(uired does not appear& #n the absence of the husband=s consent! the eed of sale is void& *he propert) is e9clusive propert) of the wife! thus it is not e9empt from e9ecution& -ll propert) of the marria$e is presumed to be con<u$al& Eowever! for this presumption to appl)! the part) who invokes it must first prove that the propert) was ac(uired durin$ the marria$e& Proof of ac(uisition durin$ the coverture is a condition sine #ua non to the operation of the presumption in favor of the con<u$al partnership& *hus! the time when the propert) was ac(uired is material& Fnfortunatel) for petitioner! the proofs offered were not sufficient to prove her claim that the propert) is con<u$al& *he affidavit of vendor has no evidentiar) wei$ht because the latter was not presented in court to affirm the veracit) of the said affidavit& *he certificate of title statin$ that the petitioner was married is no proof that the propert) was ac(uired durin$ the spouses= coverture& -c(uisition of title and re$istration are two different acts& #t is well settled that re$istration does not confer title but merel) confirms one alread) e9istin$& *he sub<ect propert) belon$s to the con<u$al partnership& -ll propert) of the marria$e is presumed to belon$ to the con<u$al partnership! unless it be proved that it pertains e9clusivel) to the husband or to the wife& 'e$istration in the name of the husband or the wife alone does not destro) this presumption& *he separation6in6fact between the husband and wife without <udicial approval shall not affect the con<u$al partnership& *he lot retains its con<u$al nature& moreover! the presumption of con<u$al ownership applies even when the manner in which the propert) was ac(uired does not appear& *he use of con<u$al funds is not an essential re(uirement for the presumption to arise& *here is no dispute that the sub<ect propert) was ac(uired b) the spouses durin$ their marria$e& *he) are $overned b) the con<u$al partnership of $ains since the) were married before the enactment of the >amil) 0ode and the) did not e9ecute an) pre6nuptial a$reement as to their propert) relations& *hus! the le$al presumption of the con<u$al nature of the propert) applies to the lot in (uestion& *he presumption ma) be rebutted onl) b) stron$! clear! cate$orical! and convincin$ evidence T there must be strict proof of the e9clusive ownership of one of the spouses! and the burden of proof rests upon the part) assertin$ it& -side from the assertions that the sale of the propert) to the wife was in the nature of a donation because of the alle$ed disparit) between the actual value of the propert) and the monetar) consideration for the sale! there is no other evidence that would convince the court of the paraphernal character of the propert)&

IMANI + METRO3AN5 (.212)

DEWARA + LAMELA (.211)

*he sheriff levied on a propert) re$istered in the name of petitioner! one of the sureties of the defaultin$ debtor& - public auction was conducted and the propert) was awarded to the creditor 4etrobank as the hi$hest bidder& *o consolidate its title! 4etrobank filed a 4anifestation and 4otion pra)in$ that the respondent surrender the owner=s cop) of the *0*& Petitioner opposed the motion ar$uin$ that the sub<ect propert) belon$s to the con<u$al partnership and as such it cannot be held answerable for the liabilities incurred b) the defaultin$ debtor& *he husband was found $uilt) of the char$e of serious ph)sical in<uries throu$h reckless imprudence& #n addition to imprisonment! he was also held civill) liable& *he writ of e9ecution was served on the husband but it was returned unsatisfied because he had no propert) in his name& *he sheriff levied on a propert) re$istered in the name of the wife& *he wife filed a case for annulment of sale and dama$es claimin$ that the lev) on e9ecution was ille$al because the said propert) was her paraphernal propert) and could not be made to answer for the personal liabilit) of her husband&

CHEESMAN + IAC (1991)

9 W!$' $-" .n*#,d"d .n CPG - eed of 8ale and *ransfer was e9ecuted in the name of the wife& *he husband! an -merican citizen! althou$h aware of the deed! did not ob<ect to the transfer bein$ made onl) to his wife& *he ta9 declarations for the propert) were issued in the name of the wife and she assumed e9clusive mana$ement and administration of said propert)&

*he propert) is the wife=s paraphernal propert)! thus the sale was valid even if husband had no knowled$e or did not consent& Goth the trial court and the appellate court found that the fund used b) the wife was mone) she had earned and saved prior to her marria$e to the petitioner& *his findin$ cannot now be disturbed b) the 0ourt & Gut even if it were a fact that said wife had used con<u$al funds to make the ac(uisition! the fact that the fundamental law prohibits the sale to aliens of residential land militate a$ainst his recoverin$

VILLANUEVA + CA (.223)

subse(uentl)! the wife sold it without the knowled$e or consent of the husband& *he husband brou$ht suit pra)in$ for the annulment of the sale on the $round that the transaction had been e9ecuted without his knowled$e and consent& /icolas and %usebia were married on October 5! 19.;& /icolas and Pacita started cohabitin$ in 197;& %usebia died on /ovember .7! 199;& /icolas and Pacita were married on ecember 1;! 199;& *he propert) in (uestion was purchased on October 3! 1955&

and holdin$ the propert) so ac(uired or an) part thereof&

*he propert) is part of the con<u$al partnership of /icolas and %usebia& *he >amil) 0ode provisions on con<u$al *he >amil) 0ode provisions on con<u$al partnerships $overn the propert) relations between /icolas and %usebia even if the) were married before the effectivit) of >amil) 0ode& -rticle 125 of the >amil) 0ode e9plicitl) mandates that the >amil) 0ode shall appl) to con<u$al partnerships established before the >amil) 0ode without pre<udice to vested ri$hts alread) ac(uired under the 0ivil 0ode or other laws& *hus! under the >amil) 0ode! if the properties are ac(uired durin$ the marria$e! the presumption is that the) are con<u$al& *he burden of proof is on the part) claimin$ that the) are not con<u$al& *his is counter6balanced b) the re(uirement that the properties must first be proven to have been ac(uired durin$ the marria$e before the) are presumed con<u$al& 8ince the sub<ect propert) were ac(uired durin$ the marria$e of /icolas and %usebia! the presumption under -rticle 11; of the >amil) 0ode is that all these are con<u$al properties of /icolas and %usebia& *he burden is on petitioners to prove that the sub<ect properties are not con<u$al& *he presumption in -rticle 11;! which subsists 1unless the contrar) is proved!1 stands as an obstacle to an) claim the petitioners ma) have& *he burden of provin$ that a propert) is e9clusive propert) of a spouse rests on the part) assertin$ it and the evidence re(uired must be clear and convincin$& .; Petitioners failed to meet this standard& *he ta9 declarations are not sufficient proof to overcome the presumption under -rticle 11; of the >amil) 0ode& *he presumption is not rebutted b) the mere fact that the certificate of title of the propert) or the ta9 declaration is in the name of one of the spouses onl)& -rticle 11; of the >amil) 0ode e9pressl) provides that the presumption remains even if the propert) is 1re$istered in the name of one or both of the spouses&1 *he compromise a$reement between 4rs& Hulueta and Pan6-m is ineffective! insofar as the con<u$al partnership is concerned& 00 117 refers to suits in which the wife is the principal or real part) in interest! not to the case at bar! 1in which the husband is the main part) in interest! both as the person principall) a$$rieved and as administrator of the con<u$al partnership &&& he havin$ acted in this capacit) in enterin$ into the contract of carria$e with Pan6-m and paid the amount due to the latter! under the contract! with funds of the con<u$al partnership!1 to which the amounts recoverable for breach of said contract! accordin$l)! belon$& *he dama$es suffered b) 4rs& Hulueta were mainl) an in accident of the humiliation to which her husband had been sub<ected& >or obvious reasons of public polic)! she is not allowed b) law to waive her share in the con<u$al partnership! before the dissolution thereof& 8he cannot even ac(uire an) propert) b) $ratuitous title! without the husbandLs consent! e9cept from her ascendants! descendants! parents6in6law! and collateral relatives within the fourth de$ree& *he award was made in the Huluetas= favor collectivel)! and the presumption is that the purpose of the trip was for the common benefit of the plaintiffs and that the mone) had come from the con<u$al funds! for! unless there is proof to the contrar)! it is presumed 1(t)hat thin$s have happened accordin$ to the ordinar) course of nature and the ordinar) habits of life&1 4anresa maintains that the) are deemed con<u$al! when the source of the mone) used therefor is not established! even if the purchase had been made b) the wife& %ven propert) re$istered! under the *orrens s)stem! in the name of one of the spouses! or in that of the wife onl)! if ac(uired durin$ the marria$e! is presumed to belon$ to the

@ULUETA V PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS INC (1957)

Hulueta had an altercation with the plane captain! and as a result he was offloaded from a Pan6-m fli$ht& Hulueta sued for dama$es& Dhile the case was pendin$! 4rs& Hulueta filed a motion to dismiss the case insofar as she is concerned! since Pan6-m had alread) paid her PEP 52!222& Pan6-m relied on 00 117! pursuant to which 1(t)he husband must be <oined in all suits b) or a$ainst the wife e9cept@ &&& (.) #f the) have in fact been separated for at least one )ear&1

con<u$al partnership! unless there is competent proof to the contrar)& T!" d$0$4"& .n+/#+"d .n '!" *$&" )/-0 2$-' /) '!" */n;,4$# 2$-'n"-&!.2 2,-&,$n' '/ CC 1D3 0onsiderin$ that the dama$es in (uestion have arisen from! inter alia! a breach of the HuluetasL contract of carria$e with Pan6-m! for which the Huluetas paid their fare with funds presumabl) belon$in$ to the con<u$al partnership! said dama$es fall under para$raph (1) of 00 157! the ri$ht thereto havin$ been 1ac(uired b) onerous title durin$ the marria$e &1 *his conclusion is bolstered up b) 00138& *he dama$es involved in the case at bar do not come under an) of these provisions or of the other provisions formin$ part of 1Paraphernal Propert)&1 Dhat is more! if 1(t)hat which is ac(uired b) ri$ht of redemption or b) e9chan$e with other propert) belon$in$ to onl) one of the spouses!1 and 1(t)hat which is purchased with e9clusive mone) of the wife or of the husband!1 belon$ e9clusivel) to such wife or husband! it follows necessaril) that that which is ac(uired with mone) of the con<u$al partnership belon$s thereto or forms part thereof& *he presumption under 00 1;2 M to the effect that all propert) of the marria$e belon" to t&e con;u"al partners&ip M does not appl) unless it is shown that it was ac(uired durin$ marria$e& #n the present case! the contract of carria$e was concededl) entered into! and the dama$es claimed b) the plaintiffs were incurred! durin" marria$e& Eence! the ri$hts accruin$ from said contract! includin$ those resultin$ from breach thereof b) the defendant! are presumed to belon$ to the con<u$al partnership of 4r& and 4rs& Hulueta& *he fact that such breach of contract was coupled! also! with a (uasi6delict constitutes an a$$ravatin$ circumstance and cannot possibl) have the effect of deprivin$ the con<u$al partnership of such propert) ri$hts& efendant insists that the use of con<u$al funds to redeem propert) does not make the propert) redeemed con<u$al if t&e ri"&t of rede$ption pertained to t&e wife & #n the absence! however! of proof that such ri$ht of redemption pertains to the wife M and there is no proof that the contract of carria$e with P-/-4 or the mone) paid therefor belon$s to 4rs& Hulueta M the propert) involved! or the ri$hts arisin$ therefrom! must be presumed! therefore! to form part of the con<u$al partnership& *he properties are con<u$al properties& *he presumption under 001;2 is a stron$ one& -s stated in Ca$ia de Reyes v. Reyes de <lano! 1it is sufficient to prove that the propert) was ac(uired durin$ the marria$e in order that the same ma) be deemed con<u$al propert)&1 "ikewise! the funds used to bu) the lot and build the improvements thereon were at the e9pense of the common fund (see 001;1@ all debts and obli$ations contracted b) the husband and the wife for the benefit of the con<u$al partnership are liabilities of the partnership&)

MENDO@A V REYES (1987)

'e)es filed a case for annulment of a deed of sale of two lots e9ecuted b) his wife in favor of the 4endoza spouses& 'e)es claimed the sale involved con<u$al properties and were sold without his knowled$e or consent& *he 'e)es spouses were married in 1915! and the properties were purchased in 1935 on installment basis& *he funds used in pa)in$ off the installments were from loans obtained b) the spouses from the 'ehabilitation >inance 0orporation& 3 W!$' .& "E*#,d"d )-/0 CPG *he "aperals sued Bati$bak and Balaw for sums of mone) represented b) P/s e9ecuted in their favor& *he 0># rendered <ud$ment in favor of the "aperals! orderin$ the defendants to pa) the sum or to return the <ewelr)& - month after the decision was rendered! Balaw filed a complaint a$ainst Bati$bak for <udicial separation of propert) and separate administration! which was $ranted&

LAPERAL V 5ATIG3A5 (19;3)

T!" 2-/2"-'1, $#'!/,4! $*<,.-"d d,-.n4 '!" 0$--.$4", .& n/' */n;,4$# 00 1;2 states a rebuttable presumption! it une(uivocall) states that such presumption e9ists onl) 1unless it be proved that it (the propert)) belon$s e9clusivel) to the husband or the wife&1 #n this case! aside from invokin$ the presumption! Bati$bak presented no other evidence& #t was also found b) the trial court that the lot was purchased b) Balaw=s mother! who! as was her practice! re$istered the same in her dau$hter=s name& *he 0># also concluded that Bati$bak couldn=t have possibl) purchased the lot in 1979 because his salar) was too small at the time&

VELOSO V MARTINE@ (1913)

Balaw and Bati$bak were married in 1978 and neither of them had brou$ht properties into the marria$e& - lot was bou$ht b) Balaw=s mother! who re$istered the same in her dau$hter=s name! in 1979& 4artinez filed a case a$ainst :eloso! personall) and as administratri9 of the estate of omin$o >ranco! for the recover) of possession of a lot and some <ewelr)& :eloso claimed that the <ewelr) were pawned to him b) >ranco! with 4artinez=s full consent&

T!" -"*/-d &!/%& '!$' '!" ;"%"#& %"-" '!" &/#" $nd &"2$-$'" 2-/2"-'1 /) '!" %.)", $*<,.-"d )-/0 !"- 0/'!"-, $nd .n '!" $9&"n*" /) ),-'!"- 2-//), '!"1 $-" 2-"&,0"d 2$-' /) !"- 2$-$2!"-n$# 2-/2"-'1 -s such paraphernal propert) she e9ercised dominion over the same& (00 178.&) 8he had the e9clusive control and mana$ement of the same! until and unless she had delivered it to her husband! before a notar) public! with the intent that the husband mi$ht administer it properl)& (00 1783) *here is no proof in the record that she had ever delivered the same to her husband! in an) manner! or for an) purpose& *hat bein$ true! she could not be deprived of the same b) an) act of her husband! without her consent! and without compliance with the provisions of the 0ivil 0ode& T!" GSIS %$& .n*/--"*' .n ,2!/#d.n4 '!".- &'$',& $& $ n$',-$# *!.#d $nd $& .##"4.'.0$'" *!.#d-"n *here was no evidence of admission of paternit) of the respondents! therefore! the retirement benefits should be distributed e(uall) to his wife and their le$itimate children&

3ERCILES V GSIS (1983)

PLATA V YATCO (19;3)

G8#8 reco$nized Pascual Gerciles as an acknowled$ed natural child and 4aria "uisca Gerciles :allreal! 4erc) Gerciles Patacsil! and 'hoda Gerciles as ille$itimate children of Aud$e Pascual Gerciles with >lor >uentebella& -s such! the) are entitled to his retirement benefits& Aud$e Gerciles= wife! #luminada Ponce! and their children! contested this rulin$& -malia Plata purchased a lot in 1953& 8he sold the same to 8aldana in 1958! who later resold the propert) to Plata that same )ear! who was alread) married to Gaudencio Ge$osa& - new *0* was issued to her& *he lot was mort$a$ed in 1958 b) 1-malia Plata of le$al a$e! >ilipino! married to Gaudencio Ge$osa!1 to 0esarea :illanueva! married to Gre$orio "eano& *he mort$a$ed was e9tra<udiciall) foreclosed when the) defaulted on their loan& :illanueva filed a case for unlawful detainer a$ainst Ge$osa! who was later declared $uilt)& Plata claimed she was never le$all) married to Ge$osa and that she was not bound b) the <ud$ment a$ainst him&

T!" #/' .& P#$'$G& 2$-$2!"-n$# 2-/2"-'1 #t had been un(uestionabl) ac(uired b) Plata while still sin$le! as shown b) a *0*& *he subse(uent conve)ance thereof to 0elso 8aldaSa! and the reconve)ance of her several months afterward of the same propert)! did not transform it from paraphernal to con<u$al propert)! there bein$ no proof that the mone) paid to 8aldaSa came from common or con<u$al funds (00 157)& *he deed of mort$a$e in favor of respondents :illanueva actuall) recites that Plata was the owner of the tenement in (uestion and so does the conve)ance of it b) 8aldaSa to her& *he fact that Ge$osa si$ned the mort$a$e as co6 mort$a$or doesn=t suffice to convert the land into con<u$al propert)! considerin$ that it was paraphernal in ori$in& *his is particularl) the case where the addition of Ge$osa as co6mort$a$or was clearl) an after thou$ht! the te9t of the deed showin$ that Plata was the sole mort$a$or& 8ince the propert) was paraphernal! and the creditors and purchasers were aware of it! the fact bein$ clearl) spread on the land records! it is plain that PlataLs possession! therefore! was not derived from Ge$osa& *he ille$al detainer <ud$ment a$ainst the husband alone cannot bind nor affect the wifeLs possession of her paraphernal! which b) law she holds and administers independentl)! and which she ma) even encumber or alienate without his knowled$e or consent (00 17;& 175! 132)& Eence! as she was not made part) defendant in the eviction suit! Plata could validl) i$nore the <ud$ment of eviction a$ainst her husband! and it was no contempt of court for her to do so! because the writ of e9ecution was not lawful a$ainst her&

B Ad0.n.&'-$'./n /) "E*#,&.+" 2-/2"-'1 ($) 31 &2/,&"-/%n"(9) 31 '!" /'!"- &2/,&" V"#/&/ +& Plaintiff (husband) commenced an action to M$-'.n"6 (171B) recover from the defendant (wife) the possession of a certain parcel of land to$ether with the sum of P1.5 per month& efendant! as administratri9 of

'ecords show that the <ewels were the sole and separate propert) of the wife ac(uired from her mother& #t is part of her paraphernal propert)& -s such she e9ercised dominion over the same& 8he had the e9clusive control and mana$ement of the same! until and unless she had delivered it to her husband! before a notar) public! with the intent that the husband mi$ht administer it properl)&(-rticle

the estate of the late omin$o >ranco answered and filed a counterclaim for services rendered b) the deceased to the plaintiff and recover) of certain <ewelr) alle$ed to be in the possession in the plaintiff& Plaintiff contends that said <ewelr) were pawned to him b) the deceased& M$n/'/( R"$#'1 +& CA (178>) Dife owned a parcel of land& Dhen she died! husband was appointed special administrator of her estate! which includes the land in (uestion& Eusband decides to sell the land 4anotok 'ealt)&

1783! 0ivil 0ode&) *here is no proof in the record that she had ever delivered the same to her husband! in an) manner! or for an) purpose

*he record does not show that on :icente "e$ard was the administrator of the paraphernal properties of oSa 0lara *ambuntin$ durin$ the lifetime of the latter& *hus! it cannot be said that the sale which was entered into b) the private respondent and on :icente "e$arda had its inception before the death of 0lara *ambuntin$ and was entered into b) on :icente on behalf of 0lara *ambuntin$ but was onl) consummated after her death& on :icente "e$arda! therefore! could not have validl) disposed of the lot in dispute as a continuin$ administrator of the paraphernal properties of oSa 0lara *ambuntin$&

On$ v 0D En*,09-$n*"Nd.&2/&.'./n /) "E*#,&.+" 2-/2"-'1 Dife (Batrina) entered into an a$reement with 8ps& Don$ where the latter cosi$ned the former pieces of <ewelr) valued at P74 on the condition that the former had to sell them within a .26da) period& Batrina failed to sell the <ewelr) within the .26da) period and also failed to return them& 8ps& Don$ demanded pa)ment from Batrina& Batrina failed to pa)& 3 parcels of land in the name of the husband ('omarico)! married to Batrina! were attached& 'omarico files an action for annulment of <ud$ment& = I) 2-/2"-'1 9/,4!' 91 .n&'$##0"n'& #n 1955! aniel Aovellanos bou$ht on installment a parcel of land durin$ his marria$e to his second wife! -nnette& -fter aniel died! petitioners (children of aniel from his first marria$e) were assertin$ ownership over the land in (uestion& -nnette opposed! sa)in$ that since aniel bou$ht the land durin$ their marria$e! it forms part of their con<u$al propert)& Gonifacio! when he was still sin$le! entered into a contract to sell with PEE0 for the purchase of a certain parcel of land on installment& #n 19;8! Gonifacio married -nita& #n 1952! upon full pa)ment of the purchase price! a deed of sale was e9ecuted b) PEE0 in the name of Gonifacio! +sin$le,& /ow! 8ps& *arrosa are claimin$ ownership over said lot because alle$edl)! Gonifacio sold the said lot to them& -nita (wife of Gonifacio) opposed! sa)in$ that the lot forms part of their con<u$al partnership! therefore! the alle$ed sale was ille$al because it was made without the consent of the

W/n4 +& IAC (1771)

- wife ma) bind the con<u$al partnership onl) when she purchases thin$s necessar) for support of the famil)& *he writ of e9ecution cannot be issued a$ainst 'omarico and the e9ecution of <ud$ments e9tends onl) over properties belon$in$ to the <ud$ment debtor& *he con<u$al properties cannot answer for Batrina=s obli$ations as she e9clusivel) incurred the latter without the consent of her husband nor the) did redound to the benefit of the famil)& *here was also no evidence submitted that the administration of the partnership had been transferred to Batrina b) 'omarico before said obli$ations were incurred& #n as much as the decision was void onl) in so far as 'omarico and the con<u$al properties concerned! 8pouses Don$ ma) still e9ecute the debt a$ainst Batrina! personall) and e9clusivel)&

:/+"##$n/& +& CA (1772)

8ince as earl) as 19;5! aniel was alread) married to -nnette! the said propert) necessaril) belon$ed to his con<u$al partnership with his said second wife& Eowever! since it pertained to the second wife! she is still liable to pa) the correspondin$ reimbursements to the petitioners who helped pa) for the amortization of the house and lot& 'emember -rticle 118 of the >amil) 0ode on propert) bou$ht on installments! where ownership is vested durin$ the marria$e! such propert) shall belon$ to the con<u$al partnership&

T$--/&$ +& D" L"/n (2007)

-rt& 1;2 of the 1952 0ivil 0ode! the $overnin$ provision in effect at the time Gonifacio and -nita contracted marria$e! provides that all propert) of the marria$e is presumed to belon$ to the con<u$al partnership unless it is proved that it pertains e9clusivel) to the husband or the wife& #n the case at bar! ownership over what was once a PEE0 lot and covered b) the PEE06Gonifacio 0onditional 0ontract to 8ell was onl) transferred durin$ the marria$e of Gonifacio and -nita& #t is well settled that a conditional sale is akin! if not e(uivalent! to a contract to sell& #n other words! in a contract to sell ownership is retained b) the seller and is not passed to the bu)er until full pa)ment of the price! unlike in a contract of sale where title passes upon deliver) of the thin$ sold& %videntl)! title to the propert) in (uestion onl) passed to Gonifacio after he had full) paid the purchase price on Aune ..! 1952& *his full pa)ment! to stress! was made more than two (.) )ears after his

wife&

marria$e to -nita on -pril .3! 19;8& #n net effect! the propert) was ac(uired durin$ the e9istence of the marria$e? as such! ownership to the propert) is! b) law! presumed to belon$ to the con<u$al partnership&

> I02-/+"0"n'& /n CPG 2-/2"-'1 0alte9 v >elias 'avina v :illa6 -brille 4unoz! Ar& v 'amirez (.212) 8 C!$-4"& ,2/n $nd /9#.4$'./n& /) CPG 4ariano v 0-)ala v 00hin$ v 0H/0"/%n"-& S$+.n4& $nd L/$n + D$.#/ (.225) urin$ the marria$e of 4i$uela and 4arcelino ailo the) purchased a lot from alida in 8an Pablo 0it)& *he eed of -bsolute 8ale was e9ecuted onl) in favor of 4arcelino& Dhen he died in 1995! it was onl) then when 4i$uela found out that the land was alread) mort$a$ed to the Eomeowners 8avin$s and "oan Gank& 8he filed a petition for the nullit) of the mort$a$e and the cancellation of the certificate of sale a$ainst the bank& *he bank pra)ed for dismissal! ar$uin$ that the propert) in (uestion was 4arcelino=s e9clusive propert) and that the loan he obtained redounded to the benefit of the ailo famil)& *he spouses -lfredo and %ncarnacion 0hin$! in a previous case alread) decided b) the 8upreme 0ourt and in an effort to prevent the deput) sheriff from consolidatin$ the sale of the their propert)! filed an annulment case with the 4akati 0it) '*0& *he 8pouses 0hin$ sou$ht to declare void the lev) and sale on e9ecution of their con<u$al propert) b) ar$uin$ that the branch sheriff had no authorit) to lev) upon a propert) belon$in$ to the con<u$al partnership& T!" "n*,09-$n*" /+"- '!" S$n P$9#/ 2-/2"-'1 91 M$-*"#.n/ %.'!/,' !.& %.)"G& */n&"n' .& +/.d 91 /2"-$'./n /) A-'.*#" 12B /) '!" F$0.#1 C/d" *he basic and established fact is that durin$ his lifetime! without the knowled$e and consent of his wife! 4arcelino ailo constituted a real estate mort$a$e on the sub<ect propert)! which formed part of their con<u$al partnership& G) e9press provision of -rticle 1.3 of the >amil) 0ode! in the absence of (court) authorit) or written consent of the other spouse! an) disposition or encumbrance of the con<u$al propert) shall be void& *he burden of proof that the debt was contracted for the benefit of the con<u$al partnership of $ains lies with the creditor6part) liti$ant claimin$ as such& Ei incu$bit probatio #ui dicit- non #ui ne"at (he who asserts! not he who denies! must prove)& T!" &2/,&"& C!.n4 *$n n/ #/n4"- -$.&" '!" .&&," '!$' '!" 2-/2"-'1 &,9;"*' /) '!" "E"*,'./n .& 2$-' /) '!" */n;,4$# 2$-'n"-&!.2 T!" "E"*,'./n .& +$#.d *he 8upreme 0ourt! in Panother case concernin$ the spouses 0hin$Q! had this to sa)@ +#n an) case! even without the intervention of %ncarnacion 0hin$ in the collection case! it appears that -lfredo 0hin$ was able to raise the con<u$al nature of the propert) in both the trial court and appellate court& perusal of the records reveals that petitioner -lfredo 0hin$ filed a 4otion for 'econsideration and to Uuash Drit of %9ecution before the 0># of 4anila& #n the motion! he specificall) ar$ued that the e9ecution was invalid for havin$ been enforced upon their con<u$al propert)& -lfredo 0hin$ raised this ar$ument a$ain on appeal in Panother caseQ& %videntl)! due process has been afforded to petitioners as re$ards the e9ecution on their con<u$al propert)&,

S2/,&"& C!.n4 + F$0.#1 S$+.n4& 3$n( (.212)

And/ + C$02/ (.211)

Premier -llied and 0ontractin$ 8ervices! #nc& (P-08#) was an independent labor contractor for :ictorias 4illin$ 0ompan)& -ndresito 0ampo et al& were dismissed from emplo)ment! for which the) were able to secure a favorable rulin$ from the "abor -rbiter! which directed P-08# and its owner! Pa(uito -ndo! to pa) the separation pa) of 0ampo et al& *he /"'0 then proceeded to e9ecute a propert) titled in the name of -ndo! married to %rlinda -ndo& -ndo filed for prohibition! sa)in$ that the propert) belon$s to him and his wife and not P-08#! which was the <ud$ment debtor& 4ar *ierra 0orporation! throu$h its president! Dilfrido 0& 4artinez! applied for a P1.!222!222 credit accommodation with 8ecurit) Gank and *rust 0ompan)& 4ar *ierra was not able to pa) all its debt balance as it suffered business reversals! eventuall) ceasin$ operations& *he '*0 issued a writ of attachment on all real and personal properties of 4ar *ierra and individual respondent 4artinez includin$ the con<u$al house and lot of the spouses but it found that it did not redound to the benefit of his famil)! hence! it ordered the liftin$ of the attachment on the con<u$al house and lot of the spouses 4artinez&

:eril)! the issue of the con<u$al nature of the sub<ect propert) has been passed upon b) the courts and this 0ourt several times? it is no lon$er a novel contention& *he 8pouses 0hin$ cannot! therefore! raise the same ar$ument a$ain and a$ain& T!" NLRC *$nn/' "E"*,'" $4$.n&' '!" 2-/2"-'1 /) '!" &2/,&"& And/ *he *0* of the propert) bears out that! indeed! it belon$s to petitioner and his wife& *hus! even if we consider petitioner as an a$ent of the corporation T and! therefore! not a stran$er to the case T such that the provision on third6part) claims will not appl) to him! the propert) was re$istered not onl) in the name of petitioner but also of his wife& 8he stands to lose the propert) sub<ect of e9ecution without ever bein$ a part) to the case& *his will be tantamount to deprivation of propert) without due process& 4oreover! the power of the /"'0! or the courts! to e9ecute its <ud$ment e9tends onl) to properties un(uestionabl) belon$in$ to the <ud$ment debtor alone& - sheriff! therefore! has no authorit) to attach the propert) of an) person e9cept that of the <ud$ment debtor& "ikewise! there is no showin$ that the sheriff ever tried to e9ecute on the properties of the corporation& T!" */n;,4$# 2$-'n"-&!.2 0$1 n/' 9" !"#d #.$9#" )/- $n .nd"0n.'1 $4-""0"n' "n'"-"d .n'/ 91 W.#)-.d/ M$-'.n"6 '/ $**/00/d$'" $ '!.-d-2$-'1 #f the husband himself is the principal obli$or in the contract! i&e&! the direct recipient of the mone) and services to be used in or for his own business or profession! the transaction falls within the term +obli$ations for the benefit of the con<u$al partnership&, #n other words! where the husband contracts an obli$ation on behalf of the famil) business! there is a le$al presumption that such obli$ation redounds to the benefit of the con<u$al partnership& On the other hand! if the mone) or services are $iven to another person or entit) and the husband acted onl) as a suret) or $uarantor! the transaction cannot b) itself be deemed an obli$ation for the benefit of the con<u$al partnership& #t is for the benefit of the principal debtor and not for the suret) or his famil)& #n the case at bar! the principal contract! the credit line a$reement between 8ecurit) Gank and 4ar *ierra! was solel) for the benefit of the latter& *he accessor) contract (the indemnit) a$reement) under which individual respondent 4artinez assumed the obli$ation of a suret) for respondent corporation was similarl) for the latter=s benefit& 8ecurit) Gank had the burden of provin$ that the con<u$al partnership of the spouses 4artinez benefited from the transaction& #t failed to dischar$e that burden& S"-4.$ H"-n$nd"6G& $*'./n '/ -"*/+"- '!" 2-/2"-'1 )-/0 '!" &2/,&"& M.n4/$ .& n/% 9$--"d 91 2-"&*-.2'./n -rticle 157 of the 0ivil 0ode provides that the wife ma) file for annulment of a contract entered into b) the husband without her consent within ten (12) )ears from the transaction (uestioned& Petitioners filed the action for reconve)ance in 1995& *welve (1.) )ears have lapsed since such discover)! and the) filed the petition be)ond the period allowed b) law& 4oreover! when 8er$ia Eernandez! to$ether with her children! filed the action for reconve)ance! the con<u$al partnership of propert) with Eernandez! 8r& had alread) been terminated b) virtue of the latterLs death on -pril 1;! 1987& 0learl)! therefore! petitioners action has prescribed& #n sum! the ri$hts and interests of the spouses Eernandez over the sub<ect propert) were validl) transferred to respondent olores 0amisura& 8ince the sale of the con<u$al propert) b) Eernandez! 8r& was without the consent of his wife! 8er$ia! the same is voidable? thus! bindin$ unless annulled& T!" "n*,09-$n*" /+"- '!" S$n P$9#/ 2-/2"-'1 91 M$-*"#.n/ %.'!/,' !.& %.)"G& */n&"n' .& +/.d 91 /2"-$'./n /) A-'.*#" 12B /) '!" F$0.#1 C/d"

S"*,-.'1 3$n( + M$T."--$ C/-2/-$'./n (.22;)

H".-& H"-n$nd"6 M.n4/$ (.229)

/) +

omin$o Eernandez and his wife 8er$ia were awarded a real propert) b) the Philippine Eomesite and Eousin$ 0orporation b) wa) of salar) deduction& Dhen omin$o died intestate in 1987! his heirs found out that the title to the propert) was alread) re$istered in the name of the spouses 4in$oa& #t turned out that omin$o sold the propert) to one olores 0amisura without the consent of the former=s wife& 0amisura then sold it to the 4in$oas&

H/0"/%n"-& S$+.n4& $nd

urin$ the marria$e of 4i$uela and 4arcelino ailo the) purchased a lot from alida in 8an

L/$n + D$.#/ (.225)

FUENTES V ROCA (.212)

Pablo 0it)& *he eed of -bsolute 8ale was e9ecuted onl) in favor of 4arcelino& Dhen he died in 1995! it was onl) then when 4i$uela found out that the land was alread) mort$a$ed to the Eomeowners 8avin$s and "oan Gank& 8he filed a petition for the nullit) of the mort$a$e and the cancellation of the certificate of sale a$ainst the bank& *he bank pra)ed for dismissal! ar$uin$ that the propert) in (uestion was 4arcelino=s e9clusive propert) and that the loan he obtained redounded to the benefit of the ailo famil)& *arciano sold a lot to the >uentes spouses& 'osario (his wife)=s consent was alle$edl) obtained throu$h a notarized affidavit of consent& 8 )ears later! their children filed a petition for reconve)ance and declaration of nullit) of the sale alle$in$ that their mother never $ave her consent and that her si$nature was for$ed& Opposition@ the children=s action for the declaration of nullit) of the sale had alread) prescribed&

*he basic and established fact is that durin$ his lifetime! without the knowled$e and consent of his wife! 4arcelino ailo constituted a real estate mort$a$e on the sub<ect propert)! which formed part of their con<u$al partnership& G) e9press provision of -rticle 1.3 of the >amil) 0ode! in the absence of (court) authorit) or written consent of the other spouse! an) disposition or encumbrance of the con<u$al propert) shall be void& *he burden of proof that the debt was contracted for the benefit of the con<u$al partnership of $ains lies with the creditor6part) liti$ant claimin$ as such& Ei incu$bit probatio #ui dicit- non #ui ne"at (he who asserts! not he who denies! must prove)& -rticle 1.3 of the >amil) 0ode does not provide a period within which the wife who $ave no consent ma) assail her husband=s sale of the real propert)& #t simpl) provides that without the other spouse=s written consent or a court order allowin$ the sale! the same would be void& *he law that applies to this case is the >amil) 0ode! not the 0ivil 0ode& -lthou$h *arciano and 'osario $ot married in 1952! *arciano sold the con<u$al propert) to the >uentes spouses on Aanuar) 11! 1989! a few months after the >amil) 0ode took effect on -u$ust 7! 1988& *he passa$e of time did not erode the ri$ht to brin$ such an action&

7 O%n"-&!.2, $d0.n.&'-$'./n $nd "n;/10"n' ($) :/.n' Ad0.n.&'-$'./n HOMEOWNERS urin$ the lifetime of her husband! without the SAVINGS LOAN knowled$e and consent of his wife! 4arcelino 3AN5 V DAILO ailo! Ar& constituted a real estate mort$a$e on the sub<ect propert)! which formed part of their con<u$al partnership& *hus! his wife filed for +/ullit) of '%4 and 0ertificate of 8ale,& (.225)

G) e9press provision of -rticle 1.3 of the >amil) 0ode! in the absence of (court) authorit) or written consent of the other spouse! an) disposition or encumbrance of the con<u$al propert) shall be void& *he rules on co6ownership do not even appl) to the propert) relations of respondent and the late 4arcelino ailo! Ar& even in a suppletor) manner& *he re$ime of con<u$al partnership of $ains is a special t)pe of partnership! where the husband and wife place in a common fund the proceeds! products! fruits and income from their separate properties and those ac(uired b) either or both spouses throu$h their efforts or b) chance& Fnlike the absolute communit) of propert) wherein the rules on co6ownership appl) in a suppletor) manner! the con<u$al partnership shall be $overned b) the rules on contract of partnership in all that is not in conflict with what is e9pressl) determined in the chapter (on con<u$al partnership of $ains) or b) the spouses in their marria$e settlements& *hus! the propert) relations of respondent and her late husband shall be $overned! foremost! b) 0hapter 3 on Con;u"al Partners&ip of =ains of the >amil) 0ode and! suppletoril)! b) the rules on partnership under the 0ivil 0ode& #n case of conflict! the former prevails because the 0ivil 0ode provisions on partnership appl) onl) when the >amil) 0ode is silent on the matter Pursuant -rticle 1.3 of the >amil) 0ode and <urisprudence! the sale of petitionersL con<u$al propert) made b) petitioner Onesiforo (husband) alone is void in its entiret)& #t is true that in a number of cases! this 0ourt abstained from appl)in$ the literal import of a particular provision of law if doin$ so would lead to un<ust! unfair and absurd results& #n the present case! the 0ourt does not see how appl)in$ -rticle 1.3 of the >amil) 0ode would lead to in<ustice or absurdit)& #t should be noted that respondent spouses were well aware that the lot in (uestion is a con<u$al propert) of petitioners& *he) also knew that the disposition bein$ made b) Onesiforo is without the consent of his wife! as the) knew that petitioners had separated! and! the sale documents do not bear the si$nature of petitioner 'osario& *he fact that Onesiforo had to e9ecute two documents! namel)@ the -bsolute eed of 8ale dated 4arch 12! 1989 and a notarized -$reement

ALINAS ALINAS (.228)

Eusband and wife separated in 198.& #n 1989 (after effectivit) of >0)! the husband sold the propert) to his brother (and his brother=s wife)! without the knowled$e and consent of the wife&

DOCENA LAPESURA (.221)

Eusband and Dife filed a case for recover) of con<u$al propert)& Eowever! onl) the husband si$ned the 0ertificate for /on6>orum 8hoppin$&

likewise dated 4arch 12! 1989! reveals that the) had full knowled$e of the severe infirmities of the sale& #t is not re(uired that both (husband and wife) si$n the 0/>8& Fnder the >amil) 0ode! the administration of the con<u$al propert) belon$s to the husband and the wife <ointl)& Eowever! unlike an act of alienation or encumbrance where the consent of both spouses is re(uired! <oint mana$ement or administration does not re(uire that the husband and wife alwa)s act to$ether& *he husband alone could have filed the petition for certiorari and prohibition to contest the writs of demolition issued a$ainst the con<u$al propert) with the 0ourt of -ppeals without bein$ <oined b) his wife& *he si$nin$ of the attached certificate of non6forum shoppin$ onl) b) the husband is not a fatal defect& 8ale is void without the consent of spouse& *he sale was made on 4arch 18! 1991! or after -u$ust 7! 1988! the effectivit) of the >amil) 0ode& *he proper law to appl) is! therefore! -rticle 1.3 of the >amil) 0ode! for it is settled that an) alienation or encumbrance of con<u$al propert) made durin$ the effectivit) of the >amil) 0ode is $overned b) -rticle 1.3 of the >amil) 0ode& -ccordin$ to -rticle .5; of the >amil) 0ode! the provisions of the >amil) 0ode ma) appl) retroactivel) provided no vested ri$hts are impaired& *he petitioners did not show an) vested ri$ht in the propert) ac(uired prior to -u$ust 7! 1988 that e9empted their situation from the retroactive application of the >amil) 0ode& *he void sale was a continuin$ offer from the petitioners and 4a& %lena that ionisio had the option of acceptin$ or re<ectin$ before the offer was withdrawn b) either or both 4a& %lena and the petitioners& *he last sentence of the second para$raph of -rticle 1.3 of the >amil) 0ode makes this clear! statin$ that in the absence of the other spouse=s consent! the transaction should be construed as a continuin$ offer on the part of the consentin$ spouse and the third person! and ma) be perfected as a bindin$ contract upon the acceptance b) the other spouse or upon authorization b) the court before the offer is withdrawn b) either or both offerors&

AGGA3AO PARULAN (.2212)

Dife! with an alle$ed 8P- $iven to her b) her husband! sold the con<u$al propert) to spouses -$$abao& Eowever! the husband denied $ivin$ her an 8P- and filed for declaration of nullit) of the deed of absolute sale and the cancellation of the title now issued to the petitioner6bu)ers& Eusband claimed that even thou$h he was out of the countr)! he was still the administrator of the con<u$al properties and that he $ave an 8P- to his brother&

UY V CA (.222)

(9) S/#" $d0.n.&'-$'./n (1) In*$2$*.'1 Aardeleza suffered a stroke which left him comatose T incapable of motor and mental functions& Eis son petitioned for $uardianship and pra)ed that the court appoint his mother as a $uardian for his father=s propert) and in the meantime the properties shouldn=t be sold! mort$a$ed! encumbered& Eis mother filed a petition declarin$ her husband=s incapacit)! assumption of sole powers of administration of con<u$al properties and asked for authorit) to sell a parcel of land& 8on opposed&

*he wife ma) not assume sole powers of administration of the con<u$al propert) under -rticle 1.3 of the >amil) 0ode and dispose of a parcel of land and use the rules on summar) <udicial proceedin$s under the -rticle 1.3 of the >amil) 0ode *he situation contemplated is one where the spouse is absent! or separated in fact or has abandoned the other or consent is withheld or cannot be obtained& 8uch rules do not appl) to cases where the non6 consentin$ spouse is incapacitated or incompetent to $ive consent& #n this case! the trial court found that the sub<ect spouse 1is an incompetent1 who was in comatose or semi6comatose condition! a victim of stroke! cerebrovascular accident! without motor and mental faculties! and with a dia$nosis of brain stem infarct& #n such case! the proper remed) is a <udicial $uardianship proceedin$s under 'ule 97 of the 19;3 'evised 'ules of 0ourt& - spouse who desires to sell real propert) as such administrator of the con<u$al propert) must observe the procedure for the sale of the ward=s estate re(uired of <udicial $uardians under 'ule 95! 19;3 'evised 'ules of 0ourt! not the summar) <udicial proceedin$s under the >amil) 0ode& #n the case at bar! the trial court did not compl) with the procedure under the 'evised 'ules of 0ourt&

#ndeed! the trial court did not even observe the re(uirements of the summar) <udicial proceedin$s under the >amil) 0ode& *hus! the trial court did not serve notice of the petition to the incapacitated spouse? it did not re(uire him to show cause wh) the petition should not be $ranted& (2) S"2$-$'./n .n )$*' (3) A9$nd/n0"n' (B) P"nd"n*1 /) #"4$# &"2$-$'./n 2-/*""d.n4& C!""&"0$n IAC (1991) + 10 D.&2/&.'./n $nd "n*,09-$n*" *he case concerns the attempt b) an -merican citizen (*homas) to annul M for lack of consent on his part M the sale b) his >ilipino wife (0riselda) of a residential lot and buildin$ to a third part)! also a >ilipino& Parties are married but de facto separated& *he sub<ect propert) was indicated in the deed of sale to be sold to +0riselda P& 0heesman! of le$al a$e! >ilipino citizen! married to *homas 0heesman&, *homas 0heesman! althou$h aware of the deed! did not ob<ect to the transfer bein$ made onl) to his wife& *hereafterMand a$ain with the knowled$e of *homas 0heesman and also without an) protest b) himMta9 declarations for the propert) purchased were issued in the name onl) of 0riselda 0heesman and 0riselda assumed e9clusive mana$ement and administration of said propert)! leasin$ it to tenants& On Aul) 1! 1981! 0riselda 0heesman sold the propert) to %stelita 4& Padilla! without the knowled$e or consent of *homas 0heesman& F-"n6"# + C$'.'/ (.227) Eence! the action to annul the sale& Petitioner -lfred >ritz >renzel is an -ustralian citizen of German descent& Ee is married to *eresita 8antos! >ilipina& -lfred met %derlina 0atito! a >ilipina! in a ni$ht club in 8)dne) and eventuall) developed a likin$ towards her& %derlina was married to a German national& -lfred told %derlina that he was married but that he was ea$er to divorce his wife in -ustralia& -lfred proposed marria$e to %derlina! but she replied that the) should wait a little bit lon$er& -lfred proposed that he and %derlina establish a life to$ether in the Philippines& *o which! %derlina a$reed thus she returned to the Philippines to establish their *0! 0-! 80@ %vidence on record satisfactoril) overcame the disputable presumption in -rticle 1;2 of the 0ivil 0odeMthat all propert) of the marria$e belon$s to the con<u$al partnership 1unless it be proved that it pertains e9clusivel) to the husband or to the wife1Mand that the immovable in (uestion was in truth 0riseldaLs paraphernal propert)& -s alread) observed! the findin$ that his wife had used her own mone) to purchase the propert) cannot! and will not! at this sta$e of the proceedin$s be reviewed and overturned& Gut even if it were a fact that said wife had used con<u$al funds to make the ac(uisition! the considerations <ust set out militate! on hi$h constitutional $rounds! a$ainst his recoverin$ and holdin$ the propert) so ac(uired or an) part thereof& >inall)! the fundamental law prohibits the sale to aliens of residential land& 8ection 13! -rticle V#: of the 1957 0onstitution ordains that! 1Save in cases of &ereditary succession- no private land s&all be transferred or conveyed except to individuals- corporations- or associations #ualified to ac#uire or &old lands of t&e public do$ain&1 Petitioner *homas 0heesman was! of course! char$ed with knowled$e of this prohibition& *hus! assumin$ that it was his intention that the lot in (uestion be purchased b) him and his wife! he ac(uired no ri$ht whatever over the propert) b) virtue of that purchase? and in attemptin$ to ac(uire a ri$ht or interest in land! vicariousl) and clandestinel)! he knowin$l) violated the 0onstitution? the sale as to him was null and void& 31 #n an) event! he had and has no capacit) or personalit) to (uestion the subse(uent sale of the same propert) b) his wife on the theor) that in so doin$ he is merel) e9ercisin$ the prero$ative of a husband in respect of con<u$al propert)& *o sustain such a theor) would permit indirect controversion of the constitutional prohibition& #f the propert) were to be declared con<u$al! this would accord to the alien husband a not insubstantial interest and ri$ht over land! as he would then have a decisive vote as to its transfer or disposition& *his is a ri$ht that the 0onstitution does not permit him to have& -lfred knowin$l) violated the 0onstitution? hence! was barred from recoverin$ the mone) used in the purchase of the three parcels of land& 8ection 13! -rticle V#: of the 1957 0onstitution provides! as follows@ 8ave in cases of hereditar) succession! no private land shall be transferred or conve)ed e9cept to individuals! corporations! or associations (ualified to ac(uire or hold lands in the public domain& "ands of the public domain! which include private lands! ma) be transferred or conve)ed onl) to individuals or entities (ualified to ac(uire or hold private lands or lands of the public domain& -liens! whether individuals or corporations! have been dis(ualified from ac(uirin$ lands of the public domain& Eence! the) have also been dis(ualified from ac(uirin$ private lands& %ven if! as claimed b) the petitioner! the sales in (uestion were entered into b) him as the real vendee! the said transactions are in violation of the 0onstitution? hence! are null and void ab initio&5. - contract that violates the 0onstitution and the law! is null and void and vests no ri$hts and creates no obli$ations& #t produces no le$al effect at all& *he petitioner! bein$ a part) to an ille$al contract! cannot

livelihood& Dhen -lfred returned to the Philippines! he visited %derlina in her 4anila residence and found it unsuitable for her& Ee decided to purchase a house and lot& 8ince -lfred knew that as an alien he was dis(ualified from ownin$ lands in the Philippines! he a$reed that onl) %derlinaLs name would appear in the deed of sale as the bu)er of the propert)! as well as in the title coverin$ the same& -fter all! he was plannin$ to marr) %derlina and he believed that after their marria$e! the two of them would <ointl) own the propert)& -lfred discovered that %derlina was alread) married but was appeased when %derlina assured -lfred that she will obtain divorce& -lfred a$ain purchased several parcels of land in the name of %derlina& #n the meantime! %derlinaLs petition for divorce was denied because Blaus opposed the same& %ventuall)! their relationship turned sour& complaint for recover) of real and personal properties was filed&

come into a court of law and ask to have his ille$al ob<ective carried out& One who loses his mone) or propert) b) knowin$l) en$a$in$ in a contract or transaction which involves his own moral turpitude ma) not maintain an action for his losses& *o him who moves in deliberation and premeditation! the law is un)ieldin$& *he law will not aid either part) to an ille$al contract or a$reement? it leaves the parties where it finds them& Fnder -rticle 131. of the /ew 0ivil 0ode! the petitioner cannot have the sub<ect properties deeded to him or allow him to recover the mone) he had spent for the purchase thereof& %(uit) as a rule will follow the law and will not permit that to be done indirectl) which! because of public polic)! cannot be done directl)& Dhere the wron$ of one part) e(uals that of the other! the defendant is in the stron$er position & & & it si$nifies that in such a situation! neither a court of e(uit) nor a court of law will administer a remed)& *he rule is e9pressed& in the ma9ims@ E> .?L? ?R<TUR (CT<? and <5 P(R< .EL<CT? P?T<?R EST C?5.<T<? .E/E5.E5T<S& *he petitioner cannot fei$n i$norance of the constitutional proscription! nor claim that he acted in $ood faith! let alone assert that he is less $uilt) than the respondent& *he petitioner is char$ed with knowled$e of the constitutional prohibition& -s can be $leaned from the decision of the trial court! the petitioner was full) aware that he was dis(ualified from ac(uirin$ and ownin$ lands under Philippine law even before he purchased the properties in (uestion? and! to skirt the constitutional prohibition! the petitioner had the deed of sale placed under the respondentLs name as the sole vendee thereof& *he petitioner cannot find solace in -rticle 131; of the /ew 0ivil 0ode which reads@ -rt& 131;& Dhen the a$reement is not ille$al per se but is merel) prohibited! and the prohibition b) the law is desi$ned for the protection of the plaintiff! he ma)! if public polic) is thereb) enhanced! recover what he has paid or delivered& *he provision applies onl) to those contracts which are merel) prohibited! in order to benefit private interests& #t does not appl) to contracts void ab initio& *he sales of three parcels of land in favor of the petitioner who is a forei$ner is ille$al per se& *he transactions are void ab initio because the) were entered into in violation of the 0onstitution& *hus! to allow the petitioner to recover the properties or the mone) used in the purchase of the parcels of land would be subversive of public polic)& *he action for annulment filed b) 0hristina -)uste was barred for havin$ been filed out of time since the marria$e has alread) been dissolved b) the death of 'afael& Fnder the 0ivil 0ode! althou$h the husband is the administrator of the con<u$al partnership! he cannot alienate or encumber an) real propert) of the con<u$al partnership without his wifeLs consent! sub<ect onl) to certain e9ceptions specified in the law& *he remed) available to the wife in case her husband should dispose of their con<u$al propert) without her consent is laid down in -rticle 157 of the 0ivil 0ode which states that M *he wife ma)! durin$ the marria$e! and within ten )ears from the transaction (uestioned! ask the courts for the annulment of an) contract of the husband entered into without her consent! when such consent is re(uired! or an) act or contract of the husband which tends to defraud her or impair her interest in the con<u$al partnership propert)& 8hould the wife fail to e9ercise this ri$ht! she or her heirs! after the dissolution of the marria$e! ma) demand the value of propert) fraudulentl) alienated b) the husband& (emphasis supplied) *here is no ambi$uit) in the wordin$ of the law& - sale of real propert) of the con<u$al partnership made b) the husband without the consent of his wife is voidable& *he action for annulment must be brou$ht durin$ the marria$e and within ten )ears from the (uestioned transaction b) the wife& Dhere the law speaks in clear and cate$orical lan$ua$e! there is no room for interpretation M there is room onl) for application&

A1,&'" + CA (1999)

-lthou$h the couple resided in 4anila! the) operated a machine shop in Garan$a) #)am! "ucena 0it)! which was mana$ed b) 'afael -)uste (husband)& #n order to serve as a temporar) residence for 'afael -)uste while in "ucena! the couple purchased a parcel of land on which their house was built& %ventuall)! a deed of absolute sale was e9ecuted b) 'afael -)uste in favor of private respondent whereb) the former sold the abovementioned parcel of land to the latter for P32!222! which amount 'afael -)uste acknowled$ed havin$ received in the deed& On pa$e . of this deed appears the si$nature of 0hristina -)uste (wife) below the phrase 1Dith m) conformit)&1 -fter 'afael -)usteLs death on October 17! 1989! 0hristina -)uste discovered! in the course of an inventor) of their properties! that the title to the land in "ucena was missin$& 8he searched for it in

the office of her husband in "ucena 0it) and it was then that she learned from her emplo)ees about the sale of the house and lot b) her husband to private respondent& 0hristina -)uste filed a complaint with the 'e$ional *rial 0ourt of "ucena 0it) for the annulment of the sale! cancellation of the title issued in the name of private respondent and for the pa)ment of moral! e9emplar) and actual dama$es& #n her complaint 0hristina -)uste alle$es that her si$nature on the deed of sale was for$ed and that her husband 'afael -)uste sold the propert) without her knowled$e and consent& V.##$-$nd$ + S2& V.##$-$nd$ (.223) - 3516s(uare6meter parcel of land located at ivisoria! 0a$a)an de Oro 0it)! was left to the two brothers and their ei$ht other siblin$s b) their parents& *he two brothers e9ecuted the assailed eed of %9chan$e& Fnder this instrument! :icente a$reed to conve) his ;3&..6s(uare6meter portion to Eonorio! in e9chan$e for a 5226s(uare6meter propert) in 4acasandi$! 0a$a)an de Oro 0it)& -fter the e9ecution of the eed! Eonorio took possession of the ;3&..6s(uare6meter lot and constructed a buildin$ thereon& Oears later! on -pril ;! 199.! a subdivision plan for "ot 3386G was completed! in pursuit of which *0* /o& *6;5897 for the ;3&.. s(uare6meter share of :icente was issued in his name and desi$nated as "ot 3386G65& *he other heirs were issued their own *0*s for their respective shares& Eonorio and his wife! 'espondent -na 4aria O& :illaranda! then brou$ht an action for specific performance before the 'e$ional *rial 0ourt ('*0) of 0a$a)an de Oro 0it) (Granch .3) to compel :icente to compl) with his obli$ations under the eed of %9chan$e& *he spouses alle$ed that the) could not full) use or dispose of their 4acasandi$ propert)! because :icente had )et to identif) and delineate his undivided 5226 s(uare6meter portion of the propert)& *he) asked the court to compel him to do so! as well as to conve) to them the ;3&..6s(uare6meter ivisoria lot! in compliance with his obli$ations under the eed& A#.n$& + A#.n$& 8pouses Onesiforo and 'osario -linas (petitioners) separated sometime in 198.! with 'osario movin$

#n the present case! the deed of sale was e9ecuted on >ebruar) .5! 1985& 'afael -)uste died on October 17! 1989& Eowever! it was onl) on 4arch .! 1992 that 0hristina -)uste filed her complaint with the lower court askin$ for the annulment of the sale& -lthou$h the action was filed within ten )ears from the (uestioned transaction! it was not brou$ht durin$ the e9istence of the marria$e which was dissolved upon the death of 'afael -)uste in 1989& 0learl)! the action for annulment filed b) 0hristina -)uste was barred for havin$ been filed out of time& *he fact that 0hristina -)uste onl) learned of the sale after the death of her husband is not material& De affirm public respondentLs rulin$ that re$istration of the sale with the 'e$ister of eeds constitutes a notice to the whole world& Precisel)! the purpose of the le$islature in providin$ a s)stem of re$istration is to afford a means of publicit) so that persons dealin$ with real propert) ma) search the records and thereb)! ac(uire securit) a$ainst instruments the e9ecution of which have not been revealed to them& 8ince the deed of sale was re$istered on 4arch 5! 1985! 0hristina -)uste is presumed to have constructive notice of the sale from such date& Dithout the wife=s consent! the husband=s alienation or encumbrance of con<u$al propert) prior to the effectivit) of the >amil) 0ode is not void! but merel) voidable& #ndeed! petitioner=s contention is untenable& *he eed was entered into on Aul) ;! 195;! while the >amil) 0ode took effect onl) on -u$ust 7! 1998& "aws should be applied prospectivel) onl)! unless a le$islative intent to $ive them retroactive effect is e9pressl) declared or is necessaril) implied from the lan$ua$e used& Eence! the provisions of the 0ivil 0ode! not the >amil) 0ode! are applicable to the present case& *he 4acasandi$ lot was part of Eonorio and -na=s con<u$al properties& *he relevant provisions of the 0ivil 0ode on the disposition of real properties of the con<u$al partnership are the followin$@ 1-rticle 1;;& Fnless the wife has been declared a non compos mentis or a spendthrift! or is under civil interdiction or is confined in a leprosarium! the husband cannot alienate or encumber an) real propert) of the con<u$al partnership without the wife=s consent& 9 9 9 1-rticle 157& *he wife ma)! durin$ the marria$e! and within ten )ears from the transaction (uestioned! ask the courts for the annulment of an) contract of the husband entered into without her consent! when such consent is re(uired! or an) act or contract of the husband which tends to defraud her or impair her interest in the con<u$al partnership propert)& 8hould the wife fail to e9ercise this ri$ht! she or her heirs! after the dissolution of the marria$e! ma) demand the value of the propert) fraudulentl) alienated b) the husband&1 -ccordin$ to -rticle 1;;! the husband cannot alienate or encumber an) real propert) of the con<u$al partnership without the wife=s consent& *his provision! however! must be read in con<unction with -rticle 157 of the same 0ode& *he latter states that an action to annul an alienation or encumbrance ma) be instituted b) the wife durin$ the marria$e and within ten )ears from the transaction (uestioned& :idelicet! the lack of consent on her part will not make the husband=s alienation or encumbrance of real propert) of the con<u$al partnership void! but merel) voidable& Eence! the eed is valid until and unless annulled& #n this case! the records show no evidence that an) action to annul the transfer made b) Eonorio was ever brou$ht b) -na within ten )ears from 1the transaction (uestioned&1 Eer ri$ht to brin$ an action to invalidate the contract has thus prescribed& Eence! the assailed eed is still valid and enforceable& -lthou$h petitioners were married before the enactment of the >amil) 0ode on -u$ust 7! 1988! the sale in (uestion occurred in 1989& *hus! their propert) relations are $overned b) 0hapter #: on 0on<u$al

(.228)

to Pa$adian 0it) and Onesiforo movin$ to 4anila& *he) left behind two lots! which are the sub<ect of the present petition& Petitioner Onesiforo -linas (Onesiforo) and respondent :ictor -linas (:ictor) are brothers& Petitioners alle$e that the) entrusted their properties to :ictor and %lena -linas (respondent spouses) with the a$reement that an) income from rentals of the properties should be remitted to the 8ocial 8ecurit) 8)stem (888) and to the 'ural Gank of Oro(uieta 0it) ('GO)! as such rentals were believed sufficient to pa) off petitionersL loans with said institutions& "ot 89;6G696- with the bode$a was mort$a$ed as securit) for the loan obtained from the 'GO! while "ot 89;6G696G with the house was mort$a$ed to the 888& Onesiforo alle$es that he left blank papers with his si$nature on them to facilitate the administration of said properties& 8ometime in 1997! petitioners discovered that their two lots were alread) titled in the name of respondent spouses& Petitioners filed with the 'e$ional *rial 0ourt ('*0) of Ozamis 0it) a complaint for recover) of possession and ownership of their con<u$al properties with dama$es a$ainst respondent spouses& *he wife %lvira filed a petition for le$al separation a$ainst her husband -lfredo& Dhile the le$al separation case was still pendin$! -lfredo and 4ario 8iochi (4ario) entered into an -$reement to Gu) and 8ell (-$reement) involvin$ the propert) for the price of P18 million& -mon$ the stipulations in the -$reement were that -lfredo would@ (1) secure an -ffidavit from %lvira that the propert) is -lfredo=s e9clusive propert) and to annotate the -$reement at the back of *0*? (.) secure the approval of the 0avite '*0 to e9clude the propert) from the le$al separation case? and (7) secure the removal of the notice of lis pendens pertainin$ to the said case and annotated on *0*& Eowever! despite repeated demands from 4ario! -lfredo failed to compl) with these stipulations& -fter pa)in$ the P5 million earnest mone) as partial pa)ment of the purchase price! 4ario took possession of the propert) and -$reement was annotated on *0*&

Partnership of Gains of the >amil) 0ode& *he 0- rulin$ completel) deviated from the clear dictate of -rticle 1.3 of the >amil) 0ode which provides@ -rt& 1.3& *he administration and en<o)ment of the con<u$al partnership propert) shall belon$ to both spouses <ointl)& 9 9 9 #n the event that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate in the administration of the con<u$al properties! the other spouse ma) assume sole powers of administration& T!"&" 2/%"-& d/ n/' .n*#,d" '!" 2/%"-& /) d.&2/&.'./n /- "n*,09-$n*" %!.*! 0,&' !$+" '!" $,'!/-.'1 /) '!" */,-' /- '!" %-.''"n */n&"n' /) '!" /'!"- &2/,&" In '!" $9&"n*" /) &,*! $,'!/-.'1 /- */n&"n' '!" d.&2/&.'./n /- "n*,09-$n*" &!$## 9" +/.d 9 9 9 (Fnderscorin$ and emphasis supplied) *hus! pursuant to -rticle 1.3 of the >amil) 0ode and <urisprudence! the sale of petitionersL con<u$al propert) made b) petitioner Onesiforo alone is void in its entiret)& #n the present case! the 0ourt does not see how appl)in$ -rticle 1.3 of the >amil) 0ode would lead to in<ustice or absurdit)& #t should be noted that respondent spouses were well aware that "ot 89;6G696G is a con<u$al propert) of petitioners& *he) also knew that the disposition bein$ made b) Onesiforo is without the consent of his wife! as the) knew that petitioners had separated! and! the sale documents do not bear the si$nature of petitioner 'osario& *he fact that Onesiforo had to e9ecute two documents! namel)@ the -bsolute eed of 8ale dated 4arch 12! 1989 and a notarized -$reement likewise dated 4arch 12! 1989! reveals that the) had full knowled$e of the severe infirmities of the sale&

S./*!. + G/6/n (.212)

4ario=s contentions are without merit& *his case involves the con<u$al propert) of -lfredo and %lvira& 8ince the disposition of the propert) occurred after the effectivit) of the >amil) 0ode! the applicable law is the >amil) 0ode& -rticle 1.3 of the >amil) 0ode provides@ -rt& 1.3& *he administration and en<o)ment of the con<u$al partnership propert) shall belon$ to both spouses <ointl)& #n case of disa$reement! the husband=s decision shall prevail! sub<ect to the recourse to the court b) the wife for a proper remed)! which must be availed of within five )ears from the date of the contract implementin$ such decision& #n the event that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate in the administration of the con<u$al properties! the other spouse ma) assume sole powers of administration& *hese powers do not include the powers of disposition or encumbrance which must have the authorit) of the court or the written consent of the other spouse& #n the absence of such authorit) or consent! the disposition or encumbrance shall be void& Eowever! the transaction shall be construed as a continuin$ offer on the part of the consentin$ spouse and the third person! and ma) be perfected as a bindin$ contract upon the acceptance b) the other spouse or authorization b) the court before the offer is withdrawn b) either or both offerors& #n this case! -lfredo was the sole administrator of the propert) because %lvira! with whom -lfredo was separated in fact! was unable to participate in the administration of the con<u$al propert)& Eowever! as

"e$al separation was $ranted& -s re$ards the propert)! the 0avite '*0 held that it is deemed con<u$al propert)& -lfredo e9ecuted a eed of onation over the propert) in favor of their dau$hter! Dinifred Gozon (Dinifred)& "ater! -lfredo! b) virtue of a 8pecial Power of -ttorne) e9ecuted in his favor b) Dinifred! sold the propert) to #nter6 imensional 'ealt)! #nc& (# '#) for P18 million& 4ario then filed with the 4alabon 'e$ional *rial 0ourt (4alabon '*0) a complaint for 8pecific Performance and ama$es! -nnulment of onation and 8ale! with Preliminar) 4andator) and Prohibitor) #n<unction andRor *emporar) 'estrainin$ Order& 4ario alle$es that the -$reement should be treated as a continuin$ offer which ma) be perfected b) the acceptance of the other spouse before the offer is withdrawn& 8ince %lvira=s conduct si$nified her ac(uiescence to the sale! 4ario pra)s for the 0ourt to direct -lfredo and %lvira to e9ecute a eed of -bsolute 8ale over the propert) upon his pa)ment of P9 million to %lvira& 'espondent 4ar) -nn and her husband owned a parcel of land which the) ac(uired durin$ their marria$e& Eer husband Pedro owned a parcel of land ad<acent to the one the) purchased! which he ac(uired before their marria$e& *he spouses built a house on both lots and made improvements throu$h their <oint efforts& Dhen Pedro and respondent separated in fact! the former offered to sell the house and two lots to petitioners& 'espondent ob<ected and notified the petitioners of her ob<ections& Eowever! Pedro still sold the house and two lots without respondent=s consent! as evidenced b) the absence of respondent=s si$nature on the eed of 8ale&

sole administrator of the propert)! -lfredo still cannot sell the propert) without the written consent of %lvira or the authorit) of the court& Dithout such consent or authorit)! the sale is void& *he absence of the consent of one of the spouse renders the entire sale void! includin$ the portion of the con<u$al propert) pertainin$ to the spouse who contracted the sale& %ven if the other spouse activel) participated in ne$otiatin$ for the sale of the propert)! that other spouse=s written consent to the sale is still re(uired b) law for its validit)& *he -$reement entered into b) -lfredo and 4ario was without the written consent of %lvira& *hus! the -$reement is entirel) void& -s re$ards 4ario=s contention that the -$reement is a continuin$ offer which ma) be perfected b) %lvira=s acceptance before the offer is withdrawn! the fact that the propert) was subse(uentl) donated b) -lfredo to Dinifred and then sold to # '# clearl) indicates that the offer was alread) withdrawn&

PATROCINIA RAVINA VS A3RILLE (.229)

FUENTES VS ROCA

*arciano 'oca purchased a lot from his mother durin$ his marria$e to 'osario 'oca& Dhen the spouses separated! *arciano sold the lot to the petitioners& "ater! when the spouses 'oca died! their children!

*he sale of the lot which was purchased b) respondent and Pedro is void& Eowever! the sale of the lot which Pedro ac(uired before his marria$e to respondent is valid! it belon$in$ e9clusivel) to him and not to the con<u$al partnership& -rticle 1;2 of the /ew 0ivil 0ode provides! 1-ll propert) of the marria$e is presumed to belon$ to the con<u$al partnership! unless it be proved that it pertains e9clusivel) to the husband or to the wife&1 *he presumption of the con<u$al nature of the propert) subsists in the absence of clear! satisfactor) and convincin$ evidence to overcome said presumption or to prove that the sub<ect propert) is e9clusivel) owned b) Pedro& 8i$nificantl)! a sale or encumbrance of con<u$al propert) concluded after the effectivit) of the >amil) 0ode on -u$ust 7! 1988! is $overned b) -rticle 1.3 of the same 0ode that now treats such a disposition to be void if done (a) without the consent of both the husband and the wife! or (b) in case of one spouse=s inabilit)! the authorit) of the court& *he particular provision in the /ew 0ivil 0ode $ivin$ the wife ten (12) )ears to annul the alienation or encumbrance was not carried over to the >amil) 0ode& #t is thus clear that alienation or encumbrance of the con<u$al partnership propert) b) the husband without the consent of the wife is null and void& Eence! <ust like the rule in absolute communit) of propert)! if the husband! without knowled$e and consent of the wife! sells con<u$al propert)! such sale is void& #f the sale was with the knowled$e but without the approval of the wife! thereb) resultin$ in a disa$reement! such sale is annullable at the instance of the wife who is $iven five (5) )ears from the date the contract implementin$ the decision of the husband to institute the case& Eere! respondent 4ar) -nn timel) filed the action for annulment of sale within five (5) )ears from the date of sale and e9ecution of the deed& Eowever! her action to annul the sale pertains onl) to the con<u$al house and lot& *he contract of sale is void without the consent of 'osario& *he law that applies to this case is the >amil) 0ode! not the 0ivil 0ode& -lthou$h *arciano and 'osario $ot married in 1952! *arciano sold the con<u$al propert) to the >uentes spouses on Aanuar) 11! 1989! a few months after the >amil) 0ode took effect on -u$ust 7! 1988& #ts 0hapter 3 on 0on<u$al Partnership of Gains e9pressl) superseded *itle :#! Gook # of the 0ivil 0ode

(.212)

the respodnents! filed an action for annulment of sale and reconve)ance of the land a$ainst petitioners! claimin$ that the sale to the spouses was void since 'osario did not $ive her consent to it& *he) claimed that 'osario=s si$nature on the affidavit of consent was void& Petitioner spouses filed a complaint for the annulment of the 'eal %state 4ort$a$e and all le$al proceedin$s taken thereunder a$ainst P/G before the 0>#& Petitioner %strella claimed that she has no knowled$e of the loan obtained b) her husband nor did she consent to the mort$a$e instituted on the con<u$al propert)& %strella also claimed that her si$natures affi9ed on the documents were for$ed and that the loan did not redound to the benefit of the famil)& *he spouses "indo obtained a loan from >lores& *o secure the loan! %dna "indo e9ecuted a deed of '%4 coverin$ a propert) in the name of %dna and her husband %nrico& %dna also si$ned a promissor) note and the eed for herself and for %nrico as his attorne)6in Tfact& ue to the respondents= failure to pa)! >lores filed for a <udicial foreclosure of the mort$a$e which was denied b) the '*0 Gr 77 on the $round that the eed was e9ecuted b) %dna without the consent and authorit) of %nrico& #t however ruled that petitioner was not barred from recoverin$ the loan from %dna throu$h a personal action fro 8um of 4one)& >lores filed a 0omplain for 8um of 4one) with ama$es a$ainst respondents in another branch of the '*0 which was $ranted b) the latter& *he 0however reversed the '*0 statin$ that b) filin$ a petition for foreclosure of the real estate mort$a$e! the 0ourt of -ppeals held that petitioner had alread) waived his personal action to recover the amount covered b) the promissor) note&

:OSE ROS O ESTRELLA AGUETE VS PN3

(.211)

FLORES VS SPOUSES LINDO

(.211)

on Propert) 'elations Getween Eusband and Dife& >urther! the >amil) 0ode provisions were also made to appl) to alread) e9istin$ con<u$al partnerships without pre<udice to vested ri$hts& #n contrast to -rticle 157 of the 0ivil 0ode (which provides for a prescriptive period of 12 )ears from the transaction (uestioned? it also provides that the alienation of the con<u$al propert) b) the husband without the wife=s consent merel) renders the contract voidable! not void)! -rticle 1.3 of the >amil) 0ode does not provide a period within which the wife who $ave no consent ma) assail her husband=s sale of the real propert)& #t simpl) provides that without the other spouse=s written consent or a court order allowin$ the sale! the same would be void& *he documents disavowed b) -$uete are acknowled$ed before a notar) public! hence the) are public documents which have in their favor! the presumption of re$ularit)& *he 0ivil 0ode applies in this case since the spouses were married on 1; Aanuar) 1953 while the sub<ect propert) was ac(uired in 19;8& Fnder the 0ivil 0ode! the husband cannot alienate or encumber an) con<u$al real propert) without the consent! e9press or implied! of the wife& 8hould the husband do so! then the contract is voidable& -rticle 157 of the 0ivil 0ode allows -$uete to (uestion 'os= encumbrance of the sub<ect propert)& Eowever! the same article does not $uarantee that the courts will declare the annulment of the contract& -nnulment will be declared onl) upon a findin$ that the wife did not $ive her consent& #n this case! there is a findin$ b) the 0- which was affirmed b) the 80 that -$uete $ave her consent as evidenced b) the notarized documents& *he eed of '%4 was a valid contract& *he 8P- constitutes acceptance b) the other spouse that perfected the continuin$ offer as a bindin$ contract between the parties& -rticle 1.3 of the >amil) 0ode of which applies to con<u$al partnership propert)! is a reproduction of -rticle 9; of the >amil) 0ode which applies to communit) propert)& Goth -rticle 9; and -rticle 1.5 of the >amil) 0ode provide that the powers do not include disposition or encumbrance without the written consent of the other spouse& -n) disposition or encumbrance without the written consent shall be void& Eowever! both provisions also state that 1the transaction shall be construed as a continuin$ offer on the part of the consentin$ spouse and the third person! $nd 0$1 9" 2"-)"*'"d $& $ 9.nd.n4 */n'-$*' ,2/n '!" $**"2'$n*" 91 '!" /'!"- &2/,&" 9 9 9 before the offer is withdrawn b) either or both offerors&1 #n this case! the Promissor) /ote and the eed of 'eal %state 4ort$a$e were e9ecuted on 71 October 1995& *he 8pecial Power of -ttorne) was e9ecuted on 3 /ovember 1995& T!" "E"*,'./n /) '!" SPA .& '!" $**"2'$n*" 91 '!" /'!"- &2/,&" '!$' 2"-)"*'"d '!" */n'.n,.n4 /))"- $& $ 9.nd.n4 */n'-$*' 9"'%""n '!" 2$-'."&, 0$(.n4 '!" D""d /) R"$# E&'$'" M/-'4$4" $ +$#.d */n'-$*'

PRIMA PARTOSA-:O VS CA

11 E))"*' /) &"2$-$'./n d" )$*'/ 12 E))"*' /) $9$nd/n0"n' *he petitioner filed a complaint a$ainst private respondent Aose Ao for <udicial separation of con<u$al propert)! docketed as 0ivil 0ase /o& 51! in addition to an earlier action for support! also a$ainst him& *he two cases were consolidated and tried <ointl)& Eowever! althou$h there was a definite

Aose=s act of den)in$ admission to petitioner into their con<u$al home upon her return from Hamboan$a! coupled with the fact that he failed to $ive support to petitioner and their dau$hter! constitutes abandonment& -rticle 158 has been superseded b) article 1.8 of the >amil) 0ode& Fnder the this provision! the a$$rieved spouse ma) petition for <udicial separation on either of these $rounds@ 1& -bondonment b) a spouse of the other without <ust cause? and .& >ailure of one spouse to compl) with his or her

(199.)

disposition of the complaint for support! there was no disposition of the complaint for <udicial separation of con<u$al propert)& Gefore the 0-! the complaint for <udicial separation of con<u$al propert) was dismissed for lack of a cause of action and on the $round that separation b) a$reement was not covered b) -rticle 158 of the 0ivil 0ode& *he 0- dismissed the complaint on the $round that the separation of the parties was due to their a$reement and not because of abondonment& *he respondent court relied mainl) on the testimon) of the petitioner! who declared under oath that she left uma$uete 0it)! where she and Ao were livin$ to$ether 1because that was our a$reement&1 #t held that a a$reement to live separatel) without <ust cause was void under -rticle ..1 of the 0ivil 0ode and could not sustain an) claim of abandonment b) the a$$rieved spouse& #ts conclusion was that the onl) remed) availabe to the petitioner was le$al separation under -rticle 155 of the 0ivil 0ode! b) virtue of which the con<u$al partnership of propert) would be terminated& 13 D.&&/#,'./n /) CPG 'espondent /icholson Pascual and >lorencia /eval$a were married on Aanuar) 19! 1985& urin$ the union! >lorencia bou$ht a lot with a three6door apartment standin$ thereon& #n 1993! the marria$e between the spouses was annulled& #n the same decision! the '*0! inter alia- ordered the dissolution and li(uidation of the e96spouses= con<u$al partnership of $ains& 8ubse(uent events however! saw the couple $oin$ their separate wa)s without li(uidatin$ their con<u$al partnership& #n 1995! >lorencia! to$ether with the spouses Oliveros! obtained a loan from petitioner 4etrobank! secured b) several '%4s! includin$ the sub<ect lot& 4etrobank proceeded with foreclosure proceedin$s due to the failure of >lorencia to pa) her loan& /icholson filed 0omplaint to declare the nullit) of the mort$a$e of the disputed propert)! alle$in$ that the propert)! which is still con<u$al propert)! was mort$a$ed without his consent& Goth the '*0 and 0- declared the mort$a$e as null and void& e "eon before he was married entered into a conditional contract to sell to purchase a lot in Uuezon 0it)& -fter his marria$e! followin$ the full pa)ment the *0* of the lot was transferred in his

obli$ations to the famil) without <ust cause! even if she said spouse does not leave the other spouse& -bandonment implies a departure b) one spouse with the avowed intent never to return! followed b) prolon$ed absence without <ust cause! and without in the meantime providin$ in the least for oneLs famil) althou$h able to do so& *here must be absolute cessation of marital relations! duties and ri$hts! with the intention of perpetual separation& *his idea is clearl) e9pressed in the above6(uoted provision! which states that 1a spouse is deemed to have abandoned the other when he or she has left the con<u$al dwellin$ without an) intention of returnin$&1 *he ph)sical separation of the parties! coupled with the refusal b) the private respondent to $ive support to the petitioner! sufficed to constitute abandonment as a $round for the <udicial separation of their con<u$al propert)& #n addition! the petitioner ma) also invoke the second $round allowed b) -rticle 1.8! for the fact is that he has failed without <ust cause to compl) with his obli$ations to the famil) as husband or parent&

METROPOLITAN 3AN5 AND TRUST CO , +& NICHOLSON PASCUAL $ ( $ NELSON PASCUAL (.228)

Dhile the declared nullit) of marria$e of /icholson and >lorencia severed their marital bond and dissolved the con<u$al partnership! the character of the properties ac(uired before such declaration continues to subsist as con<u$al properties until and after the li(uidation and partition of the partnership *his conclusion holds true whether we appl) -rt& 1.9 of the >amil) 0ode on li(uidation of the con<u$al partnership=s assets and liabilities which is $enerall) prospective in application! or -rts& 159 to 185 of the 0ivil 0ode on the sub<ect! 0on<u$al Partnership of Gains& >or! the relevant provisions of both 0odes first re(uire the li(uidation of the con<u$al properties before a re$ime of separation of propert) rei$ns& Dael &. "ntermediate Appellate Court' pendin$ its li(uidation followin$ its dissolution! the con<u$al partnership of $ains is converted into an implied ordinar) co6ownership amon$ the survivin$ spouse and the other heirs of the deceased& In '!.& 2-"-#.<,.d$'./n &*"n$-./, A-' B73 /) '!" C.+.# C/d" (-"#$'.n4 '/ '!" -,#"& /n */-/%n"-&!.2) &!$## 4/+"-n '!" 2-/2"-'1 -"#$'./n&!.2 9"'%""n '!" )/-0"- &2/,&"& -ccordin$l)! the mort$a$e contract insofar as it covered the remainin$ 1R. undivided portion of the lot is null and void! /icholson not havin$ consented to the mort$a$e of his undivided half&

T$--/&$ + D" L"/n (.229)

*he sale of one6half of the con<u$al propert) without li(uidation of the partnership is void& Prior to the li(uidation of the con<u$al partnership! the interest of each spouse in the con<u$al assets is inchoate! a mere e9pectanc)! which constitutes neither a le$al nor an e(uitable estate! and does not

name where it was indicated that he was sin$le& Ee subse(uentl) sold the lot to his sister *arrosa wherein the consent of his wife was not obtained& e "eon died& *arrosa moved for cancellation of *0* and its re$istration in her name& *hus the wife and children of e "eon filed for reconve)ance& C$9-"6$ + C$9-"6$ 0abreza filed a petition for declaration of nullit) of her marria$e to her wife which was $ranted and where the con<u$al partnership ordered to be dissolved and li(uidated in accordance with -rt 1.9 >0& Ee then moved for the sale of the real propert) which was $ranted& Eis wife filed a motion for reconsideration of this order which was denied and this decision became final& Dhen a writ of possession was ordered to be issued to the bu)er! wife filed a petition to have it held in abe)ance& 8he ar$ued that she in accordance with -rt 1.9(5) ! the con<u$al dwellin$ and lot on which it is situated shall be ad<udicated to the spouse with whom ma<orit) of the children choose to remain! which in this case is her and that in the deed of sale! her consent and si$nature was not obtained and thus the sale was void& *wo properties were sold to Protacio Ar& "ater he e9ecuted an affidavit of renunciation where he admitted that the propert) was actuall) sold to his father Protacio 8r& -fter 8r&=s wife=s death (4arta)! he and his son Go sold said propert) to 8ervacio& 8aid sale is not bein$ contested and propert) is bein$ demanded to be returned since the propert) was con<u$al which was not )et li(uidated at the time of the sale&

ripen into a title until it appears that there are assets in the communit) as a result of the li(uidation and settlement& *he interest of each spouse is limited to the net remainder or 1remanente li(uido1 (haber $anancial) resultin$ from the li(uidation of the affairs of the partnership after its dissolution& *hus! the ri$ht of the husband or wife to one6half of the con<u$al assets does not vest until the dissolution and li(uidation of the con<u$al partnership! or after dissolution of the marria$e! when it is finall) determined that! after settlement of con<u$al obli$ations! there are net assets left which can be divided between the spouses or their respective heirs *he decision of the '*0 orderin$ the sale of the famil) home has lon$ become final and e9ecutor)& *he order of possession! writ of possession and notice to vacate! which are now assailed b) the wife! were all implemented after the '*0 ecision *he issue on the lack of consent and si$nature on the sale was not tackled in the present since the 0ourt held that it was sub<ect of another petition filed in the 0-&

(.229)

G/ + S"-+$*./ (.211)

*he >0 provisions does not appl) since at the time of death of 8r=s wife! in 1985! it is the /00=s provision which $overned& Fpon 4arta=s death in 1985! the con<u$al partnership was dissolved! pursuant to -rticle 155 (1) of the Civil Code and an implied ordinar) co6ownership ensued amon$ 8r& and the other heirs of 4arta with respect to her share in the assets of the con<u$al partnership pendin$ a li(uidation followin$ its li(uidation& 8r&! althou$h becomin$ a co6owner with his children in respect of 4arta=s share in the con<u$al partnership! could not )et assert or claim title to an) specific portion of 4arta=s share without an actual partition of the propert) bein$ first done either b) a$reement or b) <udicial decree -rticle 125>0 also provides that the applicabilit) of the rules on dissolution of the con<u$al partnership is +without pre<udice to vested ri$hts alread) ac(uired in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws&, *he finalit) of 0># approvin$ the a$reement led in the dissolution of the petitioner and respondentLs con<u$al partnership of $ains& *he $overnin$ law in their marria$e is the /00 provisions and thus the) are $overned b) 0PG in the absence of a marria$e settlement providin$ for another re$ime& Fnder -rticle 155 of the 0ivil 0ode! the <udicial separation of propert) results in the termination of the con<u$al partnership of $ains@ 999 (3) #n case of <udicial separation of propert) under -rticle 191& 8ec 19 of the 'ule does not appl) to -rt 135 >0&

U4$#d" + Y&$&.

(.228)

F$alde and Osasi separated in 1955& Osasi alle$edl) contarcted another marria$e with a certain 8mith& F$alde is contendin$ that Osasi and 8mith had been disposin$ their con<u$al propert) to her pre<udice& *hus she fiuled petition for li(uidation of the 0PG& Osasi countered that an a$reement was alread) made between them dissolvin$ their 0PG in 1955 which was approved b) the 0>#& ino married his wife in 1998& "ater a petition to

D.n/ + D.n/

(.211)

declare marria$e void on the $round of ps)cholo$ical incapacit)(-rt 7;) was filed which was $ranted but it was provided that said decree of absolute nullit) would onl) be issued upon compliance with -rt 52 and 51 of >0 in accordance with 8ec 19 of the 'ule on eclaration of -bsolute /ullit) of /ull 4arria$es ('ule)& *his was modified and the court order that li(uidation! partition! and distribution of the parties= properties under -rticle 135 >0 need to be complied before issuance of the decree& #n a petition for declaration of nullit) of marria$e filed b) petitioner Ou! '*0 <ud$e $ranted 4otion of the private respondent to have the incident on the declaration of nullit) of marria$e be resolved ahead of the incidents on custod)! support! and propert) relations! and not simultaneousl)& 0- affirms '*0=s order& Petitioner ar$ues that the court should have received first the evidence for the incidents on custod)! support! and propert) relations and resolved it simultaneous with the issue of nullit) of marria$e and not after& Ee ar$ues that the '*0 Order is tantamount to denial of presentation of evidence on the issues of custod)! support! and propert) relations& (/O*%@ *his is a 8ection 7; petition appl)in$ 8ection 19 of -&4& /o& 2.611612680& 0ompare to ino vs ino case which stated that 8ection 19 (1) of the -&4& does not appl) to 8ection 7; petitions& *wo cases decided the same )ear&)

#n a void marria$e! re$ardless of its cause! the propert) relations of the parties durin$ the period of cohabitation is $overned either b) -rticle 135 or -rticle 138 of the >amil) 0ode& 8ec 19 re(uires that before a decree is issued that -rt 52 and 51 must be complied with& Gut -rt 52 and 51 onl) refers to void marria$es under -rt 32 and 35 >0 and thus does not cover void marria$es under -rt 7;>0&

Y, +& R"1"&C$-2./ 2011

80 upholds '*0 and 0-& '*0 <ud$e did not disallow the presentation of evidence on the incidents on custod)! support! and propert) relations& #t is clear in the assailed orders that the trial court <ud$e merel) deferred the reception of evidence relatin$ to custod)! support! and propert) relations& -&4& /o& 2.611612680 or the 'ule on of :oidable 4arria$es provides@ eclaration of -bsolute /ullit) of :oid 4arria$es and -nnulment

8ection 19& ecision& 6 (1) #f the court renders a decision $rantin$ the petition! it shall declare therein that the decree of absolute nullit) or decree of annulment shall be issued b) the court onl) after compliance with -rticles 52 and 51 of the >amil) 0ode as implemented under the 'ule on "i(uidation! Partition and istribution of Properties& 9999 8ection .1& "i(uidation! partition and distribution! custod)! support of common children and deliver) of their presumptive le$itimes& 6 Fpon entr) of the <ud$ment $rantin$ the petition! or! in case of appeal! upon receipt of the entr) of <ud$ment of the appellate court $rantin$ the petition! the >amil) 0ourt! on motion of either part)! shall proceed with the li(uidation! partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses! includin$ custod)! support of common children and deliver) of their presumptive le$itimes pursuant to -rticles 52 and 51 of the >amil) 0ode unless such matters had been ad<udicated in previous <udicial proceedin$s& *he 0ourt %n Ganc 'esolution in -&4& /o& 2.611612680 clearl) allows the deferment of the reception of evidence on custod)! support! and propert) relations& 0onversel)! the trial court ma) receive evidence on the sub<ect incidents after a <ud$ment $rantin$ the petition but before the decree of nullit) or annulment of marria$e is issued&

D R"4.0" /) &"2$-$'./n /) 2-/2"-'1 ($) In '!" 0$--.$4" &"''#"0"n'& (9) W!"n 0$nd$'/-1 (*) R"*/n*.#.$'./n .n #"4$# &"2$-$'./n (d) :,d.*.$# &"2$-$'./n /) 2-/2"-'1 E P-/2"-'1 -"4.0" /) ,n./n& %.'!/,' 0$--.$4" 1 Un./n& ,nd"- FC 1B>, =, 3D, 3=, D3 V$#d"& +& CC -ntonio :aldes sou$ht the declaration of nullit) of RTC the marria$e pursuant to -rticle 7; of the >amil) 0ode& Aud$ment was rendered declarin$ the

#n a void $arria"e! re$ardless of the cause thereof! the propert) relations of the parties durin$ the period of cohabitation is $overned b) the provisions of -rticle 135 or -rticle 138! such as the case ma) be! of the >amil) 0ode&

marria$e null and void under -rticle 7; on the $round of their mutual ps)cholo$ical incapacit) to compl) with the essential marital obli$ations& *he court also directed petitioner and respondent Gomez to start proceedin$s on the li(uidation of their common properties as defined b) -rticle 135 of the >amil) 0ode! and to compl) with the provisions of -rticles 52! 51 and 5. of the same 0ode& 0onsuelo Gomez sou$ht a clarification of the decision directin$ compliance with -rticles 52 to 5. of the >amil) 0ode& 8he asserted that the >amil) 0ode contained no provisions on the procedure for the li(uidation of common propert) in +unions without marria$e&, *he trial court made a clarification statin$ that +considerin$ that -rticle 135 of the >amil) 0ode e9plicitl) provides that the propert) ac(uired b) both parties durin$ their union! in the absence of proof to the contrar)! are presumed to have been obtained throu$h the <oint efforts of the parties and will be owned b) them in e(ual shares! plaintiff and defendant! will own their +famil) home, and all their other properties in e(ual shares&, On the issue re$ardin$ the disputes of the famil) home! the trial court said that considerin$ the marria$e has alread) been declared null and void ab initio! pursuant to -rticle 135! the propert) re$ime of petitioner and respondent shall be $overned b) the rules on co6ownership& Petitioner ar$ues ! amon$ others! a) that -rticle 135 of the >amil) 0ode does not appl) to cases where the parties are ps)cholo$icall) incapacitated? b) -rticle 52 and 51 in relation to -rticle 12. and 1.9 of the >amil) 0ode $overn the disposition of the famil) dwellin$ in cases where a marria$e is declared void ab initio ! includin$ a marria$e void b) reasons of ps)cholo$ical incapacit) of the spouses& c) *hat assumin$ ar$uendo that -rticle 135 applies to marria$e declared void ab initio on the $round of p)sholo$ical incapacit) of a spouse! the same ma) be read consistentl) with -rticle 1.9& #n 19;9 8PO3 8antia$o 0arino married 8usan /icdao 0arino& Ee had . children with her& #n 199.! 8PO3 contracted a second marria$e! this time with 8usan Oee 0arino& #n 1988! prior to his second marria$e! 8PO3 is alread) bedridden and he was under the care of Oee& #n 199.! he died 17 da)s

Fnder this propert) re$ime! propert) ac(uired b) both spouses throu$h their work and industry shall be $overned b) the rules on e#ual co6ownership& -n) propert) ac(uired durin$ the union is pri$a facie presumed to have been obtained throu$h their <oint efforts& - part) who did not participate in the ac(uisition of the propert) shall still be considered as havin$ contributed thereto <ointl) if said part)Ls 1efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the famil) household&1 Fnlike the con<u$al partnership of $ains! the fruits of the coupleLs separate propert) are not included in the co6ownership& *he rules set up to $overn the li(uidation of either the absolute communit) or the con<u$al partnership of $ains! the propert) re$imes reco$nized for valid and voidable marria$es (in the latter case until the contract is annulled )!are irrelevant to the li(uidation of the co6ownership that e9ists between common6 law spouses& *he first para$raph of -rticle 52 of the >amil) 0ode! appl)in$ para$raphs (. )!(7 )!(3) and (5) of -rticle 37! relates onl)! b) its e9plicit terms! to voidable marria$es and! e9ceptionall)! to void marria$es under -rticle 32 of the 0ode! i&e&! the declaration of nullit) of a subse(uent marria$e contracted b) a spouse of a prior void marria$e before the latter is <udiciall) declared void& *he latter is a special rule that somehow reco$nizes the philosoph) and an old doctrine that void marria$es are ine9istent from the ver) be$innin$ and no <udicial decree is necessar) to establish their nullit)& #t must be stressed! nevertheless! even as it ma) merel) state the obvious! that the provisions of the >amil) 0ode on the 1famil) home!1 i&e&! the provisions found in *itle :! 0hapter .! of the >amil) 0ode! remain in force and effect re$ardless of the propert) re$ime of the spouses&

C$-.n/ +& C$-.n/

*he marria$e between /icdao and 8PO3 is null and void due the absence of a valid marria$e license& *he marria$e between Oee and 8PO3 is likewise null and void for the same has been solemnized without the <udicial declaration of the nullit) of the marria$e between /icdao and 8PO3& Fnder -rticle 32 of the >0! the absolute nullit) of a previous marria$e ma) be invoked for purposes of remarria$e on the basis solel) of a final <ud$ment declarin$ such previous marria$e void& 4eanin$! where the absolute nullit) of a previous marria$e is sou$ht to be invoked for purposes of contractin$ a second

G/n6$#"& +& G/n6$#"& 200D

after his marria$e with Oee& *hereafter! the spouses went on to claim the benefits of 8PO3& 8usan /icdao was able to claim a total of P132!222&22 while Oee was able to collect a total of P.1!222&22& #n 1997! Oee filed an action for collection of sum of mone) a$ainst /icdao& 8he wanted to have half of the P132k& Oee admitted that her marria$e with 8PO3 was solemnized durin$ the subsistence of the marria$e bRn 8PO3 and /icdao but the said marria$e between /icdao and 8PO3 is null and void due to the absence of a valid marria$e license as certified b) the local civil re$istrar& Oee also claimed that she onl) found out about the previous marria$e on 8PO3=s funeral& On October .9! 199.! respondent %rminda filed a complaint for annulment of marria$e with pra)er for support pendente lite& *he complaint alle$es that petitioner >rancisco is ps)cholo$icall) incapacitated to compl) with theobli$ations of marria$e& Ee beats her for no <ustifiable reason! humiliates and embarrasses her! anddenies her love! se9ual comfort and lo)alt)& urin$ the time the) lived to$ether! the) ac(uiredproperties& 8he mana$ed their pizza business and worked hard for its development& 8he pra)s for thedeclaration of the nullit) of their marria$e and for the dissolution of the con<u$al partnership of $ains& '*0 declared marria$e void ab initio and divided the properties e(uall) between >rancisco and %rminda& >rancisco contests such division of properties&

marria$e! the sole basis acceptable in law! for said pro<ected marria$e to be free from le$al infirmit)! is a final <ud$ment declarin$ the previous marria$e void& Eowever! for purposes other than remarria$e! no <udicial action is necessar) to declare a marria$e an absolute nullit)& Oee has no ri$ht to the benefits earned b) 8PO3 as a policeman for their marria$e is void due to bi$am)? she is onl) entitled to properties! mone) etc owned b) them in common in proportion to their respective contributions& Da$es and salaries earned b) each part) shall belon$ to him or her e9clusivel) (-rt& 138 of >0)& /icdao is entitled to the full benefits earned b) 8PO3 as a cop even if their marria$e is likewise void& *his is because the two were capacitated to marr) each other for there were no impediments but their marria$e was void due to the lack of a marria$e license? in their situation! their propert) relations is $overned b) -rt 135 of the >0 which provides that ever)thin$ the) earned durin$ their cohabitation is presumed to have been e(uall) contributed b) each part) T this includes salaries and wa$es earned b) each part) notwithstandin$ the fact that the other ma) not have contributed at all& Petitioner does not challen$e the -ppellate 0ourt=s ecision declarin$ his marria$e with respondent void& 0onse(uentl)! their propert) relation shall be $overned b) the provisions of -rticle 135 of the >amil) 0ode! which enumerates the two instances when the propert) relations between spouses shall be $overned b) the rules on co6ownership& *hese are@ (1) when a man and woman capacitated to marr) each other live e9clusivel) with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marria$e? and (.) when a man and woman live to$ether under a void marria$e& Fnder this propert) re$ime of co6 ownership! properties ac(uired b) both parties durin$ their union! in the absence of proof to the contrar)! are presumed to have been obtained throu$h the <oint efforts of the parties and will be owned b) them in e(ual shares& -rticle 135 creates a presumption that properties ac(uired durin$ the cohabitation of the parties have been ac(uired throu$h their <oint efforts! work or industr) and shall be owned b) them in e(ual shares& #t further provides that a part) who did not participate in the ac(uisition b) the other part) of an) propert) shall be deemed to have contributed <ointl) in the ac(uisition thereof if the former=s efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the famil) and of the household& Dhile it is true that all the properties were bou$ht from the proceeds of the pizza business! petitioner himself testified that respondent was not a plain housewife and that she helped him in mana$in$ the business& #n his handwritten letter to her dated 8eptember ;! 1989! he admitted that +Oou=ve helped me for what we are now and # won=t let it be destro)ed&, #t appeared that before the) started livin$ to$ether! petitioner offered respondent to be his partner in his pizza business and to take over its operations& 'espondent started mana$in$ the business in 195;& Eer <ob was to@ (1) take care of the dail) operations of the business? (.) mana$e the personnel? and (7) meet people durin$ inspection and supervision of outlets& 8he reported for work ever)da)! even on 8aturda)s and 8unda)s! without receivin$ an) salar) or allowance&

D.n/ +& D.n/ 2011

#n 8ection 7; petition! '*0 declared marria$e void ab initio& #t ruled that a ecree of -bsolute /ullit) of 4arria$e shall onl) be issued upon compliance with -rticlePsQ 52 and 51 of the >amil) 0ode& Petitioner (uestions the dissolution of the absolute communit) of propert) and the rulin$ that the decree of annulment shall onl) be issued upon compliance with -rticles 52 and 51 of the >amil) 0ode& Petitioner ar$ues that 8ection 19(1) of the

*he 0ourt has ruled in 9aldes v. RTC that in a void marria$e! re$ardless of its cause! the propert) relations of the parties durin$ the period of cohabitation is $overned either b) -rticle 135 or -rticle 138 of the >amil) 0ode& -rticle 135 of the >amil) 0ode applies to union of parties who are le$all) capacitated and not barred b) an) impediment to contract marria$e! but whose marria$e is nonetheless void! such as petitioner and respondent in the case before the 0ourt& De a$ree with petitioner that the trial court erred in orderin$ that a decree of absolute nullit) of marria$e shall be issued onl) after li(uidation! partition and distribution of the parties= properties under -rticle 135 of the >amil) 0ode& *he rulin$ has no basis because 8ection 19(1) of the 'ule does not appl) to cases $overned under -rticles 135 and 138 of the >amil) 0ode&

'ule on eclaration of -bsolute /ullit) of /ull 4arria$es and -nnulment of :oidable 4arria$es (-&4& /o& 2.611612680) does not appl) to -rticle 135 of the >amil) 0ode&

#t is clear from -rticle 52 of the >amil) 0ode that 8ection 19(1) of the 'ule applies onl) to marria$es which are declared void ab initio or annulled b) final <ud$ment ,nd"- A-'.*#"& B0 $nd BD /) '!" F$0.#1 C/d"& #n short! -rticle 52 of the >amil) 0ode does not appl) to marria$es which are declared void ab initio under -rticle 7; of the >amil) 0ode! which should be declared void without waitin$ for the li(uidation of the properties of the parties&

3ALCODERO V CA (1773)

AGAPAY AGAPAY (177>)

2 Un./n& ,nd"- FC 1B8 /) FC D0 .n -"# '/ FC B7(2) $nd FC D0 -la)o Gosin$ was married to Auliana and be$ot 7 *he case was decided under 0ivil 0ode& children& Ee left the con<u$al home and forthwith started livin$ with Aosefa! his common law wife& *he propert) was presumed con<u$al propert) of -la)o and Auliana& Gecause there was no evidence Dhile he was livin$ with Aosefa! he bou$ht a home that it was -la)o=s e9clusive propert)! the 0ourt held that it was con<u$al propert) of -la)o and Auliana& on installment basis and authorized the seller to have the name title to his +wife! Aosefa,! which the) -s re$ards the propert) relation between common6law spouses! /00 133 merel) codified the law did& Dhen -la)o died! Aosefa and dau$hter established throu$h <udicial precedents under the old code& #n both re$imes! the co6ownership rule had e9ecuted an %9tra<udicial Partition and had the land more than once been repudiated when either or both spouses suffered from an impediment to marr)& titled in the dau$hter=s name& *he present provisions under >0135 and 138 did not much deviate from the old rules? in an) case! its *he le$itimate widow and children filed a case for provisions cannot appl) to this case without interdictin$ prior vested ri$hts (>0 .5;)& reconve)ance& - constructive trust under /00 135; was deemed created at the time that the ad<udication of ownership was made followin$ -la)o=s demise& V 4i$uel married 0arlina and the) be$ot a child& *he sale of the riceland was made in favor of 4i$uel and %rlinda& *he provision of law applicable here *he) hardl) lived to$ether& Dhen 4i$uel was 57 is >0 138 providin$ for cases of cohabitation when a man and a woman who are not capacitated to )ears old! he married 19 )ear old %rlinda! while the marr) each other live e9clusivel) with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marria$e first marria$e was subsistin$& *he) bou$ht a or under a void marria$e& Dhile 4i$uel and %rlinda contracted marria$e!! said union was patentl) void riceland two months before the) married& *he) also because the earlier marria$e of 4i$uel and 0arlina was still subsistin$ and unaffected b) the latterLs de bou$ht a propert) alle$edl) with %rlinda as sole facto separation& vendee& 0atalina and child filed a case for recover) of propert)& Fnder >0 138! onl) the properties ac(uired b) both of the parties throu$h their actual <oint contribution of mone)! propert) or industr) shall be owned b) them in common in proportion to their respective contributions& #t must be stressed that actual contribution is re(uired b) this provision! in contrast to >0 135 which states that efforts in the care and maintenance of the famil) and household! are re$arded as contributions to the ac(uisition of common propert) b) one who has no salar) or income or work or industr)& #f the actual contribution of the part) is not proved! there will be no co6ownership and no presumption of e(ual shares& #n the case at bar! %rlinda tried to establish b) her testimon) that she is en$a$ed in the business of bu) and sell and had a sari6sari store but failed to persuade us that she actuall) contributed mone) to bu) the sub<ect riceland& Dorth notin$ is the fact that on the date of conve)ance! petitioner was onl) around .2 )ears of a$e and 4i$uel was alread) ;3 and a pensioner of the F&8& Government& 0onsiderin$ her )outhfulness! it is unrealistic to conclude that she contributed P7!552&22 as her share in the purchase price of sub<ect propert)! there bein$ no proof of the same& %ven assumin$ that the sub<ect propert) was bou$ht before cohabitation! the rules of co6ownership would still appl) and proof of actual contribution would still be essential& -s re$ards the .nd propert)! the testimon) of the notar) public who prepared the eed of 0onve)ance that it was 4i$uel who paid for the propert) and directed that %rlinda=s name alone be placed as the vendee proves that the transaction was properl) a donation made b) 4i$uel to %rlinda& 8aid donation is void and ine9istent (/00 579)& 4oreover! >0 85 e9pressl) provides that the prohibition a$ainst donations between spouses now applies to donations between persons livin$ to$ether as husband and

TUMLOS V SPS FERNANDE@ (2000)

-n e<ectment suit was filed a$ainst petitioner& 8he claims that she is the coMowner of said propert) b) virtue of her cohabitin$ with defendant 4ario&

wife without a valid marria$e! for otherwise! the condition of those who incurred $uilt would turn out to be better than those in le$al union& /00 133 applies onl) to a relationship between a man and a woman who are not incapacitated to marr) each other! or to one in which the marria$e of the parties is void from the be$innin$& #t does not appl) to a cohabitation that amounts to adulter) or concubina$e! for it would be absurd to create a co6 ownership where there e9ists a prior con<u$al partnership or absolute communit) between the man and his lawful wife& #t is clear that 4ario was incapacitated to marr) petitioner because he was le$all) married to "ourdes& #t is also clear that! as readil) admitted b) petitioner! she cohabited with 4ario in a state of concubina$e& *herefore! /00 133 is inapplicable& *he relationship between petitioner and 4ario is $overned b) >0 138& Austice 8empio6 i) points out that 1PtQhe >0 has filled the hiatus in /00 133 b) e9pressl) re$ulatin$ in its >0138 the propert) relations of couples livin$ in a state of adulter) or concubina$e& Petitioner=s ar$ument M that the >0 is inapplicable because the cohabitation and the ac(uisition of the propert) occurred before its effectivit) M deserves scant consideration& 8uffice it to sa) that the law itself states that it can be applied retroactivel) if it does not pre<udice vested or ac(uired ri$hts& #n this case! petitioner failed to show an) vested ri$ht over the propert) in (uestion& Petitioner fails to present an) evidence that she had made an actual contribution to purchase the sub<ect propert)& #ndeed! she anchors her claim of co6ownership merel) on her cohabitation with 'espondent 4ario >ernandez& "ikewise! her claim of havin$ administered the propert) durin$ the cohabitation is unsubstantiated& #n an) event! this fact b) itself does not <ustif) her claim! for nothin$ in >0 138 provides that the administration of the propert) amounts to a contribution in its ac(uisition& 0learl)! there is no basis for petitioner=s claim of co6ownership& *he propert) in (uestion belon$s to the con<u$al partnership of respondents& *heir propert) re$ime is $overned b) >0 138! which applies to bi$amous marria$es! adulterous relationships! relationships in a state of concubina$e! relationships where both man and woman are married to other persons! and multiple alliances of the same married man 0o6ownership will onl) be up to the e9tent of the proven actual contribution of mone)! propert) or industr)& -bsent proof of the e9tent thereof! their contributions and correspondin$ shares shall be presumed to be e(ual& Eere! althou$h the adulterous cohabitation of the parties commenced in 1987! or wa) before the effectivit) of the >amil) 0ode! >0 138 thereof applies because this provision was intended precisel) to fill up the hiatus in /00 133& -s we see it! petitioner=s claim of co6ownership in the disputed propert) is without basis because not onl) did he fail to substantiate his alle$ed contribution in the purchase thereof but likewise the ver) trail of documents pertainin$ to its purchase as evidentiar) proof redounds to the benefit of the respondent& #n contrast! aside from his mere sa) so and voluminous records of bank accounts! which sadl) find no relevance in this case! the petitioner failed to overcome his burden of proof& -lle$ations must be proven b) sufficient evidence& 8impl) stated! he who alle$es a fact has the burden of provin$ it? mere alle$ation is not evidence& Dhoever claims entitlement to the benefits provided b) law should establish his or her ri$ht thereto b)

ATIEN@A V DE CASTRO (200=)

Petitioner "upo and Oolanda lived as common law husband and wife despite that fact the "upo had a subsistin$ marria$e& *he) had two children& *heir relationship turned sour and "upo filed for Petition for Partition of a propert) alle$edl) bou$ht with his e9clusive funds& Oolanda alle$ed that she paid for the propert) with her own mone)&

SIGNEY V SSS

'odolfo! an 888 member! died& *hree women

(2008)

(Gina! %ditha! Oolanda) claimed the death benefits! all claimin$ to be his wife& 'odolfo has two children with Gina& 880 found that %ditha is the le$al wife and denied petitioner=s claim&

substantial evidence& 8ince petitioner is dis(ualified to be a beneficiar) and because the deceased has no le$itimate child! it follows that the dependent ille$itimate minor children of the deceased shall be entitled to the death benefits as primar) beneficiaries& *he 888 "aw is clear that for a minor child to (ualif) as a 1dependent! 1 the onl) re(uirements are that heRshe must be below .1 )ears of a$e! not married nor $ainfull) emplo)ed& *hus the ille$itimate children have the ri$ht to the benefits& *he 80 ruled in favor of Gorromeo& #& Dho purchased the propertiesC Aambrich& %vidence clearl) supports this@ a) escallar affirmed under oath in her re6direct e9amination that Aambrich was the owner of the properties b) *he post dated checks for the pa)ment was issued b) Aambrich c) Dhen the) lived in 8)ria with her two sons! the) completel) under the support of Aambrich d) Aambrich e9ecuted a last will and testament where he be(ueathed the said properties to escallar ##& DO/ the rule on co6ownership will appl)C /o& +>urther! the fact that the disputed properties were ac(uired durin$ the couple=s cohabitation also does not help respondent& *he rule that co6ownership applies to a man and a woman livin$ e9clusivel) with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marria$e! but are otherwise capacitated to marr) each other! does not appl)& #n the instant case! respondent was still le$all) married to another when she and Aambrich lived to$ether& #n such an adulterous relationship! no co6ownership e9ists between the parties& #t is necessar) for each of the partners to prove his or her actual contribution to the ac(uisition of propert) in order to be able to la) claim to an) portion of it& Presumptions of co6ownership and e(ual contribution do not appl)&, +*he rationale behind the 0ourt=s rulin$ in Fnited 0hurch Goard for Dorld 4inistries! as reiterated in subse(uent cases! is this T since the ban on aliens is intended to preserve the nation=s land for future $enerations of >ilipinos! that aim is achieved b) makin$ lawful the ac(uisition of real estate b) aliens who became >ilipino citizens b) naturalization or those transfers made b) aliens to >ilipino citizens& -s the propert) in dispute is alread) in the hands of a (ualified person! a >ilipino citizen! there would be no more public polic) to be protected& *he ob<ective of the constitutional provision to keep our lands in >ilipino hands has been achieved&,

3/--/0"/ + D"&*$##$(2007)

Aambrich! who is workin$ for an -ustrian 0ompan)! was assi$ned to work at a pro<ect in 4indoro& Ee was later transferred to 0ebu and met escallar! a separated mother of two bo)s who was workin$ as a waitress& Ee asked escallar to be his tutor in %n$lish& *he tutorials were held in escallar=s residence at a s(uatters= area& *he) fell in love and decided to live to$ether& *he) later transferred to their own house and lot in -$ro64acro 8ubdivision! 0abancalan! 4andaue 0it)& *he *0* was issued in the name of escallar alone but it could be noted that the si$nature of Aambrich remained in the eed of -bsolute 8ale as bu)er& Aambrich adopted escallar=s two sons& Eowever! their relationship lasted for onl) two months& escallar found a new bo)friend and Aambrich lived with another woman& Ee supported escallar=s sons for onl) two months& Aambrich bou$ht an en$ine and some accessories for his boat from Gorromeo& *o pa) his debt to Gorromeo! he sold his ri$hts and interests in -$ro6 4acro properties& Dhen Gorromeo sou$ht to re$ister the propert)! he discovered that the titles have been transferred to escallar and it was alread) mort$a$ed& Gorromeo filed a complaint for recover) of real propert) alle$in$ that escallar is not the true owner because she did not pa) a sin$le centavo& *06 in favor of Gorromeo& #t is hi$hl) improbable that escallar could have bou$ht the properties from her own funds 0-6reversed *he Eeirs are the le$itimate wife and children of 4arama$& e Guzman was the concubine of 4arama$ and the suspect in killin$ the latter& *he other respondents are the ille$itimate child of 4arama$& "oreto 4arama$ misrepresented e Guzman as his le$al wife in an insurance polic) with #nsular "ife& Eowever! he later revoked her desi$nation as

H".-& /) M$-$0$4 + D" G,60$n (2007)

*he 80 decided in favor of the ille$itimate children& #t is evident from the face of the complaint that petitioners are not entitled to a favorable <ud$ment in li$ht of -rticle .211 of the 0ivil 0ode which e9pressl) provides that insurance contracts shall be $overned b) special laws! i&e&! the #nsurance 0ode& 8ection 57 of the #nsurance 0ode statesM 8%0*#O/ 57& *he insurance proceeds shall be applied e9clusivel) to the proper interest of the person in whose name or for whose benefit it is made unless otherwise specified in the polic)& Pursuant thereto! it is obvious that the onl) persons entitled to claim the insurance proceeds are either the insured! if still alive? or the beneficiar)! if the insured is alread) deceased! upon the maturation of the polic)&

a beneficiar)& *he petitioners would like to declare the shares of the ille$itimate children as inofficious& Grepalife (another insurance co) claimed that due to the misrepresentation! "oreto is ineli$ible for insurance& >urthermore! e Guzman was not desi$nated as a beneficiar)& *06 in favor of the ille$itimate children 0-6 dismissed the appeal for lack of <urisdiction

*he e9ception to this rule is a situation where the insurance contract was intended to benefit third persons who are not parties to the same in the form of favorable stipulations or indemnit)& #n such a case! third parties ma) directl) sue and claim from the insurer& Petitioners are third parties to the insurance contracts with #nsular and Grepalife and! thus! are not entitled to the proceeds thereof& -ccordin$l)! respondents #nsular and Grepalife have no le$al obli$ation to turn over the insurance proceeds to petitioners& *he revocation of %va as a beneficiar) in one polic) and her dis(ualification as such in another are of no moment considerin$ that the desi$nation of the ille$itimate children as beneficiaries in "oreto=s insurance policies remains valid& Gecause no le$al proscription e9ists in namin$ as beneficiaries the children of illicit relationships b) the insured! the shares of %va in the insurance proceeds! whether forfeited b) the court in view of the prohibition on donations under -rticle 579 of the 0ivil 0ode or b) the insurers themselves for reasons based on the insurance contracts! must be awarded to the said ille$itimate children! the desi$nated beneficiaries! to the e9clusion of petitioners& #t is onl) in cases where the insured has not desi$nated an) beneficiar)! or when the desi$nated beneficiar) is dis(ualified b) law to receive the proceeds! that the insurance polic) proceeds shall redound to the benefit of the estate of the insured&

FII F$0.#1 R"#$'./n& M$n$#/ + CA *roadio 4analo! a resident of 19;; 4aria 0lara 8treet! 8ampaloc! 4anila died intestate on (2001) >ebruar) 13! 199.& Ee was survived b) his wife! Pilar 8& 4analo! and his eleven (11) children! who are all of le$al a$e& -t the time of his death! *roadio 4analo left several real properties located in 4anila and in the province of *arlac includin$ a business under the name and st)le 4analo=s 4achine 8hop with offices at /o& 19 0alavite 8treet! "a "oma! Uuezon 0it) and at /o& 35 Gen& *inio 8treet! -rt) 8ubdivision! :alenzuela! 4etro 4anila& 'espondents filed a petition with the respondent 'e$ional *rial 0ourt of 4anila for the <udicial settlement of the estate of their late father! *roadio 4analo! and for the appointment of their brother! 'omeo 4analo! as administrator thereof& *he onl) issue raised b) herein petitioners in the instant petition for review is whether or not the respondent 0ourt of -ppeals erred in upholdin$ the (uestioned orders of the respondent trial court which denied their motion for the outri$ht dismissal of the petition for <udicial settlement of estate despite the failure of the petitioners therein to aver that earnest efforts toward a compromise involvin$ members of the same famil) have been made prior to the filin$ of the petition but that the same have failed& T-.9.$n$ + T-.9.$n$ (200B) %dwin and "ourdes are husband and wife who have lived to$ether since 199; but formalized their union onl) on .8 October 1995& On 72 -pril 1998! "ourdes filed a petition for habeas corpus before

*he 80 ruled that the <udicial settlement of the estate should not be dismissed& -rt& ...& /o suit shall be filed or maintained between members of the same famil) unless it should appear that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made! but that the same have failed! sub<ect to the limitations in -rticle .275 (underscorin$ supplied)& *he above6(uoted provision of the law is applicable onl) to ordinar) civil actions& *his is clear from the term +suit, that it refers to an action b) one person or persons a$ainst another or others in a court of <ustice in which the plaintiff pursues the remed) which the law affords him for the redress of an in<ur) or the enforcement of a ri$ht! whether at law or in e(uit)& - civil action is thus an action filed in a court of <ustice! whereb) a part) sues another for the enforcement of a ri$ht! or the prevention or redress of a wron$& Gesides! an e9cerpt from the 'eport of the 0ode 0ommission unmistakabl) reveals the intention of the 0ode 0ommission to make that le$al provision applicable onl) to civil actions which are essentiall) adversarial and involve members of the same famil)! thus@ #t is difficult to ima$ine a sadder and more tra$ic spectacle than a liti$ation between members of the same famil)& #t is necessar) that ever) effort should be made toward a compromise before a liti$ation is allowed to breed hate and passion in the famil)& #t is known that lawsuit between close relatives $enerates deeper bitterness than stran$ers& #t must be emphasized that the oppositors (herein petitioners) are not bein$ sued in 8P& P'O0& /o& 9.6;7;.; for an) cause of action as in fact no defendant was impleaded therein& *he Petition for #ssuance of "etters of -dministration! 8ettlement and istribution of %state in 8P& P'O0& /o& 9.6;7;.; is a special proceedin$ and! as such! it is a remed) whereb) the petitioners therein seek to establish a status! a ri$ht! or a particular fact& *he petitioners therein (private respondents herein) merel) seek to establish the fact of death of their father and subse(uentl) to be dul) reco$nized as amon$ the heirs of the said deceased so that the) can validl) e9ercise their ri$ht to participate in the settlement and li(uidation of the estate of the decedent consistent with the limited and special <urisdiction of the probate court&

80 ruled in favor of "ourdes& *he case should not be dismissed& #t is true that the petition for habeas corpus filed b) "ourdes failed to alle$e that she resorted to compromise proceedin$s before filin$ the petition& Eowever! in her opposition to %dwin=s motion to dismiss! "ourdes attached a Garan$a) 0ertification to >ile -ction dated 1 4a) 1998& %dwin does not

the '*0 claimin$ that %dwin left their con<u$al home with their dau$hter! Bhriza 4ae *ribiana (1Bhriza1)& %dwin has since deprived "ourdes of lawful custod) of Bhriza who was then onl) one (1) )ear and four (3) months of a$e& "ater! it turned out that Bhriza was bein$ held b) %dwin=s mother! 'osalina *ribiana (1'osalina1)& %dwin moved to dismiss "ourdes= petition on the $round that the petition failed to alle$e that earnest efforts at a compromise were made before its filin$ as re(uired b) -rticle 151 of the >amil) 0ode& "ourdes filed her opposition to %dwin=s motion to dismiss claimin$ that there were prior efforts at a compromise! which failed& "ourdes attached to her opposition a cop) of the 0ertification to >ile -ction from their Garan$a) dated 1 4a) 1998&

dispute the authenticit) of the Garan$a) 0ertification and its contents& *his effectivel) established that the parties tried to compromise but were unsuccessful in their efforts& Eowever! %dwin would have the petition dismissed despite the e9istence of the Garan$a) 0ertification! which he does not even dispute& %videntl)! "ourdes has complied with the condition precedent under -rticle 151 of the >amil) 0ode& dismissal under 8ection 1(<) of 'ule 1; is warranted onl) if there is a failure to compl) with a condition precedent& Given that the alle$ed defect is a mere failure to alle$e compliance with a condition precedent! the proper solution is not an outri$ht dismissal of the action! but an amendment under 8ection 1 of 'ule 12 of the 1995 'ules of 0ivil Procedure& 4oreover! in a habeas corpus proceedin$ involvin$ the welfare and custod) of a child of tender a$e! the paramount concern is to resolve immediatel) the issue of who has le$al custod) of the child& *echnicalities should not stand in the wa) of $ivin$ such child of tender a$e full protection& *his rule has sound statutor) basis in -rticle .17 of the >amil) 0ode! which states! 1/o child under seven )ears of a$e shall be separated from the mother unless the court finds compellin$ reasons to order otherwise&1 #n this case! the child (Bhriza) was onl) one )ear and four months when taken awa) from the mother& *he baran$a) conciliation re(uirement in 8ection 31. of the "G0 does not appl) to habeas corpus proceedin$s where a person is 1deprived of personal libert)&1 #n such a case! 8ection 31. e9pressl) authorizes the parties 1to $o directl) to court1 without need of an) conciliation proceedin$s& *here is deprivation of personal libert) warrantin$ a petition for habeas corpus where the 1ri$htful custod) of an) person is withheld from the person entitled thereto&1 #n 4a$baleta! the case involved brothers and a stran$er to the famil)! the alle$ed owner of the sub<ect propert)& *he 0ourt! takin$ into consideration the e9planation made b) the 0ode 0ommision in its report! ruled that@ P*Qhese considerations do not! however! wei$h enou$h to make it imperative that such efforts to compromise should be a <urisdictional pre6re(uisite for the maintenance of an action whenever a stran$er to the famil) is a part) thereto! whether as a necessar) or indispensable one& #t is not alwa)s that one who is alien to the famil) would be willin$ to suffer the inconvenience of! much less relish! the dela) and the complications that wran$lin$s between or amon$ relatives more often than not entail& Gesides! it is neither practical nor fair that the determination of the ri$hts of a stran$er to the famil) who <ust happened to have innocentl) ac(uired some kind of interest in an) ri$ht or propert) disputed amon$ its members should be made to depend on the wa) the latter would settle their differences amon$ themselves& 9 9 9& Eence! once a stran$er becomes a part) to a suit involvin$ members of the same famil)! the law no lon$er makes it a condition precedent that earnest efforts be made towards a compromise before the action can prosper& #n the subse(uent case of e Guzman! the case involved spouses and the alle$ed paramour of the wife& *he 0ourt ruled that due to the efforts e9erted b) the husband! throu$h the Philippine 0onstabular)! to confront the wife! there was substantial compliance with the law! thereb) impl)in$ that even in the presence of a part) who is not a famil) member! the re(uirements that earnest efforts towards a compromise have been e9erted must be complied with! pursuant to -rticle ... of the 0ivil 0ode! now -rticle 151 of the >amil) 0ode& Dhile e Guzman was decided after 4a$baleta! the principle enunciated in the 4a$baleta is the one that now prevails because it is reiterated in the subse(uent cases of Gonzales v& "opez! %s(uivias v& 0ourt of -ppeals! 8pouses Eontiveros v& 'e$ional *rial 0ourt! Granch ! #loilo 0it)! and the most recent case of 4artinez v& 4artinez& *hus! -rticle 151 of the >amil) 0ode applies to cover when the suit is e9clusivel) between or amon$ famil) members& *he 0ontinuin$ -ffinit) :iew maintains that relationship b) affinit) between the survivin$ spouse and the kindred of the deceased spouse continues even after the death of the deceased spouse! re$ardless of whether the marria$e produced children or not& Fnder this view! the relationship b) affinit) endures

H.1$& S$+.n4& $nd L/$n 3$n( In* + A*,n$ (200=)

-lberto 4oreno (private respondent) filed with the '*0 a complaint a$ainst Ei)as #nc&! his wife 'emedios! the spouses >elipe and 4aria Owe and the 'e$ister of eeds of 0aloocan 0it) for cancellation of mort$a$e contendin$ that he did not secure an) loan from Ei)as! nor did he si$n or e9ecute an) contract of mort$a$e in its favor? that his wife! actin$ in conspirac) with Ei)as and the spouses Owe! who were the ones that benefited from the loan! made it appear that he si$ned the contract of mort$a$e? that he could not have e9ecuted the said contract because he was then workin$ abroad& Ei)as filed a 4otion to ismiss on the $round that 4oreno failed to compl) with -rticle 151 of the >amil) 0ode wherein it is provided that no suit between members of the same famil) shall prosper unless it should appear from the verified complaint or petition that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made! but that the same have failed& Ei)as contends that since the complaint does not contain an) fact or averment that earnest efforts toward a compromise had been made prior to its institution! then the complaint should be dismissed for lack of cause of action&

In'"&'$'" E&'$'" /) G/n6$#"& +& P"/2#"

- criminal complaint was filed a$ainst 8ato who alle$edl) committed estafa a$ainst his mother6in6 law& #n his 4otion to Uuash! he invoked the

(.212)

absolutor) cause in -rt 77. of the 'P0 e9emptin$ certain relatives b) affinit) from liabilit) for estafa& *he prosecution contends that the relationship contemplated in 'P0 -rt 77. was e9tin$uished b) the death of 8ato=s wife&

even after the dissolution of the marria$e that produced it as a result of the death of one of the parties to the said marria$e& *his view considers that! where statutes have indicated an intent to benefit step6 relatives or in6laws! the 1tie of affinit)1 between these people and their relatives6b)6marria$e is not to be re$arded as terminated upon the death of one of the married parties& *hus! for purposes of -rticle 77.(1) of the 'evised Penal 0ode! we hold that the relationship b) affinit) created between the survivin$ spouse and the blood relatives of the deceased spouse survives the death of either part) to the marria$e which created the affinit)&

FIII F$0.#1 H/0" P$'-.*./ +& D$-./ Perla Patricio sou$ht the partition of the famil) home after her husband died& 'espondent (.22;) 4arcelino ario ###! son of Patricio opposes on the $round that 4arcelino #:! his minor son and $randson of petitioner and decedent! still lives there&

*he intention of the law is to safe$uard and protect the interests of the $inor beneficiary until he reaches le$al a$e and would now be capable of supportin$ himself& @owever- t&ree re#uisites $ust concur before a $inor beneficiary is entitled to t&e benefits of (rt. *2A6 %*' t&e relations&ip enu$erated in (rt. *2B of t&e /a$ily CodeC %1' t&ey live in t&e fa$ily &o$e- and %D' t&ey are dependent for le"al support upon t&e &ead of t&e fa$ily. #n this case! the third re(uisite is not present& 4arcelino "orenzo '& ario #: is dependent on le$al support not from his $randmother! but from his father& *hus! despite residin$ in the famil) home and his bein$ a descendant of 4arcelino :& ario! 4arcelino "orenzo '& ario #: cannot be considered as beneficiar) contemplated under -rticle 153 because he did not fulfill the third re(uisite of bein$ dependent on his $randmother for le$al support& #t is his father whom he is dependent on le$al support! and who must now establish his own famil) home separate and distinct from that of his parents! bein$ of le$al a$e& #n the present case! the residential house and lot of petitioner was not constituted as a famil) home whether <udiciall) or e9tra<udiciall) under the 0ivil 0ode& #t became a famil) home b) operation of law onl) under -rticle 157 of the >amil) 0ode& #t is deemed constituted as a famil) home upon the effectivit) of the >amil) 0ode on -u$ust 7! 1988 not -u$ust 3! one )ear after its publication in the 4anila 0hronicle on -u$ust 3! 1985 (1988 bein$ a leap )ear)& *he contention of petitioner that it should be considered a famil) home from the time it was occupied b) petitioner and his famil) in 19;9 is not well6 taken& Fnder -rticle 1;. of the >amil) 0ode! it is provided that 1the provisions of this 0hapter shall also $overn e9istin$ famil) residences insofar as said provisions are applicable&1 #t does not mean that -rticles 15. and 157 of said 0ode have a retroactive effect such that all e9istin$ famil) residences are deemed to have been constituted as famil) homes at the time of their occupation prior to the effectivit) of the >amil) 0ode and are e9empt from e9ecution for the pa)ment of obli$ations incurred before the effectivit) of the >amil) 0ode& -rticle 1;. simpl) means that all e9istin$ famil) residences at the time of the effectivit) of the >amil) 0ode! are considered famil) homes and are prospectivel) entitled to the benefits accorded to a famil) home under the >amil) 0ode& -rticle 1;. does not state that the provisions of 0hapter .! *itle : have a retroactive effect& #s the famil) home of petitioner e9empt from e9ecution of the mone) <ud$ment aforecited /o& *he debt or liabilit) which was the basis of the <ud$ment arose or was incurred at the time of the vehicular accident on 4arch 1;! 195; and the mone) <ud$ment arisin$ therefrom was rendered b) the appellate court on Aanuar) .9! 1988& Goth preceded the effectivit) of the >amil) 0ode on -u$ust 7! 1988& *his case does not fall under the e9emptions from e9ecution provided in the >amil) 0ode& *he the >amil) Eome built on a land of a 7 rd part) can be sub<ect for e9ecution& >irst of all! a >amil) Eome must be constituted on the land of the head of the famil)! not on the land of a third part)& *here can be no (uestion that a famil) home is $enerall) e9empt from e9ecution! provided it was dul) constituted as such& #t is likewise a $iven that the famil) home must be constituted on propert) owned b) the persons constitutin$ it& #ndeed as pointed out in Belle)! Ar& v& Planters Products! #nc& 1P*Qhe famil) home must be part of the properties of the absolute communit) or the con<u$al partnership! or of the e9clusive properties of either spouse with the latter=s consent! or on the propert) of the unmarried head

M/d"<,.##/ +& 3-"+$ (1770)

Aan& .9! 1988Z a mone) <ud$ment arose from a vehicular accident to which petiitoner (to$ether with another person) were found liable to pa) private respondent -s a result! petitioner=s . parcels of land were levied! on one of the lands was the >amil) Eome of petitioner& Petitioner now contends that his house cannot be levied upon since it was constituted as a >amil) Eome when the >amil) 0ode took effect on -u$& 1988

0aban$ vs Gasa) (.229)

*he 0aban$s bou$ht a parcel of land which the) thou$t to be "ot /o& 5558& -s it turns out! it is "ot /o& 5555 so the 80 $ranted the land to the Gasa)s in a final decision *he case was remanded to the lower court to determined ri$hts of the 0aban$s under /00Z this is where the 0aban$s brou$ht up the claim that the

land was constituted as the >amil) Eome

R$0/& +& P$n4.#.n$n (.212)

*he home of petitioners was bein$ levied upon to satisf) a mone) <ud$ment arisin$ from a labor case&

ECUITA3LE PCI 3AN5, INC + O:-MAR5 TRADING, INC $nd SPOUSES MARTINE@ (.212)

8pouses 4artinez obtained loans from %(uitable and secured with a '%4 over their condo unit in :alle :erde 5 where the spouses are residin$& 4r& 4artinez si$ned as principal owner and as President of the re$istered owner and third6part) mort$a$or! OA64ark *radin$& *he spouses defaulted in their obli$ation& *he spouses offered to settle their debts with the assi$nment to the bank of a commercial lot of correspondin$ value& 4r& 4artinez failed to submit documents pertainin$ to said commercial lot and the bank was unable to evaluate the spouse=s proposal& %(uitable initiated an e9tra<udicial foreclosure on the '%4& 8pouses filed for a *'O! #n<unction and -nnulment of %9tra<udicial >oreclosure& '* $ranted the in<unction and 0- affirmed& e 4esa=s <ointl) purchased a propert) in Gulacan while the) were merel) cohabitin$ before their marria$e& - house was later constructed on the sub<ect propert)! which the petitioners thereafter

of the famil)&1 #n other words@ *he famil) home must be established on the properties of (a) the absolute communit)! or (b) the con<u$al partnership! or (c) the e9clusive propert) of either spouse with the consent of the other& #t cannot be established on propert) held in co6ownership with third persons& Eowever! it can be established partl) on communit) propert)! or con<u$al propert) and partl) on the e9clusive propert) of either spouse with the consent of the latter& #f the famil) home was constructed before the effectivit) of the >amil) 0ode or before -u$ust 7! 1988! then it must have been constituted either <udiciall) b) filin$ a verified petition before the courts and the re$istration of the court=s order with the 'e$istr) of eeds of the area where the propert) is located& %9tra<udiciall) b) the e9ecution of a public instrument which must also be re$istered with the 'e$istr) of Propert)& >ailure to compl) with either one of these two modes of constitution will bar a <ud$ment debtor from availin$ of the privile$e& >or famil) homes constructed after the effectivit) of the >amil) there is no need to constitute e9tra<udiciall) or <udiciall)! and the e9emption is effective from the time it was constituted and lasts as lon$ as an) of its beneficiaries under -rt& 153 actuall) resides therein& 4oreover! the famil) home should belon$ to the absolute communit) or con<u$al partnership! or if e9clusivel) b) one spouse! its constitution must have been with consent of the other! and its value must not e9ceed certain amounts dependin$ upon the area where it is located& >urther! the debts incurred for which the e9emption does not appl) as provided under -rt& 155 for which the famil) home is made answerable must have been incurred after -u$ust 7! 1988& -nd in both cases! whether under the 0ivil 0ode or the >amil) 0ode! it is not sufficient that the person claimin$ e9emption merel) alle$es that such propert) is a famil) home& *his claim for e9emption must be set up and proved In '!" 2-"&"n' *$&", &.n*" 2"'.'./n"-& *#$.0 '!$' '!" )$0.#1 !/0" %$& */n&'.','"d 2-./- '/ A,4,&' 3, 1788, /- $& "$-#1 $& 17BB, '!"1 0,&' */02#1 %.'! '!" 2-/*"d,-" 0$nd$'"d 91 '!" C.+.# C/d" *here bein$ absolutel) no proof that the Pandacan propert) was <udiciall) or e9tra<udiciall) constituted as the 'amos= famil) home! the law=s protective mantle cannot be availed of b) petitioners Petition $ranted& 0- reversed and set aside& #n<unction denied& *he 0ourt notes that the claim of e9emption under >0157! thereb) raisin$ the issue of whether the condo unit was a famil) home or a corporate propert)! is entirel) inconsistent with the clear contractual a$reement in the '%4& -ssumin$ it is a +famil) home,! the condo unit will not be e9empt from foreclosure! because >0 157 (7) allows the e9ecution or forced sale of a famil) home +for debts secured b) mort$a$es on the premises before or after such constitution&, *he spouses failed to show an ostensible ri$ht that needs protection of the in<unctive writ&

SPOUSES DE MESA + SPOUSES ACERO

Petition denied& -lthou$h the sub<ect propert) is a famil) home! .'& "E"02'./n )-/0 "E"*,'./n 0,&' 9" &"' ,2 $nd 2-/+"d '/ '!" S!"-.)) 9")/-" '!" &$#" /) '!" 2-/2"-'1 $' 2,9#.* $,*'./n

(.21.)

occupied as their famil) home after the) $ot married& 4rs& e 4esa obtained a loan from 4r& -cero secured b) an '%4 over the Gulacan propert)& 4rs& e 4esa paid with a check which was subse(uentl) dishonored& e 4esa=s failed to pa) the obli$ation despite repeated demands& -ceros filed GP .. a$ainst e 4esas& "atter was ac(uitted but ordered to pa) the obli$ation& Drit of e9ecution was issued over the propert) which was sold in auction? 4r& -cero was the hi$hest bidder& -ceros rented out the house to the e 4esas! who defaulted on pa)ment of rentals& %<ectment case was filed b) -ceros a$ainst e 4esas& e 4esas claim that the) are not mere lessors and are in fact the lawful owners of the propert)& 4*0 ordered e 4esas to vacate& e 4esas filed action to cancel -ceros *0* claimin$ that the propert) was a famil) home and cannot be the sub<ect of e9ecution& '*0 dismissed complaint& 0- affirmed sa)in$ that he e9emption of a famil) home from e9ecution! attachment or forced sale under -rticle 157 of the >amil) 0ode is not automatic and should accordin$l) be raised and proved to the 8heriff prior to the e9ecution! forced sale or attachment&

Dhile it is true that the famil) home is constituted on a house and lot from the time it is occupied as a famil) residence and is e9empt from e9ecution or forced sale under -rticle 157 of the >amil) 0ode! such claim for e9emption should be set up and proved to the 8heriff before the sale of the propert) at public auction& >ailure to do so would estop the part) from later claimin$ the e9emption& T!" &"''#"d -,#" .& '!$' '!" -.4!' '/ "E"02'./n /- )/-*"d &$#" ,nd"- A-'.*#" 1D3 /) '!" F$0.#1 C/d" .& $ 2"-&/n$# 2-.+.#"4" 4-$n'"d '/ '!" ;,d40"n' d"9'/- $nd $& &,*!, .' 0,&' 9" *#$.0"d n/' 91 '!" &!"-.)), 9,' 91 '!" d"9'/- !.0&"#) 9")/-" '!" &$#" /) '!" 2-/2"-'1 $' 2,9#.* $,*'./n #t is not sufficient that the person claimin$ e9emption merel) alle$es that such propert) is a famil) home& T!.& *#$.0 )/- "E"02'./n 0,&' 9" &"' ,2 $nd 2-/+"d '/ '!" S!"-.))

FIV P$'"-n.'1 $nd F.#.$'./n A C/n*"2' /) 2$'"-n.'1, ).#.$'./n $nd #"4.'.0$*1 AR3OLARIO + Petitioners contend that the 0ourt of -ppeals CA overstepped its bounds when it ruled that since respondents did not raise the issue of partition on (.227) appeal! the '*0 had no <urisdiction to divide the disputed lot& *he 0- held! however! that the partition of the propert) had not been contemplated b) the parties! because respondents merel) sou$ht recover) of possession of the parcel held b) the 8alha)s! while petitioners sou$ht the annulment of the eed of Partition respondents had entered into& G& "e$itimate children TAN + TROCIO 8chool owner and directress! >elicidad GariSan (1992) *an filed a complaint seekin$ disbarment of -tt)& Galileo *rocio for immoralit) and conduct unbecomin$ of a law)er& 8he alle$ed that *rocio!

Petitioners in this case were unable to establish an) ri$ht to partition! because the) had failed to establish that the) were le$itimate half6brothers and half6sisters of the deceased Purificacion& Uuestions as to the determination of the heirs of a decedent! the proof of filiation! and the determination of the estate of a decedent and claims thereto should be brou$ht up before the proper probate court or in special proceedin$s instituted for the purpose& 8uch issues cannot be ad<udicated in an ordinar) civil action for the recover) of ownership and possession&

0omplaint for disbarment #84#88% & *he court found insufficient basis for the alle$ations *he alle$ed threat to deport her husband could not hold because she admitted havin$ lost contact with

who is the le$al counsel of the school! overpowered her inside the office and a$ainst her will! succeeded in havin$ carnal knowled$e of her& -nd as a result! she be$ot a son whom she named Aewel *an& 8he further alle$ed that he used to support Aewel but subse(uentl) lost interest and stopped& 8he claimed she filed the complaint onl) after 8 )ears from the incident because of *rocio threatened her with the deportation of her alien husband and due to the fact that she was married with ei$ht children&

her husband when he learned of the respondent=s trans$ression that ver) same evenin$& *he fear had thus become ine9istent %ven after the alle$ed incident! she continued havin$ dealin$s with the respondentMwith *rocio actin$ as her personal and famil)=s le$al counselMas thou$h nothin$ happened& 0omplainant=s contention that 'espondent continued supportin$ the child for several )ears for which reason she desisted from char$in$ him criminall)! has not been substantiate& #n fact! the fact that she kept her peace for so man) )ears can even be construed as condonation& #t is likewise stran$e that an unwanted son! as the child would normall) have been! should! of all names! be called +Aewel&, Ditness! %lueteria=s (domestic help) testimon) did not hold as how near she was to the crime scene! considerin$ it alle$edl) happened in school premises! has not been shown& *estimonies of >elicidad and witness 4arilou (another domestic help) to show unusual closeness between *rocio and Aewel! like pla)in$ with him and $ivin$ him to)s! are not convincin$ enou$h to prove paternit)& Pictures of Aewel and *rocio showin$ alle$edl) their ph)sical likeness to each other is inconclusive evidence to prove paternit)! and much less would it prove violation of 0omplainant=s person 4ore importantl)! :"%"# T$n %$& 9/-n d,-.n4 '!" %"d#/*( /) C/02#$.n$n' $nd !"- !,&9$nd $nd '!" 2-"&,02'./n &!/,#d 9" .n )$+/- /) #"4.'.0$*1 ,n#"&& 2!1&.*$# $**"&& 9"'%""n '!" */,2#" %$& .02/&&.9#" >rom the evidence on hand! the presumption has not been overcome b) ade(uate and convincin$ proof& #n fact! Aewel was re$istered in his birth certificate as the le$itimate child of the >elicidad and her husband! *an "e Pok& Petition $ranted& 80 ruled that -leli isn=t the le$itimate child of >rancisco because the marria$e of her mom and >rancisco wasn=t proven! no marria$e certificate presented (/8O certified[)! no priest was presented as witness and none of the witnesses could affirm the marria$e /o testimon) that Genoveva and >rancisco presented themselves in public as husband and wife& -leli=s weddin$ picture showin$ >rancisco $ivin$ her awa) is insufficient >rancisco also didn=t si$n -leli=s birth certificate! thus she wasn=t even a reco$nized child if dad didn=t si$n birth certificate! no presumption of le$itimac)& Onl) Ae)l)nn is the le$itimate child of Pablo thus she is entitled to a monthl) pension& Ae)l)nn=s claim is <ustified b) the photocop) of her birth certificate which bears the si$nature of Pablo& Petitioner was able to authenticate the certification from the 0ivil 'e$istr) showin$ that she was born on October .9! 1991& *he records also show that 'osanna and Pablo were married on ecember 3! 1955 and the marria$e subsisted until the latter=s death on ecember 8! 199;& #t is therefore evident that Ae)l)nn was born durin$ 'osanna and Pablo=s marria$e& #t bears stressin$ that under -rticle 1;3 of the >amil) 0ode! children conceived or born durin$ the marria$e of the parents are le$itimate& *he presumption that Ae)lnn is a le$itimate child is buttressed b) her birth certificate bearin$ Pablo=s si$nature! which was verified from his specimen si$nature on file with petitioner& - birth certificate si$ned b) the father is a competent evidence of paternit)& *he presumption of le$itimac) under -rticle 1;3! however! can not e9tend to Aanet because her date of birth was not substantiall) proven& *he 0ourt cannot $ive Aanet=s birth certificate the same probative wei$ht as Ae)lnn=s because it was not verified in an) wa) b) the civil re$ister& #n an) case! a record of

ANGELES + MAGLAYA (.225)

-leli 4a$la)a petitioned before '*060aloocan that she be appointed as administrati9 of >rancisco=s estate claimin$ that she is his sole le$itimate child with Genoveva and Gelen -n$eles is onl) .nd wife? her parents wed in 1978? mother died in 1988& Gelen opposed and petitioned to be the administrati9 alle$in$ that when she married him he was sin$le! he did not si$n her -leli=s birth certificate and -leli did not present her parent=s marria$e certificate nor an) proof of such union& *he) wed in 1938&

SSS + A4,$& (.22;)

'*0 favored Gelen& 0- favored -leli& 'ossana! Pablo=s survivin$ spouse! filed a claim with 888 for death benefits indicatin$ therein that Pablo was likewise survived b) his minor child! Ae)l)nn& Pablo=s sister! in a sworn letter to 888! contested the claim alle$in$ that 'ossana left Pablo ; )ears a$o and lived with another man and that Pablo had no le$al children& Aanet! who also claimed to be the child of Pablo and 'osanna! <oined as claimant& #n Aanet=s birth certificate! which was re$istered in the 0ivil 'e$istr) of 8an >ernando! it appears that her father was Pablo and her mother was 'osanna& *he claimants averred that Ae)l)nn was a

R.+"-$ + H".-& /) V.##$n,"+$ (.22;)

le$itimate child of Pablo as evidenced b) her birth certificate bearin$ Pablo=s si$nature as Ae)l)nn=s father& Petitioners are alle$edl) the half6brothers! the half6 sister6in6law! and the children of a half6brother of the deceased Gonzales& 'espondents are heirs of :illanueva& 'espondent -n$elina is alle$edl) the dau$hter of :illanueva& >rom 19.5 until her death in 1982! Gonzales cohabited with :illanueva without the benefit of marria$e because the latter was married to one 4usn$i who died on 19;7& #n the course of their cohabitation! the) ac(uired several properties includin$ the properties contested in this case& Gonzales died without leavin$ a will& :illanueva and -n$elina e9ecuted a deed of e9tra<udicial partition with sale! that is! an e9tra<udicial settlement of GonzalesL estate comprisin$ a number of the properties& #n this document! :illanueva! for the amount of P72!222 conve)ed his interests in the estate to -n$elina& Petitioners filed a case for partition of GonzalesL estate and annulment of titles and dama$es in the '*0&

birth is merel) prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein& Eere! the witnesses were unanimous in sa)in$ that Aanet was not the real child but merel) adopted b) 'osanna and Pablo& Fnder 8ec& 8(e) of '- 11;1! as amended! onl) 1le$all) adopted1 children are considered dependent children& -n$elina is not a le$itimate child of Gonzales thus she cannot inherit from Gonzales - closer e9amination of the birth certificate reveals that -n$elina was listed as 1adopted1 b) both :illanueva and Gonzales& Gut definitel)! '!" 0"-" -"4.&'-$'./n /) $ *!.#d .n !.& /- !"- 9.-'! *"-'.).*$'" $& '!" *!.#d /) '!" &,22/&"d 2$-"n'& .& n/' $ +$#.d $d/2'./n, d/"& n/' */n)"- ,2/n '!" *!.#d '!" &'$',& /) $n $d/2'"d *!.#d $nd '!" #"4$# -.4!'& /) &,*! *!.#d, and even amounts to simulation of the childLs birth or falsification of his or her birth certificate! which is a public document& Gonzales is 33 )ears old! and on the ver$e of menopause at the time of the alle$ed birth& Gonzales had been livin$ childless with :illanueva for .2 )ears& Fnder the circumstances! we hold that it was not sufficientl) established that -n$elina was GonzalesL biolo$ical dau$hter! nor even her adopted dau$hter&

D.$6 + CA (1983)

1 W!/ $-" */n&.d"-"d #"4.'.0$'" *!.#d-"n A L"4.'.0$'" 2-/2"($) C/n*".+"d d,-.n4 0$--.$4" 1 V$#.d 0$--.$4" 2 T"-0.n$'"d 0$--.$4" ,nd"- FC B2 .n -"# '/ FC B3(1) 3 V/.d 0$--.$4"& ,nd"- FC D3, 3= B V/.d$9#" 0$--.$4"& (9) 3/-n d,-.n4 0$--.$4" (*) C/n*".+"d 91 $-'.).*.$# .n&"0.n$'./n 2 P-//) /) F.#.$'./n ($) O) #"4.'.0$'" *!.#d-"n #8# 'O! who died in 1911! was survived b) 12 "eode$ario is a le$itimate child of #sidro& children& >#"O4%/- (/o& 9) was a le$itimate child! her mother bein$ 0ali9ta! wife of #8# 'O& 5 *he preponderance of evidence sustains a findin$ of "eode$arioLs le$itimac)& children were ille$itimate children of #8# 'O with Eis school records from the F8*! as a senior student in the 0olle$e of "aw show that he was enrolled his mistress& as 1"eode$ario -zarra$a ) Lo)ada1& -lthou$h those records b) themselves are not proof of le$itimate "%O %G-'#O (/o& 8) died intestate! leavin$ filiation! the) constitute stron$ evidence thereof& neither survivin$ spouse nor descendants& Ee had *rue! his 0ertificate of -dmission to the Philippine Gar on -pril 1;! 1923 names him simpl) as properties in 0apiz& 4-'#- filed - petition for the 1"eode$ario ()arra"a1& #t cannot be concluded therefrom! however! that he was not the le$itimate son issuance of "etters of -dministration in her& of #sidro -zarra$a and 0ali9ta Lo)ada& *he several letters wherein he si$ned simpl) as 1"eode$ario -mador -zarra$a filed a formal opposition pra)in$ -zarra$a1 neither disprove le$itimac)& %ven nowada)s! the droppin$ of the maternal surname in that he! instead of 4-'#-! be appointed as correspondence or written documents is commonplace for convenience andRor brevit)& -dministrator& 0># appointed 4aria& *he "ast Dill and *estament of Pastora which! althou$hstandin$ alone does not establish %duardo! heir of the ori$inal oppositor! filed before %0% %/*Ls le$itimac)! enhances that conclusion& *he Dill was dul) probated without ob<ection and the 0># a petition to remove 4-'#-& %duardo and specificall) indicates that the "eode$ario (/o& 8)! Pastora (/o& 12) and >ilomena (/o& 9) are 1brother his brothers! sisters! nephews and nieces and sisters of the full blood the) bein$ children of #sidro -zarra$ and 0ali9ta "ozada1& (respondents) filed a petition for declaration as #n the narration of facts in the case of 8ison v& -zarra$a! it was shown that "eode$ario had alread)

T.&/n + CA (1995)

"eo$edario=s heirs& 4-'#- claims that "%O %G-'#O (/o& 8) to be the brother in full blood of her mother >#"O4%/- (/o& 9) and of her aunt P-8*O'- (/o& 12)& 'espondents claim that "%O %G-'#O (/o& 8) was the ille$itimate son of #8# 'O and hence! the brother in full blood of 5 children& *he) further claim that Pastora (/o& 12) was an ille$itimate dau$hter of #8# 'O and one Guadalupe& *eodora died with no children! leavin$ the propert) in (uestion to his husband! 4artin and to the heirs of his deceased brother! *ison and ezoller& 4artin e9ecuted an -ffidavit of %9tra<udicial 8ettlement! ad<udicatin$ unto himself! alle$edl) as sole heir! the land in dispute& 4artin sold the lot to omin$o& 4artin died& *ison and ezoller filed an action for reconve)ance claimin$ that the) are entitled to inherit one6half of the propert) in (uestion b) ri$ht of representation& omin$o filed a demurrer to evidence citin$ that the) fall short of the re(uirements set b) -rt& 15. >0&

received his share of the inheritance but that he was also appointed e9ecutor of his father #sidroLs estate! as well as a $uardian of petitioner and her brother Aesus&

*he evidence presented b) *ison and ezoller satisfied the (uantum of proof mandated b) -rt& 15. >0 *he le$itimac) of the child cannot be contested b) wa) of defense or as a collateral issue in another action for a different purpose& *his principle applies under our >amil) 0ode& -rticles 152 and 151 of the code confirm this view! because the) refer to 1the action to impu$n the le$itimac)&1 *his action can be brou$ht onl) b) the husband or his heirs and within the periods fi9ed in the present articles& Fpon the e9piration of the periods provided in -rticle 152! the action to impu$n the le$itimac) of a child can no lon$er be brou$ht& *he status conferred b) the presumption! therefore! becomes fi9ed! and can no lon$er be (uestioned& *he primar) proof to be considered in ascertainin$ the relationship between the parties concerned is the testimon) of 0orazon *ison to the effect that *eodora in her lifetime! or sometime in 193;! cate$oricall) declared that the former is *eodoraLs niece& 8uch a statement is considered a declaration about pedi$ree which is admissible! as an e9ception to the hearsa) rule! under 8ection 79! 'ule 172! sub<ect to the followin$ conditions@ (1) that the declarant is dead or unable to testif)? (.) that the declarant be related to the person whose pedi$ree is the sub<ect of in(uir)? (7) that such relationship be shown b) evidence other than the declaration? and (3) that the declaration was made ante lite$ $ota$! that is! not onl) before the commencement of the suit involvin$ the sub<ect matter of the declaration! but before an) controvers) has arisen thereon& -rturio is a le$itimate child of #nocentes& -rturio secured a certification from the Office of the 0ivil 'e$istrar of -klan that all records of births! deaths and marria$es were lost! burned or destro)ed durin$ the Aapanese occupation of said municipalit)& *his fact! however! is not fatal to petitionerLs case& -lthou$h the marria$e contract is considered the primar) evidence of the marital union! -rturioLs failure to present it is not proof that no marria$e took place! as other forms of relevant evidence ma) take its place& #n place of a marria$e contract! two witnesses were presented b) petitioner@ #sabel 4eren! who testified that she was present durin$ the nuptial of >elicidad and #nocentes? and Aovita Gerardo! who testified that the couple deported themselves as husband and wife after the marria$e& Gerardo! the 556)ear old baran$a) captain of *i$a)on and former board member of the local parent6teachersL association! used to visit #nocentes and >elicidadLs house twice or thrice a week& Gerardo dropped b) #nocentesL house when >elicidad $ave birth to -rturio& 8he also attended -rturioLs baptismal part) held at the same house& Eer testimon) constitutes evidence of common reputation respectin$ marria$e& #t further $ives rise to the disputable presumption that a man and a woman deportin$ themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marria$e& -rturio also presented his baptismal certificate in which #nocentes and >elicidad were named as the childLs father and mother and two famil) pictures& -lthou$h a baptismal certificate is indeed not a conclusive proof of filiation! it is one of 1the other means allowed under the 'ules of 0ourt and special laws1 to show pedi$ree& >urthermore! -rturio consistentl) used #nocentesL surname (*rinidad) without ob<ection from >eli9 and "ourdes M a presumptive proof of his status as #nocentesL le$itimate child& /O& *here is perhaps no presumption of the law more firml) established and founded on sounder moralit)

T-.n.d$d + CA (1998)

Patricio died! leavin$ 3 parcels of land to his 7 children! #nocentes! "ourdes and >eli9& -rturio demanded from >eli9 and "ourdes to partition the land into 7 e(ual shares and to $ive him the 1R7 individual share of his late father! #ncocentes! but the) refused& -rturio filed an action for partition& >eli9 and "ourdes denied that -rturio was the son of #nocentes and claimed that #nocentes was sin$le when he died& -s proof that he is the son of #nocentes and >elicidad! -rturio presented a certificate of baptism and e9plained that his birth certificate was burned durin$ Dorld Dar . and that he has a certificate of loss issued b) the 0ivil 'e$istrar of Balibo! -klan&

D" :"&,& +& E&'$'" /) D.6/n O*' 2, 2001

>acts@ -u$ .7! 19;3 T anilo de Aesus and 0arolina de Aesus were married&

0arolina? however! alle$edl) had an affair with Auan G& izon! a married man with kids& urin$ the subsistence of 0arolina and anilo=s marria$e! Aac(ueline -& de Aesus and Ainkie 0hristie -& de Aesus! herein petitioners! were born& Aune 5 1991! Auan G& izon acknowled$ed Aac(ueline and Ainkie de Aesus as his own ille$itimate children with 0arolina -ves de Aesus in a notarized document 1. 4arch 199. T Auan izon died& #t was on the stren$th of his notarized acknowled$ment that petitioners filed a complaint for +Partition with #nventor) and -ccountin$, of the izon estate 'espondents! the survivin$ spouse and le$itimate children of the decedent Auan G& izon! includin$ the corporations of which the deceased was a stockholder! sou$ht the dismissal of the case! ar$uin$ that the complaint! even while denominated as bein$ one for partition! would nevertheless call for alterin$ the status of petitioners from bein$ the le$itimate children of the spouses anilo de Aesus and 0arolina de Aesus to instead be the ille$itimate children of 0arolina de Aesus and deceased Auan izon&

and more convincin$ reason than the presumption that children born in wedlock are le$itimate& *his presumption indeed becomes */n*#,&.+" in the absence of proof that there is ph)sical impossibilit) of access between the spouses durin$ the first 1.2 da)s of the 722 da)s which immediatel) precedes the birth of the child 8uccinctl)! in an attempt to establish their ille$itimate filiation to the late Auan G& izon! petitioners! in effect! would impu$n their le$itimate status as bein$ children of anilo de Aesus and 0arolina -ves de Aesus& *his step cannot be aptl) done because the law itself establishes the le$itimac) of children conceived or born durin$ the marria$e of the parents& T!" 2-"&,02'./n /) #"4.'.0$*1 ).E"& $ *.+.# &'$',& )/- '!" *!.#d 9/-n .n %"d#/*(, $nd /n#1 '!" )$'!"-, /- .n "E*"2'./n$# .n&'$n*"& '!" #$''"-G& !".-&, *$n */n'"&' .n $n $22-/2-.$'" $*'./n '!" #"4.'.0$*1 /) $ *!.#d 9/-n '/ !.& %.)" T!,&, .' .& /n#1 %!"n '!" #"4.'.0$*1 /) $ *!.#d !$& 9""n &,**"&&),##1 .02,4n"d '!$' '!" 2$'"-n.'1 /) '!" !,&9$nd *$n 9" -";"*'"d *he rule that the written acknowled$ment made b) the deceased Auan G& izon establishes petitioners= alle$ed ille$itimate filiation to the decedent cannot be validl) invoked to be of an) relevance in this instance& *his issue! i&e&! whether petitioners are indeed the acknowled$ed ille$itimate offsprin$s of the decedent! cannot be aptl) ad<udicated without an action havin$ been first been instituted to impu$n their le$itimac) as bein$ the children of anilo G& de Aesus and 0arolina -ves de Aesus born in lawful wedlock& Aurisprudence is stron$l) settled that the paramount declaration of le$itimac) b) law cannot be attacked collaterall)! one that can onl) be repudiated or contested in a direct suit specificall) brou$ht for that purpose& #ndeed! a child so born in such wedlock shall be considered le$itimate althou$h the mother ma) have declared a$ainst its le$itimac) or ma) have been sentenced as havin$ been an adulteress&

#88F%@ DO/ Aink) and Aac(uelin can file the petition as izon=s ille$itimate children& ESTATE OF ROGELIO G ONG, +"-&,& M.n/- :OANNE ROD:IN DIA@, R"2-"&"n'"d 91 H"- M/'!"- $nd G,$-d.$n, :.n(1 C D.$6, R"&2/nd"n' 200> D"* 1> N3K T!" &'$'"0"n'& 91 '!" SC .n '!.& *$&" %.'! -"&2"*' '/ ).#.$'./n %"-" 0$d" /n#1 $& ;,&'.).*$'./n& )/- '!" ,&" /) DNA '"&'.n4 $& $ 0"$n& '/ 2-/+" /- d.&2-/+" 2$'"-n.'1 T!" -,#"& /n ).#.$'./n %"-" n/' ,&"d d.-"*'#1 '/ -"&/#+" '!" 0$.n .&&," .n '!.& *$&" 1& .& 7& #n /ovember 1997 in *arlac 0it)! Aink) and 'o$elio $ot ac(uainted& *his developed into friendship and later blossomed into love& -t this time! Aink) was alread) married to a Aapanese national! Ease$awa Batsuo! in a civil weddin$ solemnized on 19 >ebruar) 1997& >rom Aanuar) 1993 to 8eptember 1998! Aink) and 'o$elio cohabited and lived to$ether >rom this live6in relationship! minor HELDK /o& 8%0& 3& -pplication for /- *estin$ Order& T *he appropriate court ma)! at an) time! either motu proprio or on application of an) person who has a le$al interest in the matter in liti$ation! order a /testin$& 8uch order shall issue after due hearin$ and notice to the parties upon a showin$ of the followin$@ (a) - biolo$ical sample e9ists that is relevant to the case? V99 >rom the fore$oin$! it can be said that the death of the petitioner does not ipso facto ne$ate the application of /- testin$ for $& #/n4 $& '!"-" "E.&' $22-/2-.$'" 9./#/4.*$# &$02#"& /) !.& DNA& -s defined above! the term +biolo$ical sample, means an) or$anic material ori$inatin$ from a person=s bod)! even if found in inanimate ob<ects! that is susceptible to /- testin$& *his includes blood! saliva! and other bod) fluids! tissues! hairs and bones&P.9Q *hus! even if 'o$elio alread) died! an) of the biolo$ical samples as enumerated above as ma) be

3& 5&

;&

5& 8& 9&

Aoanne 'od<in iaz was conceived and on .5 >ebruar) 1998 was born #n 8eptember 1998! 'o$elio abandoned minor Aoanne and Aink)! and stopped supportin$ minor Aoanne! falsel) alle$in$ that he is not the father of the child 8he filed a case for reco$nition and support pendent lite *he 0- remanded the case to the '*0 for the parties to under$o /- testin$& *he petitioner (uestions the remand sa)in$ that 'o$elio is alread) dead therefore! no biolo$ical sample ma) an)more be taken /-

available! ma) be used for /- testin$& #n this case! petitioner has not shown the impossibilit) of obtainin$ an appropriate biolo$ical sample that can be utilized for the conduct of /- testin$& D.&*,&&./n /n F.#.$'./nK >iliation proceedin$s are usuall) filed not <ust to ad<udicate paternit) but also to secure a le$al ri$ht associated with paternit)! such as citizenship! support (as in the present case)! or inheritance& *he burden of provin$ paternit) is on the person who alle$es that the putative father is the biolo$ical father of the child& *here are four si$nificant procedural aspects of a traditional paternit) action which parties have to face@ a prima facie case! affirmative defenses! presumption of le$itimac)! and ph)sical resemblance between the putative father and child&P.2Q - child born to a husband and wife durin$ a valid marria$e is presumed le$itimate&P.1Q -s a $uarant) in favor of the child and to protect his status of le$itimac)! -rticle 1;5 of the >amil) 0ode provides@ -rticle 1;5& *he children shall be considered le$itimate althou$h the mother ma) have declared a$ainst its le$itimac) or ma) have been sentenced as an adulteress& *he law re(uires that ever) reasonable presumption be made in favor of le$itimac)& *he presumption of le$itimac) of the child! however! is not conclusive and conse(uentl)! ma) be overthrown b) evidence to the contrar)& Eence! -rticle .55 of the /ew 0ivil 0odeP.7Q provides@ -rticle .55& 0hildren born after one hundred and ei$ht) da)s followin$ the celebration of the marria$e! and before three hundred da)s followin$ its dissolution or the separation of the spouses shall be presumed to be le$itimate& -$ainst this presumption no evidence shall be admitted other than that of the ph)sical impossibilit) of the husband=s havin$ access to his wife within the first one hundred and twent) da)s of the three hundred which preceded the birth of the child& *his ph)sical impossibilit) ma) be caused@ 1) G) the impotence of the husband? .) G) the fact that husband and wife were livin$ separatel) in such a wa) that access was not possible? 7) G) the serious illness of the husband&P.3Q *he relevant provisions of the >amil) 0ode provide as follows@ -'*& 15.& *he filiation of le$itimate children is established b) an) of the followin$@ (1) *he record of birth appearin$ in the civil re$ister or a final <ud$ment? or (.) -n admission of le$itimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and si$ned b) the parent concerned& #n the absence of the fore$oin$ evidence! the le$itimate filiation shall be proved b)@ (1) *he open and continuous possession of the status of a le$itimate child? or (.) An1 /'!"- 0"$n& $##/%"d 91 '!" R,#"& /) C/,-' $nd &2"*.$# #$%& -'*& 155& #lle$itimate children ma) establish their ille$itimate filiation in the same wa) and on the same evidence as le$itimate children& *here had been diver$ent and incon$ruent statements and assertions bandied about b) the parties to

ISSUEK #s the death of the part) bein$ sub<ected to testin$ fatal to the /- testsC

the present petition& Gut with the advancement in the field of $enetics! and the availabilit) of new technolo$)! it can now be determined with reasonable certaint) whether 'o$elio is the biolo$ical father of the minor! throu$h /- testin$& THE REPU3LIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner! vs& NORA FE SAGUN, 'espondent& F"9-,$-1 1D, 2012 FACTSK 1& 'espondent is the le$itimate child of -lbert 8& 0han! a 0hinese national! and 4arta Gorromeo! a >ilipino citizen& a& 8he was born on -u$ust 8! 1959 in Ga$uio 0it) and b& did not elect Philippine citizenship upon reachin$ the a$e of ma<orit)& .& #n 199.! at the a$e of 77 and after $ettin$ married to -le9 8a$un! she e9ecuted an Oath of -lle$iance to the 'epublic of the Philippines& 7& 8ometime in 8eptember .225! respondent applied for a Philippine passport& 3& Eer application was denied due to the citizenship of her father and there bein$ no annotation on her birth certificate that she has elected Philippine citizenship& 5& 0onse(uentl)! she sou$ht a <udicial declaration of her election of Philippine citizenship and pra)ed that the "ocal 0ivil 'e$istrar of Ga$uio 0it) be ordered to annotate the same on her birth certificate& ISSUEK 8hould 8a$un be issued a <udicial declaration of her election of Philippine citizenshipC /O Dhen respondent was born on -u$ust 8! 1959! the $overnin$ charter was the 1975 0onstitution& 8ec& 1! -rt& #: of the 1975 0onstitution reads@ 8ection 1& *he followin$ are citizens of the Philippines@ 9999 (3) *hose whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and! upon reachin$ the a$e of ma<orit)! elect Philippine citizenship& Gein$ a le$itimate child! respondent=s citizenship followed that of her father who is 0hinese! unless upon reachin$ the a$e of ma<orit)! she elects Philippine citizenship& #t is a settled rule that /n#1 #"4.'.0$'" *!.#d-"n )/##/% '!" *.'.6"n&!.2 /) '!" )$'!"- and that .##"4.'.0$'" *!.#d-"n $-" ,nd"- '!" 2$-"n'$# $,'!/-.'1 /) '!" 0/'!"- $nd )/##/% !"- n$'./n$#.'1& -n ille$itimate child of >ilipina need not perform an) act to confer upon him all the ri$hts and privile$es attached to citizens of the Philippines? he automaticall) becomes a citizen himself& Gut in the case of respondent! for her to be considered a >ilipino citizen! she must have validl) elected Philippine citizenship upon reachin$ the a$e of ma<orit)& *he mere e9ercise of suffra$e! continuous and uninterrupted sta) in the Philippines! and other similar acts showin$ e9ercise of Philippine citizenship cannot take the place of election of Philippine citizenship& A## '!$' .& -"<,.-"d /) '!" "#"*'/- .& '/ "E"*,'" $n $)).d$+.' /) "#"*'./n /) P!.#.22.n" *.'.6"n&!.2 $nd, '!"-"$)'"-, ).#" '!" &$0" %.'! '!" n"$-"&' *.+.# -"4.&'-1 Eavin$ failed to compl) with the fore$oin$ re(uirements! respondent=s petition before the trial court must be denied& A#&/ .02/-'$n' $#'!/,4! n/' ,nd"- '!" '/2.* /) #"4.'.0$*1K >or sure! this 0ourt has consistentl) ruled that '!"-" .& n/ 2-/*""d.n4 "&'$9#.&!"d 91 #$%, /- '!" R,#"& )/- '!" ;,d.*.$# d"*#$-$'./n /) '!" *.'.6"n&!.2 /) $n .nd.+.d,$# & *here is no specific le$islation authorizin$ the institution of a <udicial proceedin$ to declare that a $iven person is part of our citizenr)& Fnder our laws! there can be no action or proceedin$ for the <udicial declaration of the citizenship of an individual& 0ourts of <ustice e9ist for settlement of <usticiable controversies! which impl) a $iven ri$ht! le$all) demandable and enforceable! an act or omission violative of said ri$ht! and a remed)! $ranted or sanctioned b) law! for said breach of ri$ht& -s an .n*.d"n' onl) of the ad<udication of the ri$hts of the parties to a controvers)! the court ma) pass upon! and make a pronouncement relative to their status& Otherwise! such a pronouncement is be)ond <udicial power& 0learl)! it was erroneous for the trial court to make a specific declaration of respondent=s >ilipino citizenship as &,*! 2-/n/,n*"0"n' %$& n/' %.'!.n '!" */,-'G& */02"'"n*"&

EUGENIO R REYES, ;/.n"d 91 TIMOTHY :OSEPH M REYES, MA

3 R.4!'& /) L"4.'.0$'" *!.#d-"n 1 A*'./n '/ .02,4n #"4.'.0$*1 FACTSK 1& %u$enio 'e)es (%u$enio) was the re$istered owner of the sub<ect parcel of land .& *he sub<ect propert) was ad<udicated to

/O %u$enio cannot collaterall) attack the status of "eonida in the instant petition& #t is settled law that filiation cannot be collaterall) attacked& T!" #"4.'.0$*1 /) '!" *!.#d *$nn/' 9"

GRACIA S REYES, ROMAN GA3RIEL M REYES, $nd MA ANGELA S REYES, Petitioners! vs& LI3RADA F MAURICIO (d"*"$&"d) $nd LEONIDA F MAURICIO, 'espondents& N/+"09"- 2B, 2010

7& 3&

5&

;&

5&

%u$enio b) virtue of an e9tra<udicial settlement amon$ the heirs followin$ the death of his parents& 8pouses Godofredo and private respondent "ibrada were tenants in the sub<ect parcel of land& -fter Godofredo died! 'e)es and "ibrada alle$edl) e9ecuted a Basunduan wherein the "ibrada alle$edl) waived all her tenanc) ri$hts& -fter "ibrada died! "eonida (alle$ed dau$hter of Godofredo and "ibrada) filed the instant case to annul the Basunduan& 8he ar$ues that a& %u$enio took undue advanta$e of the weakness! a$e! illiterac)! i$norance! indi$ence and other handicaps of "ibrada in the e9ecution of the Basunduan renderin$ it void for lack of consent? 'e)es (uestioned "eonida=s standin$ to sue in this case& Ee ar$ues@ a& the complaint was rendered moot with the death of "ibrada! Godofredo=s sole compulsor) heir& %u$enio contended that "eonida is a mere ward of Godofredo and "ibrada! thus! not a le$al heir& "eonida countered that her le$itimac) cannot be impu$ned in this action&

*/n'"&'"d 91 %$1 /) d")"n&" /- $& $ */##$'"-$# .&&," .n $n/'!"- $*'./n )/- $ d.))"-"n' 2,-2/&" *he necessit) of an independent action directl) impu$nin$ the le$itimac) is more clearl) e9pressed in the 4e9ican code (article 775) which provides@ 1*he contest of the le$itimac) of a child b) the husband or his heirs must be made b) proper complaint before the competent court? an) contest made in an) other wa) is void&1 *his principle applies under our >amil) 0ode& -rticles 152 and 151 of the code confirm this view! because the) refer to 1the action to impu$n the le$itimac)&1 *his action can be brou$ht onl) b) the husband or his heirs and within the periods fi9ed in the present articles& #n Graza v& 0it) 0ivil 'e$istrar of Eimama)lan 0it)! /e$ros Occidental! the 0ourt stated that le$itimac) and filiation can be (uestioned onl) in a direct action seasonabl) filed b) the proper part)! and not throu$h collateral attack& T!" &$0" -,#" .& $22#."d '/ $d/2'./n such that it cannot also be made sub<ect to a collateral attack& #n 'e)es v& 8otero! this 0ourt reiterated that adoption cannot be assailed collaterall) in a proceedin$ for the settlement of a decedent=s estate& >urthermore! in -ustria v& 'e)es! the 0ourt declared that the le$alit) of the adoption b) the testatri9 can be assailed onl) in a separate action brou$ht for that purpose and cannot be sub<ect to collateral attack&

ISSUEK DR/ "eonida=s le$itimac) ma) be impu$ned in an action to annul a contract REPU3LIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner! vs& :ULIAN EDWARD EMERSON COSETENGMAGPAYO (A 5 A :ULIAN EDWARD EMERSON MARCUE@-LIM COSETENG), FACTSK 1& Gorn in 4akati on 8eptember 9! 195.! Aulian %dward %merson 0oseten$ 4a$pa)o (respondent) is the son of >ulvio 4& 4a$pa)o Ar& and -nna omini(ue 4ar(uez6"im 0oseten$ who! as respondent=s certificate of live birth shows! contracted marria$e on 4arch .;! 195.& .& 0laimin$! however! that his parents were never le$all) married! respondent filed on Aul) ..! .228 at the 'e$ional *rial 0ourt ('*0) of Uuezon 0it) a Petition to *!$n4" !.& n$0" to Aulian %dward %merson 4ar(uez "im 0oseten$& 7& *he notice settin$ the petition for hearin$ O%8 Dhen a petition for cancellation or correction of an entr) in the civil re$ister involves substantial and controversial alterations includin$ those on citizenship! le$itimac) of paternit) or filiation! or le$itimac) of marria$e! a strict compliance with the re(uirements of 'ule 128 of the 'ules of 0ourt is mandated& *he chan$e bein$ sou$ht in respondent=s petition $oes so far as to affect his le$al status in relation to his parents& #t seeks to chan$e his le$itimac) to that of ille$itimac)& 'ule 127 (0han$e of /ame) then would not suffice to $rant respondent=s supplication& "aba)o6'owe v& 'epublic cate$oricall) holds that 1chan$es which ma) affect the civil status from le$itimate to ille$itimate & & & are substantial and controversial alterations which can onl) be allowed after appropriate adversar) proceedin$s & & &1 8ince respondent=s desired chan$e affects his civil status from le$itimate to ille$itimate! 'ule 128

'espondent& F"9-,$-1 2, 2011 3& 5&

on /ovember .2! .228 was published in the newspaper Groadside& -nd a cop) of the notice was furnished the Office of the 8olicitor General (O8G)& *he 'epublic contends that the deletion of the entr) on the date and place of marria$e of respondent=s parents from his birth certificate has the effect of chan$in$ his civil status from le$itimate to ille$itimate! hence! an) chan$e in civil status of a person must be effected throu$h an appropriate adversar) proceedin$&

applies& #t reads@ 8%0*#O/ 1& Dho ma) file petition&M-n) person interested in an) act! event! order or decree concernin$ the civil status of persons which has been recorded in the civil re$ister! ma) file a verified petition for the cancellation or correction of an) entr) relatin$ thereto! with the P'*0Q of the province where the correspondin$ civil re$istr) is located& 9999 8%0& 7& Parties&MDhen cancellation or correction of an entr) in the civil re$ister is sou$ht! the civil re$istrar and all persons who have or claim an) interest which would be affected thereb) shall be made parties to the proceedin$& 'ule 128 clearl) directs that a petition which concerns one=s civil status should be filed in the civil re$istr) in which the entr) is sou$ht to be cancelled or corrected T that of 4akati in the present case! and 1all persons who have or claim an) interest which would be affected thereb)1 should be made parties to the proceedin$& -s earlier stated! however! the petition of respondent was filed not in 4akati where his birth certificate was re$istered but in Uuezon 0it)& -nd as the above6mentioned title of the petition filed b) respondent before the '*0 shows! neither the civil re$istrar of 4akati nor his father and mother were made parties thereto& -side from the Office of the 8olicitor General! all other indispensable parties should have been made respondents& *he) include not onl) the declared father of the child but the child as well! to$ether with the paternal $randparents! if an)! as their hereditar) ri$hts would be adversel) affected thereb)& -ll other persons who ma) be affected b) the chan$e should be notified or represented& *he truth is best ascertained under an adversar) s)stem of <ustice& -s for the re(uirement of notice and publication! 'ule 128 provides@ 8%0& 3& /otice and publication&MFpon the filin$ of the petition! the court shall! b) an order! fi9 the time and place for the hearin$ of the same! and cause reasonable notice thereof to be $iven to the persons named in the petition& *he court shall also cause the order to be published once a week for three (7) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of $eneral circulation in the province& 8%0& 5& Opposition&M*he civil re$istrar and an) person havin$ or claimin$ an) interest under the entr) whose cancellation or correction is sou$ht ma)! within fifteen (15) da)s from notice of the petition! or from the last date of publication of such notice! file his opposition thereto& (emphasis and underscorin$ supplied) - readin$ of these related provisions readil) shows that 'ule 128 clearl) mandates two sets of notices to different 1potential oppositors&1 *he first notice is that $iven to the 1persons named in the petition1 and the second (which is throu$h publication) is that $iven to other persons who are not named in the petition but nonetheless ma) be considered interested or affected parties! such as creditors& *hat two sets of notices are mandated under the above6(uoted 8ection 3 is validated b) the subse(uent 8ection 5! also above6(uoted! which provides for two periods (for the two t)pes of 1potential oppositors1) within which to file an opposition (15 da)s from notice or from the last date of publication)& Dhat is clear then in Garco and Bho is the mandator) directive under 8ection 7 of 'ule 128 to implead the civil re$istrar and the parties who would naturall) and le$all) be affected b) the $rant of a petition

ISSUEK DR/ the petition for chan$e of name in this case re(uires an adversarial proceedin$

for correction or cancellation of entries& /on6impleadin$! however! as part)6respondent of one who is inadvertentl) left out or is not established to be known b) the petitioner to be affected b) the $rant of the petition or actuall) participates in the proceedin$ is notified throu$h publication& O3ITERK *he present petition must be differentiated from -lfon v& 'epublic of the Philippines&18 #n -lfon! the 0ourt allowed the therein petitioner! %strella -lfon! to use the name that she had been known since childhood in order to avoid confusion& -lfon did not den) her le$itimac)! however& 8he merel) sou$ht to use the surname of her mother which she had been usin$ since childhood& 'ulin$ in her favor! the 0ourt held that she was lawfull) entitled to use her mother=s surname! addin$ that the avoidance of confusion was <ustification enou$h to allow her to do so& #n the present case! however! respondent denies his le$itimac)&

And$# + M$*$-$.4 (17D1)

2 G-/,nd& ($) P!1&.*$# .02/&&.9.#.'1 /) $**"&& 4ariano -ndal! assisted b) his mother! brou$ht an action for recover) of ownership and possession of parcel of land& Ee alle$ed that he is the survivin$ son of %miliano -ndal! who is the owner of the said parcel of land and had been in possession thereof until %duvi$is 4acarai$ (mother of %miliano -ndal)! took advanta$e of the abnormal situation then prevailin$ and enter the land in (uestion (this was sometime in 193.)& *he land in (uestion was $iven b) %duvi$is 4acarai$ to her son %miliano -ndal b) virtue of a donation propter nuptias she has e9ecuted in his favor on the occasion of his marria$e to 4aria ueSas& #f the son born to the couple is deemed le$itimate! then he is entitled to inherit the land in (uestion& #f otherwise! then the land should revert back to %duvi$is 4acarai$ as the ne9t of kin entitled to succeed him under the law& *0 declared 4ariano as le$itimate son and owner of the land& I02/-'$n' d$'"&K 1931 T %miliano -ndal became sick of tuberculosis 193. T became so weak and could hardl) move 8eptember 193. T 4aria (mother) eloped with >eli9 (brother of %miliano) Aanuar) 1! 1937 T %miliano died Aune 15! 1937 T Petitioner! 4ariano! was born&

4-'#-/O #8 "%G#*#4-*%& -rticle 128 of the 0ivil 0ode provides@ 0hildren born after the one hundred and ei$ht) da)s ne9t followin$ that of the celebration of marria$e or within the three hundred da)s ne9t followin$ its dissolution or the separation of the spouses shall be presumed to be le$itimate& T!.& 2-"&,02'./n 0$1 9" -"9,''"d /n#1 91 2-//) '!$' .' %$& 2!1&.*$##1 .02/&&.9#" )/- '!" !,&9$nd '/ !$+" !$d $**"&& '/ !.& %.)" d,-.n4 '!" ).-&' /n" !,nd-"d $nd '%"n'1 d$1& /) '!" '!-"" !,nd-"d n"E' 2-"*"d.n4 '!" 9.-'! /) '!" *!.#d& 8ince the bo) was born on Aune 15! 1937! and %miliano -ndal died on Aanuar) 1! 1937! that bo) is presumed to be the le$itimate son havin$ been born within 722 da)s followin$ the dissolution of the marria$e& *his presumption can onl) be rebutted b) proof that it was ph)sicall) impossible for the husband to have had access to his wife durin$ the first 1.2 da)s of the 722 ne9t precedin$ the birth of the child& *here was no evidence presented that %miliano -ndal was absent durin$ the initial period of conception! speciall) durin$ the period comprised between -u$ust .1! 193. and 8eptember 12! 193.! which is included in the 1.2 da)s of the 722 ne9t precedin$ the birth of the child 4ariano -ndal& On the contrar)! there is enou$h evidence to show that durin$ that initial period! %miliano -ndal and his wife were still livin$ under the marital roof& %ven if >eli9! the brother! was livin$ in the same house! and he and the wife were indul$in$ in illicit intercourse since 4a)! 193.! that does not preclude cohabitation between %miliano and his wife& *here are cases where persons sufferin$ from this sickness can do the carnal act even in the most crucial sta$e because the) are more inclined to se9ual intercourse& %miliano and his wife were livin$ to$ether! or at least had access one to the other! and %miliano was not impotent! and the child was born within three (722) da)s followin$ the dissolution of the marria$e& Fnder these facts no other presumption can be drawn than that the issue is le$itimate& De have also seen that this presumption can onl) be rebutted b) clear proof that it was ph)sicall) or naturall) impossible for them to indul$e in carnal intercourse& -nd here there is no such proof& *he fact that 4aria ueSas has committed adulter) can not also overcome this presumption AO8% G%'-' O #8 P'%8F4% *O G% "%G#*#4-*% 0E#" O> *E%'%8- -/ 4-'#O (1 st EF8G-/ )& Gerardo has no standin$ in law to dispute the status of Aose Gerardo& Onl) 4a& *heresa=s husband

C/n*"2*./n + C/,-' /) A22"$#&

Gerardo 0oncepcion (Petitioner) and *heresa -lmonte ('espondent) were married sometime in 1989& -lmost a )ear later! *heresa $ave birth to Aose Gerardo&

(200D) #n 1991! petitioner filed a petitioner to annul their marria$e on the $round of bi$am)& Ee alle$ed that 9 )ears prior to their marria$e! *heresa married 4ario Gopiao and was never annulled& *heresa admitted the marria$e but alle$e that it was a sham and that she never lived with 4ario at all& *0 annulled the .nd marria$e as the 1st marria$e is still valid and subsistin$& Aose Gerardo was declared an ille$itimate child& >eelin$ betra)ed and humiliated! *heresa moved for reconsideration as to the visitation ri$hts $ranted to petitioner& 8he further alle$ed that the surname of Aose Gerardo be chan$ed from 0oncepcion to -lmonte followin$ the rule that an ille$itimate child shall use the mother=s surname& *0 denied *heresa=s motion& 0- (on 4') reversed the decision& Eence this appeal b) Petitioner&

4ario or! in a proper case! his heirs! who can contest the le$itimac) of the child Aose Gerardo born to his wife& #mpu$nin$ the le$itimac) of a child is a strictl) personal ri$ht of the husband or! in e9ceptional cases! his heirs& 8ince the marria$e of Gerardo and 4a& *heresa was void from the ver) be$innin$! he never became her husband and thus never ac(uired an) ri$ht to impu$n the le$itimac) of her child& *he presumption of le$itimac) proceeds from the se9ual union in marria$e! particularl) durin$ the period of conception& *o overthrow this presumption on the basis of -rticle 1;; (1)(b) of the >amil) 0ode! it must be shown be)ond reasonable doubt that there was no access that could have enabled the husband to father the child& 8e9ual intercourse is to be presumed where personal access is not disproved! unless such presumption is rebutted b) evidence to the contrar)& *he presumption is (uasi6 conclusive and ma) be refuted onl) b) the evidence of ph)sical impossibilit) of coitus between husband and wife within the first 1.2 da)s of the 722 da)s which immediatel) preceded the birth of the child& Eere! durin$ the period that Gerardo and 4a& *heresa were livin$ to$ether in >airview! Uuezon 0it)! 4ario was livin$ in "o)ola Eei$hts which is also in Uuezon 0it)& >airview and "o)ola Eei$hts are onl) a scant four kilometers apart& /ot onl) did both 4a& *heresa and 4ario reside in the same cit) but also that no evidence at all was presented to disprove personal access between them& 0onsiderin$ these circumstances! the separation between 4a& *heresa and her lawful husband! 4ario! was certainl) not such as to make it ph)sicall) impossible for them to en$a$e in the marital act& 8e9ual union between spouses is assumed& %vidence sufficient to defeat the assumption should be presented b) him who asserts the contrar)& *here is no such evidence here& *hus! the presumption of le$itimac) in favor of Aose Gerardo! as the issue of the marria$e between 4a& *heresa and 4ario! stands&

E&'$'" /) R/4"#./ On4 + M.n/- :/$nn" D.$6 (200>)

(9) 3./#/4.*$# /- /'!"- &*."n'.).* 4-/,nd& - complaint for compulsor) reco$nition with pra)er %0#8#O/ '%4-/ #/G *E% 0-8% *O *'#-" 0OF'* >O' 0O/ F0* O> /- *%8* #8 for support pendin$ liti$ation was field b) Aoanne! a ->>#'4% & minor! represented b) her mother a$ainst her father& >iliation proceedin$s are usuall) filed not <ust to ad<udicate paternit) but also to secure a le$al ri$ht associated with paternit)! such as citizenship! support (as in the present case)! or inheritance& *he Aoanne=s 4other! Aink)! alle$ed that she had an burden of provin$ paternit) is on the person who alle$es that the putative father is the biolo$ical father affair with 'o$elio while she was still married to a of the child& *here are )/,- &.4n.).*$n' 2-/*"d,-$# $&2"*'& of a traditional paternit) action which Aapanese /ational& Aink) and 'o$elio lived parties have to face@ a prima facie case! affirmative defenses! presumption of le$itimac)! and ph)sical to$ether and from this live6in relationship! Aoanne resemblance between the putative father and child& was conceived and born& - child born to a husband and wife durin$ a valid marria$e is presumed le$itimate& *he law re(uires 'o$elio was the one who brou$ht Aink) to the that ever) reasonable presumption be made in favor of le$itimac)& *he presumption of le$itimac) of the hospital and took minor Aoanne and Aink) home child! however! is not conclusive and conse(uentl)! ma) be overthrown b) evidence to the contrar)& after deliver)& 'o$elio paid all the hospital bills and the baptismal e9penses and provided for all of Dith the advancement in the field of $enetics! and the availabilit) of new technolo$)! it can now be minor Aoanne=s needs T reco$nizin$ the child as determined with reasonable certaint) whether 'o$elio is the biolo$ical father of the minor! throu$h /his& Eowever! sometime in 1998! 'o$elio testin$& abandoned Aoanne and Aink) and stopped supportin$ Aoanne alle$in$ that he was not the /- is the fundamental buildin$ block of a person=s entire $enetic make6up& /- is found in all human father of the child& cells and is the same in ever) cell of the same person& Genetic identit) is uni(ue& Eence! a person=s /- profile can determine his identit)&

*0 ordered 'o$elio to reco$nize Aoanne as his natural child and to $ive monthl) support& 0remanded the case to the trial court for the conduct of /- testin$

L,*$& + L,*$& (2011)

Aesse "ucas filed a petition to establish #lle$itimate >iliation with 4otion for the submission of parties to /- testin$& Petitioner narrated that sometime in 19;5! his mother (%lsie) mi$rated to 4anila and worked in a prominent ni$htspot& On one occasion! %lsie $ot ac(uainted with 'espondent! Aesus& -n intimate relationship developed and %lsie eventuall) $ot pre$nant& #n 19;9! she $ave birth to Petitioner& *he name of the father! however! was not stated in the certificate of live birth& Dhen the relationship of %lsie and respondent ended! %lsie refused to accept respondent=s offer of support and decided to raise petitioner on her own& Dhile petitioner was $rowin$ up! %lsie made several attempts to introduce petitioner to respondent! but all attempts were in vain& *0 dismissed the case& 0- affirmed the decision&

*he death of the petitioner does not ipso facto ne$ate the application of /- testin$ for as lon$ as there e9ist appropriate biolo$ical samples of his /-& -s defined! the term +biolo$ical sample, means an) or$anic material ori$inatin$ from a person=s bod)! even if found in inanimate ob<ects! that is susceptible to /- testin$& *his includes blood! saliva! and other bod) fluids! tissues! hairs and bones& *hus! even if 'o$elio alread) died! an) of the biolo$ical samples as enumerated above as ma) be available! ma) be used for /- testin$& #n this case! petitioner has not shown the impossibilit) of obtainin$ an appropriate biolo$ical sample that can be utilized for the conduct of /- testin$& P%*#*#O/%' 4F8* P'%8%/* P'#4- >-0#% %:# %/0% O' %8*-G"#8E - '%-8O/-G"% PO88#G#"#*O O> P-*%'/#*O *O D-''-/* - /- *%8*#/G O' %' & (Procedural) *he statement in Eerrera v& -lba that there are fo ,- &.4n.).*$n' 2-/*"d,-$# $&2"*'& in a traditional paternit) case which parties have to face has been widel) misunderstood and misapplied in this case& - part) is confronted b) these so6called procedural aspects durin$ trial! when the parties have presented their respective evidence& *he) are matters of evidence that cannot be determined at this initial sta$e of the proceedin$s! when onl) the petition to establish filiation has been filed& *he 0-=s observation that petitioner failed to establish a prima facie caseMthe first procedural aspect in a paternit) caseMis therefore misplaced& - prima facie case is built b) a part)=s evidence and not b) mere alle$ations in the initiator) pleadin$& 0learl) then! it was also not the opportune time to discuss the lack of a prima facie case vis6\6vis the motion for /- testin$ since no evidence has! as )et! been presented b) petitioner& 4ore essentiall)! it is premature to discuss whether! under the circumstances! a /- testin$ order is warranted considerin$ that no such order has )et been issued b) the trial court& #n fact! the latter has <ust set the said case for hearin$& (4erits) *he 'ule on /- %vidence was enacted to $uide the Gench and the Gar for the introduction and use of /- evidence in the <udicial s)stem& #t provides the +prescribed parameters on the re(uisite elements for reliabilit) and validit) (i&e&! the proper procedures! protocols! necessar) laborator) reports! etc&)! the possible sources of error! the available ob<ections to the admission of /- test results as evidence as well as the probative value of /- evidence&, #t seeks +to ensure that the evidence $athered! usin$ various methods of /- anal)sis! is utilized effectivel) and properl)! PandQ shall not be misused andRor abused and! more importantl)! shall continue to ensure that /- anal)sis serves <ustice and protects! rather than pre<udice the public&, T/ %$--$n' '!" .&&,$n*" /) '!" DNA '"&'.n4 /-d"-, '!"-" 0,&' 9" $ &!/% *$,&" !"$-.n4 %!"-".n '!" $22#.*$n' 0,&' ).-&' 2-"&"n' &,)).*."n' "+.d"n*" '/ "&'$9#.&! $ 2-.0$ )$*." *$&" /- $ -"$&/n$9#" 2/&&.9.#.'1 /) 2$'"-n.'1 /- I4//d *$,&"J )/- '!" !/#d.n4 /) '!" '"&' *he same condition precedent should be applied in our <urisdiction to protect the putative father from mere harassment suits& *hus! durin$ the hearin$ on the motion for /- testin$! the petitioner must present prima facie evidence or establish a reasonable possibilit) of paternit)& %0#8#O/ '%4-/ #/G *E% 0-8% *O *'#-" 0OF'* >O' 0O/ F0* O> /- *%8* #8 ->>#'4% & >iliation proceedin$s are usuall) filed not <ust to ad<udicate paternit) but also to secure a le$al ri$ht associated with paternit)! such as citizenship! support (as in the present case)! or inheritance& *he burden of provin$ paternit) is on the person who alle$es that the putative father is the biolo$ical father of the child& *here are )/,- &.4n.).*$n' 2-/*"d,-$# $&2"*'& of a traditional paternit) action which

E&'$'" /) R/4"#./ On4 + M.n/- :/$nn" D.$6 (200>)

- complaint for compulsor) reco$nition with pra)er for support pendin$ liti$ation was field b) Aoanne! a minor! represented b) her mother a$ainst her father& Aoanne=s 4other! Aink)! alle$ed that she had an affair with 'o$elio while she was still married to a

Aapanese /ational& Aink) and 'o$elio lived to$ether and from this live6in relationship! Aoanne was conceived and born& 'o$elio was the one who brou$ht Aink) to the hospital and took minor Aoanne and Aink) home after deliver)& 'o$elio paid all the hospital bills and the baptismal e9penses and provided for all of minor Aoanne=s needs T reco$nizin$ the child as his& Eowever! sometime in 1998! 'o$elio abandoned Aoanne and Aink) and stopped supportin$ Aoanne alle$in$ that he was not the father of the child& *0 ordered 'o$elio to reco$nize Aoanne as his natural child and to $ive monthl) support& 0remanded the case to the trial court for the conduct of /- testin$

parties have to face@ a prima facie case! affirmative defenses! presumption of le$itimac)! and ph)sical resemblance between the putative father and child& - child born to a husband and wife durin$ a valid marria$e is presumed le$itimate& *he law re(uires that ever) reasonable presumption be made in favor of le$itimac)& *he presumption of le$itimac) of the child! however! is not conclusive and conse(uentl)! ma) be overthrown b) evidence to the contrar)& Dith the advancement in the field of $enetics! and the availabilit) of new technolo$)! it can now be determined with reasonable certaint) whether 'o$elio is the biolo$ical father of the minor! throu$h /testin$& /- is the fundamental buildin$ block of a person=s entire $enetic make6up& /- is found in all human cells and is the same in ever) cell of the same person& Genetic identit) is uni(ue& Eence! a person=s /- profile can determine his identit)& *he death of the petitioner does not ipso facto ne$ate the application of /- testin$ for as lon$ as there e9ist appropriate biolo$ical samples of his /-& -s defined! the term +biolo$ical sample, means an) or$anic material ori$inatin$ from a person=s bod)! even if found in inanimate ob<ects! that is susceptible to /- testin$& *his includes blood! saliva! and other bod) fluids! tissues! hairs and bones& *hus! even if 'o$elio alread) died! an) of the biolo$ical samples as enumerated above as ma) be available! ma) be used for /- testin$& #n this case! petitioner has not shown the impossibilit) of obtainin$ an appropriate biolo$ical sample that can be utilized for the conduct of /- testin$&

(*) FC 1==(3) 3 E))"*' /) $ 0/'!"-G& d"*#$-$'./n B .n &,9&"<,"n' 0$--.$4"& People v Uuitoriano (1995) D = > 8 e Aesus v %state of Auan Gamboa izon On$ v iaz (.225) "ee v 0(.212) B I##"4.'.0$'" *!.#d-"n 1 W!/ $-" */n&.d"-"d .##"4.'.0$'" Aoanie 8urposa F) v Aose /$o 0hua P-"&,02'./n& P-"&*-.2'./n /) $*'./n '/ .02,4n #"4.'.0$*1 W!/ 0$1 .02,4n P-//) /) ).#.$'./n

(.229) 2 R.4!'& /) .##"4.'.0$'" *!.#d-"n olores P& 4ontefalcon filed a 0omplaint for acknowled$ment and support a$ainst 'onnie 8& :as(uez alle$in$ that her son "aurence is the ille$itimate child of :as(uez& 8he pra)ed that :as(uez be obli$ed to $ive support to co6petitioner "aurence 4ontefalcon! whose certificate of live birth he si$ned as father& -ccordin$ to petitioners! :as(uez onl) $ave a total of P19!222 as support for "aurence since "aurence was born in 1997& :as(uez alle$edl) also refused to $ive him re$ular school allowance despite repeated demands& Petitioner olores added that she and :as(uez are not le$all) married! and that :as(uez has his own famil)&

MONTEFALCON V VASCUE@ (.228)

"aurence is le$all) entitled to support from :as(uez! and the amount of P5!222 monthl) set b) the trial court is neither e9cessive nor unreasonable& -rticle 155 >0 mandates that ille$itimate filiation ma) be established in the same wa) and on the same evidence as le$itimate children& Fnder -rticle 15.! the filiation of le$itimate children is established b) an) of the followin$@ (1) throu$h record of birth appearin$ in the civil re$ister or a final order? or (.) b) admission of filiation in a public document or private handwritten instrument and si$ned b) the parent concerned? or in default of these two! b) open and continuous possession of the status of a le$itimate child or b) an) other means allowed b) the 'ules of 0ourt and special laws& "aurenceLs record of birth is an authentic! relevant and admissible piece of evidence to prove paternit) and filiation& :as(uez did not den) that "aurence is his child with olores& Ee si$ned as father in "aurenceLs certificate of live birth! a public document& Ee supplied the data entered in it& *hus! it is a competent evidence of filiation as he had a hand in its preparation& #n fact! if the child had been reco$nized b) an) of the modes in the first para$raph of -rticle 15.! there is no further need to file an) action for acknowled$ment because an) of said modes is b) itself a consummated act& -s filiation is be)ond (uestion! support follows as matter of obli$ation& Petitioners were able to prove that "aurence needs :as(uezLs support and that :as(uez is capable of $ivin$ such support& olores testified that she spent around P.22!222 for "aurence? she spends P8!222 a month for his schoolin$ and their subsistence& 8he told the lower court :as(uez was earnin$ F8]575 monthl) based on his Aanuar) 12! .222 contract of emplo)ment with >athom 8hip 4ana$ement and his seafarer information sheet& *hat income! if converted at the prevailin$ rate! would be more than sufficient to cover the monthl) support for "aurence& Fnder -rticle 195 (3) >0! a parent is obli$ed to support his ille$itimate child& *he amount is variable& *here is no final <ud$ment thereof as it shall be in proportion to the resources or means of the $iver and the necessities of the recipient& #t ma) be reduced or increased proportionatel) accordin$ to the reduction or increase of the necessities of the recipient and the resources or means of the person obli$ed to support& 8upport comprises ever)thin$ indispensable for sustenance! dwellin$! clothin$! medical attendance! education and transportation! in keepin$ with the financial capacit) of the famil)& Fnder the premises! the award of P5!222 monthl) support to "aurence is reasonable! and not e9cessive nor e9orbitant& Petitioners are third parties to the insurance contracts with #nsular and Grepalife and! thus! are not entitled to the proceeds thereof& 'espondents #nsular and Grepalife have no le$al obli$ation to turn over the insurance proceeds to petitioners& *he revocation of %va as a beneficiar) in one polic) and her dis(ualification as such in another are of no moment considerin$ that the desi$nation of the ille$itimate children as beneficiaries in "oreto=s insurance policies remains valid& Gecause no le$al proscription e9ists in namin$ as beneficiaries the children of illicit relationships b) the insured! the shares of %va in the insurance proceeds! whether forfeited b) the court in view of the prohibition on donations under -rticle 579 of the 0ivil 0ode or b) the insurers themselves for reasons based on the insurance contracts! must be awarded to the said ille$itimate children! the desi$nated beneficiaries! to the e9clusion of petitioners& #t is onl) in cases where the insured has not desi$nated an) beneficiar)! or when the desi$nated beneficiar) is dis(ualified b) law to receive the proceeds! that the insurance polic) proceeds shall redound to the benefit of the estate of the insured&

HEIRS OF MARAMAG V DE GU@MAN (.229)

Petitioners are the le$itimate wife and children of "oreto 4arama$ while respondents were "oreto=s ille$itimate famil)& #n his insurance polic)! "oreto desi$nated %va de Guzman 4arama$ and their ille$itimate children Odessa! Barl Grian! and *risha -n$elie as his beneficiarires& Petitioners filed an action a$ainst the respondents for the revocation andRor reduction of the insurance proceeds for bein$ void andRor inofficious&

DELA CRU@ V GRACIA (.229)

>or several months in .225! then .16)ear old Aenie 8an Auan dela 0ruz (Aenie) and then 196)ear old 0hristian omini(ue 8to& *omas -(uino ( omini(ue) lived to$ether as husband and wife without the benefit of marria$e& *he) resided in the house of omini(ueLs parents& On 8eptember 3! .225! omini(ue died& -fter almost two months! Aenie! who continued to live with omini(ueLs parents! $ave birth to her minor child 0hristian dela 0ruz 1-(uino1& Aenie applied for re$istration of the childLs birth! usin$ omini(ueLs surname -(uino! with the Office of the 0it) 0ivil 'e$istrar! -ntipolo 0it)! in support of which she submitted the childLs 0ertificate of "ive Girth! -ffidavit to Fse the 8urname of the >ather (-F8>) which she had e9ecuted and si$ned! and -ffidavit of -cknowled$ment e9ecuted b) omini(ueLs father omin$o Gutch -(uino& Goth affidavits attested! inter alia! that durin$ the lifetime of omini(ue! he had continuousl) acknowled$ed his )et unborn child! and that his paternit) had never been (uestioned& Aenie attached to the -F8> a document entitled 1-F*OG#OG'-PEO1 which omini(ue! durin$ his lifetime! wrote in his own handwritin$&

UY V CHUA (.229)

Aoanie 8urposa F) filed on .5 October .227 before the '*0 a Petition for the issuance of a decree of ille$itimate filiation a$ainst respondent Aose /$o 0hua& Petitioner alle$ed in her 0omplaint that respondent! who was then married! had an illicit relationship with #rene 8urposa (#rene)& 'espondent and #rene had two children! namel)! petitioner and her brother! -llan& 'espondent attended to #rene when the latter was $ivin$ birth to petitioner on .5 -pril 1959! and instructed that petitioner=s birth certificate be filled out with the followin$ names@ 1-">'% O >& 8F'PO8-1 as father and 1#'%/% F0-O1 as mother& -ctuall)! -lfredo >& 8urposa was the name of #rene=s father! and uca) was the maiden surname of #rene=s

*he 0it) 0ivil 'e$istrar of -ntipolo 0it) is directed to immediatel) "n'"- the surname of the late 0hristian omini(ue 8to& *omas A<,.n/ as the surname of petitioner minor 0hristian dela 0ruz in his 0ertificate of "ive Girth! and -"*/-d the same in the 'e$ister of Girths& -rticle 15; >0! as amended b) '&-& 9.55! permits an ille$itimate child to use the surname of hisRher father if the latter had e9pressl) reco$nized himRher as his offsprin$ throu$h the record of birth appearin$ in the civil re$ister! or throu$h an admission made in a public or private handwritten instrument& *he reco$nition made in an) of these documents is! in itself! a consummated act of acknowled$ment of the child=s paternit)? hence! no separate action for <udicial approval is necessar)& *hat a father who acknowled$es paternit) of a child throu$h a written instrument must affi9 his si$nature thereon is clearl) implied in -rticle 15; of the >amil) 0ode& Para$raph .&.! 'ule . of -&O& /o& 1! 8eries of .223! merel) articulated such re(uirement? it did not 1undul) e9pand1 the import of -rticle 15; as claimed b) petitioners& #n the present case! however! special circumstances e9ist to hold that omini(ue=s -utobio$raph)! thou$h unsi$ned b) him! substantiall) satisfies the re(uirement of the law& >irst! omini(ue died about two months prior to the child=s birth& 8econd! the relevant matters in the -utobio$raph)! un(uestionabl) handwritten b) omini(ue! correspond to the facts culled from the testimonial evidence Aenie proffered& *hird! Aenie=s testimon) is corroborated b) the -ffidavit of -cknowled$ment of omini(ue=s father omin$o -(uino and testimon) of his brother Aoseph Gutch -(uino whose hereditar) ri$hts could be affected b) the re$istration of the (uestioned reco$nition of the child& *hese circumstances indicatin$ omini(ue=s paternit) of the child $ive life to his statements in his -utobio$raph) that 1A%/#% %"- 0'FH1 is 14O D#>%1 as 1D% >%"" #/ "O:% D#*E %-0E O*E%'1 and 1/OD 8E% #8 P'%G/-/* -/ >O' *E-* D% "#:% *OG%*E%'&1 & #n the case at bar! there is no dispute that the earlier (uoted statements in omini(ue=s -utobio$raph) have been made and written b) him& *aken to$ether with the other relevant facts e9tant herein T that omini(ue! durin$ his lifetime! and Aenie were livin$ to$ether as common6law spouses for several months in .225 at his parents= house in Pulan$6lupa! ulumba)an! *eresa! 'izal? she was pre$nant when omini(ue died on 8eptember 3! .225? and about two months after his death! Aenie $ave birth to the child T the) sufficientl) establish that the child of Aenie is omini(ue=s& *he 0ourt sees it fit to adopt the followin$ rules respectin$ the re(uirement of affi9in$ the si$nature of the acknowled$in$ parent in an) private handwritten instrument wherein an admission of filiation of a le$itimate or ille$itimate child is made@ (1) Dhere the private handwritten instrument is the lone piece of evidence submitted to prove filiation! there should be strict compliance with the re(uirement that the same must be si$ned b) the acknowled$in$ parent? and (.) Dhere the private handwritten instrument is accompanied b) other relevant and competent evidence! it suffices that the claim of filiation therein be shown to have been made and handwritten b) the acknowled$in$ parent as it is merel) corroborative of such other evidence& Gein$ contrar) to law and public polic)! the 0ompromise -$reement dated 18 >ebruar) .222 between petitioner and respondent is void ab initio and vests no ri$hts and creates no obli$ations& #t produces no le$al effect at all& *he void a$reement cannot be rendered operative even b) the partiesL alle$ed performance (partial or full) of their respective prestations& *he 0ompromise -$reement between petitioner and respondent! e9ecuted on 18 >ebruar) .222 and approved b) '*06Granch 9 in its ecision dated .1 >ebruar) .222 in 8pecial Proceedin$ /o& 88726 0%G! obviousl) intended to settle the (uestion of petitioner=s status and filiation! i&e&! whether she is an ille$itimate child of respondent& #n e9chan$e for petitioner and her brother -llan acknowled$in$ that the) are not the children of respondent! respondent would pa) petitioner and -llan P.!222!222&22 each& -lthou$h unmentioned! it was a necessar) conse(uence of said 0ompromise -$reement that petitioner also waived awa) her ri$hts to future support and future le$itime as an ille$itimate child of respondent& %videntl)! the 0ompromise -$reement dated 18 >ebruar) .222 between petitioner and respondent is covered b) the prohibition under -rticle .275 of the 0ivil 0ode& #t is settled! then! in law and <urisprudence! that the status and filiation of a child cannot be compromised& Public polic) demands that there be no compromise on the status and filiation of a child& Paternit) and filiation or the lack of the same! is a relationship that must be <udiciall) established! and it

HEIRS OF MARAMAG V DE GU@MAN (SUPRA) (.229)

mother& 'espondent financiall) supported petitioner and -llan& 'espondent had consistentl) and re$ularl) $iven petitioner allowances before she $ot married& Ee also provided her with emplo)ment&& Petitioner and -llan were introduced to each other and became known in the 0hinese communit) as respondent=s ille$itimate children& - 0ompromise -$reement was e9ecuted b) the parties on 18 >ebruar) .222 where Aoanie declared! admitted and acknowled$ed that there is no blood relationship between her and -llan on one hand! and between Aose /$o 0hua on the other& -s a $esture of $oodwill! Aose /$o 0hua bound himself to pa) Aoanie and -llan P.!222!222 each& Petitioners are the le$itimate wife and children of "oreto 4arama$ while respondents were "oreto=s ille$itimate famil)& #n his insurance polic)! "oreto desi$nated %va de Guzman 4arama$ and their ille$itimate children Odessa! Barl Grian! and *risha -n$elie as his beneficiarires& Petitioners filed an action a$ainst the respondents for the revocation andRor reduction of the insurance proceeds for bein$ void andRor inofficious&

is for the 0ourt to declare its e9istence or absence& #t cannot be left to the will or a$reement of the parties& /either can it be said that '*06Granch 9! b) approvin$ the 0ompromise -$reement! in its ecision dated .1 >ebruar) .222 in 8pecial Proceedin$ /o& 887260%G! alread) made said contract valid and le$al& Obviousl)! it would alread) be be)ond the <urisdiction of '*06Granch 9 to le$alize what is ille$al& '*06Granch 9 had no authorit) to approve and $ive effect to a 0ompromise -$reement that was contrar) to law and public polic)! even if said contract was e9ecuted and submitted for approval b) both parties& '*06Granch 9 would not be competent! under an) circumstances! to $rant the approval of the said 0ompromise -$reement& - <ud$ment void for want of <urisdiction is no <ud$ment at all& #t cannot be the source of an) ri$ht or the creator of an) obli$ation& -ll acts performed pursuant to it and all claims emanatin$ from it have no le$al effect& Eence! it can never become final! and an) writ of e9ecution based on it is void& #t ma) be said to be a lawless thin$ that can be treated as an outlaw and slain on si$ht! or i$nored wherever and whenever it e9hibits its head& Petitioners are third parties to the insurance contracts with #nsular and Grepalife and! thus! are not entitled to the proceeds thereof& 'espondents #nsular and Grepalife have no le$al obli$ation to turn over the insurance proceeds to petitioners& *he revocation of %va as a beneficiar) in one polic) and her dis(ualification as such in another are of no moment considerin$ that the desi$nation of the ille$itimate children as beneficiaries in "oreto=s insurance policies remains valid& Gecause no le$al proscription e9ists in namin$ as beneficiaries the children of illicit relationships b) the insured! the shares of %va in the insurance proceeds! whether forfeited b) the court in view of the prohibition on donations under -rticle 579 of the 0ivil 0ode or b) the insurers themselves for reasons based on the insurance contracts! must be awarded to the said ille$itimate children! the desi$nated beneficiaries! to the e9clusion of petitioners& #t is onl) in cases where the insured has not desi$nated an) beneficiar)! or when the desi$nated beneficiar) is dis(ualified b) law to receive the proceeds! that the insurance polic) proceeds shall redound to the benefit of the estate of the insured& 0hristian should be allowed to be re$ister with the surname -(uino& -rticle 15; of the >amil) 0ode! as amended b) '&-& 9.55! permits an ille$itimate child to use the surname of hisRher father if the latter had e9pressl) reco$nized himRher as his offsprin$ throu$h the record of birth appearin$ in the civil re$ister! /- throu$h an admission made in a public or private handwritten instrument& #t does not e9plicitl) state that a si$nature is re(uired& Eowever! read in con<unction with -rt& 155 and 15.! a si$nature is clearl) implied& #n the present case! however! special circumstances e9ist to hold that omini(ue=s -utobio$raph)! thou$h unsi$ned b) him! substantially satisfies the re(uirement of the law& *here were other competent evidence presented@ document was in fact written b) deceased! fact that Aenie and deceased lived to$ether! Aenie $ave birth . months after death! etc& *he 0ourt sees it fit to adopt the followin$ rules respectin$ the re(uirement of affi9in$ the si$nature of the acknowled$in$ parent in an) private handwritten instrument wherein an admission of filiation of a le$itimate or ille$itimate child is made@ 1) Dhere the private handwritten instrument is the lone piece of evidence submitted to prove filiation! there should be strict compliance with the re(uirement that the same must be si$ned b) the acknowled$in$ parent? and .) Dhere the private handwritten instrument is accompanied b) other relevant and competent evidence! it suffices that the claim of filiation therein be shown to have been made and handwritten b) the acknowled$in$ parent as it is merel) corroborative of such other evidence&

D" #$ C-,6 + G-$*.$

omini(ue -(uino and Aenie lived to$ether without the benefit of marria$e& omini(ue died& Aenie $ave birth to 0hristian and sou$ht to have him re$istered with the surname -(uino& 8he presented as evidence an unsi$ned! handwritten autobio$raph) b) omini(ue where he admitted that she was pre$nant and that the) live to$ether&

(.229)

M$n,n4$& + L/-"'/ (.211)

>lorentino was married to %n$racia& >lorentino had an ille$itimate son named iosdado& >lorentino died& %n$racia died aftwerwards& Parreno! niece of %n$racia! was appointed special administrator of estate of %n$racia& iosdado! who was a debtor of the estate! claimed that he should be the special administrator as he is >lorentino=s ille$itimate son whereas Parreno is a collateral relative& 3 P-//) /) ).#.$'./n #rene! b) alle$in$ that she was the ille$itimate dau$hter of deceased >rancisco obtained deeds over several parcels of land& >rancisco=s siblin$s filed a complaint for reconve)ance of the properties b) claimin$ that #rene was not the dau$hter of >rancisco& #rene presented evidence to prove her filiation&

iosdado should not be appointed as special administrator& iosdado! as an ille$itimate heir of >lorentino 4anun$as! is not an heir of %n$racia 4anun$as and is not entitled to receive an) part of the %state of 4anun$as& #n fact! iosdado is a debtor of the estate and would have no interest in preservin$ its value& *here is no reason to appoint him as its special administrator&

R"1"& + CA

Gased on the evidence! #rene is not an heir of >rancisco& *he certificates of birth presented were not si$ned b) >rancisco& #f the alle$ed father did not si$n the birth certificate! the placin$ of his name therein is still incompetent evidence of paternit) of the child& *he secondar) student permanent record and her written consent to the operation of her father! not bein$ si$ned nor written b) >rancisco cannot be taken as authentic writin$ to prove her reco$nition b) her alle$ed father& 4arria$e contract where it was stated that >rancisco $ave his consent was not si$ned and cannot be reco$nized as an authentic document&

(1985)

C$&'-/ + CA

%usta(uio died and left several properties& Genita 0astro sou$ht to participate in the partition of the properties left b) %usta(uio& 8he claimed that she was the acknowled$ed and reco$nized ille$itimate child of %usta(uio& 8he was allowed to present evidence to prove her claim&

Pictures of #rene posin$ with >rancisco do not constitute proof of filiation& Genita is an acknowled$ed and reco$nized ille$itimate child of %usta(uio& 8trictl) speakin$! the birth certificate must be si$ned b) the father& #n this instance! althou$h %usta(uio himself reported the birth of his dau$hter! the record is not determinative of whether or not he si$ned the certificate& Eowever! the provisions shall be applied liberall) considerin$ the facts and e(uities of the case& >irst! Genita en<o)ed the love and care of her father from her birth to his death& 8econd! %usta(uio himself reported and re$istered the birth of Genita& *here is no showin$ that he knew that he should have si$ned or taken all le$al steps to establish Genita=s status as a reco$nized natural child& *hird! %usta(uio himself $ave Genita awa) durin$ her weddin$& "astl)! the certificate of baptism and picture of Genita at wake of %usta(uio! althou$h not sufficient proof of reco$nition nevertheless add to the e(uities of the case& 0ourt of -ppeals decision findin$ that the petitioners are not reco$nized children of %nri(ue is affirmed& *he petitioner=s records of birth! althou$h in the name of %n(ri(ue are not si$ned& /o authentic writin$ presented nor an) statement in a court of recod would prove that the petitioners were reco$nized b) the deceased&

(1989)

3$#,1,' + 3$#,1,'

#n the intestate proceedin$s of deceased %nri(ue Galu)ut! minors :ictoria and >lordeliza filed a petition for intervention claimin$ that the) were the ille$itimate children of %nri(ue& *he 0ourt of -ppeals dismissed the petition upon findin$ that the petitioners were not the reco$nized spurious children of deceased %nri(ue& *he private respondent claimed she was the ille$itimate dau$hter of 0asimiro 4endoza! but the latter denied her claim& Ee denied it to his d)in$ da)&

(1992) M"nd/6$ + CA (200D)

Dhat both the trial court and the respondent court did not take into account is that an ille$itimate child is allowed to establish his claimed filiation b) 1an) other means allowed b) the 'ules of 0ourt and special laws!1 accordin$ to the 0ivil 0ode! or 1b) evidence or proof in his favor that the defendant is her father!1 accordin$ to the >amil) 0ode& 8uch evidence ma) consist of his baptismal certificate! a <udicial

admission! a famil) Gible in which his name has been entered! common reputation respectin$ his pedi$ree! admission b) silence! the testimonies of witnesses! and other kinds of proof admissible under 'ule 172 of the 'ules of 0ourt& *o set the record strai$ht! we will stress that it was onl) #saac 4endoza who testified on this (uestion of pedi$ree! and he did not cite 0asimiroLs father& Eis testimon) was that he was informed b) his father Eipolito! who was 0asimiroLs brother! and Gri$ida 4endoza! 0asimiroLs own mother! that *eopista was 0asimiroLs ille$itimate dau$hter& 8uch acts or declarations ma) be received in evidence as an e9ception to the hearsa) rule because 1it is the best the nature of the case admits and because $reater evils are apprehended from the re<ection of such proof than from its admission& /evertheless! precisel) because of its nature as hearsa) evidence! there are certain safe$uards a$ainst its abuse& 0ommentin$ on this provision! >rancisco enumerates the followin$ re(uisites that have to be complied with before the act or declaration re$ardin$ pedi$ree ma) be admitted in evidence@ 1& *he declarant is dead or unable to testif)& .& *he pedi$ree must be in issue& 7& *he declarant must be a relative of the person whose pedi$ree is in issue& 3& *he declaration must be made before the controvers) arose& 5& *he relationship between the declarant and the person whose pedi$ree is in (uestion must be shown b) evidence other than such declaration& -ll the above re(uisites are present in the case at bar& *he persons who made the declarations about the pedi$ree of *eopista! namel)! the mother of 0asimiro! Gri$ida 4endoza! and his brother! Eipolito! were both dead at the time of #saacLs testimon)& *he declarations referred to the filiation of *eopista and the paternit) of 0asimiro! which were the ver) issues involved in the complaint for compulsor) reco$nition& *he declarations were made before the complaint was filed b) *eopista or before the controvers) arose between her and 0asimiro& >inall)! the relationship between the declarants and 0asimiro has been established b) evidence other than such declaration! consistin$ of the e9tra<udicial partition of the estate of >lorencio 4endoza! in which 0asimiro was mentioned as one of his heirs& *he said declarations have not been refuted& 0asimiro could have done this b) deposition if he was too old and weak to testif) at the trial of the case& Aud$ment is hereb) rendered %0"-'#/G *eopista *orin$ *uSacao to be the ille$itimate child of the late 0asimiro 4endoza and entitled to all the ri$hts appurtenant to such status& :.&/n + CA (1778) Private respondent! 4onina Aison! instituted a complaint a$ainst petitioner! >rancisco Aison! for reco$nition as ille$itimate child of the latter& *he case was filed .2 )ears after her mother=s death and when she was alread) 79 )ears of a$e& 4O/#/-=s reliance on the certification issued b) the "ocal 0ivil 'e$istrar concernin$ her birth is clearl) misplaced& #t is settled that a certificate of live birth purportedl) identif)in$ the putative father is not competent evidence as to the issue of paternit)! when there is no showin$ that the putative father had a hand in the preparation of said certificates! and the "ocal 0ivil 'e$istrar is devoid of authorit) to record the paternit) of an ille$itimate child upon the information of a third person& 8impl) put! if the alle$ed father did not intervene in the birth certificate! e&$&! suppl)in$ the information himself! the inscription of his name b) the mother or doctor or re$istrar is null and void? the mere certificate b) the re$istrar without the si$nature of the father is not proof of voluntar) acknowled$ment on the latter=s part& #n like manner! >'-/0#80O=s lack of participation in the preparation of the baptismal certificates and school records renders these documents incompetent to prove paternit)! the former bein$ competent merel) to prove the administration of the sacrament of baptism on the date so specified& Eowever! despite the inadmissibilit) of the school records per se to prove paternit)! the) ma) be admitted as part of 4O/#/-=s testimon) to corroborate her claim that >'-/0#80O spent for her education& De likewise disa$ree with the rulin$ of the 0ourt of -ppeals that the certificates issued b) the "ocal 0ivil 'e$istrar and the baptismal certificates ma) be taken as circumstantial evidence to prove 4O/#/-=s filiation& 8ince the) are per se inadmissible in evidence as proof of such filiation! the)

R.+"-/ + CA (200D)

Genedick -revalo filed a 0omplaint a$ainst 4ar) Aane ) 0hiao6 e Guzman! Genito ) 0hiao! Ar&! and Genson ) 0hiao! in the 'e$ional *rial 0ourt ('*0) of /a$a 0it)! for compulsor) reco$nition as the ille$itimate child of their father! Genito ) 0hiao! 8r&! and for the administration and partition of his estate as he had died intestate on Aul) .5! 1995

cannot be admitted indirectl) as circumstantial evidence to prove the same& -rticle .275(1) of the /ew 0ivil 0ode provides that no compromise upon the civil status of persons shall be valid& -s such! paternit) and filiation! or the lack of the same! is a relationship that must be <udiciall) established! and it is for the court to determine its e9istence or absence& #t cannot be left to the will or a$reement of the parties& - compromise is a contract whereb) parties! makin$ reciprocal concerns! avoid liti$ation or put an end to one alread) commenced& "ike an) other contract! it must compl) with the re(uisite provisions in -rticle 1718 of the /ew 0ivil 0ode! to wit@ (a) consent of the contractin$ parties? (b) ob<ect certain which is the sub<ect matter of the contract? and (c) cause of the obli$ation which is established& "ike an) other contract! the terms and conditions of a compromise a$reement must not be contrar) to law! morals! $ood customs! public polic) and public order& -n) compromise a$reement which is contrar) to law or public polic) is null and void! and vests no ri$hts and holds no obli$ation to an) part)& #t produces no le$al effect at all& 0onsiderin$ all these! there can be no other conclusion than that the decision of the '*0 on the basis of a compromise a$reement where Genedick was reco$nized as the ille$itimate child of Genito! 8r& is null and void& %ven assumin$ purel) for the sake of ar$ument that the birth certificate presented b) respondent (%9hibit -) is a reliable document! the same on its face is insufficient to prove respondent=s filiation to her alle$ed $randfather! Auan Gabatan& -ll that %9hibit -! if it had been credible and authentic! would have proven was that respondent=s mother was a certain 1Eermo$ena 0larito Gabatan&1 #t does not prove that same 1Eermo$ena 0larito Gabatan1 is the dau$hter of Auan Gabatan& %ven the 0- held that the conflictin$ certificates of live birth of respondent submitted b) the parties onl) proved the filiation of respondent to Eermo$ena& #t was absolutel) crucial to respondent=s cause of action that she convincin$l) proves the filiation of her mother to Auan Gabatan& *o reiterate! to prove the relationship of respondent=s mother to Auan Gabatan! our laws dictate that the best evidence of such familial tie was the record of birth appearin$ in the 0ivil 'e$ister! or an authentic document or a final <ud$ment& #n the absence of these! respondent should have presented proof that her mother en<o)ed the continuous possession of the status of a le$itimate child& Onl) in the absence of these two classes of evidence is the respondent allowed to present other proof admissible under the 'ules of 0ourt of her mother=s relationship to Auan Gabatan& Eowever! respondent=s mother=s (Eermo$ena=s) birth certificate! which would have been the best evidence of Eermo$ena=s relationship to Auan Gabatan! was never offered as evidence at the '*0& /either did respondent present an) authentic document or final <ud$ment cate$oricall) evidencin$ Eermo$ena=s relationship to Auan Gabatan& -rticle 15; of the >amil) 0ode! as amended b) '&-& 9.55! permits an ille$itimate child to use the surname of hisRher father if the latter had e9pressl) reco$nized himRher as his offsprin$ throu$h the record of birth appearin$ in the civil re$ister! or throu$h an admission made in a public or private handwritten instrument& *he reco$nition made in an) of these documents is! in itself! a consummated act of acknowled$ment of the child=s paternit)? hence! no separate action for <udicial approval is necessar)& -rticle 15; of the >amil) 0ode! as amended! does not! indeed! e9plicitl) state that the private handwritten instrument acknowled$in$ the child=s paternit) must be si$ned b) the putative father& *hat a father who acknowled$es paternit) of a child throu$h a written instrument must affi9 his si$nature thereon is clearl) implied in -rticle 15; of the >amil) 0ode& Para$raph .&.! 'ule . of -&O& /o& 1! 8eries of .223! merel) articulated such re(uirement? it did not +undul) e9pand, the import of -rticle 15; as claimed b) petitioners&

H".-& /) G$9$'$n (2007)

#n the complaint before the '*0! respondent alle$ed that she is the sole owner of "ot 7295 065! havin$ inherited the same from her deceased mother! Eermo$ena Gabatan %vero (Eermo$ena)& 'espondent further claimed that her mother! Eermo$ena! is the onl) child of Auan Gabatan and his wife! "aureana 0larito&

D"#$ C-,6 + G-$*.$ (2007)

Aenie ela 0ruz applied for re$istration of her child=s birth! usin$ omini(ue=s (her deceased common6law spouse) surname -(uino! with the Office of the 0it) 0ivil 'e$istrar! -ntipolo 0it)! in support of which she submitted the child=s 0ertificate of "ive Girth! -ffidavit to Fse the 8urname of the >ather (-F8>) which she had e9ecuted and si$ned! and -ffidavit of -cknowled$ment e9ecuted b) omini(ue=s father omin$o Gutch -(uino& Goth affidavits attested! inter alia! that durin$ the lifetime of omini(ue! he had continuousl) acknowled$ed his )et unborn child! and that his paternit) had never been (uestioned& Aenie attached to the -F8> a document entitled +-F*OG#OG'-PEO, which

omini(ue! durin$ his lifetime! wrote in his own handwritin$! which acknowled$ed that the child was his& *he 0ivil 'e$istrar 'onald Garcia refused because@ +#n summar)! the child cannot use the surname of his father because he was born out of wedlock and the father unfortunatel) died prior to his birth and has no more capacit) to acknowled$e his paternit) to the child (either throu$h the back of 4unicipal >orm /o& 12. T -ffidavit of -cknowled$mentR-dmission of Paternit) T or the -uthorit) to Fse the 8urname of the >ather),

#n the present case! however! special circumstances e9ist to hold that omini(ue=s -utobio$raph)! thou$h unsi$ned b) him! substantiall) satisfies the re(uirement of the law& >irst! omini(ue died about two months prior to the child=s birth& 8econd! the relevant matters in the -utobio$raph)! un(uestionabl) handwritten b) omini(ue! correspond to the facts culled from the testimonial evidence Aenie proffered& *hird! Aenie=s testimon) is corroborated b) the -ffidavit of -cknowled$ment of omini(ue=s father omin$o -(uino and testimon) of his brother Aoseph Gutch -(uino whose hereditar) ri$hts could be affected b) the re$istration of the (uestioned reco$nition of the child& *hese circumstances indicatin$ omini(ue=s paternit) of the child $ive life to his statements in his -utobio$raph) that +A%/#% %"- 0'FH, is +4O D#>%, as +D% >%"" #/ "O:% D#*E %-0E O*E%', and +/OD 8E% #8 P'%G/-/* -/ >O' *E-* D% "#:% *OG%*E%'&, #n view of the pronouncements herein made! the 0ourt sees it fit to adopt the followin$ rules respectin$ the re(uirement of affi9in$ the si$nature of the acknowled$in$ parent in an) private handwritten instrument wherein an admission of filiation of a le$itimate or ille$itimate child is made@ 1) Dhere the private handwritten instrument is the lone piece of evidence submitted to prove filiation! there should be strict compliance with the re(uirement that the same must be si$ned b) the acknowled$in$ parent? and .) Dhere the private handwritten instrument is accompanied b) other relevant and competent evidence! it suffices that the claim of filiation therein be shown to have been made and handwritten b) the acknowled$in$ parent as it is merel) corroborative of such other evidence& De a$ree! and find that! as a preliminar) matter! before the court ma) issue an order for compulsor) blood testin$! the movin$ part) must show that there is a reasonable possibilit) of paternit)& - prima facie case is built b) a part)=s evidence and not b) mere alle$ations in the initiator) pleadin$*he same condition precedent should be applied in our <urisdiction to protect the putative father from mere harassment suits& *hus! durin$ the hearin$ on the motion for /- testin$! the petitioner must present prima facie evidence or establish a reasonable possibilit) of paternit)& /otwithstandin$ these! it should be stressed that the issuance of a /- testin$ order remains discretionar) upon the court& *he court ma)! for e9ample! consider whether there is absolute necessit) for the /- testin$& #f there is alread) preponderance of evidence to establish paternit) and the /- test result would onl) be corroborative! the court ma)! in its discretion! disallow a /- testin$&

L,*$& + L,*$& (2011)

#s a prima facie showin$ necessar) before a court can issue a /- testin$ orderC

P"/2#" + M$4'.9$1 (2002)

P"/2#" + A9"##$ (2010)

B C/02,#&/-1 -"*/4n.'./n On her wa) home! when she was some distance from the store! accused6appellant approached her and pulled her ri$ht hand& Ee covered her mouth and told her that he will kill her if she tried to shout for help& -ccused6appellant made her lie on a $rass) place and removed her shorts and panties& -ccused6appellant then undressed! placed himself on top of 'achelle and inserted his penis into her va$ina& Gecause of accused6appellant=s threat on her life! 'achelle kept silent about the incident& #t was not until she became pre$nant that she was constrained to tell her mother what happened& 8he eventuall) $ave birth to a bab) bo)& *hat sometime on ecember 1999! in the afternoon! at Garan$a) 8an :icente! 4unicipalit) of Pamplona!

Dith respect to the acknowled$ment and support of the child born out of rape our recent rulin$ in People &. (ustiniano )labo #2**1$ states@ +0oncernin$ the acknowled$ment and support of the offsprin$ of rape! -rticle 735 of the 'evised Penal 0ode provides for three kinds of civil liabilit) that ma) be imposed on the offender@ a) indemnification! b) acknowled$ment of the offsprin$! unless the law should prevent him from so doin$! and c) in ever) case to support the offsprin$& Dith the passa$e of the >amil) 0ode! the classification of acknowled$ed natural children and natural children b) le$al fiction was eliminated and the) now fall under the specie of ille$itimate children& 8ince parental authorit) is vested b) -rticle 15; of the >amil) 0ode upon the mother and considerin$ that an offender sentenced to reclusion perpetua automaticall) loses parental authorit) over his children! no +further positive act is re(uired of the parent as the law itself provides for the child=s status&, Eence! accused6appellant should onl) be ordered to indemnif) and support the victim=s child& Eowever! the amount and terms of support shall be determined b) the trial court after due notice and hearin$ in accordance with -rticle .21 of the >amil) 0ode&, *he accused6appellant was the biolo$ical father of the two6)ear old dau$hter of --- as a result of the rape incident and in view of their +strikin$ facial similarities and features&, *he order to acknowled$e

Province of 0amarines 8ur! Philippines and within the <urisdiction of this Eonorable 0ourt! the above6 named accused! while armed with +Galison$, and under the influence of li(uor! b) means of force and intimidation and with lewd desi$n! did then and there willfull) and feloniousl) enter the house of herein complainant and then and there have se9ual intercourse with ---! a woman of feeble mind! a$ainst her will to her dama$e and pre<udice&

and support accused6appellant=s offsprin$ is in accordance with -rticle 735 of the 'evised Penal 0ode&

A9$d.##$ + T$9.#.-$n (177D)

D L"4.'.0$'"d *!.#d-"n 1 W!/ 0$1 9" #"4.'.0$'"d 4a& Gl)th -badilla! a 0lerk of 0ourt! filed a complaint a$ainst Aud$e *abiliran on the $rounds of $ross immoralit)! deceitful conduct! and corruption unbecomin$ of a <ud$e& Dith respect to the char$e on $ross immoralit)! she contended that the <ud$e scandalousl) and publicl) cohabited with Priscilla Ga)ba)an durin$ subsistence of his marria$e with *eresita Ganzuela& *abiliran and Priscilla $ot married in 4a) 198;& On the other hand! with respect to the char$e on deceitful conduct! petitioner claims that the <ud$e caused his 7 ille$itimate children with Priscilla be re$istered as +le$itimate, b) falsel) e9ecutin$ separate affidavits statin$ the dela)ed re$istration was due to inadvertence! e9cusable ne$li$ence or oversi$ht when in fact! he knew these children cannot be le$all) re$istered as le$itimate& *he <ud$e averred that .5 )ears had alread) elapsed since the disappearance of her wife in 19;; when he married Priscilla hence the cohabitation was neither bi$amous nor immoral& Eowever! as earl) as 1952! based on the record! Priscilla had be$otten her 7 children (1952! 1951 and 1955)& 2 3 B D H/% #"4.'.0$'./n '$("& 2#$*" R"'-/$*'.+.'1 $nd "))"*'& A*'./n '/ .02,4n #"4.'.0$'./n R.4!'& /) #"4.'.0$'"d *!.#d-"n

*he 7 children cannot be le$itimated nor in an) wa) be considered le$itimate since the time the) were born! there was an e9istin$ valid marria$e between *abiliran and *eresita& Fnder -rticle 155 of the >amil) 0ode! onl) children conceived and born outside of wedlock of parents who! at the time of the conception of the former! were not dis(ualified b) an) impediment to marr) each other ma) be le$itimated& 'easons for this limitation@ 1) *he rationale of le$itimation would be destro)ed? .) #t would be unfair to the le$itimate children in terms of successional ri$hts? 7) *here will be the problem of public scandal! unless social mores chan$e? 3) #t is too violent to $rant the privile$e of le$itimation to adulterous children as it will destro) the sanctit) of marria$e? 5) #t will be ver) scandalous! especiall) if the parents marr) man) )ears after the birth of the child&

L$6$'.n + C$02/& (17>7) C"-+$n'"& + F$;$-d/ (1787)

=, Ad/2'"d *!.#d-"n 'enato "azatin filed a motion for intervention in the probate proceedin$s of the estate of 4ar$arita de -sis as an adopted child& *his is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus of minor -n$eline 0ervantes& -fter the birth of -n$eline! respondents offered the child for adoption to Henaida and /elson& *he petitioners have taken

'enato has not established his status as an adopted child& 8econdar) evidence is not admissible unless the e9istence of therecords is proven alon$ with the contents of the records and its loss& -doption is a <uridical act and the statutor) re(uirements must be strictl) carried out& *he provision that no mother shall be separated from a child under five )ears of a$e will not appl) where the court finds compellin$ reasons to rule otherwise& Gecause the adoptive parents are le$all) married and the respondent=s relationship with her husband is that of common law and that respondent has $iven birth to a child b) another man! the court held that it will be in the child=s

care of the child since she was . weeks old and an -ffidavit of 0onsent to -doption was e9ecuted& *he petition for adoption was $ranted and the child surname was chan$ed to >a<ardo& *he 0ervantes filed for Eabeas 0orpus alle$in$ that o n - p r i l 1 9 8 5 ! p e t i t i o n e r s r e c e i v e d a letter from respondents demandin$ P152!222 for the return of their adopted child who was taken b) respondent Gina 0arreon& 1 W!/ 0$1 $d/2' 4onina "im! petitioner! who was an optometrist was married with Primo "im but were childless& 4inor children! were entrusted to them b) "ucia! whose parents were unknown as shown b) a certification of 8D & *he spouses re$istered the children makin$ it appears as if the) were the parents& Fnfortunatel)! in 1998! Primo died& 8he then married an -merican 0itizen! -n$el Olario in ecember .222& Petitioner decided to adopt the children b) availin$ of the amnest) $iven under '855. to individuals who simulated the birth of a child& #n .22.! she filed separate petitions for adoption of 4ichelle and 4ichael before the trial court& 4ichelle was then .5 )ears old and alread) married and 4ichael was 18 )ears and seven months old& 4ichelle and her husband includin$ 4ichael and Olario $ave their consent to the adoption e9ecuted in an affidavit&

best interest to sta) with her adoptive parents&

In R"K P"'.'./n )/- Ad/2'./n /) M.*!"##" L.0 (2007)

Petition was denied& *he time the petitions were filed! petitioner had alread) remarried& Eusband and wife shall <ointl) adopt e9cept in 7 instances which was not present in the case at bar& #n case spouses <ointl) adopts! the) shall <ointl) e9ercised parental authorit)& *he use of the word +shall, si$nifies that <oint adoption of husband and wife is mandator)& *his is in consonance with the concept of <oint parental authorit) since the child to be adopted is elevated to the level of a le$itimate child! it is but natural to re(uire spouses to adopt <ointl)& *he affidavit of consent $iven b) Olario will not suffice since there are certain re(uirements that he must compl) as an -merican 0itizen& Ee must meet the (ualifications set forth in 8ec5 of '-855.& *he re(uirements on residenc) and certification of the alien=s (ualification to adopt cannot likewise be waived pursuant to 8ec 5& Parental authorit) is merel) <ust one of the effects of le$al adoption& #t includes carin$ and rearin$ the children for civic consciousness and efficienc) and development of their moral mental and ph)sical character and well6 bein$&

R"2,9#.* + T/#"d$n/ (177B)

On >ebruar) .1! 1992! 8pouses -lvin 0louse! a natural6born F8 0itizen and %vel)n 0louse! a former >ilipino who became a naturalized F8 citizen! filed a petition to adopt 8olomon -lcala! a minor who is %vel)nLs )oun$est brother& *he trial court $ranted the petition& 'epublic! throu$h the Office of the 8olicitor General appealed contendin$ that the lower court erred in $rantin$ the petition for the spouses are not (ualified to adopt under Philippine "aw&

*here can be no (uestion that private respondent -lvin -& 0louse is not (ualified to adopt 8olomon Aoseph -lcala under an) of the e9ceptional cases in the afore(uoted provision& #n the first place! he is not a former >ilipino citizen but a natural born citizen of the Fnited 8tates of -merica& #n the second place! 8olomon Aoseph -lcala is neither his relative b) consan$uinit) nor the le$itimate child of his spouse& #n the third place! when private respondents spouses 0louse <ointl) filed the petition to adopt 8olomon Aoseph -lcala on >ebruar) .1! 1992! private respondent %vel)n -& 0louse was no lon$er a >ilipino citizen& 8he lost her >ilipino citizenship when she was naturalized as a citizen of the Fnited 8tates in 1988& Private respondent %vel)n -& 0louse! on the other hand! ma) appear to (ualif) pursuant to para$raph 7(a) of -rticle 183 of %&O& .29& 8he was a former >ilipino citizen& 8he sou$ht to adopt her )oun$er brother& Fnfortunatel)! the petition for adoption cannot be $ranted in her favor alone without violatin$ -rticle 185 which mandates a <oint adoption b) the husband and wife&

L$nd.n4.n + RP (200=)

2 W!/ 0$1 9" $d/2'"d 3 N""d )/- */n&"n' iwata 'amos "andin$in! a citizen of the Fnited 8tates of -merica (F8-)! of >ilipino parenta$e and a resident of Guam! F8-! filed a petition for the adoption of minors %laine izon 'amos! %lma izon 'amos and %u$ene izon 'amos who was

/o& *he $eneral re(uirement of consent and notice to the natural parents is intended to protect the natural parental relationship from unwarranted interference b) interlopers! and to insure the opportunit) to safe$uard the best interests of the child in the manner of the proposed adoption& Dhen she filed her petition with the trial court! 'ep& -ct /o& 855. was alread) in effect& 8ection 9 thereof provides that if the written consent of the biolo$ical parents cannot be obtained! the written consent of the le$al

born on& *he minors are the natural children of 4anuel 'amos! petitioner=s brother (deceased)! and -melia 'amos6 who went to #tal)! re6married there and now has two children b) her second marria$e and no lon$er communicated with her children & B E))"*'& /) $ d"*-"" /) $d/2'./n -delberto Gundo (12 )ears old) shot Aennifer *amar$o with an air rifle causin$ in<uries which resulted in her death& -ccordin$l)! a civil complaint for dama$es was filed b) petitioner 4acario *amar$o! AenniferLs adoptin$ parent! and petitioner spouses 0elso and -urelia *amar$o! AenniferLs natural parents a$ainst respondent spouses :ictor and 0lara Gundoc! -delbertoLs natural parents with whom he was livin$ at the time of the tra$ic incident& Prior to the incident! the spouses 8abas and >elisa 'apisura had filed a petition to adopt the minor -delberto Gundoc& *his petition for adoption was $ranted on! 18 /ovember 198.! that is! after -delberto had shot and killed Aennifer& efense of -delberto=s natural parents@ the adoptin$ parents are the indispensable parties as the) have parental authorit)&

$uardian of the minors will suffice& #f! as claimed b) petitioner! that the biolo$ical mother of the minors had indeed abandoned them! she should! thus have adduced the written consent of their le$al $uardian&

T$0$-4/ +& CA (1772)

C"-+$n'"& +& F$;$-d/ (1787)

In '!" M$''"- /) '!" Ad/2'./n /)

*his is a petition for a writ of @abeas Corpus over the person of the minor -n$elie -nne 0ervantes& *he child was born to Gina and 0onrado (common law spouses)& Gina offered the child for adoption to her sister and bro6in6law Henaida and /elson who took care and custod) of the child since she was . weeks old& Gina also e9ecuted an -ffidavit of 0onsent& - petition for adoption was filed and $ranted& "ater! the adoptive parents /elson and Henaida received a letter from Gina and 0onrado demandin$ to be paid the amount of P152!222&22! otherwise! the) would $et back their child& Petitioners refused to accede to the demand& -s a result! on 11 8eptember 1985! while petitioners were out at work! the respondent Gina 0arreon took the child from her 1)a)a1 at the petitionersL residence& 8he refused to return the child& *hus! a petition for habeas corpus was filed& 4a) an ille$itimate child! upon adoption b) her natural father! ,&" '!" &,-n$0" /) !"- n$',-$#

-delbertoLs natural parents were the indispensable parties to the suit for dama$es brou$ht b) petitioners! and that the dismissal b) the trial court of petitionersL complaint! the indispensable parties bein$ alread) before the court! constituted $rave abuse of discretion amountin$ to lack or e9cess of <urisdiction& *he basis of parental liabilit) for the torts of a minor child is the relationship e9istin$ between the parents and the minor child livin$ with them and over whom! the law presumes! the parents e9ercise supervision and control& -rt 7; of 0hild and Oouth Delfare 0ode@ -rt& 7;& .ecree of (doption& M ^ a decree of adoption s&all be entered- w&ic& s&all be effective &e date t&e ori"inal petition was filedE. De do not consider that retroactive effect ma) be $iven to the decree of adoption so as to impose a liabilit) upon the adoptin$ parents accruin$ at a ti$e w&en adoptin" parents &ad no actual or p&ysically custody over t&e adopted c&ild& 'etroactive affect ma) perhaps be $iven to the $rantin$ of the petition for adoption where such is essential to permit the accrual of some benefit or advanta$e in favor of the adopted child& #n the instant case! however! to hold that parental authorit) had been retroactivel) lod$ed in the 'apisura spouses so as to burden them with liabilit) for a tortious act that the) could not have foreseen and which the) could not have prevented (since the) were at the time in the Fnited 8tates and had no ph)sical custod) over the child -delberto) would be unfair and unconscionable& 8uch a result! moreover! would be inconsistent with the philosophical and polic) basis underl)in$ the doctrine of vicarious liabilit)& Put a little differentl)! no presumption of parental dereliction on the part of the adoptin$ parents! the 'apisura spouses! could have arisen since -delberto was not in fact sub<ect to their control at the time the tort was committed& *he petition for habeas corpus is $ranted in favor of the adoptin$ parents& #n all cases involvin$ the custod)! care! education and propert) of children! the latterLs welfare is paramount& #t is undisputed that 0onrado is le$all) married to a woman other than Gina! and his relationship with the latter is a common6law husband and wife relationship& Eis open cohabitation with Gina will not accord the minor that desirable atmosphere where she can $row and develop into an upri$ht and moral6minded person& Gesides! Gina had previousl) $iven birth to another child b) another married man who eventuall) left her and vanished& >or a minor (like -n$elie -nne 0& 0ervantes) to $row up with a sister whose 1father1 is not her true father! could also affect the moral outlook and values of said minor& Fpon the other hand! petitioners who are le$all) married appear to be morall)! ph)sicall)! financiall)! and sociall) capable of supportin$ the minor and $ivin$ her a future better than what the natural mother (herein respondent Gina 0arreon)! who is not onl) <obless but also maintains an illicit relation with a married man! can most likel) $ive her& Gesides! the minor has been le$all) adopted b) petitioners with the full knowled$e and consent of respondents& - decree of adoption has the effect! amon$ others! of dissolvin$ the authorit) vested in natural parents over the adopted child! e9cept where the adoptin$ parent is the spouse of the natural parent of the adopted! in which case! parental authorit) over the adopted shall be e9ercised <ointl) b) both spouses& *he adoptin$ parents have the ri$ht to the care and custod) of the adopted child and e9ercise parental authorit) and responsibilit) over him& 80 allowed 8tephanie to use the surname of her mother as her middle name&

S'"2!$n." G$-*.$ (200D)

0/'!"- as !"- 0.dd#" n$0"C On -u$ust 71! .222! H/n/-$'/ 3 C$'.nd.4 filed a petition to adopt his minor ille$itimate child S'"2!$n." N$'!1 A&'/-4$ G$-*.$& Ee alle$ed therein! amon$ others! that 8tephanie was born on Aune .;! 1993? that her mother is G"00$ A&'/-4$ G$-*.$? that 8tephanie has been usin$ her mother=s middle name and surname? and that he is now a widower and (ualified to be her adoptin$ parent& Ee pra)ed that 8tephanie=s middle name -stor$a be chan$ed to +G$-*.$!, her mother=s surname! and that her surname +G$-*.$, be chan$ed to +C$'.nd.4!, his surname&

R.+"-$ +& R$0.-"6 (2012)

-dolfo and 'osita were married& %leuterio! 'osita=s nephew! was appointed as 'osita=s estate administrator& %leuterio moved for production and inspection of documents of properties believed to be part of her estate! includin$ a hospital& 'oberto (who had been mana$in$ the hospital)! to$ether with 'a)mond and ")dia! opposed the issuance of a subpoena claimin$ that the) were children of -dolfo b) another woman& '*0 allowed the e9amination and production of documents& 'obert filed a special civil action of certiorari before the 0- imputin$ $rave abuse of discretion on '*0 for $rantin$ the motion& 0- held that based on the article Domen Ph)sicians of the Dorld found in the record of the case before it! the late 'osita! a ph)sician! had adopted 'a)mond as her child& -n adopted child! said the 0-! is deemed a le$itimate child of the adopter& *his bein$ the case! 'a)mond=s presence barred %leuterio and 'osita=s other collateral relatives from inheritin$ intestate from her& D R"&*.&&./n /) $d/2'./n iosdado "ahom and #sabelita "ahom adopted #sabelita=s nephew Aose 4elvin 8ibulo (195.)& #sabelita! then a widower! filed for rescission of adoption (1999)& 6respondent refused to chan$e his surname from 8ibulo to "ahom! to the frustrations of petitioner particularl) her husband until the latter died&

*he name of an individual has two parts@ (1) the 4.+"n /- 2-/2"- n$0" and (.) the &,-n$0" /- )$0.#1 n$0"& *he $iven or proper name is that which is $iven to the individual at birth or at baptism! to distin$uish him from other individuals& *he surname or famil) name is that which identifies the famil) to which he belon$s and is continued from parent to child& *he $iven name ma) be freel) selected b) the parents for the child! but the surname to which the child is entitled is fi9ed b) law& *here is no law re$ulatin$ the use of a middle name& /otabl)! the law is likewise silent as to what middle name an adoptee ma) use& Eowever! as correctl) pointed out b) the O8G! the members of the 0ivil 0ode and >amil) "aw 0ommittees that drafted the >amil) 0ode -"*/4n.6"d '!" F.#.2.n/ *,&'/0 /) $dd.n4 '!" &,-n$0" /) '!" *!.#dG& 0/'!"- $& !.& 0.dd#" n$0"& #n the case of an adopted child! the law provides that +t&e adopted s&all bear t&e surna$e of t&e adopters., -$ain! it is silent whether he can use a middle name& Dhat it onl) e9pressl) allows! as a matter of ri$ht and obli$ation! is for the adoptee to bear the surname of the adopter! upon issuance of the decree of adoption& 3".n4 $ #"4.'.0$'" *!.#d 91 +.-'," /) !"- $d/2'./n, .' )/##/%& '!$' S'"2!$n." .& "n'.'#"d '/ $## '!" -.4!'& 2-/+.d"d 91 #$% '/ $ #"4.'.0$'" *!.#d %.'!/,' d.&*-.0.n$'./n /) $n1 (.nd, .n*#,d.n4 '!" -.4!' '/ 9"$- '!" &,-n$0" /) !"- )$'!"- $nd !"- 0/'!"8tephanie=s continued use of her mother=s surname (Garcia) as her middle name will maintain her maternal linea$e& #t is a settled rule that adoption statutes! bein$ humane and salutar)! should be liberall) construed to carr) out the beneficent purposes of adoption& *he interests and welfare of the adopted child are of primar) and paramount consideration 0- $ravel) abused its discretion in ad<udicatin$ on the issue of 'a)mond=s adoption& Dhether or not the late 'osita had <udiciall) adopted 'a)mond as her child is a (uestion of fact that had neither been considered nor passed upon b) the '*0 in a direct challen$e to the claim of %leuterio and 'osita=s other collateral relatives that the) have the ri$ht to inherit from her& *he relevant issue before the '*0 was onl) whether or not the dul) appointed administrator of 'osita=s estate had the ri$ht to the production and e9amination of the documents believed to be in 'obert=s possession& #ndeed! one of the reasons 'obert brou$ht the special civil action of certiorari before the 0- is that %leuterio had no ri$ht to inspect the re(uested documents and have access to -dolfo=s estate when %leuterio=s authorit) as administrator e9tended onl) to 'osita=s estate& *he issues re$ardin$ the late 'osita=s supposed <udicial adoption of 'a)mond as her child and the conse(uent absence of ri$ht on the part of %leuterio! et al& to file a petition for the settlement of 'osita=s estate were never raised and properl) tried before the '*0&

L$!/0 +& S.9,#/ (2003)

Petition dismissed& #n other cases! the 8upreme 0ourt ruled that '!" */n'-/+"-&1 &!/,#d 9" -"&/#+"d .n '!" #.4!' /) '!" #$% 4/+"-n.n4 at the time the petition +as filed #t was months after the effectivit) of '&-& /o& 855. that herein petitioner filed an action to revoke the decree of adoption $ranted in 1955& G) then! the new law! had alread) abro$ated and repealed the ri$ht of an adopter under the 0ivil 0ode and the >amil) 0ode to rescind a decree of

6respondent remained indifferent and would onl) come to /a$a to see her once a )ear& 6respondent all the more remained callous and utterl) indifferent towards petitioner 6respondent has recentl) been <ealous of petitioner=s nephews and nieces whenever the) would find time to visit her! respondent alle$in$ that the) were onl) motivated b) their desire for some material benefits from petitioner& 6 in view of respondent=s insensible attitude resultin$ in a strained and uncomfortable relationship between him and petitioner! the latter has suffered wounded feelin$s! knowin$ that after all respondent=s onl) motive to his adoption is his e9pectanc) of his alle$ed ri$hts over the properties of herein petitioner and her late husband& Gefore the filin$ of the petition! '- 855. took effect prohibitin$ the adopterRs from seekin$ rescission of the adoption& FV S,22/-' A W!$' */02-/0.&"& &,22/-' 3 W!/ $-" /9#.4"d '/ 2-/+.d" &,22/-' C S/,-*" /) &,22/-' L"-0$ +& CA *eodoro "erma and 0oncepcion iaz are husband and wife& "erma filed a complaint for adulter) (17>B) a$ainst iaz& iaz filed for le$al separation with custod)! support! and support pendent lite& iaz was later convicted of adulter)& *he le$al issue posed b) the fore$oin$ facts is whether adulter) is a $ood defense a$ainst the respondentLs claim for support pendente lite&

adoption& 0onsistentl) with its earlier pronouncements! the 0ourt should now hold that the action for rescission of the adoption decree! havin$ been initiated b) petitioner after '&-& /o& 855. had come into force! no lon$er could be pursued& #nterestin$l)! even before the passa$e of the statute! an action to set aside the adoption is sub<ect to the fiveT)ear bar rule under 'ule 122 of the 'ules of 0ourt and that the adopter would lose the ri$ht to revoke the adoption decree after the lapse of that period& *he e9ercise of the ri$ht within a prescriptive period is a condition that could not fulfill the re(uirements of a vested ri$ht entitled to protection& Dhile '&-& /o& 855. has un(ualifiedl) withdrawn from an adopter a conse(uential ri$ht to rescind the adoption decree even in cases where the adoption mi$ht clearl) turn out to be undesirable! it remains! nevertheless! the bounden dut) of the 0ourt to appl) the law& .ura lex sed lex would be the hackne)ed truism that those cau$ht in the law have to live with& #t is still noteworth)! however! that an adopter! while barred from severin$ the le$al ties of adoption! can alwa)s for valid reasons cause the forfeiture of certain benefits otherwise accruin$ to an undeservin$ child

R"1"& +& In"&L,*.$n/ (17>7)

0elia #lustre6'e)es! filed a$ainst her husband! 4anuel A& 0& 'e)es! for le$al separation on the $round that the defendant had attempted to kill plaintiff& *he plaintiff asked for support pendente lite for her and her three children& *he defendant opposed the application for support pendente lite on the $round that his wife had committed

80 held that adulter) is a defense a$ainst the claim of support& -rt .9. of /00@ -'*& .9.& urin$ the proceedin$s for le$al separation! or for annulment of marria$e! the spouses and children shall be supported from the con<u$al partnership propert)& -fter the final <ud$ment of le$al separation! or of annulment of marria$e! the obli$ation of mutual support between the spouses ceases& Eowever! in case of le$al separation! the court ma) order that the $uilt) spouse shall $ive support to the innocent one! the <ud$ment specif)in$ the terms of such order& #t is su$$ested that while adulter) ma) be a defense in an action for personal support! that is! support of the wife b) the husband from his own funds! it is not a defense when the support is to be taken from the con<u$al partnership propert)& GF* 80 said there is no distinction& -rticle .9. is not in itself the source of the le$al ri$ht to receive support& #t merel) states that the support! not onl) of the spouses but also of the children! shall be taken from the con<u$al propert) durin$ the pendenc) of the le$al separation proceedin$& *he ri$ht to separate support or maintenance! even from the con<u$al partnership propert)! presupposes the e9istence of a <ustifiable cause for the spouse claimin$ such ri$ht to live separatel)& petition in bad faith! such as that filed b) one who is himself or herself $uilt) of an act which constitutes a $round for le$al separation at the instance of the other spouse! cannot be considered as within the intendment of the law $rantin$ separate support& *he loss of the substantive ri$ht to support in such a situation is incompatible with an) claim for support pendente lite& #t is true that the adulter) of the wife is a defense in an action for support however! the alle$ed adulter) of wife must be established b) competent evidence& *he alle$ation that the wife has committed adulter) will not bar her from the ri$ht receive support pendente lite& -dulter) is a $ood defense and if properl) proved and sustained will defeat the action& Ee did not present evidence supportin$ his alle$ation at the hearin$ for support pendent lite& *he petitioner has still the opportunit) to adduce evidence on the alle$ed adulter) of his wife when the action for le$al separation is heard on the merits& #t is to be noted however! that as pointed out b) the

adulter) with her ph)sician& 8upport pendent lite was $ranted&

respondents in their comment! the 1private respondent was not askin$ support to be taken from petitionerLs personal funds or wherewithal! but from the con<u$al propert)^1& #t is! therefore! doubtful whether adulter) will affect her ri$ht to alimon) pendente lite& #n determinin$ the amount to be awarded as support pendente lite it is not necessar) to $o full) into the merits of the case! it bein$ sufficient that the court ascertain the kind and amount of evidence which it ma) deem sufficient to enable it to <ustl) resolve the application! one wa) or the other! in view of the merel) provisional character of the resolution to be entered& 4ere affidavits ma) satisf) the court to pass upon the application for support pendente lite& #t is enou$h the the facts be established b) affidavits or other documentar) evidence appearin$ in the record&

D O-d"- /) &,22/-' M$n4/n/n +& 4a& Gelen G& 4an$onon filed! in behalf of her then CA minor children 'ica and 'ina! a Petition for eclaration of "e$itimac) and 8upport! with (200=) application for support pendente lite& 4an$onon and el$ado=s marria$e was annulled&-fter 5 months! 4an$onon $ave birth to twins 'ica and 'ina& -t the time of filin$ of the petition! the twins were about to enter colle$e in F8& 8o 4an$onon claimed support from father >ederico el$ado! or in his default! from $randfather >rancisco el$ado& '*0 and 0-@ 4an$onon and >ederico should be the ones providin$ support for their children& Petitioner also maintains that as respondent >rancisco has the financial resources to help defra) the cost of 'ica and 'ina=s schoolin$! the 0ourt of -ppeals then erred in sustainin$ the trial court=s Order directin$ respondent >ederico to pa) 'ica and 'ina the amount of award P5!222&22 each as monthl) support pendente lite&

*he petition is meritorious& - court ma) temporaril) $rant support pendente lite prior to the rendition of <ud$ment or final order& Gecause of its provisional nature! a court does not need to delve full) into the merits of the case before it can settle an application for this relief& -fter the hearin$s conducted on this matter as well as the evidence presented! we find that petitioner was able to establish! b) prima facie proof! the filiation of her twin dau$hters to private respondents and the twins= entitlement to support pendente lite& -n eminent author on the sub<ect e9plains that the obli$ation to $ive support rests principall) on those more closel) related to the recipient& Eowever! the more remote relatives ma) be held to shoulder the responsibilit) should the claimant prove that those who are called upon to provide support do not have the means to do so& *here bein$ prima facie evidence showin$ that petitioner and respondent >ederico are the parents of 'ica and 'ina! petitioner and respondent >ederico are primaril) char$ed to support their children=s colle$e education& #n view however of their incapacities! the obli$ation to furnish said support should be borne b) respondent >rancisco& Fnder -rticle 199 of the >amil) 0ode! respondent >rancisco! as the ne9t immediate relative of 'ica and 'ina! is tasked to $ive support to his $randdau$hters in default of their parents& *he obli$or is $iven the choice as to how he could dispense his obli$ation to $ive support& *hus! he ma) $ive the determined amount of support to the claimant or he ma) allow the latter to sta) in the famil) dwellin$& *he second option cannot be availed of in case there are circumstances! le$al or moral! which should be considered& #n this case! this 0ourt believes that respondent >rancisco could not avail himself of the second option& Dith the filin$ of this case! and the alle$ations hurled at one another b) the parties! the relationships amon$ the parties had certainl) been affected& >inall)! as to the amount of support pendente lite! we take our bearin$s from the provision of the law mandatin$ the amount of support to be proportionate to the resources or means of the $iver and to the necessities of the recipient& Guided b) this principle! we hold respondent >rancisco liable for half of the amount of school e9penses incurred b) 'ica and 'ina as support pendente lite& -s established b) petitioner! respondent >rancisco has the financial resources to pa) this amount $iven his various business endeavors& Petitioners liable but their liabilit) limited to support needed b) 0her)l and %dward=s children& -lthou$h the obli$ation to provide support arisin$ from parental authorit) ends upon the emancipation of the child! the same obli$ation arisin$ from spousal and $eneral familial ties ideall) lasts durin$ the obli$eeLs lifetime&& -lso! while parental authorit) under *itle #V (and the correlative parental ri$hts) pertains to parents! passin$ to ascendants onl) upon its termination or suspension! the obli$ation to provide le$al support passes on to ascendants not onl) upon default of the parents but also for the latter=s inabilit) to provide sufficient support& Eere! there is no (uestion that 0her)l is unable to dischar$e her obli$ation to provide sufficient le$al support to her children! then all school6bound& #t is also undisputed that the amount of support %dward is able to $ive to respondents! P;!222 a month! is insufficient to meet respondents= basic needs& *his

S2/,&"& L.0 +& L.0 (2007)

0her)l was married to %dward! son of Prudencio and >ilomena (petitioners)& 0her)l! %dward and their children resided at petitioner=s house with %dward=s $randmother and her husband& 0her)l with her children left the residence after she discovered %dward in +a ver) compromisin$ position,& 8he! the! filed for support a$ainst %dward! his parents (petitioners)! and his $randmother& '*0@ Petitioners and $randmom <ointl) liable with %dward&

inabilit) of %dward and 0her)l to sufficientl) provide for their children shifts a portion of their obli$ation to the ascendants in the nearest de$ree! both in the paternal (petitioners) and maternal lines! followin$ the orderin$ in -rticle 199& *o hold otherwise! and thus subscribe to petitioners= theor)! is to sanction the anomalous scenario of toleratin$ e9treme material deprivation of children because of parental inabilit) to $ive ade(uate support even if ascendants one de$ree removed are more than able to fill the void& Eowever! petitioners= partial concurrent obli$ation e9tends onl) to their descendants as this word is commonl) understood to refer to relatives! b) blood of lower de$ree& -s petitioners= $randchildren b) blood! onl) respondents "ester %dward! 0andice Grace and 4ariano ### belon$ to this cate$or)& #ndeed! 0her)l=s ri$ht to receive support from the "im famil) e9tends onl) to her husband %dward! arisin$ from their marital bond& E M$nn"- $nd '.0" /) 2$10"n' F R"n,n*.$'./n $nd '"-0.n$'./n G S,22/-' 2"nd"n' " #.'" FVI P$-"n'$# A,'!/-.'1 $nd C,&'/d1 /) C!.#d-"n A C/n*"2' /) 2$-"n'$# $,'!/-.'1 M"d.n$ +& Henaida 4edina $ave birth to a bab) bo) named M$($9$#. Aoseph 0asero in the 4akabali 0linic in 8an >ernando! Pampan$a! owned and operated b) (17=7) respondent ra& :enancia 4akabali who assisted at the deliver)& *he bo) was HenaidaLs third! had with a married man! >eliciano 0asero& *he mother left the child with ra& 4akabali from his birth& *he latter took care and reared Aoseph as her own son? had him treated at her e9pense for poliom)elitis! until he recovered his health? and sent him to school& >rom birth (19;1) until -u$ust 19;;! the real mother never visited her child! and never paid for his e9penses& Henaida 4edina lived with >eliciano 0asero with her two other children apparentl) with the tolerance! if not the ac(uiescence! of 0aseros lawful wife -fter e9tractin$ from ra& 4akabali a promise to allow the minor a free choice with whom to live when he reaches the a$e of 13! the 0ourt held that it was for the childLs best interest to be left with his foster mother and denied the writ of habeas corpus& Un&/n + &4i$uel& '& Fnson and %dita :& -raneta were N$+$--/ married and bore a child! *eresa& "ater on! the) separated and e9ecuted an a$reement for the (1982) separation of their properties and to live separatel)& /o specific provision was contained in said a$reement about the custod) of the child& >rom the time of their separation! the mother had custod) of the child&

Drit denied& Dhile our law reco$nizes the ri$ht of a parent to the custod) of her child! 0ourts must not lose si$ht of the basic principle that 1in all (uestions on the care! custod)! education and propert) of children! the latterLs welfare shall be paramount1 -s remarked b) the 0ourt below! petitioner Henaida 4edina proved remiss in these sacred duties? she not onl) failed to provide the child with love and care but actuall) deserted him! with not even a visit! in his tenderest )ears! when he needed his mother the most& #t ma) well be doubted what advanta$e the child could derive from bein$ coerced to abandon respondentLs care and love to be compelled to sta) with his mother and witness her irre$ular $ena"e a trois with 0asero and the latterLs le$itimate wife&

*he custod) of the child is $ranted to the father& in controversies re$ardin$ the custod) of minors the sole and foremost consideration is the ph)sical! education! social and moral welfare of the child concerned! takin$ into account the respective resources and social and moral situations of the contendin$ parents& *he fact! that *eresa mi$ht have been tolerant about her sta) with her mother in the past when she was still too )oun$ to distin$uish between ri$ht and wron$ and have her own correct impressions or notions about the unusual and peculiar relationship of her mother with her own uncle6in6law! the husband of her sisterLs mother! is hardl) of an) conse(uence now that she has reached a perilous sta$e in her life&

3$4'$& + H/n R,'! S$n'/& (.229)

Eowever! petitioner is now seekin$ custod) of *eresa! now 8 )ears old! due to the relationship %dita started with her brother6in law with whom she lives with and is said to suffer from manic6 depressive disorder& -ntonio and 'osita 8& Gallardo (8pouses Gallardo) are the parents of 4aricel 8& Gallardo (4aricel)& 4aricel ran awa) with her bo)friend and $ot pre$nant& "ater on! she left her child 4ar)l Ao) to /oel G& Ga$tas (Ga$tas) and ")dia G& 8ioson (8ioson) and relin(uished her ri$hts to the child in the letter& *he 8pouses Gallardo tried to obtain the custod) of the child and the two parties a$reed on a compromise a$reement re$ardin$ the child=s custod) as found in an '*0 Order& *he 8pouses Gallardo breached the a$reement when the) took the child to 8amar& *he '*0 ordered the spouses Gallardo to produce the child under pain of contempt& Fpon the production of the child! the '*0 dismissed the case as moot and academic& Ga$tas and 8ioson ar$ue that the dismissal was erroneous and the custod) of the child be returned to them &

*he 0ourt finds no alternative than to $rant the mother no more than visitorial ri$hts over the child in (uestion& -n)wa)! decisions even of this 8upreme 0ourt on the custod) of minor children are alwa)s open to ad<ustment as the circumstances relevant to the matter ma) demand in the li$ht of the infle9ible criterion 0ase is remanded to determine who should have ri$htful custod) of the child& #n cases involvin$ a petition for habeas corpus of minors! the (uestion of ille$al and involuntar) restraint of libert) is not the underl)in$ rationale for the availabilit) of the writ as a remed)& 'ather! it is prosecuted for the purpose of determinin$ the ri$ht of custod) over a child& #n 8ombon$! the 0ourt laid down three re(uisites in petitions for habeas corpus involvin$ minors@ (1) the petitioner has a ri$ht of custod) over the minor! (.) the respondent is withholdin$ the ri$htful custod) over the minor! and (7) the best interest of the minor demands that he or she be in the custod) of the petitioner& #n determinin$ who has the ri$htful custod) over a child! the child=s welfare is the most important consideration& *he court is not bound b) an) le$al ri$ht of a person over the child&& #n the present case! these re(uisites are not clearl) established because the '*0 hastil) dismissed the action and awarded the custod) of 4ar)l Ao) to the 8pouses Gallardo without conductin$ an) trial&

3 T-$n&)"- /) PA E&#$/ + CA Petitioner *eresita 8a$ala6%slao! the mother in law of the respondent! seeks the custod) of her two $randchildren! one of them -n$elica! who lived with her for three )ears& (1995)

0ustod) of the children belon$s to the mother& Parental authorit) and responsibilit) are inalienable and ma) not be transferred or renounced e9cept in cases authorized b) law&*he ri$ht attached to parental authorit)! bein$ purel) personal! the law allows a waiver of parental authorit) onl) in cases of adoption! $uardianship and surrender to a children=s home or an orphan institution& Dhen a parent entrusts the custod) of a minor to another! such as a friend or $odfather! even in a document! what is $iven is merel) temporar) custod) and it does not constitute a renunciation of parental authorit)& %ven if a definite renunciation is manifest! the law still disallows the same& *hus! in the instant petition! when respondent entrusted the custod) of her minor child to her mother in law! what she $ave to the latter was merel) temporar) custod) and it did not constitute abandonment or renunciation of parental authorit)& >or the ri$ht attached to parental authorit)! bein$ purel) personal! the law allows a waiver of parental authorit) onl) in cases of adoption! $uardianship and surrender to a children=s home or an orphan institution which do not appear in the case at bar& Of considerable importance is the rule lon$ accepted b) the courts that +the ri$ht of parents to the custod) of their minor children is one of the natural ri$hts incident to parenthood! a ri$ht supported b) law and sound public polic)& *he ri$ht is an inherent one! which is not created b) the stateli or decisions of the courts! but derives from the nature of the parental relationship

C W!/ "E"-*.&"& PA E&2.-.', $nd 'e)naldo and *eresita=s marria$e bore . children! L$1,4 + CA 'osalind and 'e$inald& *he couple=s marria$e soured! especiall) with 'e)naldo later on learnin$ (1995) that *eresita had a prior marria$e& *eresita left and worked in 0alifornia! leavin$ the children with 'e)naldo& 'e)naldo temporaril) had to work in the F8 and so left the two children in his sister=s care& *eresita came back and filed the petition for a writ of habeas corpus to $ain custod) of her children& *he '*0 $ranted custod) to 'e)naldo but this was overturned b) the 0- appl)in$ >0 .17! $ivin$ custod) to the mother if the children are less than 5 )ears of a$e&

*he 0- erred in $rantin$ custod) to the mother& *he 0ourt of -ppeals was undul) swa)ed b) an abstract presumption of law rather than an appreciation of relevant facts and the law which should appl) to those facts& *he task of choosin$ the parent to whom custod) shall be awarded is not a ministerial function to be determined b) a simple determination of the a$e of a minor child& Dhether a child is under or over seven )ears of a$e! the paramount criterion must alwa)s be the childLs interests& iscretion is $iven to the court to decide who can best assure the welfare of the child! and award the custod) on the basis of that consideration& #n this case! the children are alread) above 5 )ears! therefore their choice on whose parent the) want to live with should be taken into consideration as well as the testimonies of the child ps)cholo$ist who e9amined both of the children& >rom all indications! 'e)naldo is a fit person! thus meetin$ the two re(uirements found in the first para$raph of -rticle .17 of the >amil) 0ode& *he presumption under the second para$raph of said article no lon$er applies as the children are over seven )ears& -ssumin$ that the presumption should have persuasive value for children onl) one or two )ears be)ond the a$e of seven )ears mentioned in the statute! there are compellin$ reasons and relevant considerations not to $rant custod) to the mother& *he children understand the unfortunate shortcomin$s of their mother and have been affected in their emotional $rowth b) her behavior& *he custod) of the child belon$s to his father& Parental authorit) and responsibilit) are inalienable and ma) not be transferred or renounced e9cept in cases authorized b) law& *he ri$ht attached to parental authorit)! bein$ purel) personal! the law allows a waiver of parental authorit) onl) in cases of adoption! $uardianship and surrender to a childrenLs home or an orphan institution& Dhen a parent entrusts the custod) of a minor to another! such as a friend or $odfather! even in a document! what is $iven is merel) temporar) custod) and it does not constitute a renunciation of parental authorit)& %ven if a definite renunciation is manifest! the law still disallows the same& *he law vests on the father and mother <oint parental authorit) over the persons of their common children& #n case of absence or death of either parent! the parent present shall continue e9ercisin$ parental authorit)& Onl) in case of the parentsL death! absence or unsuitabilit) ma) substitute parental authorit) be e9ercised b) the survivin$ $randparent& *he occupation of the father as a soldier and his spiritin$ awa) his bo) from his in laws are not <ustifiable reasons not to $ive custod) to him&

S$n'/& S- + CA (1995) Petitioner "eoul 8antos 8r& seeks the custod) of his ; )ear old child! who had been in the custod) of his maternal $randchildren since he was born due to "eoul=s prior financial difficulties and his occupation as a soldier& *he mother! after movin$ to the F8! has been 4#-& Prior to the filin$ of a Petition for 0are and 0ustod) of the $randparents! the father took the child awa) from them&

V$n*.# + 3"#0"& (.221)

-t issue is who between the paternal $randmother and the mother should have custod) of :incent! who is 1; )ears of a$e& *he other child! :alerie! had alread) reached the a$e of ma<orit)&

*he custod) should be $iven to the mother& that respondent! bein$ the natural mother of the minor! has the preferential ri$ht over that of petitioner to be his $uardian (>0 .11)& Petitioner! as the survivin$ $randparent! can e9ercise substitute parental authorit) onl) in case of death! absence or unsuitabilit) of respondent (>0 .13)& Petitioner! however! has not proffered convincin$ evidence showin$ that respondent is not suited to be the $uardian of :incent& %ven assumin$ that respondent is unfit as $uardian of minor :incent! still petitioner cannot (ualif) as a

substitute $uardian since she is an -merican citizen and a resident of 0olorado& #n fact! in her petition! she admitted the difficult) of dischar$in$ the duties of a $uardian b) an e9patriate! like her& *o be sure! she will merel) dele$ate those duties to someone else who ma) not also (ualif) as a $uardian& #ndeed! her comin$ back to this countr) <ust to fulfill the duties of a $uardian to :incent for onl) two )ears is not certain& 8i$nificantl)! this 0ourt has held that courts should not appoint persons as $uardians who are not within the <urisdiction of our courts for the) will find it difficult to protect the wards& *he court also considered her old a$e and her prior conviction of libel& *he custod) of the minor who is less than 5 )ears old belon$s to the mother& #n the case at bar! 0hristopher A& is an ille$itimate child since at the time of his conception! his father! 'amon '& :illar! was married to another woman other than the childLs mother& -s such! pursuant to -rt& 15; of the >amil) 0ode! 0hristopher A& is under the parental authorit) of his mother! who! as a conse(uence of such authorit)! is entitled to have custod) of him& #ndeed! 'ule 12.1 _1 makes no distinction between the case of a mother who is separated from her husband and is entitled to the custod) of her child and that of a mother of an ille$itimate child who! b) law! is vested with sole parental authorit)! but is deprived of her ri$htful custod) of her child& *he fact that private respondent has reco$nized the minor child ma) be a $round for orderin$ him to $ive support to the latter! but not for $ivin$ him custod) of the child& Fnder -rt& .17 of the >amil) 0ode! 1no child under seven )ears of a$e shall be separated from the mother unless the court finds compellin$ reasons to order otherwise&1 aisie ma) not be en<o)in$ a life of affluence that the father promises #f the child lives with him& #t is enou$h! however! that petitioner is earnin$ a decent livin$ and is able to support her children accordin$ to her means& *he custod) of the minor belon$s to the mother& avid v& 0ourt of -ppeals held that the reco$nition of an ille$itimate child b) the father could be a $round for orderin$ the latter to $ive support to! but not custod) of! the child& *he law e9plicitl) confers to the mother sole parental authorit) over an ille$itimate child? it follows that onl) if she defaults can the father assume custod) and authorit) over the minor& Of course! the putative father ma) adopt his own ille$itimate child? in such a case! the child shall be considered a le$itimate child of the adoptive parent& *here is thus no (uestion that 'espondent "oreta! bein$ the mother of and havin$ sole parental authorit) over the minor! is entitled to have custod) of him& 8he has the ri$ht to keep him in her compan)& 8he cannot be deprived of that ri$ht! and she ma) not even renounce or transfer it +e9cept in the cases authorized b) law&, /ot to be i$nored in -rticle .17 of the >amil) 0ode is the caveat that! $enerall)! no child under seven )ears of a$e shall be separated from the mother! e9cept when the court finds cause to order otherwise& *he ille$itimate father ma) however be $ranted visitorial ri$hts in of the constitutionall) protected inherent and natural ri$ht of parents over their children 0ustod) is $ranted to the mother& -s found in >0 .17! +/o child under seven )ears of a$e shall be separated from the mother! unless the court finds compellin$ reasons to order otherwise,&*he $eneral rule that children under seven )ears of a$e shall not be separated from their mother finds its raison d=etre in the basic need of minor children for their mother=s lovin$ care

D$+.d + C/,-' /) A22"$#& (1995)

'amon :illar! a married man! started an affair with aisie avid which bore a son 0hristopher A& *he son was accepted b) his le$al famil) and one da)! after a trip to Goraca) with his le$al famil)! the father refused to $ive the child back to the mother

3-./n"& M.4,"# (.223)

Aoe) & Griones sou$ht custod) of his ille$itimate son! 4ichael Bevin! who was left with him when his mother went to work in Aapan and became a national b) her marria$e to a Aapanese& Aoe) alle$es that the child was taken from him b) his maternal $randparents and at the time of the 80=s decision! was alread) residin$ with his mother in Aapan

G,$#9"-'/ G,$#9"-'/ (.225)

-t issue is who between two parents who have separated should have custod) over their child who is less than 5 )ears of a$e& *he father alle$es that he should have custod) since his former spouse is a lesbian&

*he so6called +tender6a$e presumption, under -rticle .17 of the >amil) 0ode ma) be overcome onl) b) compellin$ evidence of the mother=s unfitness& *he mother has been declared unsuitable to have custod) of her children in one or more of the followin$ instances@ ne$lect! abandonment! unemplo)ment! immoralit)! habitual drunkenness! dru$ addiction! maltreatment of the child! insanit) or affliction with a communicable disease& Eere! 0risanto cites immoralit) due to alle$ed lesbian relations as the compellin$ reason to deprive Ao)cel)n of custod)& #t has indeed been held that under certain circumstances! the mother=s immoral conduct ma) constitute a compellin$ reason to deprive her of custod)& Gut se9ual preference or moral la9it) alone does not prove parental ne$lect or incompetence& /ot even the fact that a mother is a prostitute or has been unfaithful to her husband would render her unfit to have custod) of her minor child&*o deprive the wife of custod)! the husband must clearl) establish that her moral lapses have had an adverse effect on the welfare of the child or have distracted the offendin$ spouse from e9ercisin$ proper parental care 8uch a fact has not been shown here& *here is no evidence that the son was e9posed to the mother=s alle$ed se9ual proclivities or that his proper moral and ps)cholo$ical development suffered as a result& S.#+$ + CA (1995) 0arlitos! a married businessman! and 8uzanne! an unmarried actress! cohabited (wRo marria$e) which resulted in children& *he) parted wa)s soon after& 8uzanne refused to allow 0arlitos to have the children durin$ weekends& 0arlitos filed a case for custod) of the children! which was opposed b) 8uzanne! alle$in$ that 0arlitos often en$a$ed in $amblin$ and womanizin$ which she feared could affect the moral and social values of the children& '*0 ruled in favor of 0arlitos! 8uzanne appealed& #n the meantime! she $ot married to a utch national and moved to Eolland alon$ with the children& 0- ruled in favor of 8uzanne! hence this case& *he issue before the 80 is not a (uestion of child custod)? instead! the case merel) concerns the visitation ri$ht of a parent over his children which the trial court has ad<ud$ed in favor of petitioner b) holdin$ that he shall have +visitorial ri$hts to his children durin$ 8aturda)s andRor 8unda)s! but in no case (could) he take out the children without the written consent of the mother 9 9 9&1 *he visitation ri$ht referred to is the ri$ht of access of a noncustodial parent to his or her child or children& Petitioner 4arie and respondent "oran are the parents of the .6)ear6old minor "orenzo& *he) lived with 4arie`s parents& Eowever due to problems with the in6laws! "oran su$$ested that the) transfer to their own house& 4arie refused and so "oran *here is! despite a dearth of &2"*.).* le$al provisions! enou$h reco$nition on the .n!"-"n' and n$',-$# -.4!' of parents over their children& -rticle 152 of the >amil) 0ode e9presses that 1(f)amil) relations include those 9 9 9 (.) (b)etween parents and children? 9 9 9&1 -rticle .29! in relation to -rticle ..2! of the 0ode states that it is '!" n$',-$# -.4!' $nd d,'1 /) 2$-"n'& and those e9ercisin$ parental authorit) to! amon$ other thin$s! keep children in their compan) and to $ive them love and affection! advice and counsel! companionship and understandin$& *he 0onstitution itself speaks in terms of the Hn$',-$# $nd 2-.0$-1 -.4!'&J of parents in the rearin$ of the )outh& P *here is nothin$ conclusive to indicate that these provisions are meant to solel) address themselves to le$itimate relationships& #ndeed! althou$h in var)in$ de$rees! the laws on support and successional ri$hts! b) wa) of e9amples! clearl) $o be)ond the le$itimate members of the famil) and so e9plicitl) encompass ille$itimate relationships as well& *hen! too! and most importantl)! in the declaration of n,##.'1 of marria$es! a situation that presupposes a void or ine9istent marria$e! -rticle 39 of the >amil) 0ode provides for appropriate visitation ri$hts to parents who are not $iven custod) of their children& *he alle$ations of respondent a$ainst the character of petitioner! even assumin$ as true! cannot be taken as sufficient basis to render petitioner an unfit father& *he fears e9pressed b) respondent to the effect that petitioner shall be able to corrupt and de$rade their children once allowed to even temporaril) associate with petitioner is but the product of respondentLs unfounded ima$ination! for no man! bereft of all moral persuasions and $oodness! would ever take the trouble and e9pense in institutin$ a le$al action for the purpose of seein$ his ille$itimate children& #t can <ust be ima$ined the deep sorrows of a father who is deprived of his children of tender a$es&

S$#."n'"& S$#."n'"& (.22;)

Eabeas corpus ma) be resorted to in cases where ri$htful custod) is withheld from a person entitled thereto& Fnder -rt& .11 of the >0! "oran and 4arie have <oint parental authorit) over their son and conse(uentl) <oint custod)& -lthou$h the parents are separated de facto! since the issue of custod) has )et to be ad<udicated b) the court and in the absence of a <udicial $rant of custod) to one parent! GO*E parents are still entitled to the ri$ht to the custod) of their child&

left& Ee was thereafter prevented from seein$ his son& "oran filed for Eabeas 0orpus and 0ustod)& Petitioners filed for certiorari but 0- dismissed petition statin$ that the order of the trial court did not award the custod) of the child to an)one but was simpl) a standard order issued for the production of restrained persons and that a summar) proceedin$ was still $oin$ to be conducted& Petitioners relied on -rt& .17 of >0 (no child under 5 shall be separated from the mother unless there is compellin$ reason to do so) and contend that proper remed) was simpl) an action for custod) and not habeas corpus since it is unavailable a$ainst the mother who under the law has the ri$ht of custod) of the minor& 'espondent wife 0her)l and husband %dward! son of petitioner $randparents! had three children& *he) sta)ed at the house of the petitioner $randparents in >orbes Park! 4akati 0it)& *he husband=s famil) business! which provided him with a monthl) salar) of onl) P;!222 which shouldered the famil) e9penses& *he wife had no stead) source of income& -fter the husband was cau$ht in a compromisin$ position with the midwife! there was a violent confrontation between the spouses which resulted in the wife leavin$ petitioner=s place with her children& *he wife sued the husband -/ the petitioner $randparents for support for her and her children& *he trial court rendered <ud$ment orderin$ %dward and petitioners to 1<ointl)1 provide P32!222 monthl) support& Petitioners theorize that their liabilit) is activated onl) upon default of parental authorit)! conceivabl) either b) its termination or suspension durin$ the children=s minorit)& Gecause at the time respondents sued for support! 0her)l and %dward e9ercised parental authorit) over their children! petitioners submit that the obli$ation to support the latter=s offsprin$ ends with them& Gecause at the time respondents sued for support! 0her)l and %dward e9ercised parental authorit) over their children! petitioners submit that the obli$ation to support the latter=s offsprin$ ends with them&

#n the present case! respondent`s cause of action is the deprivation of his ri$ht to see his child as alle$ed in the petition and thus the remed) of habeas corpus is available to him& >urthermore! -rt& .17 deals with <udicial ad<udication of custod) and serves as a $uideline for the proper award of custod) b) the court& #t is not a basis for preventin$ father to see his own child& /othin$ in the said provision disallows father from seein$ or visitin$ his own child under 5 )ears of a$e& 4oreover! -rticle .17 of the >amil) 0ode deals with the <udicial ad<udication of custod) and serves as a $uideline for the proper award of custod) b) the court& Petitioners can raise it as a counter ar$ument for private respondent=s petition for custod)& Gut it is not a basis for preventin$ the father to see his own child& /othin$ in the said provision disallows a father from seein$ or visitin$ his child under seven )ears of a$e&

S2& L.0 + L.0 (.229)

P"'.'./n"-& L.$9#" '/ P-/+.d" S,22/-' 9,' /n#1 '/ '!".- G-$nd*!.#d-"n /either the te9t of the law nor the teachin$ of <urisprudence supports the severe constriction that the petitioners are onl) liable for support of the $randchildren upon default of the parental authorit)& #n the first place! the $overnin$ te9t are the relevant provisions in *itle :### of the 0ivil 0ode! as amended! on 8upport! not the provisions in *itle #V on Parental -uthorit)& Dhile both areas share a common $round in that parental authorit) encompasses the obli$ation to provide le$al support! the) differ in other concerns includin$ the duration of the obli$ation and its concurrence amon$ relatives of differin$ de$rees& *hus! althou$h the obli$ation to provide support arisin$ from parental authorit) ends upon the emancipation of the child! the same obli$ation arisin$ from spousal and $eneral familial ties ideall) lasts durin$ the obli$eeLs lifetime& -lso! while parental authorit) under *itle #V (and the correlative parental ri$hts) pertains to parents! passin$ to ascendants onl) upon its termination or suspension! the obli$ation to provide le$al support passes on to ascendants not onl) upon default of the parents but also for the latter=s inabilit) to provide sufficient support Professor Pineda is of the view that $randchildren cannot demand support directl) from their $randparents if the) have parents (ascendants of nearest de$ree) who are capable of supportin$ them& *his is so because we have to follow the order of support under -rt& 199& De a$ree with this view& Eere! there is no (uestion that 0her)l is unable to dischar$e her obli$ation to provide sufficient le$al support to her children! then all school6bound& #t is also undisputed that the amount of support %dward is able to $ive to respondents! P;!222 a month! is insufficient to meet respondents= basic needs& *his inabilit) of %dward and 0her)l to sufficientl) provide for their children shifts a portion of their obli$ation to the ascendants in the nearest de$ree! both in the paternal (petitioners) and maternal lines! followin$ the orderin$ in -rticle 199& *o hold otherwise! and thus subscribe to petitioners= theor)! is to sanction the anomalous scenario of toleratin$ e9treme material deprivation of children because of parental inabilit) to $ive ade(uate support even if ascendants one de$ree removed are more than able to fill the void&1avvphi1 Eowever! petitioners= partial concurrent obli$ation e9tends onl) to their descendants as this word is commonl) understood to refer to relatives! b) blood of lower de$ree& -s petitioners= $randchildren b) blood! onl) respondents "ester %dward! 0andice Grace and 4ariano ### belon$ to this cate$or)& #ndeed! 0her)l=s ri$ht to receive support from the "im famil) e9tends onl) to her husband %dward! arisin$ from their marital bond&

P"/2#" M$-<,"6 (.211)

0arolina 4erano met 4ar(uez at the beaut) parlor where she was workin$ as a beautician& 8he became close with 4ar(uez who $ave her tips and alwa)s brou$ht $ifts for her dau$hter& -fter a trip to a beach in "a$una! 4ar(uez alle$edl) borrowed 4erano=s then three6month old dau$hter Austine Gernadette 0& 4erano (Austine) to bu) her some clothes! milk and food& 4erano said she a$reed because it was not unusual for 4ar(uez to brin$ Austine some thin$s whenever she came to the parlor& 4ar(uez disappeared and did not return the child& #nstead she demanded mone) from 4erano for the child=s return& 4ar(uez later $ave the child to the 8ps& 0astillo for a sum of mone)& 4ar(uez contends that it was 4erano who offered her child for adoption& 4erano alle$edl) left the child in 4ar(uez=s home while 4ar(uez was awa) and the 8ps& 0astillo were persuaded b) 4erano to pick the child up from there& 4erano filed a char$ed of kidnappin$ and failure to return a minor&

Guilt) of Bidnappin$ and failure to return a minor -rt& .52& Bidnappin$ and failure to return a minor& M *he penalt) of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon an) person who! bein$ entrusted with the custod) of a minor person! shall deliberatel) fail to restore the latter to his parents or $uardians& *his crime has two essential elements@ 1& *he offender is entrusted with the custod) of a minor person? and .& *he offender deliberatel) fails to restore the said minor to his parents or $uardians& *his 0ourt! in elucidatin$ on the elements of -rticle .52! stated that while one of the essential elements of this crime is that the offender was entrusted with the custod) of the minor! what is actuall) bein$ punished is not the kidnappin$ but the deliberate failure of that person to restore the minor to his parents or $uardians& #t is clear from the records of the case that 4ar(uez was entrusted with the custod) of Austine& Dhether this is due to 4erano=s version of 4ar(uez borrowin$ Austine for the da)! or due to 4ar(uez=s version that 4erano left Austine at her house! it is undeniable that in both versions! 4ar(uez a$reed to the arran$ement! i&e&! to temporaril) take custod) of Austine& #t does not matter! for the first element to be present! how lon$ said custod) lasted as it cannot be denied that 4ar(uez was the one entrusted with the custod) of the minor Austine& *hus! the first element of the crime is satisfied& -s to the second element! neither part) disputes that on 8eptember ;! 1998! the custod) of Austine was transferred or entrusted to 4ar(uez& Dhether this lasted for months or onl) for a couple of da)s! the fact remains that 4ar(uez had! at one point in time! ph)sical and actual custod) of Austine& 4ar(uez=s deliberate failure to return Austine! a minor at that time! when demanded to do so b) the latter=s mother! shows that the second element is likewise undoubtedl) present in this case& 4ar(uez=s insistence on 4erano=s alle$ed desire and intention to have Austine adopted cannot e9onerate her because it has no bearin$ on her deliberate failure to return Austine to 4erano& #f it were true that 4ar(uez merel) facilitated Austine=s adoption! then there was no more need for 4erano to contact 4ar(uez and vice6versa! since 4erano! as 4ar(uez claimed! had direct access to 0astillo& *he evidence shows! however! that 4erano desperatel) searched for a wa) to communicate with 4ar(uez&

D S,9&'.','" PA V$n*.# + 3"#0"& Petitioner Gonifacia is the mother of 'eeder :ancil& 'eeder is a F8 /av) serviceman who had two (.221) children b) his common6law wife! Eelen& Dhen he died! he left them (the children) with his death pension benefits with a probable value of P 122!222& Gonifacia commenced $uardianship proceedin$s before the '*0 of 0ebu! over the person and properties of the two children (her $randchildren)! :alerie and :incent& 8he was appointed as their $uardian& *he natural mother of minors! Eelen! opposed the appointment! assertin$ that she is the natural mother in actual custod) of and e9ercisin$ parental authorit) over the said minors&

MOTHER "n'.'#"d '/ *,&'/d1, n/' 4-$nd2$-"n'& -rt& .11 of the >amil) 0ode states clearl) that the father and mother shall <ointl) e9ercise authorit) over the persons of their common children& Petitioner at the most! can onl) e9ercise substitute parental authorit) in case of death! absence or unsuitabilit) of respondent& 0onsiderin$ the present circumstances! the respondent is ver) much alive and e9ercisin$ parental authorit) over the minors& Petitioner has not proffered convincin$ evidence showin$ that respondent is not suited to be the $uardian of :incent (as :alerie is alread) of le$al a$e)& >urthermore! petitioner Gonifacia lives outside the countr) and her comin$ back <ust to fulfill $uardian duties is not certain& 8he is an -merican citizen and a resident of 0olorado and would obviousl) not be able to perform the responsibilities and obli$ations re(uired of a $uardian& *he court also opines that she will merel) dele$ate those duties to someone else who ma) not (ualif) as a $uardian& *he 0ourt has consistentl) held in the past that the courts should not $rant $uardianship to persons who are not within our <urisdiction for the) will find it difficult to protect the wards& "astl)! in Austice :itu$`s concurrin$ opinion! he said that parents are thus placed first in rank in matters

of parental authorit) and that substitute parental authorit) ma) onl) be e9ercised b) $randparents in case parents have died or are absent or declared unfit and this order of priorit) in the e9ercise of parental authorit) is not in an) wa) affected b) the child`s le$itimac)& #n fact! -rticle 15; of the >amil)@ ille$itimate child shall be under the parental authorit) of his mother who! conse(uentiall)! should also be entitled to the custod) of the child&

E S2"*.$# PA A0$d/-$ + CA -lfredo -madora! 156)ears old! had $one to school after the end of the semester to present his ph)sics () e9periment as a prere(uisite to $raduation& Dhile in the auditorium to do so! he was shot dead b) a classmate! Pablito affon& -madora`s parents are now askin$ for dama$es a$ainst the hi$h school principal! the dean of bo)s! the ph)sics teacher! and the school itself! on the $round that the incident had happened while the deceased was under their custod)! and that the) are responsible and liable for the acts committed b) amon! who is also a student under their custod)& *he rector! hi$h school principal! dean of bo)s and the school itself was sued for dama$es&

T!" -"*'/-, !.4! &*!//# 2-.n*.2$#, d"$n /) 9/1& $nd '!" &*!//# $-" n/' #.$9#" )/- d$0$4"& *he 0ole$io is an academic institution of learnin$! not a school of arts and trades& /evertheless! the 0ourt concluded that -rticle .182 should appl) to all schools! such that where the school is academic! responsibilit) for the tort committed b) the student will attach to the teacher in char$e of that student? while if it is vocational or technical! it will be the head who is held liable! as an e9ception to the $eneral rule that it is the teacher who is liable& -s for the duration of this responsibilit)! the 0ourt held that it is not coterminous with the semester! but rather! e9ists as lon$ as it is shown that the student is in school premises in pursuance of a le$itimate student ob<ective! in the e9ercise of a le$itimate student ri$ht! and in the en<o)ment of a le$itimate student privile$e& urin$ these! the teacher6in6char$e must answer for his students` torts! in the same wa) that parents are responsible for a child in their custod)& #t is not even re(uired that at the time of the in<ur)! the teacher be ph)sicall) present and in a position to prevent it! because custod) does not mean immediate and actual ph)sical control but rather! the influence e9erted on the child and the discipline instilled in him as a result of such influence& Eowever! the responsibilit) ceases if it can be proven that the persons cited here prove that the) e9erted the dili$ence of a $ood father of the famil) to prevent dama$es& -lso! with re$ard to the school! it ma) be held to answer onl) for the acts of the teachers or even the head as the respondeat superior! but can be e9onerated if it proves that it e9ercised the dili$ence of a bonus paterfamilias& *he time -lfredo was fatall) shot! he was in the custod) of the authorities of the school notwithstandin$ classes had formall) ended when the incident happened& #t was immaterial if he was in the school auditorium to finish his ph)sics re(uirement& Dhat was important is that he was there for a le$itimate purpose& On the other hand! the rector! hi$h school principal and the dean of bo)s cannot be held liable because none of them was the teacher6in6char$e as defined in the provision& %ach was e9ercisin$ onl) a $eneral authorit) over the students and not direct control and influence e9erted b) the teacher placed in6char$e of particular classes& #n the absence of a teacher6 in char$e! dean of bo)s should probabl) be held liable considerin$ that he had earlier confiscated an unlicensed $un from a student and later returned to him without takin$ disciplinar) action or reportin$ the matter to the hi$her authorities& *hou$h it was clear ne$li$ence on his part! no proof was shown to necessaril) link this $un with the shootin$ incident& 0olle$io 8an Aose6'ecoletos cannot directl) be held liable under the provision because onl) the teacher of the head of school of arts and trade is made responsible for the dama$e caused b) the student& Eence! under the facts disclosed! none of the respondents were held liable for the in<ur) inflicted with -lfredo resultin$ to his death&

F E))"*'& /) PA /+"- '!" *!.#dG& 2"-&/n G F.#.$# P-.+.#"4" L"" + CA 8pouses "ee (husband) and Beh (wife) entered the

*iu can be compelled to testif) a$ainst petitioner %mma "ee&

(.212)

Philippines in the 1972s as immi$rants from 0hina& *he) had 11 children (collectivel)! the "ee6Beh children)& "ee brou$ht from 0hina a )oun$ woman named *iu! supposedl) to serve as housemaid& *he respondent "ee6Beh children believe that *iu left the "ee6Beh household! moved into another propert) of "ee nearb)! and had a relation with him&"ee6Beh children learned that *iu=s children with "ee (collectivel)! the "ee=s other children) claimed that the)! too! were children of "ee and Beh (the ori$inal first marria$e)& in 8pecial Proceedin$ 061;53 for the deletion from the certificate of live birth of the petitioner %mma "ee! one of "ee=s other children! the name Beh and replace the same with the name *iu to indicate her true mother=s name& *he "ee6Beh children filed with the '*0 an ex parte re(uest for the issuance of a subpoena ad testificandu$ to compel *iu! %mma "ee=s presumed mother! to testif) in the case& Gut petitioner %mma "ee alle$es that re(uirin$ *iu to come to court and testif) it would violate her parental ri$ht not to be compelled to testif) a$ainst her stepdau$hter&

'ule 172! 8%0*#O/ .5& Parental and filial privile$e&6 /o person ma) be compelled to testif) a$ainst his parents! other direct ascendants! children or other direct descendants& *he above is an adaptation from a similar provision in -rticle 715 of the 0ivil 0ode that applies onl) in criminal cases& Gut those who revised the 'ules of 0ivil Procedure chose to e9tend the prohibition to all kinds of actions! whether civil! criminal! or administrative! filed a$ainst parents and other direct ascendants or descendants& Gut here *iu! who invokes the filial privile$e! claims that she is the stepmother of petitioner %mma "ee& *he privile$e cannot appl) to them because the rule applies onl) to 1direct1 ascendants and descendants! a famil) tie connected b) a common ancestr)& - stepdau$hter has no common ancestr) b) her stepmother& -rticle 9;5 thus provides@ -rt& 9;5& *he direct line is either descendin$ or ascendin$& *he former unites the head of the famil) with those who descend from him& *he latter binds a person with those from whom he descends& 0onse(uentl)! *iu can be compelled to testif) a$ainst petitioner %mma "ee&

H E))"*'& /) PA /+"- '!" *!.#dG& 2-/2"-'1 H"9-/n + L/1/#$ Propert) was owned b) 'emi$ia Ga)lon who was married to Aanuario "o)ola& *he) had seven (.212) children! amon$ whom were 0onrado and %ncarnacion& *he administration of the said lots was entrusted to %ncarnacion& -ll the heirs of Aanuario and 'emi$ia received their shares in the fruits of the sub<ect properties durin$ %ncarnacionLs administration thereof& Dith the latterLs death the administration of the sub<ect properties was assumed b) her dau$hter! -melia Gautista6Eebron! who! after some time! started withholdin$ the shares of 0andida and the heirs of 0onrado& G) the time partition of the said properties was formall) demanded& Eebron claimed that 0andida and the heirs of 0onrado have alread) relin(uished their shares in

*he minor children of 0onrado inherited b) representation in the properties of their $randparents 'emi$ia and Aanuario& *hese children! not their mother :ictorina! were the co6owners of the inherited properties& :ictorina had no authorit) or had acted be)ond her powers in conve)in$! if she did indeed conve)! to the petitioner=s mother the undivided share of her minor children in the propert) involved in this case& 1*he powers $iven to her b) the laws as the natural $uardian covers onl) matters of administration and cannot include the power of disposition& 8he should have first secured the permission of the court before she alienated that portion of the propert) in (uestion belon$in$ to her minor children&1 #n a number of cases! where the $uardians! mothers or $randmothers! did not seek court approval of the sale of properties of their wards! minor children! the 0ourt declared the sales void& -lthou$h the 0- inaccuratel) cited -rticles 7.1 and 7.7 of the 0ivil 0ode! its conclusion that :ictorina had no capacit) to relin(uish her childrenLs shares in the inherited properties was! nevertheless! correct&

L.nd$.n + CA (199.)

3$d.##/ + F"--"()

consideration of the financial support e9tended them b) her mother! %ncarnacion& Plaintiffs as minors! owned a parel of re$istered land which their mother ( olores) as $uardian! sold for P.!222&22 under a deed of absolute sale to the spouses -polonia and >ederico& *he latter knew that the sale was without <udicial approval but still proceeded with the transaction& *he plaintiffs now contend that the sale is null and void as it was without the courtLs approval& *he 'e$ional trial 0ourt ruled that the sale is indeed null and void! while upon appeal! the 0ourt of -ppeals (0-) confirmed the sale as valid and dismissed the complaint& Eence this petition& 4acario Gadillo died intestate and survived b) his widow! 0larita >errer! and five minor children& Ee left a parcel valued at P5!522&22& Eence! each of the five minor plaintiffs had inherited a 1R1. share of the P5!522&22! or P;.5&22 each! which is less than the P.!222&22 mentioned in -rticle 7.2 of the 0ivil 0ode& *he survivin$ widow! in her own behalf and as natural $uardian of the minor plaintiffs! sold to defendants6appellants! the spouses Gre$orio 8oromero and %leuteria 'ana& odesta Gadillo! a sister of 4acario Gadillo! was able to obtain $uardianship over the persons and properties of the minor plaintiffs! without personal notice to their mother! who was alle$ed could not be located inspite of the efforts e9erted& *heir $uardian caused the minor plaintiffs to file a complaint in the case below for the annulment of the sale to defendants6appellants and! concedin$ the validit) of the sale of the widowLs participation in the propert)! the) asked that! as co6owners! the) be allowed to e9ercise the ri$ht of le$al redemption&

Fnder -rt& 7.2 (/00)! a parent actin$ merel) as a le$al administrator of the propert) of his minor children does not have the power to dispose of or alienate the propert) of the said child without <udicial approval& -nd under 'ule 83 (0ode of 0ivil Procedure)! the powers and duties of the widow as le$al administrator of her minor childrenLs propert) are merel) powers of possession and mana$ement& Eence! the power to sell! mort$a$e! encumber or dispose must proceed from the court ('ule 89)& 4oreover! the private respondent spouses are not purchasers in $ood faith as the) knew ri$ht from the be$innin$ the the transaction was without <udicial approval& >urther! the minorsL action for reconve)ance has not )et prescribed&

*he mother 0larita >errer Gadillo has no authorit) or has acted be)ond her powers in conve)in$ to the appellants that 5R1. undivided share of her minor children in the propert) involved in this case& *he powers $iven to her b) the laws as the natural $uardian covers onl) matters of administration and cannot include the power of disposition& 8he should have first secured the permission of the court before she alienated that portion of the propert) in (uestion belon$in$ to her minor children& *he appellee minors never ratified this eed of %9tra<udicial Partition and 8ale& #n fact! the) (uestion its validit) as to them& Eence! the contract remained unenforceable or unauthorized& /o restitution ma) be ordered from the appellee minors either as to that portion of the purchase price which pertains to their share in the propert) or at least as to that portion which benefited them because the law does not sanction an)&

I S,&2"n&./n /- '"-0.n$'./n /) PA FV II M.&*"##$n"/,& P-/+.&./n& FVIII S,00$-1 :,d.*.$# P-/*""d.n4& PROPERTY I C#$&&.).*$'./n /) P-/2"-'1 A I00/+$9#" /- -"$# 3 M/+$9#" LOPE@ + #n 193;! 'espondent invited Petitioner to make an OROSA investment in the theater business (P*#)& Petitioner

Dhile it is true that $enerall)! real estate connotes the land and the buildin$ constructed thereon! it is obvious that the inclusion of the buildin$! separate and distinct from the land! in the enumeration of

(1958)

ASSOCIATED INSURANCE + IYA (1958)

TUMALAD + VICENCIO (1951)

3OARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS + MERALCO (19;3)

MERALCO + CENTRAL 3OARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS 3ER5EN5OTTER + CU UN:IENG

a$reed to suppl) the lumber necessar) for the construction! and that pa)ment would be on demand& - balance of P31! 551&75 was left unpaid b) 'espondent& Petitioner filed a complaint! and $ot a favorable decision& Uuestion now is@ DR/ the lien attaches to the buildin$ alone! e9cludin$ the land& Petitioners filed a suret) bond and e9ecuted an alle$ed chattel mort$a$e on the house in favor of /-'#0& *he spouses didn=t )et own the land where the house was& Dhen the) did purchase it! the) e9ecuted a real estate mort$a$e in favor of 'espondent& *he spouses were not able to fulfill their obli$ation to /-'#0! so Petitioner was compelled to pa) (as suret))& Petitioner later foreclosed the chattel mort$a$e& #t learned of the real estate mort$a$e over the house and lot! so it filed an action a$ainst the spouses& 'espondent filed another civil action a$ainst the spouses! assertin$ that she has a better ri$ht over the propert)& 'espondent N 8imeon e9ecuted a chattel mort$a$e over their house in favor of Petitioners! which was bein$ rented b) 4adri$al and compan)& *he mort$a$e was e9tra<udiciall) foreclosed upon failure to pa) the loan& *he house was sold at a public auction and the Petitioners were the hi$hest bidder& #n 192.! the Philippine 0ommission authorized the 4unicipal Goard of 4anila to $rant a franchise to construct! maintain and operate an electric power s)stem in the 0it) of 4anila& 4eralco=s power is $enerated b) its plant in "a$una and transmitted to 4anila b) means of wires& *hese wires are attached to steel towers& 4eralco has constructed 32 of these steel towers within Uuezon 0it)! on land belon$in$ to it& #n 1955! *he 0it) -ssessor of U0 declared the steel towers for real propert) ta9& Petitioner owns . oil stora$e tanks! assembled on the spot& *he) sit on a foundation of compacted earth! and a la)er of sand and of asphalt& *he municipal treasure of Gatan$as assed the two tanks for realt) ta9& 4%'-"0O opposed this assessment! claimin$ that the tanks are not real properties& - su$ar compan) obtained a loan from 'espondent! secured b) a first mort$a$e on . parcels of land! with all its buildin$s!

what ma) constitute real properties means that a buildin$ is b) itself an immovable propert)& #n the absence of an) specific provision of law to the contrar)! a buildin$ is an immovable propert)! irrespective of whether or not said structure and the land on which it is adhered to belon$ to the same owner&

- buildin$ cannot be divested of its character as real propert) b) the fact that the land on which it is constructed belon$s to another& #f held otherwise! it would result in confusion! for to cloak the buildin$ with an uncertain status made dependent on ownership of the land would create a situation where a permanent fi9ture chan$es its nature or character as the ownership of the land chan$es hands& #n the case at bar! as personal properties ma) be the onl) sub<ects of a chattel mort$a$e! the e9ecution of the chattel mort$a$e coverin$ said buildin$ is null and void&

0ertain deviations have been allowed from the $eneral doctrine that buildin$s are immovable propert) such as when throu$h stipulation! parties a$ree to treat as personal propert) those! b) their nature! would be real propert)& *his is partl) based on the principle of estoppel& #n the case at bar! there is no specific statement referrin$ to the house as personal propert)! but the cedin$! sellin$ or transferrin$ of the propert) throu$h chattel mort$a$e could onl) have meant that 'espondent conve)ed the house as chattel! or at least! intended to treat the same as such& *he) should not now be allowed to make an inconsistent stand b) claimin$ otherwise& *he steel towers of an electric compan) don=t constitute real propert) for the purposes of real propert) ta9& 8teel towers are not immovable propert) under para$raph 1! 7 and 5 of /00 315& *he towers are removable and merel) attached to a s(uare metal frame b) means of bolts! which when unscrewed could easil) be dismantled and moved from place to place& *he steel towers or supports do not come within the ob<ects mentioned in par& 1! because the) do not constitute andRor are not analo$ous to buildin$s or constructions adhered to the soil& *he) cannot be included under par& 7! as the) are not attached to an immovable in a fi9ed manner! and the) can be separated without breakin$ the material or causin$ deterioration upon the ob<ect to which the) are attached *he) also do not fall under par& 5! for the) are not machineries or receptacles! instruments or implements! and even if the) were! the) are not intended for industr) or works on the land& Dhile the . stora$e tanks are not embodied in the land! the) ma) still be considered as improvements thereon! renderin$ it useful to the oil industr)& >or ta9ation purposes! the term real propert) ma) include thin$s which should $enerall) be considered as personal propert)&

*he installation of machiner) and e(uipment in a mort$a$ed su$ar central! in lieu of another of less capacit)! for the purpose of carr)in$ out the industrial functions of the latter and increasin$ production! constitutes a permanent improvement on the said su$ar central& #t sub<ects said machiner) and

(1975)

improvements! su$ar6cane mill! etc& now e9istin$ or that ma)& *he su$ar compan) decided to increase the capacit) of its su$ar central b) bu)in$ additional machiner) and e(uipment& Petitioner is the holder of a lumber concession! and it operated a sawmill on land it doesn=t own& Part of the lease a$reement was a stipulation in which! after the lease a$reement! all buildin$s and improvements would pass to the ownership of the lessor! which would not include machineries and accessories& Petitioner had in its sawmill machineries and other e(uipment wherein some were bolted in foundations of cement&

e(uipment to the mort$a$e constituted thereon& *he fact that the purchaser of the new machiner) and e(uipment has bound himself to the person suppl)in$ him the purchase mone) to hold them as securit) does not alter the permanent character of the incorporation of said machiner) and e(uipment with the central& *he machiner) must be classified as personal propert)& *he lessee placed the machiner) in the buildin$! erected on land belon$in$ to another! with the understandin$ that the machiner) was not included in the improvements which would pass to the lessor upon the e9piration of the a$reement& *he lessee also treated the machiner) as personal propert)! e9ecutin$ chattel mort$a$es over the same& #t was also levied b) the sheriff as personalt)! but no protest thereto was re$istered& 4achiner) onl) becomes immobilized when placed in a plant b) the owner of the propert)Rplant! but not so when placed b) a tenant! usufructuar)! or an) person havin$ temporar) ri$ht! unless the) acted as a$ent of the owner&

DAVAO SAWMILL + CASTILLO (1975)

II C!$-$*'"- /) O%n"-&!.2 A P,9#.* D/0$.n GOVERNMENT "ots 7;! 79 and 32! involved in a cadastral proceedin$! of the + CA3ANGIS 0it) of 4anila were formerl) a part of a lar$e parcel of land belon$in$ to the predecessor of 'espondent& (19.9) >rom 189;! said land be$an to wear awa) due to the waves of 4anila Ga)! until the said lots became completel) submer$ed in water in ordinar) tides& #t remained as such until 191. when the Gov=t& undertook dred$in$ to facilitate navi$ation! depositin$ all the sand and silt taken from the bed on the low lands surroundin$ those belon$in$ to P40! thereb) slowl) and $raduall) formin$ the lots! the sub<ect matter of the proceedin$& MIAA + C.TY OF PASAY (.229) Petitioners filed a complaint for dama$es a$ainst %rlinda! which ori$inated from her civil liabilit) from the criminal offense of slander& 8he was ordered to pa)! and their properties were e9ecuted upon! and Petitioners bou$ht the same at public auction& Eer husband then filed a complaint for annulment of said sale& 4#-- received a >inal /otices of 'eal %state *a9 elin(uenc) from the 0it) of ParaSa(ue for 199.6.221& #t=s real estate ta9 delin(uenc) was estimated at P;.34& ParaSa(ue issued notices of lev) and warrants of lev) on the -irport "ands and Guildin$s! and later! the 4a)or threatened to sell these at public auction& 4#-- filed with the 0- a petition seekin$ to restrain the 0it) from imposin$ the ta9 on! lev)in$ a$ainst! and auctionin$ for public sale the -irport "ands and Guildin$s&

Ownership of land reclaimed from the sea 6 Dhen lands are converted to public land! no person can ac(uire title thereto e9cept in the form and manner established b) law& -rticle 5 of the "aw of Daters of 18;; provides that Flands reclai$ed fro$ t&e sea in conse#uence of works constructed by t&e State- or by t&e provinces- pueblos- or private persons- wit& proper per$ission- s&all beco$e t&e property of t&e party constructin" suc& works- unless ot&erwise provided by t&e ter$s of t&e "rant of aut&ority.G *he fact that! since 191.! some fishermen had been dr)in$ their fishin$ nets and depositin$ their bancas on lots 7;! 79 and 32! b) permission of 'espondent! does not confer on the latter or his successors the ownership of said lots& 8ince the) were converted into public land! no private person could ac(uire title thereto e9cept in the form and manner established b) the law& 4#-- is not a $overnment6owned or controlled corporation but a $overnment instrumentalit) which is e9empt from an) kind of ta9 from the local $overnments& *he e9ercise of the ta9in$ power of local $overnment units is sub<ect to the limitations enumerated in 8ection 177 of the "ocal Government 0ode& Fnder 8ection 177 (o) of the "ocal Government 0ode! local $overnment units have no power to ta9 instrumentalities of the national $overnment like the 4#--& Eence! 4#-- is not liable to pa) real propert) ta9 for the /-#- Pasa) properties *he -irport "ands and Guildin$s of 4#-- are propert) of public dominion and therefore owned b) the 8tate or the 'epublic of the Philippines& *he properties of public dominion mentioned in /00 3.2 are owned b) the 8tate? the term +ports, includes seaports and airports& *he 4#-- -irport "ands and Guildin$s constitute a +port, constructed b) the 8tate& Fnder /00 3.2! the 4#-- -irport "ands and Guildin$s are properties of public dominion and thus owned b) the 8tate or the 'epublic of the Philippines& *he -irport "ands and Guildin$s are devoted to public use because the) are used b) the public for international and domestic travel and transportation& *he fact that the 4#-collects terminal fees and other char$es from the public does not remove the character of the -irport "ands and Guildin$s as properties for public use& /003.2 of the 0ivil 0ode defines propert) of public dominion as one +intended for public use&,

MIAA + CA, "' $# (.22;)

REPU3LIC CA (1983)

VS

Petitioner irector of "ands in G&'& /o& "637125 claims that the land sou$ht to be re$istered is part of the public domain and therefore not re$isterable& *he irector of "ands would like Fs to believe that since a portion of the land sou$ht to be re$istered is covered with water four to five months a )ear! the same is part of the lake bed of "a$una de Ga)! or is at least! a fores&oreland! which brin$s it within the enumeration in -rt& 52. of the /ew 0ivil 0ode (uoted above and therefore it cannot be the sub<ect of re$istration& Petitioners private oppositors in G&'& /o& "637192! on the other hand! alle$e that the) reclaimed the land b) dumpin$ duck e$$ shells thereon! and that the) have been in possession of the same for more than twent) (.2) )ears Petitioners -driano 4aneclan$! et& al& filed before the then 0ourt of >irst #nstance of Pan$asinan! Granch V# a complaint for (uietin$ of title over a certain fishpond located within the four P31 parcels of land belon$in$ to them& *he trial court dismissed the complaint upon a findin$ that the bod) of water traversin$ the titled properties of petitioners is a creek constitutin$ a tributar) of the -$no 'iver? therefore public in nature and not sub<ect to private appropriation& *he parties decided to settle the case b) submittin$ to the 0ourt a 0ompromise -$reement pra)in$ that <ud$ment be rendered reco$nizin$ the ownership of petitioners over the land the bod) of water found within their titled properties! statin$ therein! amon$ other thin$s! that 1to pursue the case! the same will not amount to an) benefit of the parties! on the other hand it is to the advanta$e and benefit of the municipalit) if the ownership of the land and the water found therein belon$in$ to petitioners be reco$nized in their favor as it is now clear that after the /ational #rri$ation -dministration P/#-Q had built the dike around the land! no water $ets in or out of the land& >our (3) parcels of land were the sub<ect of an application for re$istration b) 4ercedes ia$o who alle$ed amon$ others that she herself occupied said parcels of land& *he irector of "ands opposed said application on the $round that neither the applicant nor her predecessors6in6interest have sufficient title

8uch fees are often termed user=s ta9& *his means ta9in$ those amon$ the public who actuall) use a public facilit) instead of ta9in$ all the public includin$ those who never use the particular public facilit)& *he 0ourt has also ruled that propert) of public dominion! bein$ outside the commerce of man! are not sub<ect to lev)! encumbrance or disposition throu$h public or private sale& -n) encumbrance! lev) on e9ecution or auction sale of an) propert) of public dominion is void for bein$ contrar) to public polic)& %ssential public services will stop if properties of public dominion are sub<ect to encumbrances! foreclosures and auction sale& 8ec .73 of the "G0 provides that real propert) owned b) the 'epublic or an) of its political subdivisions! e9cept when the beneficial use thereof has been $ranted! for consideration or otherwise! to a ta9able person! are e9empted from pa)ment of the real propert) ta9& *herefore! the portions which are leased to private entities are not e9empt from real estate ta9& *he land sou$ht to be re$istered not bein$ part of the bed or basin of "a$una de Ga)! nor a foreshore land as claimed b) the irector of "ands! it is not a public land and therefore capable of re$istration as private propert) provided that the applicant proves that he has a re$isterable title& *he submersion in water of a portion of the land in (uestion is due to the rains 1fallin$ directl) on or flowin$ into "a$una de Ga) from different sources& 8ince the inundation of a portion of the land is not due to 1flu9 and reflu9 of tides1 it cannot be considered a foreshore land within the meanin$ of the authorities cited b) petitioner irector of "ands&&

M$n"*#$n4 IAC (198;)

+&

- creek! defined as a recess or arm e9tendin$ from a river and participatin$ in the ebb and flow of the sea! is a propert) belon$in$ to the public domain which is not susceptible to private appropriation and ac(uisitive prescription! and as a public water! it cannot be re$istered under the *orrens 8)stem in the name of an) individual& 0onsiderin$ further that neither the mere construction of irri$ation dikes b) the /ational #rri$ation -dministration which prevented the water from flowin$ in and out of the sub<ect fishpond! nor its conversion into a fishpond! alter or chan$e the nature of the creek as a propert) of the public domain! the 0ourt finds the 0ompromise -$reement null and void and of no le$al effect! the same bein$ contrar) to law and public polic)&

3,-"$, /) F/-"&'-1 +& CA (1985)

0learl) therefore the land is public land and there is no need for the irector of >orestr) to submit to the court convincin$ proofs that the land in dispute is not more valuable for a$riculture than for forest purposes! as there was no (uestion of whether the land is forest land or not&

over the lands applied for! which could be re$istered under the *orrens s)stems! and that the) have never been in open! continuous and e9clusive possession of the said lands for at least 72 )ears prior to the filin$ of the application& *he irector of >orestr) on the other hand anchored his opposition principall) on the $round that certain specific portions of the lands sub<ect matter of the application! with an area of appro9imatel) 193!282 s(uare meters are man$rove swamps and are within *imberland Glock 1G 1 "&0& Pro<ect /o& 78! "&0& 4ap /o& 1951 of Guenavista! #loilo&

-dmittedl) the controversial area is within a timberland block as classification of the municipalit) and certified to b) the irector of >orestr) on >ebruar) 18! 195; as lands needed for forest purposes and hence the) are portions of the public domain which cannot be the sub<ect of re$istration proceedin$s& -s provided for under 8ec& ; of 0ommonwealth -ct /o& 131! which was lifted from -ct /o& .853! the classification or reclassification of public lands into alienable or disposable! mineral or forest lands is now a prero$ative of the %9ecutive epartment of the $overnment and not of the courts& Dith these rules! there should be no more room for doubt that it is not the court which determines the classification of lands of the public domain into a$ricultural! forest or mineral but the %9ecutive Granch of the Government! throu$h the Office of the President& Eence! it was $rave error andRor abuse of discretion for the respondent court to i$nore the uncontroverted facts that (1) the disputed area is within a timberland block and (.) as certified to b) the then irector of >orestr)! the area is needed for forest purposes& 1& *he 155&83 hectares of reclaimed lands comprisin$ the >reedom #slands! now covered b) certificates of title in the name of P%-! are alienable lands of the public domain& P%- ma) lease these lands to private corporations but ma) not sell or transfer ownership of these lands to private corporations& P%ma) onl) sell these lands to Philippine citizens! sub<ect to the ownership limitations in the 1985 0onstitution and e9istin$ laws& .& *he 59.&15 hectares of submer$ed areas of 4anila Ga) remain inalienable natural resources of the public domain until classified as alienable or disposable lands open to disposition and declared no lon$er needed for public service& *he $overnment can make such classification and declaration onl) after P%- has reclaimed these submer$ed areas& Onl) then can these lands (ualif) as a$ricultural lands of the public domain! which are the onl) natural resources the $overnment can alienate& #n their present state! the 59.&15 hectares of submer$ed areas are inalienable and outside the commerce of man& 7& 8ince the -mended A:- seeks to transfer to -4-'#! a private corporation! ownership of 55&73 hectaresP112Q of the >reedom #slands! such transfer is void for bein$ contrar) to 8ection 7! -rticle V## of the 1985 0onstitution which prohibits private corporations from ac(uirin$ an) kind of alienable land of the public domain& 3& 8ince the -mended A:- also seeks to transfer to -4-'# ownership of .92&15; hectaresP111Q of still submer$ed areas of 4anila Ga)! such transfer is void for bein$ contrar) to 8ection .! -rticle V## of the 1985 0onstitution which prohibits the alienation of natural resources other than a$ricultural lands of the public domain& P%- ma) reclaim these submer$ed areas& *hereafter! the $overnment can classif) the reclaimed lands as alienable or disposable! and further declare them no lon$er needed for public service& 8till! the transfer of such reclaimed alienable lands of the public domain to -4-'# will be void in view of 8ection 7! -rticle V## of the 1985 0onstitution which prohibits private corporations from ac(uirin$ an) kind of alienable land of the public domain& *he land sou$ht to be re$istered not bein$ part of the bed or basin of "a$una de Ga)! nor a foreshore land as claimed b) the irector of "ands! it is not a public land and therefore capable of re$istration as private propert) provided that the applicant proves that he has a re$isterable title&

C!$+"6 + PEA (.22.)

*he 'e$ister of eeds of the 4unicipalit) of ParaSa(ue issued *ransfer 0ertificates of *itle! in the name of P%-! coverin$ the three reclaimed islands known as the 1>reedom #slands,& P%and -4-'# entered into the A:- throu$h ne$otiation without public biddin$& "ater! the Goard of irectors of P%-! in its 'esolution confirmed the A:-& *hen President >idel :& 'amos approved the A:-& *he 8enate 0ommittees reported the results of their investi$ation& -mon$ the conclusions of their report are@ (1) the reclaimed lands P%- seeks to transfer to -4-'# under the A:- are lands of the public domain which the $overnment has not classified as alienable lands and therefore P%- cannot alienate these lands? (.) the certificates of title coverin$ the >reedom #slands are thus void! and (7) the A:- itself is ille$al& Petitioner >rank #& 0havez as a ta9pa)er! filed the instant Petition for 4andamus with Pra)er for the #ssuance of a Drit of Preliminar) #n<unction and *emporar) 'estrainin$ Order& Petitioner contends the $overnment stands to lose billions of pesos in the sale b) P%- of the reclaimed lands to -4-'#& Petitioner pra)s that P%- publicl) disclose the terms of an) rene$otiation of the A:-! invokin$ 8ection .8! -rticle ##! and 8ection 5! -rticle ###! of the 1985 0onstitution on the ri$ht of the people to information on matters of public concern&

REPU3LIC CA (1983)

VS

Petitioner irector of "ands in G&'& /o& "637125 claims that the land sou$ht to be re$istered is part of the public domain and therefore not re$isterable& *he irector of "ands would like Fs to believe that since a portion of the land sou$ht to be re$istered is covered with water four to five months a )ear! the

same is part of the lake bed of "a$una de Ga)! or is at least! a fores&oreland! which brin$s it within the enumeration in -rt& 52. of the /ew 0ivil 0ode (uoted above and therefore it cannot be the sub<ect of re$istration& Petitioners private oppositors in G&'& /o& "637192! on the other hand! alle$e that the) reclaimed the land b) dumpin$ duck e$$ shells thereon! and that the) have been in possession of the same for more than twent) (.2) )ears M$n"*#$n4 IAC (198;) +& Petitioners -driano 4aneclan$! et& al& filed before the then 0ourt of >irst #nstance of Pan$asinan! Granch V# a complaint for (uietin$ of title over a certain fishpond located within the four P31 parcels of land belon$in$ to them& *he trial court dismissed the complaint upon a findin$ that the bod) of water traversin$ the titled properties of petitioners is a creek constitutin$ a tributar) of the -$no 'iver? therefore public in nature and not sub<ect to private appropriation& *he parties decided to settle the case b) submittin$ to the 0ourt a 0ompromise -$reement pra)in$ that <ud$ment be rendered reco$nizin$ the ownership of petitioners over the land the bod) of water found within their titled properties! statin$ therein! amon$ other thin$s! that 1to pursue the case! the same will not amount to an) benefit of the parties! on the other hand it is to the advanta$e and benefit of the municipalit) if the ownership of the land and the water found therein belon$in$ to petitioners be reco$nized in their favor as it is now clear that after the /ational #rri$ation -dministration P/#-Q had built the dike around the land! no water $ets in or out of the land&

*he submersion in water of a portion of the land in (uestion is due to the rains 1fallin$ directl) on or flowin$ into "a$una de Ga) from different sources& 8ince the inundation of a portion of the land is not due to 1flu9 and reflu9 of tides1 it cannot be considered a foreshore land within the meanin$ of the authorities cited b) petitioner irector of "ands&&

- creek! defined as a recess or arm e9tendin$ from a river and participatin$ in the ebb and flow of the sea! is a propert) belon$in$ to the public domain which is not susceptible to private appropriation and ac(uisitive prescription! and as a public water! it cannot be re$istered under the *orrens 8)stem in the name of an) individual& 0onsiderin$ further that neither the mere construction of irri$ation dikes b) the /ational #rri$ation -dministration which prevented the water from flowin$ in and out of the sub<ect fishpond! nor its conversion into a fishpond! alter or chan$e the nature of the creek as a propert) of the public domain! the 0ourt finds the 0ompromise -$reement null and void and of no le$al effect! the same bein$ contrar) to law and public polic)&

3 P$'-.0/n.$# 2-/2"-'1 /) '!" &'$'" L$,-"# + G$-*.$ Petitioner "aurel asserts that the 'oppon$i propert) and the related lots were ac(uired as part of the reparations from the (1992) Aapanese $overnment for diplomatic and consular use b) the Philippine $overnment& :ice6President "aurel states that the 'oppon$i propert) is classified as one of public dominion! and not of private ownership under -rticle 3.2 of the 0ivil 0ode (8ee infra)& *he petitioner submits that the 'oppon$i propert) comes under 1propert) intended for public service1 in para$raph . of the above provision& Ee states that bein$ one of public dominion! no ownership b) an) one can attach to it! not even b) the 8tate& *he 'oppon$i and related properties were ac(uired for 1sites for chancer)! diplomatic! and consular (uarters! buildin$s and other improvements1 (8econd Oear 'eparations 8chedule)& *he petitioner states that the) continue to be intended for a necessar) service& *he) are held b) the 8tate in anticipation of an opportune use& (0itin$ 7 4anresa ;56;;)& Eence! it cannot be appropriated! is outside the commerce of man! or to put it in more simple terms! it cannot be alienated nor be the sub<ect matter of contracts (0itin$ 4unicipalit) of 0avite v& 'o<as! 72 Phil& .2 P1915Q)& /otin$ the non6use of the 'oppon$i propert) at the moment! the

*he fact that the 'oppon$i site has not been used for a lon$ time for actual %mbass) service does not automaticall) convert it to patrimonial propert)& -n) such conversion happens onl) if the propert) is withdrawn from public use& propert) continues to be part of the public domain! not available for private appropriation or ownership until there is a formal declaration on the part of the $overnment to withdraw it from bein$ such& -n abandonment of the intention to use the 'oppon$i propert) for public service and to make it patrimonial propert) under -rticle 3.. of the 0ivil 0ode $ust be definite -bandonment cannot be inferred from the non6use alone speciall) if the non6use was attributable not to the $overnmentLs own deliberate and indubitable will but to a lack of financial support to repair and improve the propert) (8ee Eeirs of >elino 8antia$o v& "azaro! 1;; 80'- 7;8 P1988Q)& -bandonment must be a certain and positive act based on correct le$al premises& - mere transfer of the Philippine %mbass) to /ampeidai in 195; is not relin(uishment of the 'oppon$i propert)Ls ori$inal purpose& %ven the failure b) the $overnment to repair the buildin$ in 'oppon$i is not abandonment since as earlier stated! there simpl) was a shorta$e of $overnment funds& *he recent -dministrative Orders authorizin$ a stud) of the status and conditions of $overnment properties in Aapan were merel) directives for investi$ation but did not in an) wa) si$nif) a clear intention to dispose of the properties&

petitioner avers that the same remains propert) of public dominion so lon$ as the $overnment has not used it for other purposes nor adopted an) measure constitutin$ a removal of its ori$inal purpose or use& *he respondents! for their part! refute the petitionerLs contention b) sa)in$ that the sub<ect propert) is not $overned b) our 0ivil 0ode but b) the laws of Aapan where the propert) is located& R"2,9#.* R.6$#+/ (.211) + 'espondent *eodoro P& 'izalvo! Ar& filed before the 4*0 of Gauan$! "a Fnion! actin$ as a land re$istration court! an application for the re$istrationP3Q of a parcel of land& *he Office of the 8olicitor General (O8G) filed an Opposition alle$in$ that neither respondent nor his predecessors6in6interest had been in open! continuous! e9clusive and notorious possession and occupation of the sub<ect propert) since Aune 1.! 1935 or earlier and that the ta9 declarations and ta9 pa)ment receipts did not constitute competent and sufficient evidence of ownership& *he O8G also asserted that the sub<ect propert) was a portion of public domain belon$in$ to the 'epublic of thePhilippines and hence not sub<ect to private ac(uisition& Given the fact that respondent and his predecessors6in6interest had been in possession of the sub<ect land since 1938! respondent is still not entitled to re$istration of title under 8ection 13 (.) of P& & /o& 15.9 On this basis! respondent would have been eli$ible for application for re$istration because his claim of ownership and possession over the sub<ect propert) even e9ceeds thirt) (72) )ears& Eowever! it is <urisprudentiall) clear that the thirt) (72)6)ear period of prescription for purposes of ac(uirin$ ownership and re$istration of public land under 8ection 13 (.) of P& & /o& 15.9 onl) be$ins from the moment the 8tate e9pressl) declares that the public dominion propert) is no lon$er intended for public service or the development of the national wealth or that the propert) has been converted into patrimonial& -ccordin$l)! there must be an e9press declaration b) the 8tate that the public dominion propert) is no lon$er intended for public service or the development of the national wealth or that the propert) has been converted into patrimonial& Dithout such e9press declaration! the propert)! even if classified as alienable or disposable! remains propert) of the public dominion! pursuant to -rticle 3.2(.) P ! and thus incapable of ac(uisition b) prescription& #t is onl) when such alienable and disposable lands are e9pressl) declared b) the 8tate to be no lon$er intended for public service or for the development of the national wealth that the period of ac(uisitive prescription can be$in to run& 8uch declaration shall be in the form of a law dul) enacted b) 0on$ress or a Presidential Proclamation in cases where the President is dul) authorized b) law& *he withdrawal of the propert) in (uestion from public use and its subse(uent sale to the petitioner is valid& Eence! the petitioner has a re$isterable title over the lot in (uestion& 8ince that portion of the cit) street sub<ect of petitionerLs application for re$istration of title was withdrawn from public use! it follows that such withdrawn portion becomes patrimonial propert) which can be the ob<ect of an ordinar) contract& -rticle 3.. of the 0ivil 0ode e9pressl) provides that 1Propert) of public dominion! when no lon$er intended for public use or for public service! shall form part of the patrimonial propert) of the 8tate&1

C"9, OE14"n + 3"-*.##"& (17>D)

0it) 0ouncil of 0ebu declared the terminal portion of 4& Gorces 8treet! 4abolo! 0ebu 0it)! as an abandoned road! the same not bein$ included in the 0it) evelopment Plan& 8ubse(uentl)! the 0it) 0ouncil of 0ebu passed 'esolution /o& .555! authorizin$ the -ctin$ 0it) 4a)or to sell the land throu$h a public biddin$& Pursuant thereto! the lot was awarded to the herein petitioner bein$ the hi$hest bidder the 0it) of 0ebu! throu$h the -ctin$ 0it) 4a)or! e9ecuted a deed of absolute sale to the herein petitioner& G) virtue of the aforesaid deed of absolute sale! the petitioner filed an application with the 0ourt of >irst instance of 0ebu to have its title to the land re$istered& *he -ssistant Provincial >iscal of 0ebu filed a motion to dismiss the application on the $round that the propert) sou$ht to be re$istered bein$ a public road intended for public use is considered part of the public domain and therefore outside the commerce of man& 0onse(uentl)! it cannot be sub<ect to re$istration b) an) private individual&

C P-.+$'" /%n"-&!.2 T$n T/*/ + 4unicipal council of #loilo failed to pa) *antoco the M,n /) I#/.#/ purchase price of . strips of land! which it appropriated for road widenin$& G) virtue of a writ

*he propert) of a municipalit)! whether real or personal! necessar) for $overnmental purposes cannot be attached and sold at a public auction to satisf) a <ud$ment a$ainst the municipalit)

(172=)

of e9ecution! the sheriff attached +two autotrucks used for street sprinklin$! one police patrol automobile! the police stations on 4abini 8t&! and other structures! plus the market

III E&&"n'.$# F/-0 IV D"&.4n$'./n V S,&*"2'.9#" /) S,9&'.','./n VI A2'.',d" )/- R"2"$'"d U&" VII S,&*"2'.9.#.'1 /) D.+.&./n VIII EE.&'"n*" .n T.0" IF D"2"nd"n*" 3UNDLE OF RIGHTS A C/n*"2' /) O%n"-&!.2 PADILLA + *he respondents filed a complaint for accion VELASCO publiciana! accountin$ and dama$es a$ainst petitioners& *he respondents are the heirs of (.229) -rtemio :elasco who! the) claim! is the owner of said propert) as evidenced b) a +Basulatan n$ Gilihan$ *una)1 e9ecuted between -rtemio and spouses Gri$ido 8acluti and 4elitona Obial over "ot /o& .1;1& *he petitioners! on the other hand! entered the propert) as trustees of the 8olomon spouses& *he) claim that the 8olomon spouses owned the propert) havin$ bou$ht it from the 'ural Gank of Pa$san<an as evidenced b) a eed of 8ale over "ot /o& 5;6pt&

*he respondents have a better ri$ht of possession over "ot /o& .1;1& -ccion publiciana is a plenar) action filed to determine the better ri$ht to possession of realt) independentl) of the title& #t is also used to refer to an e<ectment suit where the cause of dispossession is not amon$ the $rounds for forcible entr) and unlawful detainer! or when possession has been lost for more than one )ear and can no lon$er be maintained under 'ule 52 of the 'ules of court& *he ob<ective of the plaintiffs in accion publiciana is to recover possession onl)! not ownership& 'espondents were able to establish lawful possession of "ot /o& .1;1 when the petitiones occupied the propert)& "ot /o& .1;1 was the sub<ect of ecree /o& 327738& *he Ori$inal 0ertificate of *itle to the land was issued to Gri$ido 8acluti and 4elitona Obial& *he ori$inal owners sold the same to -rtemio& >rom the date of sale until -rtemio=s death! he was in continuous possession of the land& On the other hand! the land bou$ht b) the 8olomon spouses from the bank is denominated as "ot 5;6pt and previousl) owned b) :aleriano& Eowever! it was proved durin$ trial that the land occupied b) petitioners was "ot /o& .1;1 in the name of -rtemio! whereas the land sold b) the bank to the 8olomon spouses was "ot 5;6pt& Given this factual milieu! it can be readil) deduced that respondents are le$all) entitled to the possession of "ot /o& .1;1 *he case filed b) respondents for accion publiciana has not prescribed& -t the time of the filin$ of the complaint! onl) four )ears had elapsed from the time of dispossession& Fnder -rticle 555(3) of the 0ivil 0ode! the real ri$ht of possession is not lost till after the lapse of ten )ears& #t is settled that the remed) of accion publiciana prescribes after the lapse of ten )ears& *hus the instant case was filed within the allowable period& *itle to a re$istered land cannot be collaterall) attacked& Petitioner=s claim that "ot /o& .1;1 and "ot 5;6pt are one and the same! is in effect a collateral attack on the title of the propert) re$istered in the name of -rtemio which cannot be countenanced& #n accion publiciana! the principal issue is possession! and ownership is merel) ancillar) thereto& Onl) in cases where the possession cannot be resolved without resolvin$ the issue of ownership ma) the trial court delve into the claim of ownership& 'espondent had no ri$ht to construct the works! nor the dam which blocks the passa$e of the waters which flood the hi$her lands of the plaintiffs& -rticle 572 provides that an easement is a char$e imposed upon one estate for the benefit of another estate belon$in$ to a different owner! and the realt) in favor of which the easement is established is called the dominant estate! and the one char$ed with it the servient estate& *he lands of Paraanan

LUNOD + MENESES (1928)

Petitioners filed a written complaint a$ainst respondent alle$in$ that the) each owned and possessed farm lands and that from time immemorial there e9isted and still e9ists in favor of the rice fields of the plaintiffs a statutor) easement permittin$ the flow of water over the land in

CUSTODIO + COURT OF APPEALS (199;)

Paraanan owned b) the respondent& *he) alle$e that in 1921! the defendant! without an) ri$ht or reason! converted the land in Paraanan into a fishpond and b) means of a dam and a bamboo net! prevented the free passa$e of the water throu$h said place into the *aliptip 'iver! that in conse(uence the lands of the plaintiff became flooded and dama$ed b) the sta$nant waters! there bein$ no outlet e9cept throu$h the land in Paraanan& *he respondents own a parcel of land surrounded b) other immovables pertainin$ to the petitioeners& -s an access to the street from the respondent=s propert)! there are two possible passa$ewa)s& *he petitioners constructed adobe fence in such a wat that the one of the entire passa$ewa) was enclosed&

bein$ the lower are sub<ect to the easement of receivin$ and $ivin$ passa$e to the waters proceedin$ from the hi$her lands and the lake of 0alalaran? this easement was not constituted b) a$reement between the interested parties? it is of a statutor) nature! and the law (-rticles 55. and 5;7 of the 0ivil 0ode) had imposed it for the common public utilit) in view if the difference in the altitude of the lands in the barrio Gamban$&

*he respondents are $ranted the ri$ht of wa) but the) are not entitled to dama$es& Petitioners are barred from raisin$ the issue on the entitlement of respondents to a permanent access to the public street because the) did not appeal from the decision of the trial court $rantin$ the respondents the ri$ht of wa)& Eowever! in this case! althou$h there was dama$e! there was no le$al in<ur)& *he act of petitioners in constructin$ a fence within their lot is a valid e9ercise of their ri$ht as owners! hence not contrar) to morals! $ood customs or public polic)& *he law reco$nizes in the owner the ri$ht to en<o) and dispose of a thin$! without other limitations than those established b) law& it is within the ri$ht of petitioners! as owners! to enclose and fence their propert)& -rticle 372 of the 0ivil 0ode provides that +ever) owner ma) enclose or fence his land or tenements b) means of walls! ditches! live or dead hed$es! or b) an) other means without detriment to servitudes constituted thereon&, -t the time of the construction of the fence! the lot was not sub<ect to an) servitudes& Eence! petitioners had an absolute ri$ht over their propert) and their act of fencin$ and enclosin$ the same was an act which the) ma) lawfull) perform in the emplo)ment and e9ercise of said ri$ht& Dhatever in<ur) or dama$e ma) have been sustained b) private respondents b) reason of the ri$htful use of the said land b) petitioners is da$nun abs#ue in;uria. "ande9 had the ri$ht to construct the concrete wall& -rticle 372 of the 0ivil 0ode $ives ever) owner the ri$ht to enclose or fence his land or tenement b) means of walls! ditches! hed$es or an) other means& *he ri$ht to fence flows from the ri$ht of ownership& -s owner of the land! "ande9 ma) fence his propert) sub<ect onl) to the limitations and restrictions provided b) law& absent a clear le$al and enforceable ri$ht! as here! the 0ourt will not interfere with the e9ercise of an essential attribute of ownership& -neco failed to prove an) clear le$al ri$ht to prevent! much less restrain! "ande9 from fencin$ its own propert)& -neco cannot rel) on the road lot under the old subdivision pro<ect of >E # because it knew at the time of the sale that it was bu)in$ ordinar) lots! not subdivision lots! from>E #& #f -neco wants to transform its own lots into a subdivision pro<ect! it must make its own provision for road lots& *he ownership of land e9tends to the surface as well as to the subsoil under it& *he landowners= ri$ht e9tends to such hei$ht or depth where it is possible for them to obtain some benefit or en<o)ment! and it is e9tin$uished be)ond such limit as there would be no more interest protected b) law& (-rt 375) #n this re$ard! the trial court found that respondents could have du$ upon their propert) motorized deep wells but were prevented from doin$ so precisel) because of the construction and e9istence of the tunnels underneath the surface of the propert)& 'espondents! therefore! still had a le$al interest in the sub6terrain portion insofar as the) could have e9cavated the same for the construction of the deep well& /otwithstandin$ the fact that petitioner onl) occupies the sub6terrain portion! it is liable to pa) not merel) an easement fee but rather the full compensation for the land& *his is so because in this case!

ANECO REALTY + LANDEF (.228)

-neco and "ande9 are the bu)ers of lot owned b) >E #& -neco filed a complaint for in<unction when "ande9! owner of ad<acent lots! started the construction of a concrete wall on one of its lots& -neco insists that it has the intention of continuin$ the subdivision pro<ect earlier commenced b) the former owner! thus!the limitation imposed under '- 332 that no portion of a subdivision road lot shall be closed without the approval of the 0ourt& 'espondents instituted an action a$ainst petitioner for recover) of possession of land and dama$es& *he) claim that the) were the owners of several parcels of land and that /-O0O' throu$h alle$ed stealth and without respondents= knowled$e and prior consent! took possession of the sub6terrain of their lands and constructed therein under$round tunnels

NAPOCOR + I3RAHIM (.225)

PERE@ + MENDO@A (1955)

Petitioners filed an action to (uiet title over a piece of parcel of land a$ainst the respondents

the nature of the easement practicall) deprives the owners of its normal beneficial use& 'espondents! as the owners of the propert) thus e9propriated! are entitled to a <ust compensation which should be neither more nor less! whenever it is possible to make the assessment! than the mone) e(uivalent of said propert)& *he respondents! the possessors of the sub<ect propert)! have a better ri$ht to the propert) in (uestion& Possession is an indicium of ownership of the thin$ possessed and to the possessor $oes the presumption that he holds the thin$ under a claim of ownership& -rticle 377 of the 0ivil 0ode provides that +actual possession under claim of ownership raises a disputable presumption of ownership& *he true owner must resort to <udicial process for the recover) of the propert)& #t is a fact that the respondents were in possession of the propert) and the presumption of ownership in their favor has not been successfull) rebutted b) evidence that the) are mere lessees of the land in possession as claimed b) petitioners& Petitioner is $uilt) of violatin$ P /o& 577& P /o& 577 8ection .(c) defines castle6rustlin$ as the takin$ awa) b) an) means! methods or scheme! without the consent of the ownerRraiser of an) of the abovementioned animals whether or not for profit or $ain! or whether committed with or without violence a$ainst or intimidation of an) or force upon thin$s& *he evidence shows that the 0ertificate of ownership of lar$e cattle which petitioner presented to proves his ownership was falsified& #t is not onl) +not in order&, #t is fraudulent! havin$ been antedated to make it appear it had been issued to him before he alle$edl) took the cow in (uestion& #n an) event! petitioner was not <ustified in takin$ the cow without the knowled$e and consent of its owner& #f he thou$ht it was the cow he alle$edl) lost! he should have resorted to the court for the settlement of his claim& -rticle 377 of the 0ivil 0ode provides that +the true owner must resort to <udicial process for the recover) of the propert)&, *he second partition is invalid& *he sale is valid onl) up to the share of Daldetrudes accordin$ to the >irst -$reement of Partition and the heirs of -tt)& >austo can recover 355 s( m& Dadetrudes and -tt)& >austo were co6owners in e(ual share& *he mother title states in no unclear terms that the) were co6owners of the sub<ect lot& *he inscription in the ori$inal title carries more than sufficient wei$ht to prove the e9istence of a co6ownership between them& *he ta9 declaration presented b) petitioners cannot prevail over the O0* as conclusive evidence of the true ownership of the sub<ect propert)& Daldetrudes herself stated the -tt)& >austo was a co6owner& -rticle 385 provides that +the portions belon$in$ to the co6owners in the co6ownership shall be presumed e(ual! unless the contrar) is proved& *he second plan havin$ been prepared without the knowled$e and consent of an) of the co6owners have no bindin$ effect on them& *he deceit emplo)ed b) -tt)& *ecson $oes into the ver) nature of the 8econd partition a$reement and not merel) to its ob<ect or principal condition& Daldetrudes can onl) sell her lawful share of 525 s(uare meters& 'espondent is the owner of the sub<ect propert) covered b) the O0* in his name& *he *orrens title is conclusive evidence with respect to the ownership of the land described therein! and other matters which can be liti$ated and decided in land re$istration proceedin$s& *a9 declarations and ta9 receipts cannot prevail over a certificate of title which is an incontrovertible proof of ownership& -n ori$inal certificate of title issued b) the 'e$ister of eeds under an administrative proceedin$ is as indefeasible as a certificate if title issued under <udicial proceedin$s& Eowever! the 0ourt has ruled that indefeasibilit) of title does not attach to titles secured b) fraud and misrepresentation& Fnder -rticle 373 of the 0ivil 0ode! to successfull) maintain an action to recover the ownership of a real propert)! the person who claims a better ri$ht to it must prove . thin$s@ first! the identit) of the land

CANTA + PEOPLE (.221)

Petitioner was char$ed of violation of P /o& 577! otherwise known as the -nti60attle 'ustlin$ "aw of 1953& Ee admitted takin$ the cow but claimed that it was his and that it was lost& Ee presented two certificates of ownership&

TECSON + FAUSTO (.211)

-tt& >austo ac(uired in co6ownership with his sister Daldetrudes a 1215 s( meter parcel of land& *he co6owners e9ecuted an -$reement of Partition& *his was never re$istered with the 'e$ister of eeds& Dhen -tt)& >austo died Daldetrudes entered into a contract to sell with -urora *ecson& - second partition prepared which drasticall) altered the first a$reement& -tt)& >austo=s share was decreased from 528 s( m to 51 s( m& *he second partition was re$istered with the 'e$ister of eeds&

SAMPACO + LANTUD (.211)

'espondent filed an action to (uiet title with dama$es a$ainst petitioner& Ee alle$ed that he is the owner in fee simple of a parcel of residential lot and petitioner forcibl) and unlawfull) entered his propert)& 8ubse(uentl)! the Garan$a) 0aptain issued a decision statin$ that petitioner is the owner of the sub<ect parcel of land&

LALUAN + MALPAYA (1955)

Petitioners filed a complaint a$ainst the respondent for recover) of ownership and possession of . parcels of land as heirs of 4arciana "aluan& *he) alle$ed that the first parcel was the e9clusive propert) of 4arciana while the second parcel was part of the con<u$al propert)& *he respondent claims that the properties belon$ed to his e9clusive propert)& *hese . properties were sold b) respondent to third persons Aavier claimed that he filed a 4iscellaneous 8ales -pplication over the lot in 1957! and that the lot was in his peaceful and adverse possession since 1951& Ee sold the lot to de Guzman via a deed of absolute sale in 1953& e Guzman allowed the spouses ionisio and 0esaria 0aa) to build their house on the lot! since the latter worked for him& #n 1981! Aavier repurchased the propert) from de Guzman& Aavier didn=t immediatel) e<ect them from the propert)& #n 198.! he found out that emetrio 0arin$al! 0esaria=s father! was awarded b) the Gureau of "ands a free patent over the lot and was issued an O0* in his name& 0arin$al claimed he filed a free patent application over the lot in 11981! and the lot was sold to him b) a certain *esorero! onl) heir of the ori$inal applicant for the free patent! who had been in possession of the lot since 193.&

claimed? second! his title thereto& #n this case! petitioner claims that the propert) in dispute is part of his lar$er propert)& Eowever! petitioner failed to identif) his lar$er propert) b) providin$ evidence of the metes and bounds thereof! so that the same ma) be compared with the technical description contained in the title of respondent& Petitioner=s claim of title b) virtue of open! public and continuous possession of the disputed propert) in the concept of owner is nebulous in the li$ht of a similar claim b) respondent who holds a free patent title over the sub<ect propert)&! *he heirs are entitled to one6half of the second propert) which is part of the con<u$al partnership but as to the first parcel! the case was remanded for a new trial to establish the identit) of land& *he invariable rule is to the effect that in order to maintain an action to recover ownership! the person who claims that he has a better ri$ht to the propert) must prove not onl) his ownership of the propert) claimed but also the identit) thereof& *he part) who desires to recover must fi9 the identit) of the land he claims& -nd where doubt and uncertaint) e9ist as to the identit) of the land claimed! a court should resolve the (uestion b) recourse to the pleadin$s and the record as well as to e9trinsic evidence! oral or written& -lthou$h the action for reconve)ance is available to Aavier! he failed to show sufficient proof of ownership of the lot& -fter the lapse of 1 )ear! a decree of re$istration is no lon$er open to review or attack althou$h its issuance is attended with actual fraud& Eowever! the a$$rieved part) can still avail of reconve)ance if the propert) has not )et passed to an innocent purchaser& *he action for reconve)ance is an action in persona$ and is alwa)s available as lon$ as the propert) has not passed to an innocent third part) for value& #f the propert) has passed into the hands of an innocent purchaser for value! the remed) is an action for dama$es& #n this case! the disputed propert) is still re$istered in the name of respondent emetrio 0arin$al! so that petitioner was correct in availin$ himself of the procedural remed) of reconve)ance& #n order to maintain an action to recover ownership of real propert)! the person who claims that he has a better ri$ht to it must prove not onl) his ownership of the same but he must also satisfactoril) prove the identit) thereof& *he 80 found that there is serious doubt as to the precise identit) of the parcel of land Aavier sou$ht to recover! the description of the land described in the application for sales patent is different from the one in his complaint for reconve)ance& Gecause of this! the action for reconve)ance must fail& Gut! assumin$ in "ratia ar"u$enti that the propert) which petitioner seeks to be reconve)ed to him is the same as that covered b) the O0* in the name of 0arin$al! he has not proved his ownership of the same& *he filin$ of the miscellaneous sales application did not vest title upon Aavier over the propert) as there was no showin$ that his application was approved b) the Gureau of "ands or that a sales patent over the propert) was $ranted to him prior to the issuance of free patent and the O0* in favor of 0arin$al&

:AVIER V CA (1993)

3 R.4!' /) A**"&&./n 3ACHRACH V Gachrach=s will provided that his wife! 4ar)! shall SEIFERT en<o) a usufruct over his estate! and that upon her death! K shall $o to charit) and K shall $o to his heirs& *he lower court authorized 4ar) to pa) the (1939) other heirs monthl) allowances from the fruits and income of the estate! makin$ these amounts advances from her personal funds& 4ar) stopped $ivin$ the heirs their allowances some time after

*here is no valid reason for orderin$ the sale of the K of the estate belon$in$ to the heirs& *he cash in the possession of the administratri9 correspondin$ to the K of the estate ad<udicated to the heirs is sufficient for the monthl) allowances bein$ paid to the heirs and that there is no necessit) for the sale of the K of the estate correspondin$ to them& *he main ob<ection to the heirs to the sale of K of the estate ad<udicated to them! which K besides the cash alread) mentioned! consist mostl) of shares of stock! is that said shares if sold now ma) not command a $ood price and that furthermore said heirs prefer to keep said shares intact as lon$ as there is no real necessit) for their sale& Of

DD. and re(uested that she be allowed to sell K the estate desi$nated for the heirs in case she be made to continue to $ive them allowances& 3ACHRACH MOTOR CO V TALISAY-SILAY MILLING CO (1971) Gachrach filed a complaint a$ainst *alisa)68ila) for the deliver) of a sum of mone) or P/s in that amount as bonus in favor of 4ariano "edesma& P/G filed a 7rd part) claim alle$in$ a preferential ri$ht over the amount! since that would be civil fruits of the land 4ariano mort$a$ed to it& 4ariano mort$a$ed the land to P/G as securit) for *alisa)68ila)=s debt! and his bonus consisted of a percenta$e paid b) *alisa)68ila) to 4ariano on account of the mort$a$e&

course! once said cash in the hands of the administratri9! correspondin$ to the heirs is e9hausted because of the pa)ment of the allowances made to the heirs! some other arran$ements mi$ht be necessar)& *he administratri9 would then have a ri$ht and reason to refuse the pa)ment of said allowances from her said personal funds or from the fruits of the estate! which as a usufructuar)! belon$ to her durin$ her lifetime& 4ariano=s bonus is not civil fruits of the land& -rticle 755 of the 0ivil 0ode considers three thin$s as civil fruits@ >irst! the rents of buildin$s? second! the proceeds from leases of lands? and! third! the income from perpetual or life annuities! or other similar sources of revenue& #t ma) be noted that accordin$ to the conte9t of the law! the phrase Gu otras analo"asG refers onl) to rent or income! for the ad<ectives GotrasG and Ganalo"asG a$ree with the noun Grentas-G as do also the other ad<ectives GperpetuasG and Gvitalicias.G *hat is wh) we sa) that b) 1civil fruits1 the 0ivil 0ode understands one of three and onl) three thin$s! to wit@ the rent of a buildin$! the rent of land! and certain kinds of income& #n order to determine if the bonus is +income, under 00755! it is obvious to in(uire whether it is derived from the land mort$a$ed b) 4ariano to P/G for the benefit of the central? for it is not obtained from that land but from somethin$ else! it is not civil fruits of that land& *he bonus bears no immediate! but onl) a remote accidental relation to the land mentioned! havin$ been $ranted as compensation for the risk of havin$ sub<ected oneLs land to a lien in favor of the bank! for the benefit of the entit) $rantin$ said bonus& #f this bonus be income or civil fruits of an)thin$! it is income arisin$ from said risk! or! if one chooses! from 4arianoLs $enerosit) in facin$ the dan$er for the protection of the central! but certainl) it is not civil fruits or income from the mort$a$ed propert)! which! as far as this case is concerned! has nothin$ to do with it& *he mort$a$e as to the paraphernal propert) is declared null and void ab initio& Poizat was the onl) person who si$ned the mort$a$e! without indicatin$ that his si$nature was bindin$ on his wife& -lso! he had no authorit) to mort$a$e his wife=s propert)! unless the mort$a$e was e9ecuted for her 1and in her name! place or stead!1 and as her act and deed& *he mort$a$e was over his wife=s lot and the buildin$s built thereon after the marria$e& *o make the mort$a$e valid! it should have been si$ned b) the husband in his own proper person and b) him as attorne) in fact for his wife! and it should have been e9ecuted b) both husband and wife! and should have been so acknowled$ed& #n the absence of evidence to the contrar)! it must be presumed that the buildin$ is con<u$al propert) of the husband and wife& -s such! it is sub<ect of the debts of the con<u$al partnership for the pa)ment or securit) of which the husband has the power to mort$a$e or otherwise encumber the propert)& Ortiz is not entitled to retain for his own e9clusive benefit all the fruits of the propert)& - possessor in $ood faith is entitled to the fruits received before the possession is le$all) interrupted& Possession in $ood faith ceases or is le$all) interrupted from the moment defects in the title are made known to the possessor! b) e9traneous evidence or b) the filin$ of an action in court b) the true owner for the recover) of the propert)& Eence! all the fruits that the possessor ma) receive from the time he is summoned in court! or when he answers the complaint! must be delivered and paid b) him to the owner or lawful possessor& Eowever! even after his $ood faith ceases! the possessor in fact can still retain the propert)! pursuant to 0053;! until he has been full) reimbursed for all the necessar) and useful e9penses made b) him on the propert)& *his ri$ht of retention has been considered as one of the con$lomerate of measures devised b) the law for the protection of the possessor in $ood faith& #ts ob<ect is to $uarantee the

PHIL SUGAR ESTATES V POI@AT (19.5)

Gabriela e 0oster e9ecuted a $eneral power of attorne) in favor of her husband! Auan Poizat! authorizin$ the latter to loan an) amount with or without securities& Poizat obtained a loan from P8% and e9ecuted a mort$a$e upon Gabriela=s main propert)& Dhen P8% wanted to foreclose the mort$a$e! Gabriela claimed Poizat acted be)ond the scope of his authorit)&

ORTI@ V 5AYANAN (1959)

Ortiz continued to administer the lot which was formerl) the sub<ect of a Eomestead -pplication in his ward=s name after the latter died& #n the -pplication! his ward named 4artin olorico # as his heir and successor in interest& olorico e9ecuted an affidavit relin(uishin$ all his ri$hts over the propert) in favor of 0omintan and Hamora and re(uested that the -pplication be cancelled& Ortiz claimed he had a preferential ri$ht to the lot since he had been occup)in$ it! but wasn=t able to bid at the public auction& *he court ordered an Order and a Drit of %9ecution in favor of 0omintan and Hamora&

Ortiz claimed that so lon$ as the aforesaid amount of P17!;7.!22 decreed in the <ud$ment representin$ the e9penses for clearin$ the land and the value of the coconuts and fruit trees planted b) him remains unpaid! he can appropriate for his e9clusive benefit all the fruits which he ma) derive from the propert)! without an) obli$ation to appl) an) portion thereof to the pa)ment of the interest and the principal of the debt&

reimbursement of the e9penses! such as those for the preservation of the propert)! or for the enhancement of its utilit) or productivit)& #t permits the actual possessor to remain in possession while he has not been reimbursed b) the person who defeated him in the possession for those necessar) e9penses and useful improvements made b) him on the thin$ possessed& *he principal characteristic of the ri$ht of retention is its accessor) character& #t is accessor) to a principal obli$ation& 0onsiderin$ that the ri$ht of the possessor to receive the fruits terminates when his $ood faith ceases! it is necessar)! in order that this ri$ht to retain ma) be useful! to concede to the creditor the ri$ht to secure reimbursement from the fruits of the propert) b) utilizin$ its proceeds for the pa)ment of the interest as well as the principal of the debt while he remains in possession& -ccordin$ to 4anresa! the ri$ht of retention is analo$ous to that of a pled$e! if the propert) retained is a movable! and to that of antichresis! if the propert) held is immovable& Fnder 001571! an) person who has performed work upon a movable has a ri$ht to retain it b) wa) of pled$e until he is paid& 8imilarl)! 001913! the a$ent ma) retain in pled$e the thin$s which are the ob<ect of the a$enc) until the principal effects reimbursement of the funds advanced b) the former for the e9ecution of the a$enc)! or he is indemnified for all dama$es which he ma) have suffered as a conse(uence of the e9ecution of the a$enc)! provided he is free from fault& *o the same effect! the depositar)! under -rticle 1993 of the same 0ode! ma) retain the thin$ in pled$e until the full pa)ment of what ma) be due him b) reason of the deposit& *he usufructuar)! pursuant to -rticle ;1. of the same 0ode! ma) retain the propert) until he is reimbursed for the amount paid for ta9es levied on the capital (-rticle 595) and tor e9traordinar) repairs (-rticle 593)&

TUATIS V ESCOL (.229)

*uatis claimed that %scol sold to her a piece of real propert) b) installment& *uatis said she had paid %scol the entire amount due in installments! and took possession of the lot and built a house thereon& Dhen *uatis asked %scol to si$n the deed of sale! the latter refused! claimin$ the entire amount had not )et been paid& *uatis claims 00338 must appl)! and that since the value of the buildin$ is $reater than the value of the lot! *uatis can choose between sellin$ the buildin$ to %scol or bu)in$ the lot from the latter&

#n all of these cases! the ri$ht of retention is used as a means of e9tin$uishin$ the obli$ation& *he rule that the choice under 00338 belon$s to the owner of the land is in accord with the principle of accession! i&e&! that the accessor) follows the principal and not the other wa) around& %ven as the option lies with the landowner! the $rant to him! nevertheless! is preclusive& *he landowner cannot refuse to e9ercise either option and compel instead the owner of the buildin$ to remove it from the land& %scolin has two options@ 1& -ppropriate for herself the buildin$ after indemnif)in$ *uatis for the current value of the necessar) and useful e9penses the latter incurred for said buildin$! as provided in 0053;& .& 0hoose not to appropriate the buildin$ and instead! obli$e *uatis to pa) the present or current fair value of the land& *he amount stated in the eed of 8ale shall no lon$er appl)! since the obli$ation is statutor) (under 00338) and not contractual& #f the present or current value of the land turns out to be considerabl) more than that of the buildin$ built thereon! *uatis cannot be obli$ed to pa) for the sub<ect propert)! but she must pa) reasonable rent for the same& *he) must a$ree on the terms of the lease? otherwise! the court will fi9 the terms& 00338 is inapplicable in cases involvin$ contracts of sale with ri$ht of repurchase M it is inapplicable when the owner of the land is the builder! sower! or planter& #n Pecson v. C(! the 80 held that@ -rticle 338 does not appl) to a case where the owner of the land is the builder! sower! or planter who then later loses ownership of the land b) sale or donation& *he 80 said so in Coleon"co v. Re"alado@ +A-'.*#" 3=1 /) '!" /#d C.+.# C/d" .& n/' $22#.*$9#" .n '!.& *$&", )/- R"4$#$d/ */n&'-,*'"d '!" !/,&" /n !.& /%n #$nd before he sold said land to 0oleon$co& A-'.*#" 3=1 $22#."& /n#1 .n *$&"& %!"-" $ 2"-&/n */n&'-,*'& $ 9,.#d.n4 /n '!" #$nd /) $n/'!"- .n 4//d /- .n 9$d )$.'!, $& '!" *$&" 0$1 9" I' d/"& n/' $22#1 '/ $ *$&" %!"-" $ 2"-&/n */n&'-,*'& $ 9,.#d.n4 /n !.& /%n #$nd, )/- '!"n '!"-" *$n 9" n/ <,"&'./n $& '/ 4//d /- 9$d )$.'! /n '!" 2$-' /) '!" 9,.#d"- %lsewise stated! %!"-" '!" '-," /%n"- !.0&"#) .& '!" 9,.#d"- /) '!" %/-(& /n !.& /%n #$nd, '!" .&&," /) 4//d )$.'! /- 9$d )$.'! .& "n'.-"#1 .--"#"+$n' ,

NARVAE@ C ALCISO (.229)

-lciso sold the sub<ect lot to Gate! who later on sold the lot to /arvaez& *he eed of 8ale of 'ealt) had a stipulation allowin$ -lciso to repurchase the propert)? /arvaez furnished -lciso with a cop) of the eed& - *0* was issued in /arvaez=s name and the) built a commercial buildin$ thereon& -lciso wanted to repurchase the propert)! but the) could not a$ree on the repurchase price&

LAUREANO V ADIL (195;)

"aureano was the owner of two lots! which were both leased to On$ 0u& Dhen the 15 )ear lease period e9pired! On$ 0u failed to vacate the lots and remove the improvements thereon& "aureano filed an e<ectment suit a$ainst him&

#n sales with the ri$ht to repurchase! 001;2; and 001;1; appl)& *he lower court erred in assumin$ the On$ 0u was a possessor in $ood faith& -s a lessee who constructed a buildin$ on the leased land! On$ 0u cannot be characterized as a builder in $ood faith& Fnder 00338 the owner of the land on which an)thin$ has been built in $ood faith ma) appropriate the buildin$ after pa)ment of the indemnit) provided in 0053; and 538& 00338 applies to a case where one builds on land of which he honestl) claims to be the owner and not to lands wherein oneLs onl) interest is that of a lessee under a rental contract& - contrar) rule would place it within the power of the lessee 1to improve his landlord out of his propert)1& #n other words! 00338 refers to a possessor who occupied the land in the belief that he was the owner thereof& #t does not appl) to the lessee because the lessee knows at the outset that he is not the owner of the land& *he tenant has no pretension to bein$ the owner of the land& 00338 is inapplicable to this case& #t applies onl) when the builder! planter! or sower believes he had the ri$ht so to build! plant or sow because he thinks he owns the land or believes himself to have a claim of title& 8ince >loreza is not a vendee a retro! he cannot invoke the ri$hts under 001;1;& *he house had alread) been constructed as far back as 1939 (1935 for the house of li$ht materials) even before the pacto de retro sale in 1939& >loreza incurred no useful e9pense! therefore! after that sale& *he house was alread) there at the tolerance of the %van$elistas in consideration of the several loans e9tended to them& 8ince he cannot be classified as a builder in $ood faith within the purview of 00338! nor as a vendee a retro! who made useful improvements durin$ the lifetime of the pacto de retro! petitioner has no ri$ht to reimbursement of the value of the house which he had erected on the residential lot of the %van$elistas! much less to retention of the premises until he is reimbursed& *he ri$hts of petitioner are more akin to those of a usufructuar) who! under 00559! ma) make on the propert) useful improvements but with no ri$ht to be indemnified therefor& Ee ma)! however! remove such improvements should it be possible to do so without dama$e to the propert)@ >or if the improvements made b) the usufructuar) were sub<ect to indemnit)! we would have a dan$erous and un<ust situation in which the usufructuar) could dispose of the ownerLs funds b) compellin$ him to pa) for improvements which perhaps he would not have made& *here is no valid reason for orderin$ the sale of the K of the estate belon$in$ to the heirs& *he cash in the possession of the administratri9 correspondin$ to the K of the estate ad<udicated to the heirs is sufficient for the monthl) allowances bein$ paid to the heirs and that there is no necessit) for the sale of the K of the estate correspondin$ to them& *he main ob<ection to the heirs to the sale of K of the estate ad<udicated to them! which K besides the cash alread) mentioned! consist mostl) of shares of stock! is that said shares if sold now ma) not command a $ood price and that furthermore said heirs prefer to keep said shares intact as lon$ as there is no real necessit) for their sale& Of course! once said cash in the hands of the administratri9! correspondin$ to the heirs is e9hausted because of the pa)ment of the allowances made to the heirs! some other arran$ements mi$ht be necessar)& *he administratri9 would then have a ri$ht and reason to refuse the pa)ment of said allowances from her said personal funds or from the fruits of the estate! which as a usufructuar)! belon$ to her durin$ her lifetime& *rue it is that under article 332 of the 0ivil 0ode the ownership of propert) includes the ri$ht of accession to ever)thin$ attached thereto either naturall) or artificiall)! and that under article 315! trees! plants and $rowin$ fruits! while the) are attached to the land! are immovable propert)? it is e(uall) true that when a person plants in $ood faith on land belon$in$ to another! the landowner does not ipso facto ac(uire ownership of what has been planted? he must first indemnif) the planter before he can appropriate the same& -nd so provides article 338@ *he owner of the land in which an)thin$ has been built! sown or planted in $ood faith! shall have the ri$ht to appropriate as his own the works! sowin$ or plantin$! after pa)ment of the indemnit) provided for in articles 53; and 538&

FLORE@A V EVANGELISTA (1982)

*he %van$elistas! who are mother and son! owned a residential lot& *he) borrowed from >loreza in 1935! and allowed the latter to occup) and build a baron$6baron$ on the lot& *he) did not have an a$reement as to the pa)ment for the use of the lot& *he %van$elistas borrowed mone) from >loreza on 3 other occasions! and >loreza tore down the baro$6baron$ and built a house of stron$ materials thereon& *he %van$elistas later sold the lot to >loreza with the ri$ht to repurchase within ; )ears in consideration of their total outstandin$ loan& *he) paid the full repurchase price within the period! but >loreza refused to vacate until he was reimbursed the value of the house&

3ACHRACH V SEIFERT (1939)

Gachrach=s will provided that his wife! 4ar)! shall en<o) a usufruct over his estate! and that upon her death! K shall $o to charit) and K shall $o to his heirs& *he lower court authorized 4ar) to pa) the other heirs monthl) allowances from the fruits and income of the estate! makin$ these amounts advances from her personal funds& 4ar) stopped $ivin$ the heirs their allowances some time after DD. and re(uested that she be allowed to sell K the estate desi$nated for the heirs in case she be made to continue to $ive them allowances& 'icardo 0aballero owns an a$ricultural land and had leased it to #nter6'e$ional evelopment 0orp& represented b) spouses Aose GaSez and #sabel GaSez& 0onflict started when 0aballero sold the land to #sidro %strada even thou$h there was still a standin$ crop to be harvested b) the petitioner& 0aballeroLs ar$ument is that when he sold the land! it follows that whatever was planted there comes with it& *he petitioner for this certiorari case ar$ues

In'"--R"4./n$# D"+"#/20"n' C/-2 +& CA (17>D)

S$-0."n'/ +& A4$n$ (178B)

otherwise& 4other6in6law offered a lot for the construction of house b) the spouses& Eere comes 8armiento! alle$in$ himself to be the owner of the land& *he trial court ordered 8armiento to e9ercise option and there was failure to do so& *he spouses then consi$ned the amount in court&

*he owner of the buildin$ erected in $ood faith on a land owned b) another! is entitled to retain the possession of the land until he is paid the value of his buildin$! under article 357 (now -rticle 53;)& *he owner! of the l a n d ! u p o n ! t h e o t h e r h a n d ! h a s t h e o p t i o n ! under article 7;1 (now -rticle 338)! either to pa) for the buildin$ or to sell his land to the o w n e r o f t h e b u i l d i n $ & G u t h e c a n n o t ! as respondents here did! r e f u s e b o t h t o p a ) f o r t h e b u i l d i n $ a n d t o s e l l t h e l a n d and compel the owner of the buildin$ to remove it from the land where it is erected& Ee is entitled to such demolition or removal onl) when! after havin$ chosen to sell h i s l a n d ! t h e o t h e r p a r t ) f a i l s t o p a ) f o r t h e same& -rticle 338 of the 0ivil 0ode cannot appl) where a co6owner builds! plants or sows on the land owned in common for then he did not build! plant or sow upon land that e9clusivel) belon$s to another but of which he is a co6owner& *he co6owner is not a third person under the circumstances! and the situation is $overned b) the rules of co6ownership& Eowever! when the co6ownership is terminated b) a partition and it appears that the house of an erstwhile co6owner has encroached upon a portion pertainin$ to another co6owner which was however made in $ood faith! then the provisions of -rticle 338 should appl) to determine the respective ri$hts of the parties& -s in the present case! the house of -besia overlaps or occupies a portion of 5 s(& m& of the land pertainin$ to the spouses which -besia obviousl) built in $ood faith& -ppl)in$ -rt& 338! the ff& are the parties options@ the spouses have the ri$ht to appropriate said portion of the house of -besia upon pa)ment of indemnit) to the latter! otherwise! the spouses ma) obli$e -besia to pa) the price of the land occupied b) their house& Eowever! if the price asked for is considerabl) much more than the value of the portion of the -besia=s house built thereon! then the latter cannot be obli$ed to bu) the land& -besia shall then pa) the reasonable rent to the spouses upon such terms and conditions that the) ma) a$ree& #n case of disa$reement! the trial court shall fi9 the terms thereof& Of course! -besia ma) demolish or remove the said portion of their house! at their own e9pense! if the) so decide& Dith re$ard to -rt& 338! the provision on indemnit) ma) be applied in analo$)& Dhoever is the owner of the land ma) appropriate whatever has been built! planted or sown after pa)in$ indemnit)& Eowever! it does not appl) when the owner of the land is also the builder of the works on his own land who later on loses ownership b) sale or donation& -rt& 53; refers to the necessar) and useful e9penses which shall be refunded to the possessor in $ood faith with ri$ht of retention& Eowever! it does not state how to determine the value of the useful improvement& *he respondents Pcourt and private respondents alikeQ espouses as sufficient reimbursement the cost of construction in 19;5! however! this is contrar) to previous rulin$s which declares that the value to the reimbursed should be the present market value of said improvements so as not to un<ustl) enrich either of the parties& Pthe trial court erred in orderin$ Pecson to pa) rent since the 8ps& /u$uid has )et to pa) the indemnit) therefore Pecson has the ri$ht to retain the improvements and the income thereof& *he case was remanded to the trial court for determination of the current market value of the apartment bld$ and ordered the 8ps to pa) Pecson otherwise it shall be restored to Pecson until pa)ment of indemnit)& Good faith consists in the belief of the builder that he land he is buildin$ on is his and his i$norance of an) defect or flaw in his title& *he burden of provin$ bad faith belon$s to the one assertin$ it& -t the time when Bee constructed his improvements on "ot 8! he was not aware that it was actuall) "ot 9 that was delivered to him& -rticle 5.5 of the 0ivil 0ode provides the presumption that petitioner has the burden of provin$ that Bee was a builder in bad faith& Bee ma) be made liable for the violation of the contract with 0**%# but this ma) not be used as a basis of bad faith and as a sufficient $round to ne$ate the presumption of $ood faith& Petitioner cannot claim and e9cuse itself from liabilit) b) claimin$ that it was not directl) involved in the deliver) of the propert)& *he principalmust be responsible for the acts of the a$ent done within the scope of his authorit)& 0**%# was the sole real estate representative of the petitioner when the deliver) was made& Dilson Bee is therefore declared a builder in $ood faith& Petitioner and respondent 0**%# are declared solidaril) liable for dama$es due to ne$li$ence&

F"-n$nd"6 d"# C$02/ +& A9"&.$ (1788)

8pouses %stanislao and -besia were co6owners of a certain lot& Dhen the lot was partitioned! it was found out that -besia=s house encroached on a 5 s(& m& portion of the spouses= part of the lot& "ower court held that -rt& 338 does not appl) in the case and ordered -besia to demolish her house within a period of ;2 da)s&

P"*&/n +& CA (177D)

Petitioner was the owner of a parcel of land wherein he built an apartment comple9& ue to his failure to pa) for realt) ta9es! his land was sold in a public auction and was sold to spouses /u$uid& Ee moved for the settin$ aside of the auction but was denied&

P#"$&$n'+.##" +& CA (177=)

'obillo bou$ht a parcel of land from petitioner Pleasantville& 8he later found out that the lot she bou$ht alread) had improvements built thereon b) one Dilson Bee& Dilson alle$ed that he bou$ht the land from 0* *orres %nterprises which is the e9clusive real estate a$ent of petitioner& #t was later found out that petitioner sold the e9act same lot to both 'obillo and Bee on account of the ne$li$ence or oversi$ht of petitioner=s a$ent&

T"*!n/4$& +& CA (177>)

Petitioner bou$ht a lot to$ether with the buildin$ and improvements includin$ the wall which encroached that of the defendant& Fpon learnin$ of such encroachment! petitioner offered to bu) the land but defendant refused& -fter . )ears! throu$h an a$reement! petitioner a$reed to demolish the wall (but the case did not state what happened to this a$reement! m) assumption is that it did not happen due to conflicts that arose after)& efendant du$ a canal alon$ the wall which caused a portion of it to collapse& Petitioner filed a supplemental complaint re the action and a separate criminal action of malicious mischief (which the wife was convicted of)& '*0 decided for the petitioners and the 0- reversed& /ote that respondent wants to have the wall demolished& *his is a dispute over fort)6two (3.) s(uare meters of residential land belon$in$ to petitioners& Parties herein were owners of ad<acent lots located at Glock /o& 7! Poinsettia 8treet!-raneta Fniversit) :illa$e! 4alabon! 4etro 4anila& %den Gallatan discovered the there was an encroachment when she constructed her house which was surve)ed b) the authorized surve)or of -#-! the owner6 developer of the subdivision pro<ect& Petitioner Gallatan made a written demand on respondent to remove and dismantle their improvements on the said lot& >ailin$ to a$ree amicabl)! petitioner Gallatan instituted a$ainst respondents Go 0ivil 0ase for recover) of possession before the 'e$ional *rial 0ourt& Plaintiff A4 *uason filed a civil case a$ainst defendant 4acalindon$ alle$in$ that it is the re$istered owner of a parcel of land! commonl) known as the 8ta& 4esa Eei$hts 8ubdivision and that the defendant! thru force! strate$) and stealth! unlawfull) entered into the possession of some .22 s(uare meters! within said parcel of land and constructed his house thereon& efendant answerin$! stated amon$ others! that prior to 1955 and since time immemorial! he and his predecessors6in6interest have been in open! adverse! public! continuous and actual possession of the lot in (uestion in the concept of owner and! b) reason of such possession! he had made improvement thereon& *he 0it) of a$upan filed a complaint a$ainst the former /ational Daterworks and 8ewera$e -uthorit) (/-D-8-)! now the 4etropolitan

Dhen the petitioner purchased the lot! the wall was alread) built& %ven the respondent did not knew about the encroachment until he has hired a surve)or& Dhere one derives title to the propert) from another! the act! declaration! or omission of the latter! while holdin$ the title! in relation to the propert)! is evidence a$ainst the former& -nd possession in $ood faith does not lose this character e9cept when the possessor is aware of this impropriet)& %ncroachment was ver) narrow which can be considered as a mere error& *he petitioner! despite bein$ a purchaser of the ori$inal builder! can compel the landowner to either bu) the propert) or sell the piece of land because he was reall) unaware of the encroachment basin$ on the fact presented b) both sides and when the petitioner bou$ht the land! he has stepped into the ri$hts of the ori$inal owner (hence! the ri$ht to compel the "O to bu) or sell is also transferred)&

3$##$'$n +& CA (1777)

#t was the surve) made the authorized surve)or of -#- that respondent Dinston Go relied upon in constructin$ his house on his father=s land& Ee built his house in the belief that it was entirel) within the parameters of his father=s land& #n short! respondents Go had no knowled$e that the) encroached petitioners= lot& *he) are deemed builders in $ood faith until the time petitioner Gallatan informed them of their encroachment on her propert)&

T,$&/n +& M$*$#.nd/n4 (17=2)

>rom the documents submitted! it appears that defendant was not a builder in $ood faith& >rom the initial certificate of title of plaintiff=s predecessors6in6interest! there is a presumptive knowled$e b) defendant of plaintiff=s *orrens *itle (which is a notice to the whole world) over the sub<ect premises and conse(uentl) defendant cannot! in $ood conscience! sa) now that he believed his vendor (>lores)! his vendor=s vendor (*eotico) and the latter=s seller ( e *orres) had ri$hts of ownership over said lot& efendant! had likewise! a sufficient warnin$ from the fact that the lot! sub<ect of his purchase! is described in his %9hibits 1! . and 7! to be a portion of an unnumbered and! therefore! unapproved subdivision plan& Ead he investi$ated before bu)in$ and before buildin$ his house on the (uestioned lot! he would have been informed that the land is re$istered under the *orrens s)stem in the name of A&4& *uason& #f he failed to make the necessar) in(uir)! defendant is now bound conclusivel) to appellee=s *orrens *itle&

MWSS +& CA (1778)

-rticle 339 of the 0ivil 0ode of the Philippines provides that 1he who builds! plants or sows in bad faith on the land of another! loses what is built! planted or sown without ri$ht to indemnit)&1 -s a builder in bad faith! /-D-8- lost whatever useful improvements it had made without ri$ht to indemnit)&

R"2,9#.* + C$&'.##/ 1788

Daterworks and 8ewera$e 8)stem (4D88)! for recover) of the ownership and possession of the a$upan Daterworks 8)stem& /-D-8interposed as one of its special defenses '&-& 1787 which vested upon it the ownership! possession and control of all waterworks s)stems throu$hout the Philippines and as one of its counterclaims the reimbursement of the e9penses it had incurred for necessar) and useful improvements amountin$ to P.55!222&22& 4odesto 0astillo owned parcels of land (consolidated and then subdivided into 9) in *anauan! Gatan$as& -fter his death! his wife -manda partitioned the propert) and passed on the mort$a$e to >lorencio 0astillo& *hus the titles of the lots were subse(uentl) titled and annotated in the names of the new owners& *he Philippine $overnment appealed! sa)in$ tha the lands had alwa)s formed part of *aal "ake (washed and inundated) and could not be private propert)& *he 0astillos claimed prescription and estoppel! and that there was accretion of their lakeshore properties that added land to what the) alread) owned&

4oreover! under -rticle 53; of said code! onl) a possessor in $ood faith shall be refunded for useful e9penses with the ri$ht of retention until reimbursed? and under -rticle 535 thereof! onl) a possessor in $ood faith ma) remove useful improvements if this can be done without dama$e to the principal thin$ and if the person who recovers the possession does not e9ercise the option of reimbursin$ the useful e9penses& *he ri$ht $iven a possessor in bad faith is to remove improvements applies onl) to improvements for pure lu9ur) or mere pleasure! provided the thin$ suffers no in<ur) thereb) and the lawful possessor does not prefer to retain them b) pa)in$ the value the) have at the time he enters into possession (-rticle 539)& *he propert) is still clearl) a shorelands of *aal "ake! sometimes underwater! that the 0astillos <ust filled up so that the) can use for their business& -ccretions on the bank of a lake! like "a$una de Ga)! belon$ to the owners of the estate to which the) have been added while accretion on a sea bank still belon$s to the public domain! and is not available for private ownership until formall) declared b) the $overnment to be no lon$er needed for public use& *his distinction does not help the 0astillos because there is no accretion shown to e9ist& On the contrar)! it was established that the occupants of the lots who were en$a$ed in duck raisin$ filled up the area with shells and sand to make it habitable&

A&&' EE"* S"* + CA $nd M"nd/6$ 1787

Aesus "arrabaster was $ranted a home lot of 1!522 m. in 0otabato! on the premise that the lot was vacant and free from claim or conflict& Eowever! Aesus subleased the land to Gasilio 4endoza and tolerated the s(uattin$ o$ Aor$e Gellerto& "arrabaster and wife later assi$ned their ri$hts to Aose Pena& Pena then claimed that the propert) was 7!;22 m.! and re(uested the $overnment to ad<ust the title to +conform, to the actual area& *he additional land was found out to be due from accretion from a creek! and allotedRdistributed alread) to different lots& *his suit is based on decisions of $overnment a$encies& Gloria >errer claims ownership over a lot b) virtue of accretion! while 4ariano Galana$ and 4a$dalena omondon b) virtue of lon$ occupation and a 0ertificate of *itle pursuant to a free patent application& >errer initated several cases a$ainst Galana$ and omondon! but this is a case arisin$ from the PfirstQ

Dhen the accretion occurred! the lot had alread) been allocated and assi$ned to "arrabaster! thus accrues to the private propert)& "arrabaster ma) not have been the owner (naked title6owner was still the $overnment)! he had alread) ac(uired the beneficial and e(uitable title over the lot& *hus! the aread within it ori$inal boundaries belon$ to the awardee whether the creek advances or recedes&

F"--"- + 3$,'.&'$ 177B

>errer is the owner of the land b) alluvion& -lluvion $ives to the owners of lands on riverbanks an) accretion which is $raduall) received from the effects of the current of waters& *his is +compensation, to owners of land continuall) e9posed to the destructive force of water and sub<ected to various easements& Gecause this was private propert)! the $overnment thus had no authorit) to $rant a free patent over it&

A4n" + D.-"*'//) L$nd& 1770

complaint for reivindicacion& Eermeni$ildo -$poon was the first re$istered owner of a parcel of land in Pan$asinan& Presentacion Gascon inherited the land from her father! and was issued a *0*& -lle$edl)! durin$ the Aapanese occupation! 4ariano -$ne et al took possession of the land& *he) claimed that the -$no60hico 'iver chan$ed its course in 19.2 and so land was deposited unto their properties& *he) also said that the) had openl) possessed and used the land since then& - parcel of land was du$ b) the $overnment for the construction of a canal to streamline the river& >eli9 Gaes eventuall) bou$ht the land! which was subdivided into three parcels& *he middle parcel covered the canal& *he $overnment $ave him another e(uivalent parcel as compensation& -fter resurve)! it was discovered that there were errors& /ew *0*=s were issued to represent the enlar$ements& Government opposed as the lots were alle$edl) unlawfull) enlar$ed& Gaes claimed that he should own dried up land as the creek was discovered to the canal in his propert)& Aanita %duave inherited a parcel of land in 4isamis Oriental from her father and uncles! which later was eroded due to a t)phoon and throu$h the movement of land deposit& 8he $ranted 4a9imo Aa$ualin$ et al to plant corn and bananas! hired a surve)or to put monuments! paid the ta9es& Aa$ualin$ denied the assertions of %duave! sa)in$ that the) claimed ownership after a t)phoon caused the formation of the island! which the) occupied for 15 )ears thence& *he) presented pictures of their occupation! and the improvements and the house established thereon& *he trial court ruled that it was a delta! formin$ part of the riverbed and thus part of the public domain& *he 0- found that it was an island! and formed due to alluvial deposits& 8iari :alle) #nc& brou$ht action to recover .22 heads of cattle that were driven from its lands to that of >ilemon "ucasan& "ucasan however ar$ued that althou$h there was commi9tion of cattle! 8iari alread) retrieved its animals& *he 0># of Hamboan$a decided in favor of 8iari thus the case

-$ne et al are the owners of the abandoned bed! as riparian owners& *he natural occurrence where the river bed was abandoned makes the newl) uncovered land private& *here is no need for a formal act of ac(uisition! accordin$ to the old civil code which was in effect that time& *he ri$ht to additions b) accretion a ri$ht of an owner of a tree to fruits! or ri$ht of an owner of animals to the offsprin$&Private ownership cannnot be distrubed b) )the issuance of a free patent over the land&

3$"& + CA 1778

Gaes is entitled to compensation for the dama$e or loss to propert) due to a `deliberate act= of the $overnment& Gut he has alread) been compensated for the trouble dama$e brou$ht about b) the canal! so the case is dismissed& #f the riparian owner is entitled to compensation for the dama$e to or loss of his propert) due to natural causes! all the more reason to compensate him when the chan$e in the course of river is effected throu$h artificial means&

:$4,$#.n4 + CA 1771

*he parcel of land is an island that formed in a non6navi$able and non6flotable river! and ans such belon$s to the owner of the land with the nearest mar$in& #f the riparian owner fails to assert his claim! it could be open to adverse possession&

S.$-. V$##"1 + L,*$&$n 17D>

"ucasan lost the ar$ument re commi9tion! ordered to deliver the 7.1 heads that had been entrusted to his care to 8iari? pa) dama$es for the others he had since sold? and ordered to allow 8iari to round up all the buffaloes that ma) be found on its cattle ranch& -rt& 78. (now -rt& 357) of the 00 states that +if the commin$lin$ of . thin$s is made in bad faith! the one responsible for it will lose his share, thus since "ucasan is in bad faith! he should lose his share in

at bar&

the commi9tion& -lthou$h there was no actual evidence that all 8.7 missin$ animals were taken b) "ucasan or his men! on two occasions however! his men drove awa) 72 heads of cattle& #t is not erroneous to believe that the others must have also been driven awa) appl)in$ b) analo$) the principle that one who stole a part of the stolen mone) must have taken also the lar$er sum lost b) the offended part)& >rial as the possessor has the ri$ht to sue! not the other part)& (*his case was also referred for sumamr) proceedin$s&) - person in actual possession of a piece of land under claim of ownership ma) wait until his possession is disturbed or his title is attacked before takin$ steps to vindicate his ri$ht! and that his undisturbed possession $ives him the continuin$ ri$ht to seek the aid of a court of e(uit) to ascertain and determine the nature of the adverse claim of a third part) and its effect on his title&

F$;$ + CA 17>>

"evine >rial sued >elipa >a<a for ille$all) possessin$ and occu)in$ the propert) of the owner ("evine was a heir) for about 72 )ears& Ee also asked for about P152B in unearned income from the propert) for the period& Eis claim was throu$h a reconstituted O0*& >a<a claimed that she inherited the lot from her father and $randfather! and so on! with the propert) havin$ been in the famil) for ;2 )ears& Eer claim was under a *0*& 8he also ar$ued that the other O0* was fake& 8pouses -li and 8alika 4amadsual sou$ht to (uiet the title held b) spouses -bdula and Ba$ui 4acarapan to a propert) in 0otabato 0it)! before a 8hari=a istrict 0ourt& *he trial court dismissed the complaint on the $round of prescription! since it is similar to a reconve)ance which prescribes after ten )ears *he relevant (uestion was whether the petitioners were the correct parties in interest! and whether the action had prescribed& 4odesto 0astillo owned parcels of land (consolidated and then subdivided into 9) in *anauan! Gatan$as& -fter his death! his wife -manda partitioned the propert) and passed on the mort$a$e to >lorencio 0astillo& *hus the titles of the lots were subse(uentl) titled and annotated in the names of the new owners& *he Philippine $overnment appealed! sa)in$ tha the lands had alwa)s formed part of *aal "ake (washed and inundated) and could not be private propert)& *he 0astillos claimed prescription and estoppel! and that there was accretion of their lakeshore properties that added land to what the) alread) owned&

M$0$d&,$# + M/&/n 1770

-n action to (uiet title is imprescriptible! and must be filed b) the persons in possession of the propert) T in this case the 4amadsuals& -n)how! this case was remanded for further proceedin$s& #n such an action to (uiet title the plaintiff 1must1 have le$al or e(uitable title to! or interest in the real propert) which is the sub<ect matter of the action& #t interpreted le$al title to mean re$istered ownership and e(uitable title to mean beneficial ownership& #t is not necessar) that the person seekin$ to (uiet his title is the re$istered owner of the propert) in (uestion&

R"2,9#.* + C$&'.##/ 1788

*he propert) is still clearl) a shorelands of *aal "ake! sometimes underwater! that the 0astillos <ust filled up so that the) can use for their business& -ccretions on the bank of a lake! like "a$una de Ga)! belon$ to the owners of the estate to which the) have been added while accretion on a sea bank still belon$s to the public domain! and is not available for private ownership until formall) declared b) the $overnment to be no lon$er needed for public use& *his distinction does not help the 0astillos because there is no accretion shown to e9ist& On the contrar)! it was established that the occupants of the lots who were en$a$ed in duck raisin$ filled up the area with shells and sand to make it habitable&

Vd$ d" A+.#"& + C/,-' /) A22"$#&

*he deceased %duardo and his wife -nastacia vda& de -viles owned a parcel of land in "in$a)en! Pan$asinan& 8he was in actual possession thereof&

3/,nd$-1 d.&2,'"& $-" n/' */4n.6$9#" .n '!" &2"*.$# *.+.# $*'./n )/- <,."'.n4 /) '.'#" Fnder 'ule ;3 of the 'ules of 0ourt! onl) a person who is interested `under a deed! will! contract or

(199;)

On the other hand! 0amilo -viles! who owned one of the ad<acent lots! asserted color of title over the northern portion of the land owned b) the vda& de -viles b) puttin$ up a bamboo fence& *his prompted her to file an action to (uiet title a$ainst 0amilo&

other written instrument! and whose ri$hts are affected b) a statute or ordinance! ma) brin$ an action to determine an) (uestion of construction or validit) arisin$ under the instrument or statute and for a declaration of his ri$hts or duties thereunder&= *his means that the sub<ect matter must refer to a deed! will! contract or other written instrument! or to a statute or ordinance! to warrant declarator) relief& -n) other matter not mentioned therein is deemed e9cluded& *his is under the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius&

C C/-/%n"-&!.2 H"-n$nd"6 + C,.'$.n (1988)

G$'*!$#.$n + C/##"*'/- /) In'"-n$# R"+"n," (1979)

Perla Eernandez bou$ht a parcel of land in 4asbate from 8ancho 4anlapaz& *he land was ori$inall) part of a lar$er parcel of land that belon$ed to the spouses 0rispulo 4anlapaz and -ntonia :illanueva& Fpon their death their children partitioned their estate& %rnesta :aldemoro! one of the children of the spouses 4anlapaz! filed a complaint for redemption a$ainst Eernandez to recover the parcel of land she bou$ht from 8ancho& Aose Gatchalian and other co6plaintiffs purchased a lotto ticket from the /ational 0harit) 8weepstakes Office and won P52!222&22& *he provincial treasurer of Gulacan made an assessment of P1!399&93 on Aose Gatchalian N 0o&! but Gatchalian et al& asked for an e9emption& #t was denied&

V$#d"0/-/ *$nn/' "E"-*.&" '!" -.4!' /) -"d"02'./n $4$.n&' H"-n$nd"6 *he basis of the ri$ht of le$al redemption under -rticle 1;.2 of the 0ivil 0ode is the e9istence of a co6 ownership as defined under -rticle 383 of the same 0ode& *he 0ourt emphasized that if the part) seekin$ to redeem is the owner of a portion which has been concretel) determined and #dentifiable he cannot be considered a co6owner! and thus not entitled to the ri$ht of redemption $ranted under -rticle 1;.2& G$'*!$#.$n $nd '!" /'!"-& )/-0"d $ 2$-'n"-&!.2, $nd .& '!,& #.$9#" '/ 2$1 '$E"& -ccordin$ to the stipulation of facts the plaintiffs or$anized a civil partnership because each of them put up mone) to bu) a sweepstakes ticket for the sole purpose of dividin$ e(uall) the prize which the) ma) win! as the) did in fact in the amount of P52!222& *he partnership was not onl) formed! but upon the or$anization thereof and the winnin$ of the prize! Aose Gatchalian personall) appeared in the office of the Philippines 0harit) 8weepstakes! in his capacit) as co6partner! as such collection the prize! the office issued the check for P52!222 in favor of Aose Gatchalian N 0o&! and the said partner! in the same capacit)! collected the said check& -ll these circumstances militate a$ainst the assertion that he and the other plaintiffs or$anized and formed a mere co6ownership& O9.##/& .& n/' #.$9#" '/ 2$1 */-2/-$'" .n*/0" '$E *here was no intention to form a partnership& *he) were co6owners pure and simple& *o consider them as partners would be to obliterate the distinction between co6owners and parteners& *he division of the profit was merel) incidental to the dissolution of the co6ownership which was in the nature of the thin$ a temporar) state& -rt& 15;9 of the 0ivil 0ode provides that sharin$ of $ross returns does not in itself establish a partnership&

O9.##/& + C/,-' /) A22"$#& (1985)

D$.#.&$n + C/,-' /) A22"$#& (.228)

Obillos 8r& completed pa)ment to Orti$as N 0o& for the purchase of two lots& Ee then transferred his ri$hts to his children& Purpose of the purchase of the lots was to be made into residential lots! however due to economic reasons! the children decided to resell the lots to D080 and Ol$a 0anada& *he) treated the profit as a capital $ains ta9 and paid said income ta9& *he 0ommissioner made an assessment re(uirin$ petitiones to pa) corporate income ta9 in addition to the individual income ta9es the) have paid& *he 0ommissioner considered the profits as distributive dividends ta9able in full and not for onl) 72b& Aose ailisan! in a 0omplaint for Partition! alle$ed that he purchased c of the land of >ederico Pu$ao in Ga$o Ganta)! Uuezon 0it)& ailisan had alread) paid part of the purchase price& Eowever! Pu$ao refused ailisan=s plea for partition& *he 0ourt of -ppeals ruled that ailisan=s action for partition had prescribed and that the proper cause of action for him is one for specific performance instead&

D$.#.&$nG& $*'./n )/- 2$-'.'./n !$& n/' 1"' 2-"&*-.9"d $& !" .& &'.## $ */-/%n"- /) '!" 2-/2"-'1 .n <,"&'./n ailisanLs action before the '*0 was properl) captioned as one for partition because there are sufficient alle$ations in the complaint that he is a co6owner of the propert)& *he re$ime of co6ownership e9ists when ownership of an undivided thin$ or ri$ht belon$s to different persons& G) the nature of a co6 ownership! a co6owner cannot point to a specific portion of the propert) owned in common as his own because his share therein remains intan$ible& *he description 1undivided 1R3 portion1 shows that the portion sold is still undivided and not sufficientl) identified& Dhile the description provides a $uide for identif)in$ the location of the lot sold! there was no indication of its e9act metes and bounds& *his is the reason wh) ailisan was constrained to cause the surve) of the propert)& -s a co6owner of the

C-,6 + C$'$2$n4 (.228)

"eonor 0ruz! "uz 0ruz and /orma 4ali$a)a are co6owners of a parcel of land in *aal! Gatan$as& #n 199.! *eofila 0atapan$ built a house on a lot ad<acent to the lot in (uestion with 4ali$a)a=s consent& *he house intruded on a portion of the propert) held in co6ownership& Dhen "eonor learned of this! she demanded that 0atapan$ vacate the portion intruded upon& Dhen 8he did not heed the demand! "eonor sued 0atapan$ for forcible entr)&

propert)! therefore! he has the ri$ht to demand partition! a ri$ht which does not prescribe& N/-0$ M$#.4$1$G& */n&"n' */n&'.','"& d"+/'.n4 $ 2-/2"-'1 !"#d .n */00/n '/ !"- "E*#,&.+" ,&" '/ '!" 2-";,d.*" /) '!" */-/%n"-&!.2 Fnder -rticle 391 of the 0ivil 0ode! none of the co6owners shall! without the consent of the others! make alterations in the thin$ owned in common& *he 0ourt ruled that it would necessaril) follow that none of the co6owners can! without the consent of the other co6owners! validl) $ive consent to the makin$ of an alteration b) another person! such as 0atapan$ in this case! in the thin$ owned in common& #n addition! -rticle 38; of the same 0ode states each co6owner ma) use the thin$ owned in common provided he does so in accordance with the purpose for which it is intended and in such a wa) as not to in<ure the interest of the co6ownership or prevent the other co6owners from usin$ it accordin$ to their ri$hts& *he 0ourt ruled that! to $ive consent to a third person to construct a house on the co6 owned propert) would be to in<ure the interest of the co6ownership and would prevent other co6owners from usin$ the propert) in accordance with their ri$hts& T!" 3$-'/#/0"& $-" n/' #.$9#" '/ 2$1 -"n' *he 0ourt ruled that the spouses are not liable to pa) rent& *heir occupation of the said propert) was a mere e9ercise of their ri$ht to use the same as a co6owner& One of the limitations on a co6owner=s ri$ht of use is that he must use it in such a wa) so as not to in<ure the interest of the other co6owners& #n the case at bar! the other part) failed to provide proof that b) the occupation of the spouses Gartolome! the) prevented :icenta from utilizin$ the same& T!" $*'./n 91 P#$&$9$& $nd M$#$6$-'" 0$1 2-/*""d "+"n %.'!/,' 9".n4 ;/.n"d 91 '!" /'!"- *//%n"-& -rticle 385 of the 0ivil 0ode provides that an) one of the co6owners ma) brin$ an action for e<ectment& *he article covers all kinds of actions for the recover) of possession! includin$ an accion publiciana and a reivindicator) action& - co6owner ma) file suit without necessaril) <oinin$ all the other co6owners as co6plaintiffs because the suit is deemed to be instituted for the benefit of all& -n) <ud$ment of the court in favor of the plaintiff will benefit the co6owners! but if the <ud$ment is adverse! the same cannot pre<udice the ri$hts of the unimpleaded co6owners& *hus! Plasabas and 4alazarte need not implead the other co6owners! the onl) e9ception to this rule bein$ when the action is for the benefit of the plaintiff alone who claims to be the sole owner and is thus entitled to the possession thereof& T!" CFI $nd '!" *.'1 */,-'& !$+" ;,-.&d.*'./n *he share of stock appurtenant to the unit will be transferred accordin$l) to the purchaser of the unit onl) upon full pa)ment of the purchase price at which time he will also become the owner of the unit& 0onse(uentl)! even under the contract! it is onl) the owner of a unit who is a shareholder of the 0ondominium 0orporation& #nasmuch as owners is conve)ed onl) upon full pa)ment of the purchase price! it necessaril) follows that a purchaser of a unit who has not paid the full purchase price thereof is not *he owner of the unit and conse(uentl) is not a shareholder of the 0ondominium 0orporation& #n this case! the 4aster purchase price& eed provides that ownership is transferred onl) upon full pa)ment of the

P$-d"## + 3$-'/#/0" (191.)

P#$&$9$& + C/,-' /) A22"$#& (.229)

:icenta de Pardell and 4atilde Gartolome were heirs of the late spouses 4i$uel Ortiz and 0ali9ta >elin& #n 1888 Gartolome and her husband Gaspar Gartolome took upon themselves the administration of the propert) of the deceased spouses in #locos 8ur without <udicial authorization& Pardell went to court! demandin$ pa)ment of rend from the Gartolomes& /ieves Plasabas and 4arcos 4alazarte brou$ht an action for recover) of title to propert) with dama$es a$ainst ominador "umen and -urora -unzo& "umen and -unzo moved to dismiss the complaint! alle$in$ that Plasabas and 4alazarte! not bein$ the sole owners of the propert)! failed to implead the other co6owners! Aose! :ictor and :ictoria! as indispensable parties&

S,n&"' V."% + C$02/& (1981)

-$uilar6Gernares 'ealt) was the assi$nee of a unit in the 8unset :iew 0ondominium Pro<ect owned b) 8unset :iew 0orporation! a condominium corporation& 8unset :iew sued -$uilar6Gernares 'ealt) for collection of assessments levied on the latter=s unit& -$uilar6Gernares 'ealt) moved to dismiss! ar$uin$ that the court does not have <urisdiction over the case& *he 0># dismissed the case! rulin$ that pursuant to 8ection . of 'epublic -ct /o& 35.; (the 0ondominium "aw)! a +holder of a separate interest, and conse(uentl)! a shareholder of the plaintiff condominium corporation? and that +the case should be properl) filed with the 8ecurities N %9chan$e 0ommission which has e9clusive ori$inal <urisdiction on controversies arisin$ between shareholders of the

-$uilar6Gernares 'ealt) has not )et full) paid the purchase price! hence the) are not shareholders and the 8%0 has no <urisdiction over the claims&

R"2,9#.* + H".-& /) D.4n/&S/-/n/ (.228)

corporation&, *he heirs of *ito i$nos sold "ots - and G to the 0ivil -eronautics -dministration for the construction of an airport in 4actan! 0ebu& #n 199;! the 4actan 0ebu #nternational -irport -uthorit) built a securit) fence on "ot G& *he heirs of i$nos filed a complaint for (uietin$ of title a$ainst 40#--! alle$in$ that the e9istence of ta9 declarations would cast a doubt on their validl) e9istin$ titles over the lots& *he) ar$ue that the) never sold their shares in the lots& *rial court upheld the validit) of *ito i$nos= c share of the lots& >lorencia and /icholson had their marria$e annulled under -rt& 7;& Gut there was no li(uidation of their properties& *hereafter! >lorencia mort$a$ed one of their properties to 4etrobank& Dhen the loan wasn=t paid! the propert) was foreclosed& *herefore! /icholson filed a petition for declaration of nullit) of the mort$a$e&

T!" &$#" %$& +$#.d /n#1 $& '/ T.'/ D.4n/&G R &!$-" '!"-".n 8ince a co6owner is entitled to sell his undivided share! a sale of the entire propert) b) one co6owner without the consent of the other co6owners is not null and void& Eowever! onl) the ri$hts of the co6 owner6seller are transferred! thereb) makin$ the bu)er a co6owner of the propert)&

METRO3AN5 V PASCUAL (.228)

8ince there was still no li(uidation of properties! the mort$a$e is onl) valid as to the share of >lorencia& Dhile the declared nullit) of marria$e of /icholson and >lorencia severed their marital bond and dissolved the con<u$al partnership! the character of the properties ac(uired before such declaration continues to subsist as con<u$al properties until and after the li(uidation and partition of the partnership& #n this pre6li(uidation scenario! -rt& 397 of the 0ivil 0ode shall $overn the propert) relationship between the former spouses! where@ %ach co6owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits pertainin$ thereto! and he ma) therefore alienate! assi$n or mort$a$e it! and even substitute another person in its en<o)ment! e9cept when personal ri$hts are involved& Gut the effect of the alienation or the mort$a$e! with respect to the co6owners! shall be limited to the portion which ma) be allotted to him in the division upon the termination of the co6ownership& -rt& 397 $overns this case& Fnder it! >lorencia has the ri$ht to mort$a$e or even sell her one6half (1R.) undivided interest in the disputed propert) even without the consent of /icholson& Eowever! the ri$hts of 4etrobank! as mort$a$ee! are limited onl) to the 1R. undivided portion that >lorencia owned& -ccordin$l)! the mort$a$e contract insofar as it covered the remainin$ 1R. undivided portion of the lot is null and void! /icholson not havin$ consented to the mort$a$e of his undivided half&

MONTEROSO V CA

(.228)

CUIMPO + A3AD

*he children of Gen<amin! son of first wife! filed with the '*0 a 0omplaint for 'ecover) of Propert) with ama$es a$ainst their uncle! *irso (son from first wife)& Gen<aminLs share of the estate of his deceased mother was entrusted in the care of his brother! *irso& Eowever! he said that it wasnLt entrusted to him but to 8oledad! his sister& *irso! in turn filed a 0omplaint for Partition and ama$es with 'eceivership involvin$ 1. parcels of land a$ainst his stepmother (his fatherLs .nd wife) and all his full and half6siblin$s& '*0 found that the heirs of Gen<amin have been deprived of their inheritance which corresponded to c share due their father from the intestate estate of their $randmother& %usta(uia died intestate and left parcels of land to her $rand and $reat $randchildren& Aoa(uin and the respondents partitioned 1 of the parcels of land

Partition is the proper remed) available to *irso who is a co6owner of the sub<ect properties b) virtue of his bein$ a compulsor) heir& *he ri$ht to seek partition is imprescribtible and canLt be barred b) laches& Prescription does not run a$ainst a co6owner or co6heir thus ac(uisitive prescription didnLt appl) in favor of 8oledad and a$ainst *irso& *he fact that *irso and the other compulsor) heirs of on >abian were e9cluded from the possession of their le$itimate and the en<o)ment of the fruits does not per se ar$ue a$ainst the e9istence of a co6ownership& G) assertin$ his ri$ht as a compulsor) heir! *irso has effectivel) brou$ht into the open the realit) that 8oledad (and her husband2 were holdin$ some of the properties in trust and he is a co6owner of all of them to the e9tent of his le$al share or le$itime thereon& Gefore a partition and eventual distribution of on >abianLs intestate estate! a re$ime of co6ownership amon$ the compulsor) heirs e9isted over the undivided estate of on >abian& Gein$ a co6owner of that intestate estate! *irsoLs ri$ht over a share thereof is imprescriptible&

- parol partition (an oral partition) ma) also be sustained on the $round that the parties thereto have ac(uiesced in and ratified the partition b) takin$ possession in severalt)! e9ercisin$ acts of ownership with respect thereto! or otherwise reco$nizin$ the e9istence of the partition&

(.228)

and divided it into .& K to Aoa(uin and K to the respondents? however there was no document evidencin$ this partition& . of the respondents were minors at the time of the partition! when the) became of a$e! the) wanted to occup) their shares alread) which were administered b) Aoa(uin but he refused& Ee also refused to partition the other . parcels of land& 'espondents filed a complaint for <udicial partition with the '*0& Aoa(uin denied this and said that he bou$ht the parcels of land from %usta(uia&

>or fort)6three (37) )ears! the respondents occupied their portions of the 8an Aose propert) and si$nificantl)! Aoa(uin never disturbed their possession& *he) also installed tenants in parcel #:! and Aoa(uin did not prevent them from doin$ so! nor did he assert his ownership over the same& *hese unerrin$l) point to the fact that there was indeed an oral partition of parcels ### and #:& 'e$ardless of whether an oral partition or a$reement to partition is valid and enforceable at law! e(uit) will in proper cases! where the parol partition has actuall) been consummated b) the takin$ of possession in severalt) and the e9ercise of ownership b) the parties of the respective portions set off to each! reco$nize and enforce such parol partition and the ri$hts of the parties thereunder& "ikewise! - contract of purchase and sale is null and void and produces no effect whatsoever where it appears that the same is without cause or consideration which should have been the motive thereof! or the purchase price which appears thereon as paid but which in fact has never been paid b) the purchaser to the vendor& Aoa(uin was a student at the time of the alle$ed sale and %usta(uia was in fact supportin$ him&

3ETTY LAC3AYAN + 3AYANI SAMOY (.211)

urin$ the illicit relationship of "acba)an and 8amo)! the) were able to establish a compan)& 5 parcels of land were also ac(uired durin$ the said period and were re$istered in their names (as husband and wife)& Dhen the) ended their relationship! the) e9ecuted a Partition -$reement& Eowever! when "acba)an wanted additional demands to be included in her share! 8amo) refused thus she filed a complaint for <udicial partition&

TECSON + FAUSTO (.211)

-tt) >austo ac(uired in co6ownership with his sister a parcel of land& *he) then decided to partition the lot throu$h an -$reement of Partition& Eowever! this was never re$istered with the 'e$ister of eeds& Dhen -tt)& >austo died! his sister sold her share of the land but it was $reater than her allotted share under the -$reement of Partition& second Partition -$reement was e9ecuted b) the sister and the heirs of -tt) >austo& *his substantiall) chan$ed the first one and increased the share of the sister& *he sale of the lot as well as this .nd -$reement was now re$istered& Oears later! the heirs filed a complaint to nullif) the documents and recover355 s(m of land which the)

*he first phase of a partition andRor accountin$ suit is taken up with the determination of whether or not a co6ownership in fact e9ists! and a partition is proper (i&e&! not otherwise le$all) proscribed) and ma) be made b) voluntar) a$reement of all the parties interested in the propert)& Dhile it is true that the complaint involved here is one for partition! the same is premised on the e9istence or non6e9istence of co6ownership between the parties& Petitioner insists she is a co6owner pro indiviso of the five real estate properties based on the transfer certificates of title (*0*s) coverin$ the sub<ect properties& 'espondent maintains otherwise& #ndubitabl)! therefore! until and unless this issue of co6ownership is definitel) and finall) resolved! it would be premature to effect a partition of the disputed properties& - careful perusal of the contents of the so6called Partition -$reement indicates that the document involves matters which necessitate prior settlement of (uestions of law! basic of which is a determination as to whether the parties have the ri$ht to freel) divide amon$ themselves the sub<ect properties& 8amo) is not allowed b) law to waive whatever share his lawful spouse ma) have on the disputed properties& "acba)an herself admitted that she did not assent to the Partition -$reement after seein$ the need to amend the same to include other matters& "acba)an does not have an) ri$ht to insist on the contents of an a$reement she intentionall) refused to si$n& *he mother title of "ot .189! O0* /o& 573! states in no unclear terms that the sister and -tt)& >austo were co6owners of the sub<ect lot& *he inscription in the ori$inal title for "ot .189 carries more than sufficient wei$ht to prove the e9istence of a co6ownership in e(ual shares& *he 8econd Partition -$reement is null and void as an absolute simulation! albeit induced b) a third part)& *he fraud perpetrated b) -tt)& *ecson did more than to vitiate the consent of the sister and the respondents& #t must be emphasized that the sister and the respondents never had an) intention of enterin$ into a new partition distinct from the >irst Partition -$reement& *he established facts reveal that the sister and the respondents assented to the 8econd Partition -$reement because -tt)& *ecson told them that the instrument was merel) re(uired to e9pedite the sale of the sisterLs share& there is an absence of a $enuine intent on the part of the co6owners to be bound under a new partition proposin$ a new division& *here is an absence of a $enuine intent on the part of the co6owners to be bound under a new partition proposin$ a new division of the lot& *he sister can onl) sell her lawful share (under the first a$reement) of the lot& Eer sale to -tt) *ecson is therefore null and void as it e9ceeded her share of the lot& test&

believed was unlawfull) taken from the lawful share of -tt)& >austo& *he) insisted that the first -$reement was the true one& CO GIO5 LUN + :OSE CO (.211) *his case involves two lots alle$edl) co6owned b) two brothers! petitioner 0o Giok "un ("un) and 0o Gon >ien$ (>ien$)! the father of respondent Aose 0o (0o)& Petitioners claim that the one of the properties was named under >ien$ onl) since it has been a common practice and custom in 0hina that properties intended for the children are placed in the name of the eldest child& - division of propert) cannot be ordered b) the court unless the e9istence of co6ownership is first established& 0ourt held that evidence of petitioners were insufficient or immaterial to warrant a positive findin$ of co6ownership over the Gubat and Garcelona properties& *he 0- correctl) observed that petitioners failed to substantiate with reasonable certaint) that (1) 0haco $ave >ien$ a start6up capital of P8!222 to be used b) "un and >ien$ in settin$ up a business! (.) that the Philippine Eonest and 0ompan) was a partnership between "un and >ien$! and (7) that the eed of 8ale dated .3 -u$ust 19.7 involvin$ the Garcelona propert) is sufficient to establish co6ownership& -lso! petitioners were not able to prove the e9istence of the alle$ed 0hinese custom of placin$ properties in the name of the eldest child as provided under -rticle 1. of the 0ivil 0ode& #n contrast! respondents were able to show documents of sale from the ori$inal owners of the Gubat propert) renderin$ the claim of custom as immaterial&1. -lso! respondents sufficientl) established that >ien$ was the re$istered owner of the Gubat and Garcelona properties while "un was merel) an administrator& *he action for partition cannot be acted upon since petitioners failed to establish an) ri$htful interest in the properties& Petitioners also failed to prove that co6ownership e9isted between the parties= predecessors6in6interest& *hus! respondents! as le$al heirs of >ien$! are entitled to the e9clusive ownership of the Gubat and Garcelona properties& -rticle 172 of the >amil) 0ode mandates that upon termination of the marria$e b) death! the con<u$al partnership shall be li(uidated in the same proceedin$ for the settlement of the estate of the deceased& *his will appl) to con<u$al partnerships of $ains alread) established between the spouses before the effectivit) of this 0ode& #t is clear that the con<u$al partnership of $ains established before and after the effectivit) of the >amil) 0ode are $overned b) the rules of the >amil) 0ode& Eence! an) disposition of the con<u$al propert) after the dissolution of the con<u$al partnership must be made onl) after the li(uidation! otherwise the disposition is void& Eowever! before appl)in$ such rules! the con<u$al partnership of $ains must be subsistin$ at the time of the effectivit) of the >amil) 0ode& 8ince the spouses were married! prior to the effectivit) of the >0! their propert) relation was properl) characterized as one of con<u$al partnership $overned b) the 0ivil 0ode& Fpon the wifeLs death! the con<u$al partnership was dissolved! an implied ordinar) co6ownership ensued amon$ Protactio and the other heirs of his wife with respect to her share& Protacio! 8r&! althou$h becomin$ a co6owner with his children in respect of 4arta=s share in the con<u$al partnership! could not )et assert or claim title to an) specific portion of 4arta=s share without an actual partition of the propert) bein$ first done either b) a$reement or b) <udicial decree& Fntil then! all that he had was an ideal or abstract (uota in 4arta=s share& /onetheless! a co6owner could sell his undivided share? hence! Protacio! 8r& had the ri$ht to freel) sell and dispose of his undivided interest! but not the interest of his co6owners& -nent the (uestion of whether an action of forcible entry and detainer should be brou$ht in the name of all co6owners! the 0ourt held that under -rticle 385 of the new 0ivil 0ode! an) of the co6owners ma) brin$ the action& #n forcible entry and detainer action(s) the matter to be determined is simpl) the (uestion of prior ph)sical possession& #t havin$ been alle$ed in the complaint that the plaintiff was in actual possession of the properties! certainl) the plaintiff alone! who was in actual possession! could file the complaint&

HEIRS OF GO V SERVACIO (.223)

Protacio Ar sold a parcel of land which was a part of their con<u$al propert)& *he heirs filed for the annulment of the sale of the propert)& *he '*0 declared that althou$h the propert) was con<u$al! as lon$ as the portion sold! alienated! or encumbered will not be allotted to the heirs in the final partition of the propert)! or as lon$ as the portion sold does not encroach upon the le$itime of the other heirs! it is valid&

SERING + PLA@O

(1988)

8erin$ brou$ht an action for forcible entr) a$ainst the respondents& Eowever! the '*0 dismissed his complaint because his other co6owners weren=t impleaded in his complaint& #t rationed that for forcible entr) cases! all of the co6owners must be <oined as plaintiffs& Onl) in unlawful detainer cases can an) one of the co6owners sue&

REYNALDO 3ALOLOY + ALFREDO HULAR (.223)

-lfredo Eular filed a complaint for (uietin$ of title of real propert) with dama$es a$ainst the children and heirs of #luminado Galolo)& Ee alle$ed that Galolo)! the petitionerLs predecessor6in6interest! was able to secure a >ree Patent over the propert) throu$h fraud& %vidence showed that Eular co6 owned the propert) with other people& *he action of Eular in the trial court is for@ (a) reinvidicatoria! to declare the respondent the absolute owner of the sub<ect propert) and its reconve)ance to him as a conse(uence of the nullification of the >ree Patent and (b) publiciana! to order the petitioners and the other heirs of #luminado Galolo) to vacate the propert) and deliver possession thereof to him&

-rticle 1258 of the 0ivil 0ode provides that where there are two or more heirs! the whole estate of the decedent is! before partition! owned in common b) such heirs! sub<ect to the pa)ment of the debts of the deceased& Fntil a division is made! the respective share of each cannot be determined and ever) co6owner e9ercises! to$ether with his co6participants! <oint ownership over the pro indiviso propert)! in addition to the use and en<o)ment of the same& Fnder -rticle 385 of the /ew 0ivil 0ode! an) of the co6owners ma) brin$ an action in e<ectment& *his article covers all kinds of actions for the recover) of possession! includin$ an accion publiciana and a reinvidicator) action& - co6owner ma) brin$ such an action without the necessit) of <oinin$ all the other co6owners as co6plaintiffs because the suit is deemed to be instituted for the benefit of all&P.5Q -n) <ud$ment of the court in favor of the co6owner will benefit the others but if such <ud$ment is adverse! the same cannot pre<udice the ri$hts of the unimpleaded co6owners& #f the action is for the benefit of the plaintiff alone who claims to be the sole owner and entitled to the possession thereof! the action will not prosper unless he impleads the other co6owners who are indispensable parties& Eere! Eular filed the complaint! claimin$ sole ownership over the sub<ect propert) and pra)in$ that he be declared the sole owner thereof& *here is no proof that the other co6owners had waived their ri$hts over the sub<ect propert) or conve)ed the same to the respondent or such co6owners were aware of the case in the trial court& Fnder 8ection 5! 'ule 7 of the 'ules of 0ourt! the respondent was mandated to implead his siblin$s! bein$ co6owners of the propert)! as parties& 8ince there was still no li(uidation of properties! the mort$a$e is onl) valid as to the share of >lorencia& Dhile the declared nullit) of marria$e of /icholson and >lorencia severed their marital bond and dissolved the con<u$al partnership! the character of the properties ac(uired before such declaration continues to subsist as con<u$al properties until and after the li(uidation and partition of the partnership& #n this pre6li(uidation scenario! -rt& 397 of the 0ivil 0ode shall $overn the propert) relationship between the former spouses! where@ %ach co6owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits pertainin$ thereto! and he ma) therefore alienate! assi$n or mort$a$e it! and even substitute another person in its en<o)ment! e9cept when personal ri$hts are involved& Gut the effect of the alienation or the mort$a$e! with respect to the co6owners! shall be limited to the portion which ma) be allotted to him in the division upon the termination of the co6ownership& -rt& 397 $overns this case& Fnder it! >lorencia has the ri$ht to mort$a$e or even sell her one6half (1R.) undivided interest in the disputed propert) even without the consent of /icholson& Eowever! the ri$hts of 4etrobank! as mort$a$ee! are limited onl) to the 1R. undivided portion that >lorencia owned& -ccordin$l)! the mort$a$e contract insofar as it covered the remainin$ 1R. undivided portion of the lot is null and void! /icholson not havin$ consented to the mort$a$e of his undivided half& *he ri$ht of repurchase ma) be e9ercised b) a co6owner with aspect to his share alone& Dhile the records show that the petitioner redeemed the propert) in its entiret)! shoulderin$ the e9penses therefor! that did not make him the owner of all of it& #n other words! it did not put to end the e9istin$ state of co6ownership& /ecessar) e9penses ma) be incurred b) one co6owner! sub<ect to his ri$ht to collect reimbursement from the remainin$ co6owners& *he result is that the propert) remains to be in a condition of co6ownership& Dhile a vendee a retro! under -rticle 1;17 of the 0ode! 1ma) not be compelled to consent to a partial redemption!1 the redemption b) one co6heir or co6owner of the propert) in its totalit) does not vest in him ownership over

METRO3AN5 V PASCUAL (.228)

>lorencia and /icholson had their marria$e annulled under -rt& 7;& Gut there was no li(uidation of their properties& *hereafter! >lorencia mort$a$ed one of their properties to 4etrobank& Dhen the loan wasn=t paid! the propert) was foreclosed& *herefore! /icholson filed a petition for declaration of nullit) of the mort$a$e&

Ad.##" + CA (1988)

"and belon$ed to >eliza who was married twice& ispute over the land is between the child (defendant) from the first marria$e and children from the second marria$e& >elisa sold the propert) in pacto de retro to certain 7rd persons! period of repurchase bein$ 7 )ears! but she died in 193. without bein$ able to redeem and after her death! but durin$ the period of redemption! herein defendant repurchased! b) himself alone! and after that! he e9ecuted a deed of e9tra6<udicial partition representin$ himself to be the onl) heir and child of

his mother >elisa with the conse(uence that he was able to secure title in his name alone also -fter some efforts of compromise had failed! half6brothers and sister filed present case partition with accountin$ on the position that was onl) a trustee on an implied trust when redeemed the land& his for he he

it& >ailure on the part of all the co6owners to redeem it entitles the vendee a retro to retain the propert) and consolidate title thereto in his name& Gut the provision does not $ive to the redeemin$ co6owner the ri$ht to the entire propert)& #t does not provide for a mode of terminatin$ a co6ownership& /either does the fact that the petitioner had succeeded in securin$ title over the parcel in his name terminate the e9istin$ co6ownership& *he petitioner must then be said to be a trustee of the propert) on behalf of the private respondents& *he 0ivil 0ode states@ -'*& 135;& #f propert) is ac(uired throu$h mistake or fraud! the person obtainin$ it is! b) force of law! considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the propert) comes& 0onsiderin$ that! althou$h as a rule the contract of lease constitutes an act of mana$ement! as this court has several times held! cases ma) )et arise! either owin$ to the nature of the sub<ect matter! or to the period of duration! which ma) render it imperative to record the contract in the re$istr) of propert)! in pursuance of the 4ort$a$e "aw! where the contract of lease ma) $ive rise to a real ri$ht in favor of the lessee! and it would then constitute such a sunderin$ of the ownership as transcends mere mana$ement? in such cases it must of necessit) be reco$nized that the part owners representin$ the $reater portion of the propert) held in common have no power to lease said propert) for a lon$er period than si9 )ears without the consent of all the coowners! whose propriet) ri$hts! e9pressl) reco$nized b) the law! would b) contracts of lon$ duration be restricted or annulled? and as under article 1538 of the 0ivil 0ode such contracts cannot be entered into b) the husband with respect to his wifeLs propert)! b) the parent or $uardian with respect to that of the child or ward! and b) the mana$er in default of special power! since the contract of lease onl) produces personal obli$ations! and cannot without the consent of all persons interested or e9press authorit) from the owner! be e9tended to include stipulations which ma) alter its character! chan$in$ it into a contract of partial alienation of the propert) leased& *he fact that 'amon durin$ his lifetime received his share of the products of land owned in common with his coheirs is not sufficient proof of knowled$e of the e9istence of the contract of lease when it is considered that the land in (uestion was onl) a small portion of a lar$e tract which Pedro '& 4elencio was administerin$ in connection with other communit) propert)&

4a) a co6owner ac(uire e9clusive ownership over the propert) held in commonC M"#"n*./ + D1 (1972) *his is an action for the recover) of a parcel of land& Plaintiffs further demand monthl) rentals alread) due& efendant alle$ed in substance that he was occup)in$ the said tract of land b) virtue of a contract of lease e9ecuted on Aul) .3!1925! in favor of his predecessor in interest! b) 'uperta Garcia! amon$ others! under the terms specified therein! and which contract is still in force& *he plaintiffs filed a repl) to the answer alle$in$! amon$ other thin$s! that 'uperta Garcia was not one of the co6owners of the land in (uestion? that the person who si$ned the alle$ed contract of lease never represented themselves as bein$ the sole and e9clusive owners of the land sub<ect to the lease as alle$ed b) the defendant in his answer? that the said contract of lease is null and void for bein$ e9ecuted without the intervention and consent of two coowners! 'amon 4elencio and Aose P& 4elencio! and without the marital consent of the husbands of Auliana and 'uperta 4elencio& Grothers *omas de 0astro and -rsenio de 0astro! 8r& leased to plaintiff a fishpond& *he lessors are co6owners in e(ual shares of the leased propert)& #n the meantime! *omas de 0astro died& Plaintiff as lessee and defendant -rsenio de 0astro! 8r& as one of the lessors! a$reed to set aside and annul the contract of lease (e9hibit -)& 0ondition /o& . of %9hibit - reads as follows@ >elisa 0ruz :da& de 0astro refused to si$n %9hibit -& efendant did not return the advances made b) plaintiff& emand for pa)ment was made b)

C$&'-/ A'."n6$ (1957)

PetitionersL predecessor6in6interest as co6owner of an undivided one6half interest in the fishpond could validl) lease his interest to a third part)! respondent -tienza! independentl) of his co6owner (althou$h said co6owner had also leased his other undivided one6half interest to the same third part)) and could likewise b) mutual a$reement independentl) cancel his lease a$reement with said third part)& 8aid predecessor6in6interest (and petitioners who have substituted him as his heirs) therefore stands liable on his e9press undertakin$ to refund the advance rental paid to him b) the lessee on the cancelled lease and cannot invoke the non6cancellation of the co6ownerLs lease to elude such liabilit)& *he <ud$ment is full) supported b) the 0ivil 0ode provisions on the ri$hts and prero$atives of co6 owners! and specificall) b) -rticle 397 which e9pressl) provides that -rt& 397& %ach co6owner shall have the full owners&ip of &is part and of the fruits and benefits pertainin$ thereto! and he ma) therefore alienate- assi"n or $ort"a"e it! and even substitute anot&er person in its en<o)ment! e9cept when personal ri$hts are involved& Gut the effect of the alienation or the mort$a$e!

plaintiffLs counsel on but to no avail! hence the present action& *he issue is simpl) reduced to whether -rsenio as co6owner of the fishpond owned pro8indiviso b) him with his brother *omas (succeeded b) >elisa :da& de 0astro) could validl) lease his half6interest to a third part) (respondent -tienza) independently of his co6owner! and in case his co6owner also leased his other half interest to the same third part)! whether -rsenio could cancel his own lease a$reement with said third part)C Plaintiff based her complaint for le$al redemption on a claim that she is a co6owner of "ot /o& 82.! for havin$ purchased 1R7 portion thereof& efendant! who ac(uired the other .R7 portion of "ot /o& 82. from 0rispina -(uitania and her children! claimed that the plaintiff bou$ht the 1R7 southeastern portion! which is definitel) identified and se$re$ated! hence there e9isted no co6 ownership at the time and after said plaintiff bou$ht the aforesaid portion! upon which ri$ht of le$al redemption can be e9ercised or taken advanta$e of& "and was ori$inall) owned b) spouses& Ownership was transferred to their heirs throu$h succession& %ventuall)! the other heirs e9ecuted a deed of e9tra<udicial settlement wherein the) assi$ned all their ri$ht! interest and participation in "ot /o& 82. to 0rispina Perez& *he plaintiffLs stand is that the deed in her favor was inoperative to conve) the southeastern third of "ot 82. of the 'osario 0adastre notwithstandin$ the description in the deed itself! for the reason that the vendor! bein$ a mere co6owner! had no ri$ht to sell an) definite portion of the land held in common but could onl) transmit her undivided share! since the specific portion correspondin$ to the sellin$ co6 owner is not known until partition takes place ("opez vs& #lustre! 5 Phil& 5;5? 'amirez vs& Gautista! 13 Phil& 5.8)& >rom this premise! the appellant ar$ues that the sale in her favor! althou$h describin$ a definite area! should be construed as havin$ conve)ed onl) the undivided 1R7 interest in "ot 82. owned at the time b) the vendor& #t is not disputed that the propert) in (uestion

with respect to the co6owners! shall be li$ited to t&e portion which ma) be alloted to him in the division upon the termination of the co6ownership& S

E&'/<," P$;.0,#$ (19;8)

0ontention is without merit& *he deed of sale to %sto(ue clearl) specifies the ob<ect sold as the southeastern third portion of "ot 82. of the 'osario 0adastre! with an area of 832 s(uare meters! more or less& Grantin$ that the seller! 0rispina Perez :da& de -(uitania could not have sold this particular portion of the lot owned in common b) her and her two brothers! "orenzo and 'icardo Perez! b) no means does it follow that she intended to sell to appellant %sto(ue her 1R7 undivided interest in the lot forementioned& *here is nothin$ in the deed of sale to <ustif) such inference& *hat the seller could have validl) sold her one6third undivided interest to appellant is no proof that she did choose to sell the same& (b posse ad actu non valet illatio. Dhile on the date of the sale to %sto(ue said contract ma) have been ineffective! for lack of power in the vendor to sell the specific portion described in the deed! the transaction was validated and became full) effective when the ne9t da) (October .9! 1951) the vendor! 0rispina Perez! ac(uired the entire interest of her remainin$ co6owners (-nne9 G) and thereb) became the sole owner of "ot /o& 82. of the 'osario 0adastral surve) ("lacer vs& 4uSoz! 1. Phil& 7.8)& -rticle 1373 of the 0ivil 0ode of the Philippines clearl) prescribes that M & Dhen a person who is not the owner of a thin$ sells or alienates and delivers it! and later the seller or $rantor ac(uires title thereto! such title passes b) operation of law to the bu)er or $rantee&1 Pursuant to this rule! appellant %sto(ue became the actual owner of the sout&eastern third of lot 82. on October .9! 1951& Dherefore! she never ac(uired an undivided interest in lot 82.& -nd when ei$ht )ears later 0rispina Perez sold to the appellees Pa<imula the western two6thirds of the same lot! appellant did not ac(uire a ri$ht to redeem the propert) thus sold! since their respective portions were distinct and separate&

PN3 + CA

Fnder -rticle .285! /ew 0ivil 0ode (-rt& 1855! Old 0ivil 0ode)! one of the essential re(uisites to the

(1982)

ori$inall) belon$ed to the spouses #Si$o Gitan$a and 'osa :er as their con<u$al propert)& Eusband died& *he wife mort$a$ed the "n'.-" 2-/2"-'1 to P/G& #n the meantime! wife had defaulted in the fulfillment of her obli$ation with the 4anila *radin$ 0ompan)& 8o the said compan) levied upon her share in the lot in (uestion& Eer interest in the lot in (uestion was afterwards sold at public auction! at which the 4anila *radin$ 0ompan) was the hi$hest bidder? deed of sale was subse(uentl) annotated& *hereafter! as stated! one6half of the said propert) passed into the hands of 4anila *radin$ 0ompan)& Dife! likewise! failed to settle her obli$ation with the Philippine /ational Gank! the latter sold at public auction the %!/#" #/' that the former had mort$a$ed to it! and in the same auction sale! the Philippine /ational Gank emer$ed as the hi$hest bidder after the period of redemption had e9pired without the propert) havin$ been redeemed! the Philippine /ational Gank consolidated its title over it& Private respondents! who are husband and wife! had instituted a complaint for e<ectment and recover) of possession& *he propert) in (uestion is a 1R5 portion of a 553 s(& (meter land ori$inall) owned b) Eermo$enes %spi(ue and his wife! both dead& -fter their death their five children! namel)@ 4aria! %varisto! >austina! %stefanio and *ropinia succeeded them in the ownership of the whole lot& Petitioner presentl) occupies two6fifths of the whole lot inherited pro8indiviso b) the %spi(ue children& Petitioner alle$es that he purchased the northern one6half portion of the lot he is occup)in$ (which is also claimed b) respondents) from %stefanio %spi(ue& *he land sub<ect of the controvers) is the most southern portion of the whole lot inherited b) the %spi(ue children which petitioner claims he had bou$ht from %stefanio on -pril .;! 19;5 and which respondents claim the) had bou$ht from %varisto on -pril 15! 19;3& Goth sales were made while the petition for partition filed b) %varisto %spi(ue was still pendin$ before the 0ourt of >irst #nstance of Pan$asinan! docketed therein as 0ivil 0ase /o& *69;;&

contract of pled$e and mort$a$e is that the pled$or or mort$a$or be the absolute owner of the thin$ pled$ed or mort$a$ed& -nd under -rticle 397! /ew 0ivil 0ode (-rt& 799! Old 0ivil 0ode)! each co6 owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits pertainin$ thereto! and he ma) therefore alienate! assi$n or mort$a$e it! and even substitute another person in its en<o)ment! e9cept when personal ri$hts are involved& Gut the effect of the alienation or the mort$a$e! with respect to the co6owners! sha$ be limited to the portion which ma) be allotted to him in the division upon the termination of the co6ownership& Eence! De full) a$ree with the trial court and the respondent 0ourt and affirm the holdin$ that 1what the Philippine /ational Gank had ac(uired from 'osa :er b) virtue of the mort$a$e was simpl) one6half (K) of the entire propert)! for this was all she had in her power to conve) M the other half bein$! as it still is! the lawful share of the plaintiffs6appellees as inheritance from their father! #Si$o Gitan$a& 5e$o date #uod non &abet H One cannot $ive what is not his& -ppl)in$ the provisions of the Old 0ivil 0ode > the law in force at the time of #ni$o Gitan$aLs death in 1975! 'osa :er! as survivin$ spouse! cannot take part le$all) in the sharin$ of the estate left b) her deceased husband (one6half (K) of "ot 92;8) with respect to which she onl) had usufructuar) ri$hts& 1*he usufructuar) not bein$ an owner! cannot alienate or dispose of the ob<ects included in the usufruct& *hus! he cannot &&& mort$a$e or pled$e the thin$ &&&

C$-+$;$# + CA (198.)

'espondents have no ri$ht to e<ect petitioners nor demand pa)ment of rentals for the use of the propert) in dispute& Fntil the partition of the estate is ordered b) the 0ourt of >irst #nstance of Pan$asinan in the pendin$ partition proceedin$s and the share of each co6heir is determined b) metes and bounds! neither petitioner nor respondents can ri$htfull) claim that what the) bou$ht is the part in dispute& *he action for e<ectment and recover) of possession instituted b) herein respondents in the lower court is premature! for what must be settled frist is the action for partition& Fnless a pro<ect of partition is effected! each heir cannot claim ownership over a definite portion of the inheritance& Dithout partition! either b) a$reement between the parties of b) <udicial proceedin$! a co6heir cannot dispose of a specific portion of the estate& >or where there are two or more heirs! the whole estate such heirs& Fpon the death of a person! each of his heirs becomes the undivided owner of the whole estate left wtih respect to the part of portion which mi$ht be ad<udicated to him! a communit) of ownership bein$ thus formed amon$ the co6owners of the estate or co6heirs while it remains undivided& Dhile under -rticle 397 of the /ew 0ivil 0ode! each co6owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits pertainin$ thereto and he ma) alienate! assi$n or mort$a$e it! and even substitute another person in its en<o)ment! the effect of the alienation or the mort$a$e with respect to the co6owners! shall be limited! b) mandate of the same article! to the portion which ma) be allotted to him in the division upon the termination of the co6ownership& Ee has no ri$ht to sell or alienate a concrete! specific! or determinate part of the thin$ in common to the e9clusion of the other co6owners because his ri$ht over the thin$ is represented b) an abstract or #deal portion without an) ph)sical ad<udication& 3 -n individual co6 owner cannot ad<udicate to himself or claim title to an) definite portion of the land or thin$ owned in common until its actual partition b) a$reement or <udicial decree& Prior to that time all that the co6owner has is an #deal or abstract (uota or proportionate share in the entire thin$ owned in common b) all the co6owners& Dhat a co owner ma) dispose of is onl) his undivided ali#uot s&are- which shall be limited to the portion that ma) be allotted to him upon partition& Gefore partition! a

co6heir can onl) sell his successional ri$hts& #n the case at bar! the fact that the sale e9ecuted b) %varisto %spi(ue in favor of respondents and the sale e9ecuted b) %stefanio %spi(ue in favor of petitioner were made before the partition of the propert) amon$ the co6heirs does not annul or invalidate the deeds of sale and both sales are valid& Eowever! the interests thereb) ac(uired b) petitioner and respondents are limited onl) to the parts that ma) be ultimatel) assi$ned to %stefanio and %varisto! respectivel)! upon the partition of the estate > sub<ect to provisions on subro$ation of the other co6heirs to the ri$hts of the stran$er6purchaser provided in -rticle 1288 of the 0ivil 0ode& onation not valid& -mon$ those specificall) desi$nated in favor of the heirs of the first marria$e was the whole propert) covered b) Ori$inal 0ertificate of *itle /o& P6532 comprised of si9 lots includin$ lot /o& .57;&1 #n view of that partition in 19;5& -nastacio could no lon$er donate "ot /o .57; to Eenr) on Aanuar) ..& 1957 because it had alread) been ad<udicated 1*o *he Eeirs of the >irst 4arria$e1 as the 0ompromise -$reement specificall) states& On the other hand! even it he (-nastacio) is included amon$ the 1Eeirs of the >irst 4arria$e1 he could not donate a specific lot b) metes and bounds! but onl) an ali(uot part of the whole mass of properties which he and his three children of his first marria$e (with Aacinta Aaucian) co6owned& %ven in the unlikel) event that the statement re$ardin$ the li(uidation and partition on >ebruar) 15! 19;5 would be found to be a mistake! still -nastacio could not have validl) donated "ot /o& .57; to Eenr)& 0onsiderin$ that all the properties specified in the 0ompromise -$reement were described con<u$al partnership properties of the first marria$e! it follows that upon the death of Aacinta! the con<u$al partnership evolved into a co6ownership between her survivin$ spouse -nastacio! and her three children! the petitioner and the two other private respondents! -raceli Ea$oso<os6-lindo$an and "ourdes Ea$oso<os6/icolas& -nastacio became the owner of 5R8 of the mass of properties while each of the three children! of 1R8& *hus! even in such a situation! and pendin$ the partition of the properties owned in common and the ad<udication in his favor "ot /o& .57;! -nastacio could not validl) donate the same at that time he claimed he did within the purview of the law on co6ownership&

H$4/&/;/& CA (1985)

-nastacio Ea$oso<os contracted two marria$es durin$ his lifetime& Eis first marria$e with Aacinta Aaucian produced three off6sprin$s! namel)@ the petitioner! "uis and the two other private respondents! -raceli and "ourdes& -fter death of first wife but without the con<u$al partnership assets of the first marria$e havin$ been partitioned and distributed! he $ot married a second time to -raceli Eian Out of the second marria$e were born the other private respondents! >red! Eeidi! and Eenr)& On Aanuar) ..! 1957! -nastacio donated to Eenr)! who was then onl) seven )ears )oun$! "ot /o& .57;! which was part of the con<u$al partnership assets of the first marria$e& *he donation was accepted on behalf of Eenr) b) his mother! -raceli& *here is nothin$ in the records of this case as to whether or not the deed of donation was re$istered& *o compel the partition and distribution of the con<u$al partnership assets of the first marria$e! the petitioner! to$ether with his two sisters! filed the correspondin$ complaint a$ainst their father! -nastacio& Dhile the case was still pendin$ however! -nastacio died on! which compelled "uis to file an amended complaint substitutin$ as defendant -raceli! in her personal capacit) and as $uardian of the minors >red! Eeidi! and Eenr)& #n a compromise a$reement reached (adopted b) trial court as its decision)! the donated propert) was $iven to the children of the first marria$e& *he respondents claim mistake as this propert) has alread) been donated to Eenr)& "and in dispute was ori$inall) re$istered in the name of Gertrudes Hamora& 8he died intestate and without debts in 197; and was survived b) four children! who never $ot around to dividin$ the propert) amon$ themselves& *his controvers) is not amon$ the four brothers! who are now also deceased& #t is GertrudesLs $randchildren b) three of her sons (the fourth havin$ died without issue)

S"4,-$ S"4,-$ (1988)

-s a person can sell onl) what he owns or is authorized to sell! the bu)er can as a conse(uence ac(uire no more than what the seller can le$all) transfer& *he deed of partition bein$ invalid as to the other heirs! the vendors could dispose onl) of their respective shares in the land! or one6third onl) of the propert) and not the other two6thirds as well which did not belon$ to them& *o repeat! the $eneral rule is that no one can $ive what he does not have M ne$o dat #uod non &abet& Eence! even if it be assumed that -mo<ido had bou$ht the land in $ood faith from the parties to the e9tra<udicial partition! onl) so much of their share could be validl) ac(uired b) him! with the rest of the

who are involved in this complaint for recover) of ownership and possession of the disputed inheritance! plus dama$es& *he conflict be$an when on -pril ;! 1931! three of these nine $randchildren! namel)! /icolas! 8antia$o and Gaudencio 8e$ura! e9ecuted a deed of e9tra<udicial partition arro$atin$ the entire propert) to themselves alone as e(ual pro indiviso owners (thereb)! curiousl)! e9cludin$ /icolas and 8antia$oLs own brother and two sisters! and GaudencioLs own sister! besides the other two co6heirs&) *his partition was not re$istered immediatel)! but onl) in 193;! or five )ears later& "and was then sub<ect of a sale to -mo<ido b) the parties who e9ecuted the e9tra6<udicial partition& -$atona 8a$ario Paulmitan died and left the two followin$ parcels of land& -$atona be$ot two le$itimate children! namel)@ Pascual Paulmitan! died after his mother passed awa)! and onato Paulmitan! who is one of the petitioners& Pascual Paulmitan! the other son of -$atona 8a$ario! is survived b) the respondents! who are his children& *he estate of -$atona remained unsettled and the titles to the two lots mentioned above remained in the name of -$atona& Eowever! petitioner onato Paulmitan e9ecuted an -ffidavit of eclaration of Eeirship! e9tra<udiciall) ad<udicatin$ unto himself "ot /o& 555 based on the claim that he is the onl) survivin$ heir of -$atona 8a$ario& *he affidavit was filed with the 'e$ister of eeds and *0* /o& 75959 was issued in onatoLs name& -s re$ards "ot /o& 1291! onato e9ecuted on 4a) .8! 1953 a eed of 8ale over the same in favor of petitioner Auliana P& >anesa! his dau$hter& - parcel of land was owned in common b) the siblin$s& One of them was able to secure different ta9 declarations coverin$ parts of the land& Ee then sold these portions of the land&

propert) remainin$ under the ownership of the si9 e9cluded co6heirs #n other words! -mo<ido became pro indiviso co6owner of the land with the other si9 heirs! who retained title to their respective shares althou$h he had possession of the entire propert)& *he portion pertainin$ to the herein appellants should be deemed held b) -mo<ido under an implied trust for their benefit! conformabl) to the rulin$ in Gar$a)o v& 0amumot! thus@ #n law it is understood that the co6owners or co6heir who is in possession of an inheritance pro indivisofor himself and in representation of his co6owners or co6heirs! if! as such owner! he administers or takes care of the rest thereof with the obli$ation of deliverin$ it to his co6owners or co6heirs! is under the same situation as a depositor)! a lessee! or a trustee&

P$,#0.'$n + CA (199.)

>rom the time of the death of -$atona 8a$ario Paulmitan to the subse(uent passin$ awa) of her son Pascual in 1957! the estate remained unpartitioned& -rticle 1258 of the 0ivil 0ode provides@ 1Dhere there are two or more heirs! the whole estate of the decedent is! before its partition! owned in common b) such heirs! sub<ect to the pa)ment of debts of the deceased&1 onato and Pascual Paulmitan were! therefore! co6owners of the estate left b) their mother as no partition was ever made& Dhen Pascual Paulmitan died intestate in 1957! his children! the respondents! succeeded him in the co6ownership of the disputed propert)& Pascual PaulmitanLs ri$ht of ownership over an undivided portion of the propert) passed on to his children! who! from the time of PascualLs death! became co6 owners with their uncle onato over the disputed decedent estate& Dhen onato Paulmitan sold on 4a) .8! 1953 "ot /o& 1291 to his dau$hter Auliana P& >anesa! he was onl) a co6owner with respondents and as such! he could onl) sell that portion which ma) be allotted to him upon termination of the co6ownership& *he sale did not pre<udice the ri$hts of respondents to one half (1R.) undivided share of the land which the) inherited from their father& #t did not vest ownership in the entire land with the bu)er but transferred onl) the sellerLs pro8indiviso share in the propert) and conse(uentl) made the bu)er a co6owner of the land until it is partitioned&

A-/0.n F#/-"&*$ (.22;)

-n innocent purchaser for value is one who bu)s the propert) of another without notice that some other person has a ri$ht to or interest in that same propert)! and who pa)s a full and fair price at the time of the purchase or before receivin$ an) notice of another personLs claim& *he honest) of intention that constitutes $ood faith implies freedom from knowled$e of circumstances that ou$ht to put a prudent person on in(uir)& *he petitionersL knowled$e that the sub<ect propert) was! at one time! co6owned b) Paulo! his brother -lberto and sister Aosefa should have impelled them to in(uire and investi$ate! as an) prudent vendee should! about the status of the co6ownership before bu)in$ the sub<ect propert)& *he petitionersL reliance on PauloLs word alone that he was the sole owner of the sub<ect propert) when the) bou$ht the same! despite their knowled$e of facts that should have put them on $uard! constitutes $ross ne$li$ence amountin$ to bad faith& *he) cannot therefore ri$htfull) claim that the) are bu)ers in $ood

faith& Eavin$ established that the sub<ect propert) was owned in common b) Paulo and the siblin$s! it necessaril) follows that Paulo could onl) dispose to the petitioners his share in the sub<ect propert)& -rticle 397 of the 0ivil 0ode provides that 1PeQach co6owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits pertainin$ thereto! and he ma) therefore alienate! assi$n or mort$a$e it! and even substitute another person in its en<o)ment! e9cept when personal ri$hts are involved& Gut the effect of the alienation or the mort$a$e! with respect to the co6owners! shall be limited to the portion which ma) be allotted to him in the division upon the termination of the co6ownership&1 Fnder the said provision! while a co6owner has the ri$ht to freel) sell and dispose of his undivided interest! nevertheless! as a co6owner he cannot alienate the shares of his other co6owners T ne$o dat #ui non &abet& Paulo! however! sold the entire sub<ect propert) to the petitioners without the consent of the co6owners& >ollowin$ the well6established principle that the bindin$ force of a contract must be reco$nized as far as it is le$all) possible to do so T #uando res non valet ut a"o- valeat #uantu$ valere potest 6 the disposition affects onl) PauloLs share pro indiviso! and the transferee! in this case the petitioners! $ets onl) what corresponds to PauloLs share in the partition of the sub<ect propert)! i.e.! one6half of the areas described as riceland! sand) land and swampland which constitute the sub<ect propert)& *he sub<ect parcel! bein$ an inherited propert)! is sub<ect to the rules of co6ownership under the 0ivil 0ode& 0o6ownership is the ri$ht of common dominion which two or more persons have in a spiritual part of a thin$! not materiall) or ph)sicall) divided& Gefore the partition of the propert) held in common! no individual or co6owner can claim title to an) definite portion thereof& -ll that the co6owner has is an ideal or abstract (uota or proportionate share in the entire propert)& "oreto sold the sub<ect propert) to Gabinoas a co6owner& loreto had a ri$ht! even before the partition of the propert) to transfer in whole or in part his undivided interest in the lot even without the consent of his co6heirs& *his ri$ht is absolute in accordance with the well6settled doctrine that a co6owner has full ownership of his pro6indivisoshare and has the ri$ht to alienate! assi$n or mort$a$e it! and substitute another person for its en<o)ment& *hus! what Gabino obtained b) virtue of the sale were the same ri$hts as the vendor "oreto had as co6owner! in an ideal share e(uivalent to the consideration $iven under their transaction& 0onse(uentl)! when "oreto sold the same portion of the lot to Dilfredo! he was no lon$er the owner of the same propert) and therefore could not have validl) sold it& *he mere fact that "oreto sold a definite portion of the co6owned lot b) metes and bounds before partition does not! per se! render the sale a nullit)& #n L/2"6 + Vd$ D" C,$1*/n4, the fact that an a$reement purported to sell a concrete portion of a co6owned propert) does not render the sale void! for it is well6established that the bindin$ force of a contract must be reco$nized as far as it is le$all) possible to do so& #n the case at bar! the contract of sale could be le$all) reco$nized& -t the time of sale! "oretp had an ali(uot share of one6third but he sold more than that portion& #t has been ruled that if a co6owner sells more than his ali(uot share in the propert)! the sale will affect onl) his share but not those of the other co6owners who did not consent to the sale& -rticle 322 is not applicable therefore the contract is valid& *he contract far from violatin$ the le$al provision that forbids a co6owner bein$ obli$ed to remain a part) to the communit)! precisel) has for its purpose and ob<ect the dissolution of the co6ownership and of the communit) b) sellin$ the parcel held in common and dividin$ the proceeds of the sale amon$ the co6owners& *he obli$ation imposed in the contract to preserve the co6ownership until all the lots shall have been sold! is a mere incident to the main ob<ect of dissolvin$ the co6owners& G) virtue of the 4O-! '!" 2$-'."& '!"-"'/ 2-$*'.*$##1 $nd &,9&'$n'.$##1 "n'"-"d .n'/ $ */n'-$*' /) 2$-'n"-&!.2 $& '!" 9"&' $nd 0/&' "E2"d."n' 0"$n& /) "+"n',$##1 d.&&/#+.n4 '!" */-/%n"-&!.2, '!" #.)" /) &$.d

VAGILIDAD VS VAGILIDAD (.22;)

"oreto "abiao! to$ether with his siblin$s! inherited a parcel of land from their father& -fter their father=s death! "oreto sold a portion of the land to Gabino Ar& (respondent)& -fter a few )ears! "oreto sold the same portion of the land to petitioner& 'espondents filed a complaint for annulment of document! reconve)ance and dama$es with the '*0& *he '*0 ruled that "oreto did not validl) conve) the lot to respondent since at that time! the time of the sale! the heirs of "oreto=s father did not partition the land therefore "oreto could have onl) sold his ali(uot share and not a divided part desi$nated b) metes and bounds& *he 0- reversed the '*0 decision! statin$ that when "oreto sold the portion of the land! he alread) had the ri$ht as co6owner to his share even if at that time! the propert) had not )et been partitioned since the ri$hts to succession are transmitted from the moment of their father=s death&

ANGELA TUASON VS ANTONIO TUASON $nd GREGORIO ARANETA, In*

-n$ela! /ieves and -ntonio *uason owned a parcel of land in common& Dhen /ieves sold her 1R7 share to respondent corporation! the latter! to$ether with -n$ela and -ntonio! entered into a 4O- wherein the) a$reed to have the whole lot improved and subdivided into small lots and then sold! the proceeds of the sale to be later divided amon$ them& *he 4O- provided a stipulation

(1951)

:OSEFINA VALDE@ "' $# +& TEOFILA OLORGA

(1957)

statin$ that the contract shall remain in full force and effect durin$ all the time it ma) be necessar) for respondent corporation to full) sell the propert) in small and subdivided lots and to full) collect the purchase prices& "ater! when -n$ela filed a complaint with the 0># to order the partition of the propert)! the complaint was dismissed& *he main contention of -n$ela is that the contract should be declared null and void because its terms violate the provisions of -rt& 322 of the 0ivil 0ode& Petitioners and respodnent=s husband! >ederico :aldez! Ar&! are the heirs of the deceased spouses >ederico :aldez! 8r&! from whom the) inherited a piece of land& Dhen :adez! 8r& purchased the lot! the transfer of the title in his name was never done because the O0* was lost& -fter his death however! his heirs were able to transfer the title throu$h :aldez! Ar&! whose name appeared on the deed of sale as the onl) vendee& *his was done pursuant to the wishes of 4r& Uuicho (a lessee of a portion of the lot2 who advanced the mone)! in order that he could facilitate the deed of sale between him and the :aldezes! with the understandin$ that >ederico :aldez! Ar& will hold the same in trust for his other brother and sisters& Eowever! upon :aldez! Ar&=s death! his wife! respondent! tried to e<ect the plaintiffs& Dhen petitioners filed for an action for partition! respondent claimed ac(uisitive prescription& %rnesto and :ictor 'o(ue are co6owners of a lot with their half6sister petitioner& *he) sold to her the d portion of a lot which the) owned& Dhen petitioner sou$ht for a partition of the propert)! respondents refused to acknowled$e petitioner=s claim of ownership of an) portion of the lot& Petitioner=s complaint for partition with specific performance was $ranted b) the '*0 but reversed b) the #-0& *he #-0 stated that from the moment respondents alle$ed absolute and e9clusive ownership of the whole lot! the '*0 should have immediatel) ordered the dismissal of the action for partition and petitioner! if she so desired! should have refilled the case but this time as an accion reinvindicatoria and! should this action prosper! a second action for partition would still have to be instituted in order to effect division of the propert)&

2$-'n"-&!.2 '/ "nd %!"n '!" /9;"*' /) .'& *-"$'./n &!$## !$+" 9""n $''$.n"d -nd even assumin$ that -rt& 322 of the 0ivil 0ode were applicable! under which the parties b) a$reement ma) a$ree to keep the thin$ undivided for a period not e9ceedin$ 12 )ears! there should be no fear that the remainin$ 1!;22 s(& m& could not be disposed of within the four )ears left of the ten6 )ears period fi9ed b) -rt& 322&

-s between co6owners! an action for partition does not prescribe& Given the antecedents of the propert) and the fact that its ac(uisition b) >ederico :aldez! Ar& was for the benefit not of himself alone but also of his brother and sisters! althou$h for purposes of convenience he was made to appear as the sole vendee! the <uridical relation that arose amon$ them was one of co6ownership! with the plaintiffs6appellees actuall) in possession of a portion of the propert)& Fnder -rticle 393 of the 0ivil 0ode! 1/o prescription shall run in favor of a co6owner or co6heir a$ainst his co6owners or co6heirs so lon$ as he e9pressl) or impliedl) reco$nizes the co6ownership&1 #nsofar as the aspect of e9tinctive prescription referred to in this article is concerned! it is but a restatement of -rticle 19;5 of the 8panish 0ivil 0ode! which provides@ 1-s between co6heirs! co6 owners! or proprietors of ad<acent estates! the action to demand the partition of the inheritance or of the thin$ held in common! or the surve) of the ad<acent properties! does not prescribe&1 -nd from the standpoint of ac(uisitive prescription! or prescription of ownership! this 0ourt has held in numerous decisions involvin$ fiduciar) relations such as those occupied b) a trustee with respect to the cestui #ue trust that as a $eneral6rule the formerLs possession is not adverse and therefore cannot ripen into a title b) prescription& -dverse possession in such a case re(uires! the concurrence of the followin$6circumstances@ (a) that the trustee has performed une(uivocal acts of repudiation amountin$ to an ouster of the cestui #ue trust? (b) that such! positive acts of repudiation have been made known to the cestui #ue trust and (c) that the evidence thereon should be clear and conclusive& *hese circumstances are not present in this case& An $*'./n )/- 2$-'.'./n 0$1 9" &""n '/ 9" $' /n*" $n $*'./n )/- d"*#$-$'./n /) *//%n"-&!.2 $nd )/- &"4-"4$'./n $nd */n+"1$n*" /) $ d"'"-0.n$'" 2/-'./n /) '!" 2-/2"-'1 .n+/#+"d -n action for partition6which is t)picall) brou$ht b) a person claimin$ to be co6owner of a specified propert) a$ainst a defendant or defendants whom the plaintiff reco$nizes to be co6owners M ma) be seen to present simultaneousl) two principal issues& >irst! there is the issue of whether the plaintiff is indeed a co6owner of the propert) sou$ht to be partitioned& 8econd! assumin$ that the plaintiff successfull) hurdles the first issue! there is the secondar) issue of how the propert) is to be divided between plaintiff and defendant& 8hould the trial court find that the defendants do not dispute the status of the plaintiff as co6owner! the court can forthwith proceed to the actual partitionin$ of the propert) involved& #n case the defendants assert in their -nswer e9clusive title in themselves adversel) to the plaintiff! the court should not dismiss the plaintiffs action for partition but! on the contrar) and in the e9ercise of its $eneral <urisdiction! resolve the (uestion of whether the plaintiff is co6owner or not& 8hould the trial court find that the plaintiff was unable to sustain his claimed status as co6owner! or that the defendants are or have become the sole and e9clusive owners of the propert) involved! the court will necessaril) have to dismiss the action for partition& *his result would be reached! not because the wron$ action was

CONCEPCION ROCUE VS IAC

(1988)

commenced b) the plaintiff! but rather because the plaintiff havin$ been unable to show co6ownership ri$hts in himself! no basis e9ists for re(uirin$ the defendants to submit to partition the propert) at stake& #f! upon the other hand! the court after trial should find the eidstence of co6ownership amon$ the parties liti$ant! the court ma) and should order the partition of the propert) in the same action& Aud$ment for one or the other part) bein$ on the merits! the losin$ part) (respondents in this case) ma) then appeal the same& #n either case! however! it is (uite unnecessar) to re(uire the plaintiff to file another action! separate and independent from that for partition ori$inall) instituted& #t must also be noted that -rticle 393 of the 0ivil 0ode provides that 1each co6owner ma) demand at an) time the partition of the thin$ owned in common! insofar as his share is concemed&1 /o matter how lon$ the co6ownership has lasted! a co6owner can alwa)s opt out of the co6ownership! and provided the defendant co6owners or co6heirs have theretofore e9pressl) or impliedl) reco$nized the co6ownership! the) cannot set up as a defense the prescription of the action for partition& Gut if the defendants show that the) had previousl) asserted title in themselves adversel) to the plaintiff and for the re(uisite period of time! the plaintiffs ri$ht to re(uire reco$nition of his status as a co6owner will have been lost b) prescription and the court cannot issue an order re(uirin$ partition& #n this case! neither of the parties involved had asserted or manifested a claim of absolute and e9clusive ownership over the lot& *he co6ownership of the propert) had continued to be reco$nized b) all the owners& VIRGILIO AGUILAR VS CA Petitioner and respondent 8enen are brother who purchased a house and lot for their father& #nitiall)! the) a$reed that petitioner=s share in the co6 ownership would be .R7 while that of respondent would be 1R7& Eowever! b) virtue of a written memorandum! both a$reed that their interests would be e(ual! with 8enen assumin$ the remainin$ mort$a$e obli$ation of the ori$inal owners with the 888 in e9chan$e for his possession and en<o)ment of the house to$ether with their father& 8ince :ir$ilio was then dis(ualified from obtainin$ a loan from 888! the brothers a$reed that the deed of sale would be e9ecuted and the title re$istered in the meantime in the name of 8enen& #t was further a$reed that 8enen would take care of their father and his needs& Dhen their father died! petitioner demanded from 8enen that he vacate the propert) so that it ma) be sold and the proceeds divided amon$ them! to which the latter refused& *he trial court found them to be co6owners of the house and lot! in e(ual shares on the basis of their written a$reement and ordered the sale of the propert) and the proceeds divided between the two& *he 0- set aside the order of the trial court& 8ince petitioner and respondents are co6owners of sub<ect house and lot in e(ual shares! either one of them ma) demand the sale of the house and lot at an) time and the other cannot ob<ect to such demand& A-'.*#" B7B of the 0ivil 0ode provides that no co6owner shall be obli$ed to remain in the co6ownership! and that each co6owner ma) demand at an) time partition of the thin$ owned in common insofar as his share is concerned& 0orollar) to this rule! A-' B78 of the 0ode states that whenever the thin$ is essentiall)! indivisible and the co6owners cannot a$ree that it be! allotted to one of them who shall indemnif) the others! it shall be sold and its proceeds accordin$l) distributed& *his is resorted to (1) when the ri$ht to partition the propert) is invoked b) an) of the co6owners but because of the nature of the propert) it cannot be subdivided or its subdivision would pre<udice the interests of the co6owners! and (.) the co6owners are not in a$reement as to who amon$ them shall be allotted or assi$ned the entire propert) upon proper reimbursement of the co6owners& Eowever! bein$ a co6owner respondent has the ri$ht to use the house and lot without pa)in$ an) compensation to petitioner! as he ma) use the propert) owned in common lon$ as it is in accordance with the purpose for which it is intended and in a manner not in<urious to the interest of the other co6 owners& E$*! */-/%n"- /) 2-/2"-'1 !"#d pro indi&iso "E"-*.&"& !.& -.4!'& /+"- '!" %!/#" 2-/2"-'1 $nd 0$1 ,&" $nd "n;/1 '!" &$0" %.'! n/ /'!"- #.0.'$'./n '!$n '!$' !" &!$## n/' .n;,-" '!" .n'"-"&'& /) !.& */-/%n"-&, '!" -"$&/n 9".n4 '!$' ,n'.# $ d.+.&./n .& 0$d", '!" -"&2"*'.+" &!$-" /) "$*! *$nn/' 9" d"'"-0.n"d $nd "+"-1 */-/%n"- "E"-*.&"&, '/4"'!"- %.'! !.& */2$-'.*.2$n'& ;/.n' /%n"-&!.2 /+"- '!" pro indi&iso 2-/2"-'1, .n $dd.'./n '/ !.& ,&" $nd "n;/10"n' /) '!" &$0" Gut when petitioner filed an action to compel the sale of the propert) and the trial court $ranted the petition and ordered the e<ectment of respondent! the co6ownership was deemed terminated and the ri$ht to en<o) the possession <ointl) also ceased& *hereafter! the continued sta) of respondent and his famil) in the house pre<udiced the interest of petitioner as the propert) should have been sold and the proceeds divided e(uall) between them& Pastor did not ac(uire ac(uisitive prescription of ownership of 8R9 of the lots therefore respondents

(1997)

REMEDIOS

Private

respondents

are

the

children

and

SALVADOR $nd GRACIA SALVADOR +& CA $nd YA3O (1995)

$randchildren of -lipio Oabo! who inherited . lots from him upon his death& Pastor 4akibalo! who is married to 4aria! dau$hter of -lipio! claims that he purchased the shares of 5 of -lipio=s children and inherited 4aria=s share& Ee filed a complaint before the 0># for Uuietin$ of *itle! -nnulmnet of ocuments and ama$es a$ainst private respondents! and that he ma) be declared the absolute owner of 8R9 of the lots& 'espondents filed a complaint before the same 0># for partition and (uietin$ of title with dama$es a$ainst Pastor and petitioners! who are stran$ers to the Oabo famil) and assi$nees of Pastor& *he 0># ruled in favor of petitioners but the 0overturned the decision&

:OSE MARIA RAMIRE@ +& :OSE EUGENIO RAMIRE@, "' $# (19;5)

MARINA REYES VS CONCEPCION (1992)

Petitioner filed an action a$ainst respondents for the partition of a parcel of land owned b) both parties pro indiviso (1R; to the petitioner! 5R; to the defendants)& Onl) . of the defendants did not ob<ect to the partition! while the other defendants ob<ected upon the theor) that said partition is 1materiall) and le$all)1 impossible and 1would work $reat harm and pre<udice to the co6owners&1 *he lower court ruled in favor of petitioner for the partition of the propert)& 'espondents ar$ue that instead of makin$ the aforementioned se$re$ation! plaintiffLs share should be sold to them! as provided for in -rt& 395! since if the plan of partition is e9ecuted! there will be +inestimable dama$e, to the propert)& Petitioners filed with the 0># a complaint for in<unction and dama$es! seekin$ to en<oin private respondents from sellin$ to a third part) their pro6 indiviso shares as co6owners in ei$ht parcels of re$istered land& Petitioner claims that under -rticle 1;.2 of the new 0ivil 0ode! the)! as co6owners! had a preferential ri$ht (or preemptive ri$ht) to purchase these shares from private respondents for a reasonable price&

action for partition was $ranted b) the 80& -rticle 393 of the 0ivil 0ode which provides that "$*! */-/%n"- 0$1 d"0$nd $' $n1 '.0" '!" 2$-'.'./n /) '!" */00/n 2-/2"-'1 .02#."& '!$' $n $*'./n '/ d"0$nd 2$-'.'./n .& .02-"&*-.2'.9#" /*$nn/' 9" 9$--"d 91 #$*!"& T!" .02-"&*-.2'.9.#.'1 /) '!" $*'./n *$nn/', !/%"+"-, 9" .n+/("d %!"n /n" /) '!" */-/%n"-& !$& 2/&&"&&"d '!" 2-/2"-'1 $& "E*#,&.+" /%n"- $nd )/- $ 2"-./d &,)).*."n' '/ $*<,.-" .' 91 2-"&*-.2'./n Prescription as a mode of ac(uirin$ ownership re(uires a continuous! open! peaceful! public! and adverse possession for a period of time fi9ed b) law& In /-d"- '!$' $ */-/%n"-L& 2/&&"&&./n 0$1 9" d""0"d $d+"-&" '/ '!" cestui ,ue trust /- '!" /'!"- */-/%n"-&, '!" )/##/%.n4 "#"0"n'& 0,&' */n*,-K (1) that he has performed une(uivocal acts of repudiation amountin$ to an ouster of the cestui #ue trust or the other co6owners? (.) that such positive acts of repudiation have been made known to the cestui #ue trust or the other co6owners? and (7) that the evidence thereon must be clear and convincin$& #n this case! the period of prescription started to run onl) from the time Pastor filed complaint for Uuietin$ of *itle& Eowever! this was tolled when his co6heirs! the private respondents herein! instituted an action for partition of the lots& Eence! the adverse possession b) Pastor bein$ for onl) about si9 months would not vest in him e9clusive ownership of his wifeLs estate! and absent ac(uisitive prescription of ownership! laches and prescription of the action for partition will not lie in favor of Pastor& *here is nothin$ to show that! after se$re$atin$ plaintiffLs share! the buildin$s left on the remainin$ portions representin$ defendantsL share! would be unserviceable! either for commercial or for residential purposes& On the contrar)! it seems obvious that plaintiff would not insist upon the partition pra)ed for! if his share were unserviceable for either M particularl) the commercial M purpose& #n fact! every one of the aforementioned commissioners! includin" t&e one representin" defendants &erein- reco$$ended t&e se"re"ation of plaintiffLs share& *he commissioners merel) failed to a$ree on the precise confi$uration thereof&

#n this <urisdiction! the le$al provisions on co6ownership do not $rant to an) of the owners of a propert) held in common a pre6emptive ri$ht to purchase the pro6indiviso shares of his co6owners& PetitionersL reliance on -rticle 1;.2 of the /ew 0ivil 0ode is misplaced& -rticle 1;.2 contemplates of a situation where a co6owner has alienated his pro6indiviso shares to a stran$er& G) the ver) nature of the ri$ht of 1le$al redemption1! a co6ownerLs li$ht to redeem is invoked onl) after the shares of the other co6owners are sold to a third part) or stran$er to the co6ownership& Gut in the case at bar! at the time petitioners filed their complaint for in<unction and dama$es a$ainst private respondents! no sale of the latterLs pro6indiviso shares to a third part) had )et been made& *hus! -rticle 1;.2 of the /ew 0ivil 0ode finds no application to the case at bar& /either do petitioners have the le$al ri$ht to en<oin private respondents from alienatin$ their pro6indiviso shares to a third part)& *he ri$hts of a co6owner of a propert) are clearl) specified in -rticle 397& *he law does not prohibit a co6owner from sellin$! alienatin$ or mort$a$in$ his ideal share in the propert) held in common& *he law merel) provides that the alienation or mort$a$e shall be limited onl) to the

portion of the propert) which ma) be allotted to him upon termination of the co6ownership& #nasmuch as the parties were in a$reement as re$ards the fact that the sub<ect properties should not be partitioned! and private respondents continued to manifest their desire to terminate the co6ownership arran$ement between petitioners and themselves! respondent trial <ud$e acted within his <urisdiction when he issued his order re(uirin$ the parties to answer certain (uestions for the purpose of determinin$ whether or not the le$al conditions for the applicabilit) of -rticle 398 of the /ew 0ivil 0ode were present in the case& *he sale of the propert) held in common referred to in the above article is resorted to when (1) the ri$ht to partition the propert) amon$ the co6owners is invoked b) an) of them but because of the nature of the propert)! it cannot be subdivided or its subdivision P8ee -rticle 395 of the /ew 0ivil 0odeQ would pre<udice the interests of the co6owners (8ee 8ection 5 of 'ule ;9 of the 'evised 'ules of 0ourt) and (.) the co6owners are not in a$reement as to who amon$ them shall be allotted or assi$ned the entire propert) upon reimbursement of the shares of the other co6owners& CORNELIO RAMOS DIRECTOR LANDSB (1918) VS OF 'estituo 'omero $ained possession of a considerable tract of land located in /ueva %ci<a& Ee took advanta$e of the 'o)al ecree to obtain a possessor) information title to the land and was re$istered as such& Parcel /o& 1 included within the limits of the possessor) information title of 'omero was sold to 0ornelio 'amos! herein petitioner& 'amos instituted appropriate proceedin$s to have his title re$istered& irector of "ands opposed on the $round that 'amos had not ac(uired a $ood title from the 8panish $overnment& irector of >orestr) also opposed on the $round that the first parcel of land is forest land& #t has been seen however that the predecessor in interest to the petitioner at least held this tract of land under color of title& Petitioner=s ownership of the land in (uestion is admitted b) :icente and %ster Aurilla and support b) a *0*& Aurilla took possession of a portion of said propert) and constructed therein a house and other improvements without petitioner=s consent of knowled$e& Eence! petitioner claims rents for the area occupied b) the Aurillas& 'espondents claim that said portion of the propert) occupied b) them was ac(uired b) them b) virtue of an alle$ed deed of sale e9ecuted b) one >lorencio eudor in their favor& *he) also claim that the) have improvements introduced and that the)a re builders in $ood faith& 'espondnets filed a petition for reconve)ance *he actual occupanc) of a part of the land b) 'omero described in the instrument $ivin$ color of title is sufficient to $ive title to the entire tract of land& *he $eneral rule is that possession and cultivation of a portion of a tract of land under the claim of ownership of all is a constructive possession of all! if the remainder is not in the adverse possession of another& *he claimant has color of title? he acted in $ood faith and he has open! peaceable! and notorious possession of a portion of the propert)! sufficient to apprise the communit) and the world that the land was for his en<o)ment& Possession in the e)es of the law does not mean that a man has to have his feet on ever) s(uare meter of $round before it can be said that he is in possession& 'amos and his predecessor in interest fulfilled the re(uirements of the law on supposition that the premises consisted of a$ricultural public land&

:M TUASON, In* VS VICENTE :URILLAD (1955)

:$+."- +
4 )

8ince eudor is not the owner of the propert)! the latter could not transmit the title to respondents& Petitioner presented a *0* in it=s name while respondents based their ri$hts on the alle$ed *estimonial *itle& *hus! petitioner=s title is indefeasible and a$ainst the whole world! while that of respondent is not and could not even be considered an imperfect title as well known in "and 'e$istration -ct 39;& *he fact that respondents admit not onl) in their pleadin$ but also in open court that petitioner corporation is the owner of the propert) cannot be seriousl) (uestioned b) respondents and its ri$ht thereto imprescriptible& -t the time the) bou$ht the propert) from eudor! the) did not in(uire whether the said eudor was a re$istered owner of the propert)& Gesides! the) never re$istered the deed of sale in the Office of the 'e$istr) of eed of U0& #n order that defendantsma) be called bu)ers in $ood faith! it must be shown b) clear and convincin$ evidence that upon bu)in$ the propert)! the) were not aware of an) flaw in their title or made of ac(uisition& *he fact that Aurilla tendered to the Gulacan 8ubdivision the balance of the consideration and refused to accept the tender! is a clear indication that notice to Aurilla! who is a law)er! that the part) from whom he was supposed to have bou$ht the propert) was not the owner& *he sale of one6half of the con<u$al propert) without li(uidation of the partnership is void&

'igest ta(en from batasnatin#com ta(en from http*++www#scribd#com+doc+,),2,-4&+-&-.roperty-/eviewer

C/n*"2*./n (1959)

a$ainst the petitioners! Aavier et& al for havin$ taken in possession land sub<ect of the dispute since 1935& Petitioners ar$ue that the) have ac(uired the said lot in dispute partl) b) purchase and partl) b) inheritance and their predecessors in interest have been in possession of the same adversel)! publicl)! continuousl)! peacefull)! and in the concept of owners a$ainst the whole world since the 8panish time up to the present? On 1935 4ata sold a parcel of land to respondent& Eowever such sale was not re$istered because it was not acknowled$ed before a notar) public& On 1935! the same land was sold b) 4ata to Petitioner 0aram throu$h his a$ents which was acknowled$ed before a notar) public& -n O0* was issued to Petitioner& *hus respondent filed an action for nullit)! recover) of ownership andRor reconve)ance with dama$es and attorne)Ls fees a$ainst Petitioners and he 'e$ister of eeds&

*he established rule is that one cannot ac(uire title to a re$istered land b) prescription or adverse possession& -dverse! notorious and continuous possession under claim of ownership for the period fi9ed b) law is ineffective a$ainst a *orrens title& *he ri$ht to secure possession under a decree of re$istration does not prescribe& -s possessors in $ood faith! petitioners are entitled to the fruits received before their possession was le$all) interrupted upon receipt of <udicial summons in connection with the filin$ of the complaint for reconve)ance on October 15! 1959& *he ownership of the land is vested on "aureta& -rt& 1533 provides that #f the same thin$ should have been sold to different vendees^8hould it be immovable propert)! the ownership shall belon$ to the person ac(uirin$ it who in $ood faith first recorded it in the 'e$istr) of Propert)& #n the case at hand! the a$ents of 0aram acted in bad faith& *he) should have known that there was a previous sale to "aureta and should have in(uired about it& *he acts of the a$ent are deemed acts of the principal and therefore 0aram is deemed to be in bad faith& 8ince 0aram was a re$istrant in bad faith! the situation is as if there was no re$istration at all& #t was "aureta who was a possessor in $ood faith& - possessor in $ood faith is one who is not aware that there e9ists in his title or mode of ac(uisition an) flaw which invalidates it& "aureta was first in possession of the propert)& #t is true that 4ata had alle$ed that the deed of sale in favor of "aureta was procured b) force& 8uch defect! however! was cured when! after the lapse of four )ears from the time the intimidation ceased! 4arcos 4ata lost both his ri$hts to file an action for annulment or to set up nullit) of the contract as a defense in an action to enforce the same& *he Petitioner is entitled to the ownership and possession of the land in dispute&& - possessor in $ood faith is one who is not aware that there e9ists in his title or mode of ac(uisition an) flaw which invalidates it& One who ac(uires real estate with knowled$e of a defect or lack of title in his vendor cannot claim that he has ac(uired title thereto in $ood faith as a$ainst the true owner of the land or of an interest therein& *he same rule must be applied to one who has knowled$e of facts which should put a reasonable man upon his $uard! and then claims that he acted in $ood faith under the belief that there was no defect in the title of the vendor& Dhen the deed ofL assi$nment was e9ecuted in favor of the respondent! the disputed lot was alread) re$istered and titled in the name of the petitioner& 8uch an act of re$istration served as a constructive notice to the whole world and the title issued in favor of petitioner made his ownership conclusive& 'espondent=s failure to e9ercise that measure of precaution which was reasonabl) re(uired of a prudent man in order to ac(uaint him with the defects in the title of his vendor precludes him from claimin$ possession in $ood faith *he propert) is the e9clusive propert) of petitioner *an Uueto& Petitioner nursed the belief that the lot was actuall) respondent=s(makin$ him in bad faith)! still respondent=s failure to prohibit him from buildin$ despite her knowled$e that construction was actuall) bein$ done! makes her also in bad faith& *he net resultant of mutual bad faith would entitle petitioner to the ri$hts of a builder in $ood faith (-rt& 338! 0ivil 0ode)! er$o! reimbursement should be $iven him if

C$-$0 + L$,-"'$

(1981)

M$n/'/( R"$#'1 + CA $nd C$-.##/ (1985)

Petitioner is the re$istered owner of parcel of land obtained from a purchase from the *estate %state of *ambuntin$ de "e$arda& Eowever! the lot cannot be subdivided because it is occupied b) several houses! includin$ one occupied b) respondent 0arillo& >ailin$ to recover possession of the propert)! petitioner filed a reivindicator) action a$ainst respondent& Petitioner ar$ues that respondent is not a builder and possessor in $ood faith& 8ince if he was in $ood faith he should have verified with the 'e$ister of eeds who the re$istered owner is&

T$n C,"'/ + CA

(1985)

'espondent ac(uired a land alle$edl) b) purchase or donation and a *0* was ac(uired for the said land - contract of lease for ten )ears was entered between respondent and petitioner "ater on! a barter a$reement was e9ecuted

E&*-.'/- + IAC

(1985)

between petitioner and respondent where petitioner became the owner of the land& Petitioner then proceeded to construct a concrete buildin$ without an) ob<ection from respondent& 'espondent is now suin$ petitioner for reconve)ance of the title of the propert) of the land& *he (uestion now is whether Petitioner is a builder in bad faith not entitled to reimbursement& #n a cadastral proceedin$s! the court rule that %scritor(olderRpetitioner) was the owner of the lot in dispute and the latter started takin$ possession of it& -cuna then filed a petition for review alle$in$ fraud and misrepresentation& *he 0ourt ruled in favor of -cuna as owner and ordered petitioners to vacate "ater! a suit was a$ain filed b) respondent a$ainst the petitioners(heirs of ori$inal petitioner) to recover the dama$es for the fruits ac(uired durin$ the pendenc) of the earlier case& *he main issue is whether the petitioners were in bad faith and should be held liable for dama$es&

respondent decides to appropriate the buildin$ for herself& Eowever! it is to be noted that in the case at hand! due to the barter a$reement! petitioner became the owner6possessor of the lot& Ee is a builder6possessor <us possidendi because he is the owner himself&

- possessor in bad faith is one in possession of a propert) knowin$ that his title thereto is defective& Eere it was not shown that petitioners were aware of an) flaw in their title nor in the title of their predecessors& -ssumin$ %scritor(older) was in bad faith! this should not pre<udice his successors in interest& *he rule is that onl) personal knowled$e of flaw in one=s title can make on e a possessor in bad faith! for bad faith is not transmissible even to an heir& Fnder -rt 5.5! $ood faith is alwa)s presumed and upon him who all$es bad faith on the part of the possessor rests the burden of proof&

D" #$ C-,6 IAC

(1988)

Gre$orio 4onte owned two parcels of land and was survived b) his wife ela 0ruz(petitioner) and children of Gre$orio=s siblin$s (respondent)& 'espondents filed a petition to recover the possession and ownership of the lands in dispute& 0># ruled in their favor and ordered that the lands be surrendered to them& 0- affirmed and the decision became fina& 'espondents e9ecuted an e9tra<udicial partition representin$ themselves as the onl) le$al heirs of Gre$orio& *he) sold the lots to the 'abara=s (co6 respondents) Petitioners then filed a complaint for partition but this was denied b) the lower court& *he appellate court reversed and remanded the case to the lower court& 'espondents thus filed this petition for certiorari& One of the issues presented was whether or not the bu)ers of lands were bu)ers in $ood faith& *he parcels of land sub<ect of the dispute was ori$inall) awarded to the -delantar=s in a court decision& Eowever the records were burned& *hus a motion was filed for their reconstitution which was $ranted&

*he) were not bu)ers in $ood faith& *he bu)ers herein had notices of the claim of third persons aside from the claim or ri$ht of the re$istered owners& *hese claims were annotated on the two (.) titles of the land& - purchaser of a valued piece of propert) cannot <ust close his e)es to facts which should put a reasonable man upon his $uard and then claim that he acted in $ood faith under the belief that there were no defect in the title of the vendors& 'espondents6bu)ers should have acted with that measure of precaution which ma) reasonabl) be re(uired to a prudent man in a like situation&

S,/9.-/n + CA (1995)

*he decision in 0ivil 0ase /o& 978 declarin$ the -delantar spouses owners of the two (.) parcels of land claimed b) Gasilia "orezo! #sabel "orezo and 0anuto "ucero is conclusive upon the parties therein as well as their successors6in6interest! the parties herein! under the doctrine of res ;udicata. #t ma) be that petitioners ac(uired the disputed properties in $ood faith and had since then occupied the same but suchbona fide character of possession ceased when the) were served summons&

3$n*/ E&2$n/# F.#.2.n/ + P"'"-&/n (1925)

*akin$ advanta$e of the chaotic situation at the time! the "orezo=s appropriated the propert) for themselves& *hus the Ponce=s filed a petition to recover the propert) from them which was $ranted in 0ivil 0ase /o& 978& *he propert) became the sub<ect of a cadastral surve) and thus the -delantar (now in the person of Ponce! widow of -delantar) a$ain claimed ownership& Eowever! the 8uobiron=s are also claimin$ ownership on the basis of the sale between their predecessors in interest and the "orezo=s& *hus the present case for (uietin$ of title& One the issues raised was whether or not the 8uobiron=s were in $ood faith& - certain 'e)es was indebted to Petitioner and secured it with mort$a$es and pled$es of properties& Petitioner filed a case a$ainst respondent for a <ud$ment to be rendered declarin$ that under the contract of pled$e the) had the ri$ht to appl) the proceeds of the sale of the said $oods to the pa)ment of the debt for the securit) of which the said merchandise was pled$ed! with preference over the claim of the other defendants& 'espondent filed in behalf of 'amon 4itra for the purchase of the lot in dispute& *his was approved& Eowever! the lot was in the possession of petitioner -studillo& Petitioner that she had been a s(uatter since 1955 but re(uested the PEE0 that the award be $ranted to her instead of 4itra& *hus she filed a petition to have the lot in dispute be sold to her&

Possession ac(uired in $ood faith ma) not lose this character e9cept in the case and from the moment facts e9ist which show that the possessor is not unaware that he possesses the thin$ improperl) or wron$full)! conformabl) with -rt& 5.8 of the 0ivil 0ode& -s held in Tacas v Tobon- to ever) possessor in $ood faith there comes a time when he is considered a possessor in bad faith& Dhen the owner or possessor with a better ri$ht comes alon$! when he becomes aware that what he had taken for $ranted is at least doubtful! and when he learns the $rounds in support of the adverse contention! $ood faith ceases

*he contract in (uestion was! therefore! a perfect contract of pled$e under articles 1855 and 18;7 of the 0ivil 0ode! it havin$ been conclusivel) shown that the pled$ee took char$e and possession of the $oods pled$ed throu$h a depositor) and a special a$ent appointed b) it! each of whom had a duplicate ke) to the warehouse wherein the said $oods were stored! and that the pled$ee! itself! received and collected the proceeds of the $oods as the) were sold& *he fact that the debtor! 'e)es! procured purchasers and made arran$ements for the sale of the $oods pled$ed and that the bills for the $oods thus sold were si$ned b) him does not affect the validit) of the contract! for the pled$or! 'e)es! continued to be the owner of the $oods! (art& 18;9! 0ivil 0ode)! he bein$ the one principall) interested in the sale of the propert) on the best possible terms& -s a s(uatter! she has no possessor) ri$hts over "ot 1;& #n the e)es of the law! the award to 4itra did not pre<udice her since she was bereft of an) ri$hts over the said lot which could have been impaired b) that award& -lso! 8he is not a bona fide occupant of& *he 8tate is committed to promote social <ustice and to maintain ade(uate social services in the field of housin$ but the 8tateLs solicitude for the destitute and the have6nots does not mean that it should tolerate usurpations of propert)! public or private& Eer act of s(uattin$ on a $overnment6owned lot and then demandin$ that the lot be sold her because she does not )et own a residential lot and house is not <ustified -s held in ernards v ernards6 +#n carr)in$ out its social read<ustment policies! the $overnment could not simpl) la) aside moral standards! and aim to favor usurpers! s(uatters! and intruders! unmindful of the lawful and unlawful ori$in and character of their occupanc)& 8uch a Polic) would perpetuate conflicts instead of attainin$ their <ust solution&, *he rule is that possession b) tolerance is lawful! but such possession becomes unlawful upon demand to vacate made b) the owner and the possessor b) tolerance refuses to compl) with such demand& person who occupies the land of another at the latter=s tolerance or permission! without an) contract between them! is necessaril) bound b) an implied promise that he will vacate upon demand! failin$ which! a summar) action for e<ectment is the proper remed)& *he status of the possessor is analo$ous to that of a lessee or tenant whose term of lease has e9pired but whose occupanc) continued b) tolerance of the owner& #n such case ! the unlawful deprivation or withholdin$ of possession is to be counted from the date of the demand to vacate -n unlawful detainer suit involves solel) the issue of ph)sical or material possession over the propert) or possession de facto! that is who between the plaintiff and the defendant has a better ri$ht to possess the propert) in (uestion& Dhere! however! the issue is who has the better and the le$al ri$ht

A&',d.##/ + PHHC (195;)

A-*$# + CA (1998)

efendants occupied the sub<ect lot in dispute alle$edl) on the implied tolerance of plaintiffs& >inall) on 1983! an e<ectment suit was filed b) plaintiffs a$ainst defendants& On the same )ear defendants also filed a suit to recover the lot in dispute a$ainst plaintiffs but this case was dismissed for failure to prosecute& -s re$ards the e<ectment suit! the court renderd a decision orderin$ to the defendants to vacate but the 0- reversed the said decision in 199. statin$ that the occupation was not on the mere tolerance

since the tolerance was withdrawn when an order to vacate was made on them& *hus unlawful detainer was not a proper remed)&

to possess or to whom possession de ;ure pertains! accion publiciana in proper& #n the case at bar! petitioners= complaint for unlawful detainer was confined to recover) of de facto or ph)sical possession of the propert) and was resorted to after private respondents has indubitabl) failed in their suit assailin$ petitioners= ri$ht to ownership& Petition of 8pouses Ou $ranted& 0itin$ C&ua @ai vs. Iapunan- 0r.6 T!" $*<,.-"- $nd 2/&&"&&/- .n 4//d )$.'! /) $ *!$''"# /- 0/+$9#" 2-/2"-'1 .& "n'.'#"d '/ 9" -"&2"*'"d $nd 2-/'"*'"d .n !.& 2/&&"&&./n, $& .) !" %"-" '!" '-," /%n"- '!"-"/), ,n'.# $ */02"'"n' */,-' -,#"& /'!"-%.&" *he filin$ of an information char$in$ that the chattel was ille$all) obtained throu$h estafa from its true owner b) the transferor of the bona fide possessor does not warrant disturbin$ the possession of the chattel a$ainst the win of the possessor& *he Ou spouses bou$ht the scrap en$ine blocks in $ood faith for 33!222 from the alle$ed swindler without an) notice that the same were obtained under false pretenses or b) means of a bouncin$ check& *he purchase b) the Ou spouses of the scrap en$ine blocks from 'efuerzo! doin$ business under the tradename 0& 0& :arried 0orporation! was covered b) a sales invoice and seemed to have been made in the ordinar) course of business& 'estitution should not be re(uired in a case where the offended part) voluntaril) delivered the thin$ to the offender6purchaser in the e9pectation of bein$ paid the price and where! thereafter! the offender sold the thin$ to an innocent third part)& *hat situation should be distin$uished from the cases of theft and robber) where the offended part) was involuntaril) deprived of his propert)&

'efuerzo! %rnesto umlao! Aose -lla and two other persons defrauded 4arcelo 8teel 0orporation in the sum of P95!373&52 as the value of 92!892 kilos of scrap materials delivered to 'efuerzo which were not paid for& *he scrap metals were later sold b) 'efuerzo et al to the 8pouses Ou& 4arcelo 8teel filed case of estafa a$ainst 'efuerzo et al and 8pouses Ou& *he char$es a$ainst the spouses were dropped& Eowever! a warrant for search and seizure was still obtained a$ainst the 8pouses Ou& *he warrant was implemented and police officers seized from the 8oledad Aunk 8hop 3.&8 metric tons of en$ine blocks! which were loaded in si9 trucks and brou$ht for safekeepin$ to the premises of 4arcelo 8teel 0orporation& 8pouses Ou seek to recover the scrap iron the) alle$edl) purchased in $ood faith&

Y, + H/n-$d/ (1780)

D P/&&"&&./n 1 C/n*"2' /) O%n"D/n$'/ + CA *he land in dispute is L/' D1BD, CAD, 32D-D of the -laminos 0adastre! located at Gr$)& #neran$an! -laminos! Pan$asinan& 8aid land is an (1773) unre$istered riceland used to be owned b) 'osario >ontanilla! deceased mother of the respondents! as her paraphernal propert)& 8aid 'osario >ontanilla died in 1951 in avao 0it) and is survived b) her five children& -ll of the said children were born in #neran$an! -laminos! Pan$asinan& Eowever! between 1955 and 19;5! 'osario >ontanilla and her children mi$rated separatel) to avao 0it)& Petitioners are the re$istered owners of a parcel of land! denominated as L/' N/ D303, CAD, 32D-D of -laminos 0adastre& Petitioners purchased the land from the 'ural Gank of Frbiztondo! #nc& after the said bank foreclosed the mort$a$e constituted thereon b) one 0arolina -bri$o& Gelievin$ that the land which the) purchased from the 'ural Gank of Frbiztondo is "ot 5135! 0- ! 7.56- of -laminos 0adastre! petitioners occupied the said land in 198. and are still in possession of the same up time of filin$ of case b) respondent& Petitioners alle$e that 0arolina -bri$o (owner whose mort$a$e over the land was foreclosed) ac(uired her title from one Aose Ochave& Ochave! on the other hand! bou$ht the land from Gasilio 'aran$ in his capacit) as a$ent of 'osario >ontanilla as evidenced b) an 8P-& *he) alle$e that

*he 8P- which petitioners claim 'osario >ontanilla e9ecuted authorizin$ the sale of the sub<ect parcel of land is null and void (no si$nature b) notar) public? the person who si$ned is the a$ent and not the purported principal)& *his bein$ the case! all subse(uent transactions involvin$ "ot 5135 and sprin$in$ from the 8pecial Power of -ttorne) are also null and void& 0onse(uentl)! on this alone! petitionerLs claim of ownership should be re<ected outri$ht& Petitioners assert that the appellate court failed to consider their lon$ and continuous possession over the disputed lot as e(uivalent to possession in the concept of owners& Petitioners are wron$[ P/&&"&&./n, '/ */n&'.','" '!" )/,nd$'./n /) $ 2-"&*-.2'.+" -.4!', 0,&' 9" 2/&&"&&./n ,nd"- $ *#$.0 /) '.'#" /- .' 0,&' 9" $d+"-&" P"'.'./n"-& !"-".n *$nn/' 9" &$.d '/ 9" .n 2/&&"&&./n /) '!" #$nd ,nd"- $ *#$.0 /) '.'#", &.n*" .' !$& 9""n "&'$9#.&!"d '!$' 2"'.'./n"-&L '.'#" */+"-& $ d.))"-"n' 2$-*"# /) #$ndT 0/-" &/, *$n .' 9" */n&.d"-"d '!$' 2"'.'./n"-& $-" .n $d+"-&" 2/&&"&&./n '!"-"/) Petitioners are $uilt) of bad faith& Eavin$ been issued a certificate of title! which states the e9act metes and bounds of the real propert) covered! the) are thus aware of the e9tent of their domain& Eence! the) are estopped from claimin$ a piece of land that is entirel) distinct from that which is covered b) their title& *his 0ourt cannot simpl) support the ar$ument set forth b) petitioners based merel) on their honest belief that their title pertained to the disputed land&

the parcel sub<ect of this controvers) is the ver) same "ot /o& 5727 over which petitioners hold the title of ownership& #t was a matter of oversi$ht! the) assert! on the part of the Gureau of "ands! that the identit) of these parcels was not reflected in their title& *he propert) in dispute is a parcel of residential land situated in ampol .nd! Pulilan! Gulacan& CA 0$d" )/##/%.n4 ).nd.n4& /) )$*'K 8aid land was the sub<ect of the Basulatan$6Gilin$64abibilin$64uli e9ecuted on /ovember .5! 197.! b) %milia 0amacho (survivin$ widow of 0atalino %s$uerra)! Aose 0& %s$uerra and 8ocorro %s$uerra! conve)in$ or sellin$ this land to the spouses! :ictoriano >elipe and Guillerma de la 0ruz! with ri$ht to repurchase the same within a period of five )ears! but that the vendors6 a6retro failed to repurchase the land& 8ince the date of the sale the spouses :ictoriano >elipe and Guillerma de la 0ruz! possessed and lived on this land& *he private respondent was livin$ with her parents on the land! and upon their deaths! she continued to live on and possess the same& On /ovember .9! 19;1 private respondent Primitiva de Aesus e9ecuted a sworn statement declarin$ herself the onl) heir of the deceased :ictoriano >elipe and ad<udicatin$ to herself the ownership of the land in (uestion& 4ore than twelve )ears later or on -pril .5! 1957! petitioners filed an action for recover) of ownership and possession and (uietin$ of title to the abovementioned piece of land covered b) *a9 eclaration /o& .787! alle$in$ amon$ others@ 1that their $randfather! 8antia$o de Aesus durin$ his lifetime owned the residential lot? that 8antia$o de Aesus died before the outbreak of Dorld Dar ##! leavin$ three (7) sons! namel)@ 4ariano! %9e(uiel! and Aose! all surnamed de Aesus? that 4ariano de Aesus died on 8eptember 7! 195; leavin$ ei$ht (8) survivin$ children! namel)@ %d$ardo! 'emedios! Auanita! Auliano! Aose! >lordeliza! 'e)naldo! and %rnesto! all surnamed de Aesus and all of them plaintiffs? that %9e(uiel de Aesus died on -pril 7! 1938! survived b) two (.) children M Priscilo and 0orazon! both surnamed de Aesus! also plaintiffs in this case? while Aose de Aesus died before the outbreak of Dorld Dar ## without an) issue&

*he ta9 receipts and declarations of ownership for ta9 purposes upon which private respondent basicall) anchors her claim! are not incontrovertible evidence of ownership? the) onl) become evidence of ownership ac(uired b) prescription when accompanied b) proof of actual possession of the propert)& Private respondent contends that $rantin$ that it was formerl) owned b) their late $randfather! the) (petitioners) have lost whatever ri$ht the) ma) have over the land b) e9tinctive prescription1 for the reason that she! private respondent has ac(uired the same b) ac(uisitive prescription& :ictoriano >elipe was residin$ in the house of 8antia$o de Aesus simpl) because he was married to Guillerma de la 0ruz! dau$hter of 4aria 'e)es b) a first marria$e! who! obviousl)! was livin$ with her mother who had taken 8antia$o de Aesus for her second husband& :ictoriano >elipe and his famil) were residin$ in the land b) mere tolerance& #n effect! their possession of the contested lot was neither e9clusive nor in the concept of owner& Possession! to constitute the foundation of a prescriptive ri$ht! must be possession under a claim of title or it must be adverse or in the concept of owner or concepto de dueo *he 1Basulatan$6Gilin$64abibilin$64uli1 was not even $iven to private respondent b) her parents? she admitted havin$ found it in the house althou$h the) mentioned its e9istence to her when the) were still alive& Fnder the circumstances! the prescriptive period cannot be considered to have accrued durin$ the lifetime of :ictoriano >elipe&

D" :"&,& + CA ()

2 P-"&,02'./n /) ;,&' '.'#" H".-& /) :,0"-/ Eeirs of Aumero! as the $randchildren and $reat $randchildren of + L.6$-"& Genedicto Aumero! demand the restitution of a piece of land which is! and has been for the past fort) )ears! in the possession of (1710) Aacinto "izares& #t is alle$ed in the complaint that this land belon$ed to Genedicto Aumero! and that he willed it of his four children! all now deceased as well as the said Aumero! named "uisa! >eli9! >lorentino! and Pedro! and that the plaintiffs! $randchildren and $reat $randchildren! descend from the three last mentioned& *he land passed into the possession of Aacinto "izares! for the sum of 52 pesos! about fort) )ears before& *he reason for his transfer was the fact that /icolas Aumero! a son of >eli9! was drafted for the arm)! and to secure his release from the militar) service! or to pa) the attorne) who was to ne$otiate the release! the 52 pesos were

*he possessor b) virtue or ownership has in his favor the le$al presumption that he holds possession b) reason of a sufficient title and he cannot be forced to show it& "izares has in his favor the le$al presumption that he possesses the land under sufficient title and he cannot be obli$ed to produce it& - purchase verball) made $ives a perfect title which! with the occupation or possession of the thin$! confers ownership upon the possessor! provided that he holds himself out as its owner! until it be proved that he is not& #t was incumbent upon the plaintiffs to prove a character distinct from that of owner! and onl) then could the) compel the defendant to prove title which actuall) confers upon him the status of owner& Gut the petitioners were unable to prove a character distinct from that of owner! b) due and sufficient proof of a title under mort$a$e! or that of antic&resis& -nd this the) were unable to do! for the reason that! as established at the trial! no instrument whatever was e9ecuted of the alle$ed mort$a$e of or of such an antic&resis? and! at

re(uired& *he plaintiffs claim that the land was delivered under mort$a$e in order that "izares mi$ht have the usufruct until it should be redeemed throu$h the pa)ment of the 52 pesos& *he defendants assert the land was sold outri$ht to "izares for the price of 52 pesos&

all times! at least since the promul$ation of the 0ivil 0ode! the mort$a$e and the antichresis! as restrictions of the ownership! must necessaril) be recorded in writin$! under the first para$raph of rule 3 of the transitor) provisions of the 0ivil 0ode! in connection with articles 1855! 1.59! and 1.82& *he land in (uestion has been covered b) a *orrens certificate of title (O0* /o& ;78; in the name of "aura! and its derivative certificates) before 0 0 became the re$istered owner b) purchase from 0hina Gank& #n all that time! neither the respondent nor his siblin$s opposed the transactions causin$ the various transfers& #n fact! the respondent admitted in his complaint that the re$istration of the land in the name of "aura alone had been with the knowled$e and upon the a$reement of the entire "ara6 4ateo famil)& W/-'!1 /) 0"n'./n .& '!$' C$nd.d/, :- , L"/n$-d/, $nd C"&$-G& d")"n&" .n '!" ";"*'0"n' *$&" 9-/,4!' 91 CDC $4$.n&' '!"0 %$& n/' 2-"d.*$'"d /n $ *#$.0 /) '!".- /%n"-&!.2 /) '!" 2-/2"-'1, 9,' /n '!".- 9".n4 $4-.*,#',-$# #"&&""& /'"n$n'& /) CDC Petitioners failed to ade(uatel) prove their $randfather=s ownership of the land& *he) merel) showed si9 ta9 declarations& #t has been held b) this 0ourt that! as a$ainst a transfer certificate of title! ta9 declarations or receipts are not ade(uate proofs of ownership& Grantin$ ar$uendo that the land was reall) owned b) the petitioners= $randfather! petitioners did not even attempt to show how the land went from the patrimon) of their $randfather to that of 0 0& *he 0-=s ascribin$ of bad faith to 0 0 based on its knowled$e of the adverse possession of the respondent=s siblin$s at the time it ac(uired the propert) from 0hina Gank was absolutel) unfounded and unwarranted& *hat possession did not translate to an adverse claim of ownership that should have put 0 0 on actual notice of a defect or flaw in the 0hina Gank=s title! for the respondent=s siblin$s themselves! far from assertin$ ownership in their own ri$ht! even characterized their possession onl) as that of mere a$ricultural tenants& Und"- n/ #$% %$& 2/&&"&&./n 4-/,nd"d /n '"n$n*1 $ &'$',& '!$' 0.4!' *-"$'" $ d")"*' /- .n)#.*' $ )#$% .n '!" '.'#" /) '!" /%n"- 0onse(uentl)! due to his own admission in his complaint that the respondent=s own possession was not an) different from that of his siblin$s! there was reall) nothin$ T factuall) or le$all) speakin$ T that ou$ht to have alerted 0 0 or! for that matter! 0hina Gank and its predecessors6in6interest! about an) defect or flaw in the title&

C$&.0.-/ + M$'"/ (2011)

*he sub<ect of this case is a re$istered parcel of land that was ori$inall) owned b) #saias "ara! the respondent=s maternal $randfather& Fpon the death of #saias "ara in 1972! the propert) passed on to his children! namel)@ 4i$uela! Perfecta and F"#.*.d$d! and a $randson! 'osauro& >elicidad "ara64ateo had five children! namel)@ "aura! respondent 'enato! 0esar! 0andido! Ar& and "eonardo& Dith the a$reement of the entire "ara64ateo famil)! a deed of sale coverin$ the propert) was e9ecuted in favor of "aura! who! in 19;5! applied for land re$istration& -fter the application was $ranted! Ori$inal 0ertificate of *itle (O0*) /o& ;78; was issued in "aura=s sole name& "aura sold land to Pe! who in turn constituted a mort$a$e on the propert) in favor of 0hina Gank as securit) for a loan& #n the end! 0hina Gank foreclosed the mort$a$e! and consolidated its ownership of the propert) in 1985 after Pe failed to redeem& *hus! *0* /o& (995.5) *6115396- was issued in the name of 0hina Gank& #n 1988! 0hina Gank e9ecuted a deed of conditional sale in favor of petitioner 0 0& On Aune ;! 1991! 0 0 brou$ht an action for unlawful detainer a$ainst the respondent=s siblin$s and the other occupants of the propert)& 'espondent! on the other hand! brou$ht an action for (uietin$ of title! reconve)ance of four6fifths of the land! and dama$es a$ainst 0 0 and "aura&

3 G//d F$.'! C$#$4$n + CFI 4an$ulon 0ala$an and his wife *akura were $ranted a homestead application over a parcel of land& (1780) *akura died and was survived b) her husband and their children& On -u$ust 8! 19;1! 0ala$an and his dau$hter! Paula sold a portion of 9!.72 s(uare meters of their homestead to private respondent! Petra 8andoval in consideration of the sum of P.!732&22& Petitioners= title to the land was borrowed b) private respondent 8andoval so that the latter could have the sale annotated thereon& 8andoval was $iven the title so that the sale could be annotated& *hereafter! 0ala$an offered to repurchase the land but 8andoval didnLt a$reed& 8he

Fnder -rticle 1;1;! the vendor a retro cannot avail himself of the ri$ht of repurchase without returnin$ to the vendee the price of the sale! the e9penses of the contract and other le$itimate pa)ments! and the necessar) and useful e9penses made on the thin$ sold& *here can be no (uestion but that the house which private respondent constructed is a useful e9pense! defined as that which increases the value or au$ments the income of the propert)! as contrasted to a necessar) e9pense which is incurred for the preservation of the thin$& Eowever! -rticle 1;1; should be read with -rticle 35; and 355& -ppl)in$ -rticle 535! the homesteader desirin$ to repurchase should be $iven the option to re(uire the vendee a retro to remove the useful improvements on the land sub<ect of the sale a retro! which option is not $ranted the vendor a retro under -rticle 1;1;& Fnder the latter -rticle! the vendor a retro must pa) for the useful improvements introduced b) the vendee a retro! otherwise! the latter ma) retain possession of the propert) until reimbursement is made& *o allow a vendee a retro of a homestead! however! the ri$ht of retention until pa)ment of useful e9penses is made b) the redemptioner would be to render

continuousl) refused and was onl) willin$ to compl) if 0ala$an would reimburse the value of the house constructed on the parcel of land& *his prompted petitioners to file an action for reconve)ance! on which the trial court ruled in their favor! $iven that the) pa) for the value of the house built on $ood faith b) 8andoval& 0># ordered the Eeirs of 0ala$an to pa) 8andoval the the value of the house constructed in +$ood faith,& *he heirs ar$ue that onl) necessar) e9penses are sub<ect to reimbursement& Eouse constructed on a coconut land is not necessar)& #t is onl) useful& Petitioners filed a complaint for the annulment of titles of various parcels of land re$istered in the names of 4elba "imbaco! "inda "o$arta! 'amon "o$arta! %u$enio -mores! /ew :entures 'ealt) 0orporation! Eenr) 8ee! >reddie Go! Genedict Uue! -DG evelopment 0orporation (-DG)! Petrosa evelopment 0orporation (Petrosa)! and Fniversit) of 0ebu Ganilad! #nc& (F0G)& *he complaint alle$ed that petitioner "olita 0abi$as and her late husband! /icolas 0abi$as! purchased two lots from 8alvador 0obarde on Aanuar) 15! 1982& 0obarde in turn had purchased these lots from #nes Ouano on >ebruar) 5! 1938& /otwithstandin$ the sale between Ouano and 0obarde! and because the two lots remained re$istered in her name! Ouano was able to sell these same lots to the /ational -irports 0orporation on /ovember .5! 195. for its airport e9pansion pro<ect& *he /ational -irports 0orporation promptl) had the titles of these properties re$istered in its name&

nu$ator) the ri$ht of repurchase $ranted b) law to a homesteader because all a vendee a retro can do to prevent repurchase is to build somethin$ on the homestead be)ond the capacit) to pa) of the homesteader who seeks to repurchase& 8uch a situation should not be allowed to pass& #t is obvious that the heirs of 0ala$an are not e9ercisin$ the option to refund the amount of the e9penses incurred b) private respondent for the house that the latter built as provided for in -rticle 53;& 8andoval! as the vendee a retro! ma) remove her house since this can be done without dama$e to the principal thin$ T land& 8ince the heirs didnLt e9ercise the option to refund the amount of the e9penses incurred b) 8andoval for the house he built! and not to pa) the increase in value ac(uired b) the land b) reason of such e9pense 8andoval ma) remove her house since this can be done without dama$e& *he heirs should not! as opined b) the trial 0ourt! be made to refund the value of that house to 8andoval& - purchaser in $ood faith is one who bu)s the propert) of another without notice that some other person has a ri$ht to or interest in such propert)! and pa)s a full and fair price for the same at the time of such purchase or before he has notice of the claim of another person& -AC purchased land in good faith Petitioners! in their submissions to the lower court! never imputed bad faith on the part of the /ational -irports 0orporation in re$isterin$ the lots in its name& 8ince the petitioners never alle$ed that the /ational -irports 0orporation acted with bad faith when it re$istered the lots in its name! the presumption of $ood faith prevails& 0onse(uentl)! the /ational -irports 0orporation! bein$ a re$istrant in $ood faith! is reco$nized as the ri$htful owner of the lots in (uestion! and the re$istration of the properties in its name cut off an) and all prior liens! interests and encumbrances! includin$ the alle$ed prior sale to 0obarde! that were not recorded on the titles& 0obarde! thus! had no le$al ri$hts over the propert) that he could have transferred to the 0abi$as spouses& Petitioners not in good faith De are dealin$ with re$istered land! a fact known to the 0abi$as spouses since the) received the duplicate owner=s certificate of title from 0obarde when the) purchased the land& A' '!" '.0" /) '!" &$#" '/ '!" C$9.4$& &2/,&"& ! however! '!" #$nd %$& -"4.&'"-"d n/' .n C/9$-d"G& n$0", 9,' .n O,$n/G& n$0"& G) itself! this fact should have put the 0abi$as spouses on $uard and prompted them to check with the 'e$istr) of eeds as to the most recent certificates of title to discover if there were an) liens! encumbrances! or other attachments coverin$ the lots in (uestion& #nstead! the 0abi$as spouses relied completel) on 0obarde=s representation that he owned the properties in (uestion! and did not even bother to perform the most perfunctor) of investi$ations b) checkin$ the properties= titles with the 'e$istr) of eeds& H$d '!" C$9.4$& &2/,&"& /n#1 d/n" &/, '!"1 %/,#d "$&.#1 !$+" #"$-n"d '!$' C/9$-d" !$d n/ #"4$# -.4!' '/ '!" 2-/2"-'."& '!"1 %"-" $*<,.-.n4 &.n*" '!" #/'& !$d $#-"$d1 9""n -"4.&'"-"d .n '!" n$0" /) '!" N$'./n$# A.-2/-'& C/-2/-$'./n .n 17D2& *heir failure to e9ercise the plain common sense e9pected of real estate bu)ers bound them to the conse(uences of their own inaction&

C$9.4$& + L.09$+/ (2011)

B 3$d )$.'! D A22#.*$9#" 2-"&,02'./n L,4$ + A-*.$4$ *he land in liti$ation used to form part of the O& >urukawa aliao Plantation which& #t turned over to the $overnment and was initiall) administered b) the /ational -baca and Other (2011) >ibers 0orporation (/->0O) and! later! b) the Goard of "i(uidators (GO")! pursuant to 'epublic -ct /o& 355! as amended& - former tenant of /->0O at the >urukawa Plantation! 0o&! #nc&! "oreto "u$a ("oreto) became a tenant of the GO" and! in said capacit)! occupied the sub<ect parcel since 1955! eventuall) buildin$ a house of li$ht of materials thereon& On .8 Aul) 19;2! however! an Occupant=s -ffidavit was e9ecuted b) one Eonorio 'omero (Eonorio)! a former emplo)ee of /->0O! over a .&5 hectare landholdin$ of which the land in

Petitioners ar$ue that the 0- erred in $ivin$ credit to the 8pouses -rcia$a=s ta9 receipts and ta9 declarations which! b) themselves! do not conclusivel) prove ownership of the land& #n civil cases! the rule is settled that the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to establish his case b) preponderance of evidence! rel)in$ on the stren$th of his own evidence and not the weakness of that of his opponent& -s prima facie proofs of ownership or possession of the propert) for which such ta9es have been paid! ta9 receipts

liti$ation formed part& On 7 ecember 1952! Eonorio e9ecuted a eed of *ransfer of 'i$ht over a ;22 s(uare meter portion of said landholdin$ in favor of 'o$elio -rcia$a& On .7 4arch 195.! the former further e9ecuted a similar deed sellin$ in favor of the latter his interest over an ad<acent 732 s(uare meter portion of the same landholdin$& %lena -rcia$a ('o$elios wife) then filed an application for patentRtitle over the sub<ect parcel& #n support of her application! %lena filed the re(uired Occupant=s -ffidavit of -pplication! supported b) a Aoint6-ffidavit e9ecuted b) her witnesses as well as a 0ertification issued b) Garan$a) 0hairman of *oril! attestin$ to her actual possession of the sub<ect parcel& On .9 /ovember 1988! *ransfer 0ertificate of *itle was issued in favor of respondent %lena who! forthwith! declared the land in her name for ta9ation purposes and started pa)in$ the real estate ta9es due thereon& '*0 rendered a decision! findin$ that the evidence adduced b) the parties preponderantl) established that "oreto is entitled to the land in liti$ation since his possession thereof preceded that asserted b) the 8pouses -rcia$a& #n upholdin$ the 8pousesL -rcia$aLs claim over that asserted b) "oreto! the 0- ruled that the evidence on record disclose that@ (a) the latter was merel) allowed to occup) the land in liti$ation b) the formerLs predecessor6in6interest! Eonorio? (b) "oretoLs testimon) revealed that he never possessed the parcel in the concept of an owner? (c) unlike the 8pouses -rcia$a! "oreto never declared the land for ta9ation purposes in his own name and onl) attempted to do so onl) in 1997? and! (d) since "oretoLs evidence does not constitute the 1well6ni$h incontrovertible1 evidence re(uired to ac(uire title to land throu$h possession and occupation! he is not entitled to the recove)ance ordered b) the '*0&

and ta9 declaration ma)! moreover! become a basis of a claim of ownership when coupled with proof of actual possession& 4ore than the Occupant=s -ffidavit of -pplication e9ecuted b) %lena! the <oint affidavit e9ecuted b) her witnesses and the certification issued b) the *oril Garan$a) 0hairman! the 8pouses -rcia$a=s actual possession of the lot was! additionall) proved b) the #nspection and #nvesti$ation 'eport filed under oath b) GO" #nspectorR#nvesti$ator /athaniel 'ios& #n the absence of proof adduced to rebut the presumption of re$ularit) in the performance of official dut)! the same report deserves credence over "oreto=s naked assertion of possession of the sub<ect parcel& -s the part) assertin$ a ri$ht superior to that claimed b) the 8pouses -rcia$a! "oreto failed to prove that he was a bona fide occupant of the land in liti$ation& espite his testimon) and that elicited from his witnesses to the effect that he occupied the sub<ect parcel in 1955! "oreto=s documentar) evidence consistin$ of receipts issued b) the /->0O and GO" simpl) showed that he was a tenant on the plantation from 1955 to 1955! remittin$ a portion of the produce harvested therefrom to said $overnment a$encies& Dhen cross6e9amined b) the 8pouses -rcia$a=s counsel! "oreto also admitted that he did not file an) application for the land andRor declare the same for ta9ation purposes because he knew that he was not the owner thereof&

= P/&&"&&./n .n '!" */n*"2' /) $ !/#d"Aose 0ruz delivered his car to Gelizo for the latter to sell the same& Gelizo for$ed the letter of 0ruzto the 4otor 8ection of the Gureau of Public Dorks and converted the same into a eed of 8ale& Fsin$ the for$ed deed! he had the car re$istered in his name& *hereafter! C-,6 + P$!$'. Gelizo sold the car to Gulahan! who in turn sold the same to Pahati& Eowever! the car was () impounded b) the police! and the sale to Pahati was cancelled& Gulahan now contends that between .innocent parties (Gulahan and 0ruz)! the person who made possible the in<ur) must bear the lossMin this case! supposedl) 0ruz& D.6/n + S,n'$1 "ourdes 8unta) is the owner of a 76carat diamond rin$ valued at P5!522& 8he and (17>2) 0larita 8ison entered into a transaction wherein the rin$ would be sold on commission& 0larita received the rin$ and issued a receipt& -fter some time! "ourdes made demands for the return of the rin$ but the latter refused to compl)& Dhen "ourdes insisted on the return! 0larita $ave her the pawnshop ticket which is the receipt of the pled$e and she found out

#t is true that both Gulahan and 0ruz acted in $ood faith& One who has lost a movable or had been deprived of the same ma) recover it from the possessor& *his rule applies s(uarel) to this case& *hus! since 0ruz was unlawfull) deprived b) Gelizo throu$h the latter=s artifice! he is entitled to recover the same even a$ainst a subse(uent purchaser in $ood faith& *he onl) e9ception to this rule is if the purchaser ac(uired the same from a public saleMin which case! reimbursement is in order& #t was! in fact! Gulahan who acted ne$li$entl) in failin$ to detect the for$ed eed of 8ale&

80 reiterated the rulin$ in de Garcia v& 0-! that the controllin$ provision is -rt& 559 of the 00 which states that the possession of movable ac(uired in $ood faith is e(uivalent to title& /evertheless! one who lost an) movable or has been unlawfull) deprived thereof ma) recover it from the person in possession of the same& #f the possessor of a movable lost of which the owner has been unlawfull) deprived! has ac(uired it in $ood faith at a public sale! the owner cannot obtain its return without reimbursin$ the price paid therefor& "ourdes! bein$ unlawfull) deprived of her rin$ has a ri$ht to recover it from the current possessor& izon is en$a$ed in a business where presumabl) ordinar) prudence would re(uire him to in(uire whether or not an individual who is offerin$ the <ewelr) b) pled$e is entitled to do so& *he principle of estoppels cannot help him at all& 8ince there was no precaution availed of! perhaps because of the difficult) of resistin$ opportunit)

that 7 da)s after the rin$ was received b) 0larita! it was pled$ed b) 4elia 8ison! the niece of 0larita=s husband in connivance with 0larita with the pawnshop of ominador izon for P.!;22& "ourdes then filed an estafa case& 8he then asked ominador izon for the return of the rin$ pled$ed but refused to return the rin$ thus the case filed b) "ourdes& *he 0># issued a writ of replevin so "ourdes was able to have possession of the rin$ durin$ the pendenc) of the case& *he 0># also ruled in her favor which was affirmed b) the 0- on appeal& PA:UNAR V CA (1989) #n 19;9! respondent %luna bartered his cow for a female caraboa (which bore the brand +-'*, in her front and hind le$s)& Ee was unable to re$ister the transfer in his name& #n 1982! petitioner filed a Petition for 'ecover) of Personal Propert) with Drit of 'eplevin! claimin$ to be the ori$inal owner of the carabao! which was lost in 1953&

for profit! he onl) has himself to blame and should be the last to complain if the ri$ht of the trueo wner of the <ewelr) should be reco$nized&

'espondents did not compl) with the re(uired re$istration under the -dministrative 0ode& *he) are not possessors in $ood faith! as a possessor in $ood faith is one not aware that there e9ists in his title or mode of ac(uisition an) flaw which invalidates it& >urthermore! failure of a part) to e9ercise precaution to ac(uaint himself with the defects in the title of his vendor precludes him from claimin$ possession in $ood faith& 'espondents failed to make a closer in(uir) into the certificate of re$istration of the carabao& #t is thus clear that possession in $ood faith for 3 )ears isn=t applicable! neither can possession in bad faith of 8 )ears benefit respondents! for when the owner of a movable has lost or has been ille$all) deprived of his propert) can he recover the same without need to reimburse the possessor! as provided in /00 559& /either can /00 51;; appl) for this article evidentl) refers to a possessor in $ood faith&

EDCA SANTOS (1992)

#n 1981! a person identif)in$ himself as Professor 0ruz placed an order b) telephone with the petitioner for 32; books! pa)able on deliver)& % 0- delivered the books as ordered! for which 0ruz issued a personal check& 0ruz thereafter sold 1.2 of the books to 8antos who! after verif)in$ the seller=s ownership from the invoice he showed her! paid him P1522&22& % 0- had 0ruz arrested when the) found out he wasn=t reall) the ean of "a 8alle and that he had no more account with the bank! a$ainst which he had drawn the pa)ment check! and the 1.2 books from 8antos seized without a warrant& 8antos sued for recover) of the books&

Petitioner=s contention that 8antos hasn=t established their ownership of the books because the) haven=t even produced a receipt to prove he has bou$ht the stock was found to be untenable& *he 0ourt held that /00 559 dispenses with further proof to ac(uire title& 8antos was held to have ac(uired the books in $ood faith& Ee ascertained the ownership of the books from the % 0- invoice showin$ that the) had been sold to 0ruz! who then said he was sellin$ them at a discount because he was in financial need& *he court held that the petitioner was not unlawfull) deprived of the books& #t held that actuall) deliver) of the books havin$ been made! 0ruz ac(uired ownership over the books which he could then validl) transfer to the respondent& *he fact that he hadn=t )et paid for them to % 0- was a matter between him and % 0and didn=t impair the title ac(uired b) the respondents to the books& 8urel)! the private respondent did not have to $o be)ond that invoice to satisf) herself that the books bein$ offered for sale b) 0ruz belon$ed to him? )et she did& -lthou$h the title of 0ruz was presumed under /00 559 b) his mere possession of the books! these bein$ movable propert)! "eonor 8antos nevertheless demanded more proof before decidin$ to bu) them& *he 0ourt held that the re(uisites for re$istration were not met& >irst! the status of the land applied for as alienable and disposable was not clearl) established&

ARANDA REPU3LIC
!

Petitioner filed an -pplication for 'e$istration of *itle! invokin$ the liberal provision of 0131! havin$ been in continuout possession of

$rt# ,1!# 0he owner of a swarm of bees shall have a right to p%rs%e them to another1s land" indemnifying the possessor of the latter for the damage# 2f the owner has not p%rs%ed the swarm" or ceases to do so within two consec%tive days" the possessor of the land may occ%py or retain the same# 0he owner of domesticated animals may also claim them within twenty days to be co%nted from their occ%pation by another person# 0his period having e3pired" they shall pertain to him who has ca%ght and (ept them#

(.211)

the sub<ect land in the concept of owner! publicl)! openl) and adversel) for more than 72 )ears prior to the filin$ of the application& Petitioner=s witnesses sou$ht to prove that the land was ac(uired b) petitioner=s father in 193; and was transferred to petitioner in 19;5 throu$h a donation from his father& *he) likewise testified that he had been tillin$ the land since then! plantin$ it with corn and rice&

#t also held that petitioner=s evidence failed to show that he possessed the propert) in the manner and for the duration re(uired b) law& #t found that contrar) to its claim! it had onl) started pa)in$ for ta9 be$innin$ 1993! or three )ears before filin$ the application& Dhile! as a rule! ta9 declarations or realt) ta9 pa)ments of propert) are not conclusive evidence of ownership! nevertheless the) are $ood indicia of possession in the concept of owner! for no one in his ri$ht mind would be pa)in$ ta9es for a propert) that is not in his actual or constructive possession T the) constitute at least proof that the holder has a claim of title over the propert)& Petitioner likewise failed to prove the alle$ed possession of his predecessors6in6interest& %ven assumin$ that "ucio actuall) planted rice and corn on the land! such statement is not sufficient to establish possession in the concept of owner as contemplated b) law& 4ere casual cultivation of the land does not amount to e9clusive and notorious possession that would $ive rise to ownership& 8pecific acts of dominion must be clearl) shown b) the applicant& De have held that a person who seeks the re$istration of title to a piece of land on the basis of possession b) himself and his predecessors6in6interest must prove his claim b) clear and convincin$ evidence! i&e&! he must prove his title and should not rel) on the absence or weakness of the evidence of the oppositors&

> A*<,.&.'./n $nd #/&& /) 2/&&"&&./n CATHOLIC Petitioner filed an application for re$istration VICAR of title over 3 lots in Gen$uet& *he heirs of APOSTOLIC V Auan :aldez! and heirs of %$mildo CA Octaviano filed their -nswersROpposition on "ots /o& . and 7! assertin$ ownership and (1988) title thereto&

*he 0ourt held that petitioner didn=t meet the re(uirement of 72 )ears possession for ac(uisitive prescription over "ots . and 7& /either did it satisf) the re(uirement of 12 )ears possession for ordinar) ac(uisitive prescription because of the absence of <ust title& G) the ver) admission of petitioner! "ots . and 7 were owned b) :aldez and Octaviano& Goth :aldez and Octaviano had >ree Patent -pplication for those lots since 192;& *he predecessors of private respondents! not petitioner! were in possession of the (uestioned lots since 192; & Private respondents were able to prove that their predecessorsL house was borrowed b) petitioner after the church and the convent were destro)ed& *he) never asked for the return of the house! but when the) allowed its free use! the) became bailors in commodatum and the petitioner the bailee& *he baileesL failure to return the sub<ect matter of commodatum to the bailor did not mean adverse possession on the part of the borrower& *he bailee held in trust the propert) sub<ect matter of commodatum& *he adverse claim of petitioner came onl) in 1951 when it declared the lots for ta9ation purposes& *he action of petitioner b) such adverse claim could not ripen into title b) wa) of ordinar) ac(uisitive prescription because of the absence of <ust title& *he predecessors6in6interest and private respondents were possessors under claim of ownership in $ood faith from 192;? that petitioner was onl) a bailee in commodatum? and that the adverse claim and repudiation of trust came onl) in 1951&

E U&,)-,*' 1 I02"-)"*' 2 D.&'.n4,.&!"d )-/0 #"$&" 3 5.nd& B R.4!'& /) ,&,)-,*',$-1 FA3IE V DAVID >abie is the usufructuar) of the income of certain houses in 8anto 0risto! Ginondo and On$pin! (1935) under the will of deceased 'osario >abie& - <ud$ment throu$h written stipulation was rendered in a case between >abie and Auan Gre)!

>abie has the ri$ht to administer the propert) in (uestion& -ll the acts of administration T to collect the rents! conserve the propert)! etc& T were b) said <ud$ment vested in the usufructuar)& *he pretension of Auan Gre) that he is the is the administrator of the propert) with the ri$ht to choose the tenants and to dictate the conditions of the lease is contrar) to both the letter and the spirit of the said clause of the will! the stipulation of the parties! and the <ud$ment of the court& Ee cannot mana$e or administer the propert) after all the acts of mana$ement and administration have been vested b) the court! with his

owner of the 8anto 0risto propert)! whereb) it was a$reed that >abie will collect the rents of the 8to& 0risto and On$pin properties! pa) all the real estate ta9es! special assessments! insurance premiums! make necessar) repairs& #n case of default on the part of the usufructuar)! the respective owners shall have the ri$ht to make necessar) pa)ment and repairs! and in that even the owner(s) shall be entitled to collect all subse(uent rents of the propert) concerned until the amount paid b) him or them and the e9penses of collection are full) covered thereb)! afterwhich the usufructuar) shall a$ain collect the rents& #n 1935! >abie commenced an action of unlawful detainer a$ainst /$o Goo 8oo! alle$in$ that the latter had subleased the propert) to another 0hinese without consent and contrar) to a$reement& *he defendant answered! in part! that >abie was a mere usufructuar) and has no authorit) to e<ect tenants& Auan Gre) intervened and sided with defendant& 8ps& Paraiso were the owners of a residential lot& On >eb& .! 19;3! the) e9ecuted an a$reement entitled +Garter, whereb) the) ar$reed to barter and e9chan$e with 8ps& Galuran their residential lot with the latter=s unirri$ated riceland! under the followin$ conditions@ 1& *hat both parties shall en<o) the material possession of their respective properties& 8ps& Paraiso shall reap the fruits of the unirri$ated 'iceland and 8ps& Galuran shall have a ri$ht to build his own house in the residential lot& .& #n the event an) of the children of /atividad Obendencio! dau$hter of 8ps& Paraiso! shall choose to reside in this municipalit) and build his own house in the residential lot! 8ps& Galuran shall be obli$ed to return the lot with dama$es& 7& /either of the parties shall encumber! alienate! or dispose of the properties without the consent of the other& #n 1955! -ntonio Obendencio filed a complaint for recover)! claimin$ that he is the ri$htful owner of eh residential lot! havin$ ac(uired it from his mother /atividad Obendencio! and that he needed the propert) for the purpose of constructin$ his house thereon& D O9#.4$'./n& /) ,&,)-,*',$-1

consent! in the usufructuar)& Ee admitted that before said <ud$ment he had been collectin$ the rents as a"ent of the usufructuar) under an a$reement with the latter& -s lon$ as the propert) is properl) conserved and insured he can have no cause for complaint! and his ri$ht in that re$ard is full) protected b) the terms of the stipulation and the <ud$ment of the court above mentioned& *o permit him to arro$ate to himself the privile$e to choose the tenant! to dictate the conditions of the lease! and to sue when the lessee fails to compl) therewith! would be to place the usufructuar) entirel) at his merc)& #t would place her in the absurd situation of havin$ a certain indisputable ri$ht without the power to protect! enforce! and full) en<o) it&

3ALURAN NAVARRO (1955)

-ntonio Obedencio is entitled to recover the possession of the residential lot& Dith the material ion bein$ the onl) one transferred! all that the parties ac(uired was the ri$ht of usufruct which in essence is the ri$ht to en<o) the propert) of another& Fnder the document in (uestion! 8ps& Paraiso would harvest the crop of the unirri$ated riceland while the other part) could build a house on the residential lot! sub<ect! however! to the condition! that when an) of the children of /atividad Paraiso Obedencio! dau$hter of spouses Paraiso! shall choose to reside in the municipalit) and build his house on the residential lot! -velino Galuran shall be obli$ed to return the lot to said children 1Dith dama$es to be incurred&1 *hus! the mutual a$reement M each part) en<o)in$ 1material possession1 of the otherLs propert) M was sub<ect to a resolutor) condition the happenin$ of which would terminate the ri$ht of possession and use& Fsufruct ma) be constituted b) the parties for an) period of time and under such conditions as the) ma) deem convenient and beneficial sub<ect to the provisions of the 0ivil 0ode on Usufruct. *he manner of terminatin$ or e9tin$uishin$ the ri$ht of usufruct is primaril) determined b) the stipulations of the parties which in this case now before Fs is the happenin$ of the event a$reed upon& /ecessaril)! the plaintiff or respondent Obedencio could not demand for the recover) of possession of the residential lot in (uestion! not until he ac(uired that ri$ht from his mother! /atividad Obedencio! and which he did ac(uire when his mother donated to him the residential lot on October 3! 1953& Dith the happenin$ of the resolutor) condition provided for in the a$reement! the ri$ht of usufruct of the parties is e9tin$uished and each is entitled to a return of his propert)& it is true that /atividad Obedencio who is now in possession of the propert) and who has been made a part) to this case cannot be ordered in this proceedin$ to surrender the riceland& Gut inasmuch as reciprocal ri$hts and obli$ations have arisen between the parties to the so6called 1barter a$reement1! De hold that the parties and for their successors6in6interest are dut) bound to effect a simultaneous transfer of the respective properties if substance at <ustice is to be effected&

GA3OYA V CUI (1951)

on 4ariano 0ui sold 7 of his lots to his children ('osario! 4ercedes and -ntonio) pro indiviso& Gecause 'osario was unable to pa) for her correspondin$ share! the sale to her was cancelled and her 1R7 share was returned to the vendor& #n said deed of sale! on 4ariano retained for himself the usufruct of the propert)& 'osario and -ntonio applied for a loan to build a 1.6door commercial buildin$ on the propert)& on 4ariano e9ecuted an authorit) to mort$a$e! with the condition that the rents of said land shall alwa)s be received b) him& *he commercial buildin$ was built and 'osario and -ntonio received rents! from which the) paid the loan with& :ictoriano 'e)nes was appointed $uardian of on 4ariano=s properties& 'e)nes filed a motion in the $uardianship proceedin$s seekin$ authorit) to collect rentals from the lots in (uestion! which was denied&

*he court held that the reserved usufruct was limited to the rentals of the land alone& Ead it been desi$ned to include also the rents of the buildin$s intended to be raised on the land! an e9press provision would have been included to that effect! since in both the deeds of sale and authorit) to mort$a$e! the possibilit) of such construction was clearl) envisa$ed and mentioned& *he ar$ument that the terms of the deed constitutin$ the usufruct aren=t determinative of the e9tent of the ri$ht conferred and that b) law! the en<o)ment of rents of the buildin$ subse(uentl) passed to the usufructuar)! b) virtue of /00 551 was not accepted b) the 0ourt& #t held that under the /00 articles on industrial accession b) modification on the principal land! such accession is limited either to buildin$s erected on the land of another! or buildin$s constructed b) the owner of the land with materials owned b) someone else& /owhere in these articles on industrial accession is there an) mention of the case of landowner buildin$ on his own land with materials owned b) himself& *he limitations set b) /00 595 to the construction ri$hts of the naked owner of the land are evidentl) premised upon the fact that such constructions would necessaril) reduce the area of the land under usufruct! for which the latter should be indemnified& *his is precisel) what the court a #uo has done in sentencin$ the appellee owners of the buildin$ to pa) to the usufructuar) a monthl) rent of P1!558&22 for the area occupied b) their buildin$! after mature consideration of the rental values of lands in the nei$hborhood&

= EE'.n4,.&!0"n' /) '!" ,&,)-,*' FA:ARDO V 'espondent! an owner6developer and FREEDOM TO seller of low6cost housin$! sold to 3UILD> petitioner6spouses! a house and lot in 4arikina& *he 0ontract to 8ell contained (.211) a 'estrictive 0ovenant providin$ certain prohibitions@ 1& %asements T two meters in front& .& Fpward e9pansion T .nd store) is not prohibited but it must be placed above the back portion of the house and shouldn=t e9tend forward be)ond the ape9 of the ori$inal buildin$ 7& >ront e9pansion T no unit ma) be e9tended in the front be)ond the line as desi$ned and implemented b) the developer& Petitioner! despite repeated warnin$s! e9tended the roof of their house to the propert) line and e9panded the .nd floor to a point directl) above the ori$inal front wall& 'espondent filed an action to demolish the unauthorized structures! which was decided in their favor&
,

'estrictive covenants are not! strictl) speakin$! s)non)mous with easements& Dhile it ma) be correct to state that restrictive covenants on the use of land or the location or character of buildin$s or other structures thereon ma) broadl) be said to create easements or ri$hts! it can also be contended that such covenants! bein$ limitations on the manner in which one ma) use his own propert)! do not result in true easements! but a case of servitudes (burden)! sometimes characterized to be ne$ative easements or reciprocal ne$ative easements& /e$ative easement is the most common easement created b) covenant or a$reement whose effect is to preclude the owner of the land from doin$ an act! which! if no easement e9isted! he would be entitled to do& 0ourts which $enerall) view restrictive covenants with disfavor for bein$ a restriction on the use of oneLs propert)! have! nevertheless! sustained them where the covenants are reasonable! not contrar) to public polic)! or to law! and not in restraint of trade& 8ub<ect to these limitations! courts enforce restrictions to the same e9tent that will lend <udicial sanction to an) other valid contractual relationship& #n $eneral! frontline restrictions on constructions have been held to be valid stipulations& *here appears to be no co$ent reasons for not upholdin$ restrictive covenants aimed to promote aesthetics! health! and privac) or to prevent overcrowdin$& Groadl) speakin$! a suit for e(uitable enforcement of a restrictive covenant can onl) be made b) one for whose benefit it is intended& #t is not thus normall) enforceable b) one who has no ri$ht nor interest in the land for the benefit of which the restriction has been imposed& *hus! a developer of a subdivision can enforce restrictions! even as a$ainst remote $rantees of lots! onl) if he retains part of the land& *here would have been merit in the ar$ument of petitioners 6 that respondent! havin$ relin(uished ownership of the subdivision to the homeowners! is precluded from claimin$ an) ri$ht or interest on the same propert) 6 had not the homeownersL association! confirmed b) its board of directors! allowed respondent to enforce the provisions of the restrictive covenant&

Nothing abo%t %s%fr%ct%ary here# 4%st be %nder easements#

AL3AR V CARANDANG (19;.)

eceased ona 'osario >abie be(ueathed the naked ownership of land in On$pin and of the buildin$ and improvements thereon to petitioners! and the usufruct thereof to respondent& Gecause the improvements were destro)ed durin$ the battle for the liberation of the 0it) of 4anila! the Philippine Dar ama$e 0ommission paid petitioners a certain sum of mone) war dama$e& #t was respondent! however! who paid the real estate ta9es due on the land for the )ears 1935 to 1953& Petitioners filed an action to limit respondent=s usufruct to the le$al interest on the value of the land&

- life usufruct constituted on the rentals of the buildin$ located on a certain place includes the rentals on both the buildin$ and on the land on which it is erected! because the buildin$ cannot e9ist without the land& Eence! the usufruct isn=t e9tin$uished b) the destruction of the buildin$! for under the law! usufruct is e9tin$uished onl) b) the total loss of the thin$ sub<ect of the encumbrance&

F E$&"0"n'& 1 C!$-$*'"-.&'.*& PRIVITI@ATION 'espondent filed a case for eclaration of the V LEGASPI e9istence of an easement! alle$in$ that the act TOWERS of 0aruff (ori$inal owner and condo developer) of constructin$ the powerhouse and sump pumps on its propert) constituted a voluntar) easement in favor of respondent&

-n easement or servitude is a +real ri$ht constituted on another=s propert)! corporeal and immovable! b) virtue of which the owner of the same has to abstain from doin$ or to allow somebod) else to do somethin$ in his propert) for the benefit of another thin$ of person&, *he statutor) basis of this ri$ht is /00 ;17& *here are two sources of easements 6 b) law of b) the will of the owners& (/00 ;19) #n this case! neither t)pe of easement was constituted over the sub<ect propert)& it should be noted that when the appurtenances were constructed on the sub<ect propert)! the lands where the condominium was bein$ erected and the sub<ect propert) where the $eneratin$ set and sump pumps were constructed belon$ed to 0aruff& *herefore! /00 ;17 does not appl)! since no true easement was constituted or e9isted! because both properties were owned b) 0aruff& Dhen the owner of two properties alienates one of them and an apparent si$n of easement e9ists between the two estates! entitlement to it continues! unless there is a contrar) a$reement! or the indication that the easement e9ists is removed before the e9ecution of the deed&

V"#$&*/ + C,. V$#.&n/ + Ad-.$n/ (1788) Plaintiff is the absolute owner and actual possessor of a 555!9396s(uare6meter parcel of land& *he plaintiff6appellant :alisno bou$ht the land from the defendant6appellees sister! Eonorata -driano >rancisco& *he land which is planted with watermelon! peanuts! corn! tobacco! and other ve$etables ad<oins that of the appellee >elipe -driano on the bank of the Pampan$a 'iver& Goth parcels of land had been inherited b) Eonorata -driano >rancisco and her brother! >elipe -driano! from their father! %ladio -driano& -t the time of the sale of the land to :alisno! the land was irri$ated b) water from the Pampan$a 'iver throu$h a *he e9istence of the irri$ation canal on defendantLs land for the passa$e of water from the Pampan$a 'iver to EonorataLs land prior to and at the time of the sale of EonorataLs land to the plaintiff was e(uivalent to a title for the vendee of the land to continue usin$ it as provided in -rticle ;.3 of the 0ivil 0ode& /o enli$htened concept of ownership can shut out the #dea of restrictions thereon! such as easements& -bsolute and unlimited dominion is unthinkable! inasmuch as the proper en<o)ment of propert) re(uires mutual service and forbearance amon$ ad<oinin$ estates (-mor vs& >lorentino! 53 Phil& 327)& *he deed of sale in favor of :alisno included the 1conve)ance and transfer of the water ri$hts and improvements1 appurtenant to Eonorata -drianoLs propert)& G) the terms of the eed of -bsolute 8ale! the vendor Eonorata -driano >rancisco sold! ceded! conve)ed and transferred to r& /icolas :alisno all 1ri$hts! title! interest and participations over the parcel of land above6 described! to$ether with one Gerkel) 4odel ; O'> 0entrifu$al Pump G1 suction! ;1 dischar$e 52261522 GP4! with 8erial /o& 531581. and one (1) set of suction pipe and dischar$e of pipe with elbow! nipples! flan$es and footvalves!1 and the water

canal about sevent) (52) meters lon$! traversin$ the appelleeLs land& On ecember 1;! 1959! the appellee levelled a portion of the irri$ation canal so that the appellant was deprived of the irri$ation water and prevented from cultivatin$ his 556hectare land&

ri$hts and such other improvements appertainin$ to the propert) sub<ect of this sale& -ccordin$ to the appellant! the water ri$ht was the primar) consideration for his purchase of EonorataLs propert)! for without it the propert) would be unproductive& Dater ri$hts! such as the ri$ht to use a draina$e ditch for irri$ation purposes! which are appurtenant to a parcel of land! pass with the conve)ance of the land! althou$h not specificall) mentioned in the conve)ance& *he purchaserLs easement of necessit) in a water ditch runnin$ across the $rantorLs land cannot be defeated even if the water is supplied b) a third person (Datson vs& >rench! 11. 4e 751 19 0&A& 8;86895)& *he fact that an easement b) $rant ma) also have (ualified as an easement of necessit) does detract from its permanenc) as propert) ri$ht! which survives the determination of the necessit) (Genedicto vs& 0-! .5 80'- 135)& -s an easement of waters in favor of the appellant has been established! he is entitled to en<o) it free from obstruction! disturbance or wron$ful interference (19 0A 983)! such as the appelleeLs act of levellin$ the irri$ation canal to deprive him of the use of water from the Pampan$a 'iver&

2 5.nd& /) "$&"0"n'& 3 M$nn"- /) "E"-*.&" B Ind.*$'./n /) "E.&'"n*" D N$',-" /) '!" #.0.'$'./n& = S/,-*" N/-'! N"4-/& Plaintiff is the owner of a site in S,4$- C/ + which is located its su$ar central! H.d$#4/ with its factor) buildin$ and residence for its emplo)ees and (173=) laborers! known as the 1mill site&1 #t also owns the ad<oinin$ su$ar plantation known as Eacienda 1Ge$oSa&1 -cross its properties the plaintiff constructed a road connectin$ the 1mill site1 with the provincial hi$hwa)& *hrou$h this road plaintiff allowed and still allows vehicles to pass upon pa)ment of a toll char$e of P2&15 for each truck or automobile& Pedestrians are allowed free passa$e throu$h it& #mmediatel) ad<oinin$ the above6 mentioned 1mill site1 of the plaintiff is the hacienda of "uciano -$uirre! known as Eacienda 18aS$a)!1 where the defendant has a billiard hall and a tuba saloon& "ike other people in and about the place! defendant used to pass throu$h the said road of the plaintiff! because it was his onl) means of access to the Eacienda 18aS$a)1 where he runs his billiard hall and tuba saloon& "ater on! b) order of the plaintiff! ever) time that the defendant passed drivin$ his automobile with a car$o of tuba plaintiff $atekeeper

Eavin$ been devoted b) the plaintiff to the use of the public in $eneral! upon pa)in$ the passa$e fees re(uired in the case of motor vehicles! the road in (uestion is char$ed with a public interest! and while so devoted! the plaintiff ma) not establish discriminator) e9ceptions a$ainst an) private person& *he circumstance that the plaintiff is not the holder of a franchise or certificate of public convenience! or that it is a compan) devoted principall) to the manufacturer of su$ar and not to the business of public service or that the state has not as )et assumed control or <urisdiction over the operation of the road in (uestion b) the plaintiff! does not preclude the idea that the said road is a public utilit)& Dhen private propert) is devoted to public use in the business of a public utilit)! certain reciprocal ri$hts and duties are raised b) implication of law between the utilit) and the public it undertakes to serve! and no contract between them is necessar) to $ive rise thereto& & & & (51 0& A&! sec& 1. p& ;&) 0ustice Laurel8 Concurrin"8dissentin"6 /o le$al servitude of wa) e9ists in the present case& *he defendant has not shown that his ri$ht of passa$e across the tenement of the plaintiff e9ists b) reason of necessit) $rowin$ out of the peculiar location of his propert)& Ee does not even own the tenement where he conducts his business& 8aid tenement belon$s to "uciano -$uirre who! as the owner thereof! would be the one entitled to claim the forced servitude of wa)! on the h)pothesis that it is demanded b) the peculiar location of the tenement& - mere lessee can not demand the le$al servitude of wa) (see 4anresa! 0ivil 0ode! vol& 3! .d ed&! p& 525)& 4oreover! it does not appear that "uciano -$uirre or the defendant has otherwise fulfilled the re(uirements of the law& (-rt& 5;3! 0ivil 0ode? 0ua)con$ vs& Genedicto! 75 Phil&! 581! 595&) /or can it be said that a voluntar) servitude of wa) e9ists& #t should be observed that a ri$ht of wa) is discontinuous or intermittent as its use depends upon acts of ma (art& 57.! 0ivil 0ode? 3 4anresa! 0ivil 0ode! .d&! p& 5;9? 0ua)con$ vs& Genedicto! supra)& "ackin$ the element of continuit) in its use! a ri$ht of wa) ma) not be ac(uired b) prescription but solel) b) title (art& 579! 0ivil 0ode)& Onl) continuous and apparent servitudes! like the servitude of li$ht and view! ma) be ac(uired b) prescription (art& 575! 0ivil 0ode)& %ven assumin$! however! that a servitude of wa) ma) be ac(uired b) prescription in view of the provisions of the present 0ode of 0ivil Procedure! nevertheless! it can not be held that prescription e9ists in the present case& *he free passa$e over the private wa) rests on mere tolerance on the part of the plaintiff! is a settled principle of law in this <urisdiction that acts merel) tolerated can not $ive rise to prescription& *he plaintiff did not encumber his tenement with a servitude of wa)& Propert) is alwa)s presumed free from an) and all encumbrances& *he act of the plaintiff! performed wholl) upon its own e9clusive propert)! should not be construed

L$ V.&'$ A&&/*.$'./n, In* + CA (177>)

would stop him and prevent him from passin$ throu$h said road& efendant in such cases merel) deviated from said road and continued on his wa) to Eacienda 18aS$a)1 across the fields of Eacienda 1Ge$oSa!1 likewise belon$in$ to the plaintiff& 4an$)an 'oad serves as the boundar) between "- :#8*- on one side and -*%/%O and 4iriam on the other& *he) have a mutual ri$ht of wa) over the said road! half of the road belon$s to "a :ista! the other half belon$s to -teneo and 4iriam& -teneo sold some 1; hectares of its propert) alon$ 4an$)an 'oad to 8olid Eomes #nc& 8olid Eomes! #nc&! developed a subdivision now known as "o)ola Grand :illas and to$ether the) now claim to have an easement of ri$ht6of6wa) alon$ 4an$)an 'oad throu$h which the) could have access to Batipunan -venue&

to constitute the creation of a servitude& 8ervitus in faciendo consistere ne(uit& 1>or a man should not use that which belon$s to him as if it were a service onl)! but as his own propert)1 ("aw 17! title 71! third partida! (uoted with approval in 0ortes vs& Ou6*ibo! . Phil&! .3! .5)&

- le$al or compulsor) easement is that which is constituted b) law for public use or for private interest& G) e9press provisions of -rts& ;39 and ;52 of the /ew 0ivil 0ode! the owner of an estate ma) claim a le$al or compulsor) ri$ht6 of6wa) onl) after he has established the e9istence of four (3) re(uisites! namel)! (a) the estate is surrounded b) other immovables and is without ade(uate outlet to a public hi$hwa)? (b) after pa)ment of the proper indemnit)? (c) the isolation was not due to the proprietorLs own acts? and! (d) the ri$ht6of6wa) claimed is at a point least pre<udicial to the servient estate! and insofar as consistent with this rule! where the distance from the dominant estate to a public hi$hwa) ma) be the shortest& - voluntar) easement on the other hand is constituted simpl) b) will or a$reement of the parties& *hat there is no contract between "- :#8*- and 8olid Eomes! #nc&! and thus the court could not have declared the e9istence of an easement created b) the manifest will of the parties! is devoid of merit& *he predecessors6in6interest of both "- :#8*- and 8olid Eomes! #nc&! i&e&! the *uasons and the Philippine Guildin$ 0orporation! respectivel)! clearl) established a contractual easement of ri$ht6of6wa) over 4an$)an 'oad& Dhen the Philippine Guildin$ 0orporation transferred its ri$hts and obli$ations to -*%/%O the *uasons e9pressl) consented and a$reed thereto& 4eanwhile! the *uasons themselves developed their propert) into what is now known as "- :#8*-& On the other hand! -*%/%O sold the hillside portions of its propert) to 8olid Eomes! #nc&! includin$ the ri$ht over the easement of ri$ht6of6wa)& #n sum! when the easement in this case was established b) contract! the parties une(uivocall) made provisions for its observance b) all who in the future mi$ht succeed them in dominion& *his is a case of an easement for the benefit of a corporation! voluntaril) created b) the plaintiffs upon their respective estates for the construction of a railroad connectin$ said estates with the central of the defendant& Once the road is constructed! the easement is apparent because it is continuousl) e9posed to view b) the rails which reveal the use and en<o)ment of said easement& #t is evident! as above stated! that the cane of the plaintiffs if to be transported to the central b) means of wa$ons passin$ upon the railroad? but as the easement was created for the benefit of the corporation! owner of the central! it ma) cause its wa$ons to pass upon the road as man) times as it ma) deem fit! accordin$ to the needs of the central& #f the plaintiffs do not produce sufficient cane to cover the capacit) of the central! it would be un<ust to impose upon the defendant corporation the burden of maintainin$ a central! prohibitin$ it to obtain from another source sufficient cane with which to maintain its business? this is speciall) true here! because in the millin$ contract with the plaintiffs! there is nothin$ to prohibit the defendant from makin$ millin$ contracts with other planters! and obtain in that wa) all cane necessar) to cover the capacit) of the central& >urthermore! the record shows a circumstance indicatin$ that at the time of the e9ecution of the millin$ contracts above referred to! there was no intention of the part of the contractin$ parties to limit the use of the railroad to the transportation of cane $rown b) the plaintiffs in their respective haciendas! and that is because! while the duration of the millin$ contracts is fi9ed at thirt) )ears! that of the easement is at fift)& 8o that if at the end of thirt) )ears the plaintiffs or their successors should no lon$er desire to furnish canes for millin$ in the central of the defendant! the latter shall still have the ri$ht to the easement

> M/d"& /) $*<,.-.n4 "$&"0"n' V$#d"--$0$ + *here was a millin$ contract where haciendaowners! who bound T!" N/-'! themselves to furnish the central with all the cane the) mi$ht N"4-/& S,4$produce in their estates& #ncluded in the terms of the contract C/ , In* was an easement of wa)& (172D) 8ince the hacienda owners could not furnish sufficient cane for millin$! as re(uired b) the capacit) of said central! the defendant made other millin$ contracts with various hacienda owners of 0adiz! Occidental /e$ros! in order to obtain sufficient cane to sustain the central& *he hacienda owners complained that the easement of wa) is onl) for the purpose of transportin$ cane produced in their hacienda and not from 0adiz! Occidental /e$ros&

R/n<,.##/ + R/*/ (17D8)

A0/- + F#/-"n'.n/ (17B3)

Plaintiffs have been in the continuous and uninterrupted use of a road or passa$e wa) which traversed the land of the defendants and their predecessors in interest! in $oin$ to #$ualdad 8treet and the market place of /a$a 0it)! from their residential land and back! for more than .2 )ears? that the defendants and the tenants of :icente 'oco! the predecessors in interest of the said defendants have lon$ reco$nized and respected the private le$al easement of road ri$ht of wa) of said plaintiffs? that on 4a) 1.! 1957! the defendants Aose 'oco thru his co6defendants! 'a)mundo 4artinez and their men with malice aforethou$ht and with a view to obstructin$ the plaintiffsL private le$al easement over the propert) of the late :icente 'oco! started constructin$ a chapel in the middle of the said ri$ht of wa) construction actuall) impeded! obstructed and disturbed the continuous e9ercise of the ri$hts of the plaintiffs over said ri$ht of wa)? that on Aul) 12! 1953 the new defendants /atividad 'oco and Gre$orio 4iras! Ar& with the approval of the defendant! Aose 'oco and with the help of their men and laborers! b) means of force! intimidation! and threats! ille$all) and violentl) planted wooden posts! fenced with barbed wire and closed hermiticall) the road passa$e wa) and their ri$ht of wa) in (uestion a$ainst their protests and opposition! thereb) preventin$ them from $oin$ to or comin$ from their homes to #$ualdad 8treet and the public market of the 0it) of /a$a& #t appears that over 52 )ears a$o! 4aria >lorentino owned a house and a camarin or warehouse in :i$an! #locos 8ur& *he house had and still has! on the north side! three windows on the upper stor)! and a fourth one on the $round floor& *hrou$h these windows the house receives li$ht and air from the lot where the camarin stands& On 8eptember ;! 1885! 4aria >lorentino made a will! devisin$ the house and the land on which it is situated to Gabriel >lorentino! one of the respondents herein! and to Aose >lorentino! father of the other respondents& #n said will! the testatri9 also devised the warehouse and the lot where it is situated to 4aria %ncarnancion >lorentino& Fpon the death of the testatri9 in 188.! nothin$ was said or done b) the devisees in re$ard to the windows in (uestion& On Aul) 13! 1911! 4aria %ncarnacion >lorentino sold her lot and the warehouse thereon to the petitioner! 8evero -mor! the deed of sale statin$ that the vendor had inherited the propert) from her aunt! 4aria >lorentino& #n Aanuar)! 1978! petitioner destro)ed the old warehouse and started to build instead a two6stor) house& On 4arch 1st of that )ear! respondents filed an action to prohibit petitioner herein from buildin$ hi$her than the ori$inal structure and from e9ecutin$ an) work which would shut off the li$ht and air that had for man) )ears been received throu$h the four windows referred to& *he 0ourt of >irst #nstance found on the 15th of the same month that the construction of the new house

for the remainin$ period! but without transportin$ on the railroad an) cane for the central& -n interpretation of the clause in (uestion leadin$ to such a result is untenable& %asement of ri$ht of wa) ma) not be ac(uired throu$h prescription& Fnder the provisions of the 0ivil 0ode! old and new! particularl) the articles thereof aforecited! it would therefore appear that the easement of ri$ht of wa) ma) not be ac(uired throu$h prescription& %ven -rticle 1959 of the Old 0ivil 0ode providin$ for prescription of ownership and other real ri$hts in real propert)! e9cludes therefrom the e9ception established b) -rticle 579! referrin$ to discontinuous easements! such as! easement of ri$ht of wa)& (Gar$a)o vs&0amumot! 32 Phil&! 855! 8;5)&

*he easement of li$ht and view has been established in favor of the propert) of respondents! for these reasons@ 1& 4aria >lorentino havin$ died in 189.! accordin$ to a findin$ of fact of the 0ourt of -ppeals! which we cannot review! -rticle 531 of the 0ivil 0ode is applicable to this case& .& Grantin$! ar$uendo! that 4aria >lorentino died in 1885! nevertheless that same principle embodied in article 531 of the 0ivil 0ode was alread) an inte$ral part of the 8panish law before the promul$ation of the 0ivil 0ode in 1889! and therefore! even if the instant case should be $overned b) the 8panish law prior to the 0ivil 0ode! the easement in (uestion would also have to be upheld& 7& *he easement under review has been ac(uired b) respondents throu$h prescription& 3& *he petitioner was not an innocent purchaser! as he was in dut) bound to in(uire into the si$nificance of the windows& 5& Austice and public polic) are on the side of the respondents& +>irst! as to the modes of establishin$ and ac(uirin$ easements& -ccordin$ to -rticle 57;! easements are established b) law or b) will of the owners& -c(uisition of easements is first b) title or its e(uivalent and seconl) b) prescription& Dhat acts take the place of titleC *he) are mentioned in -rticles 532 and 531! namel)! (1) a deed of reco$nition b) the owner of the servient estate? (.) a final <ud$ment? and (7) an apparent si$n between two estates! established b) the owner of both! which is the case of article 531& 8anchez 'oman calls such apparent si$n under article 531 1supletoria del titulo constitutivo de la servidumbre ( erecho 0ivil! vol& 7! p& ;5;)& *he same <urist sa)s in re$ard to the wa)s of constitutin$ easements@ #n the 8entence of the 8upreme *ribunal of 8pain dated /ovember 5! 1911!

had almost been completed! so the court denied the writ of preliminar) in<unction&

it was held that under article 531 of the 0ivil 0ode! the visible and permanent si$n of an easement 1is the title that characterizes its e9istence1 (1es el titulo caracteristico de su e9istencia&1) #t will thus be seen that under article 531 the e9istence of the apparent si$n in the instance case! to wit! the four windows under consideration! had for all le$al purposes the same character and effect as a title of ac(uisition of the easement of li$ht and view b) the respondents upon the death of the ori$inal owner! 4aria >lorentino& Fpon the establishment of that easement of li$ht and view! the con6comitant and concurrent easement of altius non tollendi was also constituted! the heir of the camarin and its lot! 4aria %ncarnacion >lorention! not havin$ ob<ected to the e9istence of the windows& *he theor) of article 531! of makin$ the e9istence of the apparent si$n e(uivalent to a title! when nothin$ to the contrar) is said or done b) the two owners! is sound and correct! because as it happens in this case! there is an implied contract between them that the easements in (uestion should be constituted& -nal)zin$ article 531 further! it sees that its wordin$ is not (uite felicitous when it sa)s that the easement should continue& 8ound <uridical thinkin$ re<ects such an idea because! properl) speakin$! the easement is not created till the division of the propert)! inasmuch as a predial or real easement is one of the ri$hts in anotherLs propert)! or <ura in re aliena and nobd) can have an easement over his own propert)! nimini sua res servit& #n the instant case! therefore! when the ori$inal owner! 4aria >lorentino! opened the windows which received li$ht and air from another lot belon$in$ to her! she was merel) e9ercisin$ her ri$ht of dominion& 0onse(uentl)! the moment of the constitution of the easement of li$ht and view! to$ether with that of altius non tollendi! as the time of the death of the ori$inal owner of both properties& -t that point! the re(uisite that there must be two proprietors M one of the dominant estate and another of the servient estate M was fulfilled& (-rticle 572! 0ivil 0ode&) Fpon the (uestion of the time when the easement in article 531 is created! 4anresa presents a hi$hl) interestin$ theor)! whether one ma) a$ree with it or not& Ee sa)s@ *he concealed easement! as it were b) the oneness of the owner! becomes visible! and is revealed in all its importance when the ownership of the estate or portions of the estate which respectivel) should pla) the role of servient and dominant estates is divided& 8uch a view cannot be full) accepted because before the division of the estate there is onl) a service in fact but not an easement in the strictl) <uridical sense between the two buildin$s or parcels of land& *he e9istence of the irri$ation canal on defendantLs land for the passa$e of water from the Pampan$a 'iver to EonorataLs land prior to and at the time of the sale of EonorataLs land to the plaintiff was e(uivalent to a title for the vendee of the land to continue usin$ it as provided in -rticle ;.3 of the 0ivil 0ode& /o enli$htened concept of ownership can shut out the #dea of restrictions thereon! such as easements& -bsolute and unlimited dominion is unthinkable! inasmuch as the proper en<o)ment of propert) re(uires mutual service and forbearance amon$ ad<oinin$ estates (-mor vs& >lorentino! 53 Phil& 327)& *he deed of sale in favor of :alisno included the 1conve)ance and transfer of the water ri$hts and improvements1 appurtenant to Eonorata -drianoLs propert)& G) the terms of the eed of -bsolute 8ale! the vendor Eonorata -driano >rancisco sold! ceded! conve)ed and transferred to r& /icolas :alisno all 1ri$hts! title! interest and participations over the parcel of land above6 described! to$ether with one Gerkel) 4odel ; O'> 0entrifu$al Pump G1 suction! ;1 dischar$e 52261522 GP4! with 8erial /o& 531581. and one (1) set

V$#.&n/ + Ad-.$n/ (1788)

Plaintiff is the absolute owner and actual possessor of a 555!9396s(uare6meter parcel of land& *he plaintiff6appellant :alisno bou$ht the land from the defendant6appellees sister! Eonorata -driano >rancisco& *he land which is planted with watermelon! peanuts! corn! tobacco! and other ve$etables ad<oins that of the appellee >elipe -driano on the bank of the Pampan$a 'iver& Goth parcels of land had been inherited b) Eonorata -driano >rancisco and her brother! >elipe -driano! from their father! %ladio -driano& -t the time of the sale of the land to :alisno! the land was irri$ated b) water from the Pampan$a 'iver throu$h a canal about sevent) (52) meters lon$! traversin$ the appelleeLs land& On ecember 1;! 1959! the appellee levelled a portion of the irri$ation canal so that the appellant was deprived of the irri$ation water and prevented from cultivatin$ his 556hectare

land&

T$n"d/ + 3"-n$d (1788)

G/#d*-"&' + C12-"&& (2007)

*he private respondent -ntonio 0ardenas was the owner of two (.) conti$uous parcels of land situated in 0ebu 0it) more particularl) known as "ot 55216- and "ot 55216G& On "ot 55216is constructed an apartment buildin$! while the improvements on "ot 55216G consist of one four6door apartment of concrete and stron$ materials? one two6store) house of stron$ materials? a bode$a of stron$ materials? and a septic tank for the common use of the occupants of "ots 55216- and 55216G& - small portion of the apartment buildin$ on "ot 55216- also stands on "ot 55216G& On 5 >ebruar) 198.! said -ntonio 0ardenas sold "ot 55216- to herein petitioner %duardo 0& *aSedo& -ntonio 0ardenas further a$reed that he would sell "ot 55216G onl) to %duardo *aSedo in case he should decide to sell it! as the septic tank in "ot 55216G services "ot 55216- and the apartment buildin$ on "ot 55216has a part standin$ on "ot 55216G& -ntonio 0ardenas! however! sold "ot 55216G to the herein respondent spouses 'omeo and Pacita 8im& Fpon learnin$ of the sale! %duardo *aSedo offered to redeem the propert) from 'omeo 8im& Gut the latter refused& #nstead! 'omeo 8im blocked the sewa$e pipe connectin$ the buildin$ of %duardo *aSedo built on "ot 55216-! to the septic tank in "ot 55216G& Goldcrest 'ealt) 0orporation (Goldcrest) is the developer of 0)press Gardens! a ten6store) buildin$ located at Eerrera 8treet! "e$aspi :illa$e! 4akati 0it)& On -pril .;! 1955! Goldcrest e9ecuted a 4aster eed and eclaration of 'estrictions which constituted 0)press Gardens into a condominium pro<ect and incorporated respondent 0)press Gardens 0ondominium 0orporation (0)press) to mana$e the condominium pro<ect and to hold title to all the common areas& *itle to the land on which the condominium stands was transferred to 0)press under *ransfer 0ertificate of *itle /o& 86;5517& Gut Goldcrest retained ownership of the two6level penthouse unit on the ninth and tenth floors of the condominium re$istered under 0ondominium 0ertificate of *itle (00*) /o& 861259 of the 'e$ister of eeds of

of suction pipe and dischar$e of pipe with elbow! nipples! flan$es and footvalves!1 and the water ri$hts and such other improvements appertainin$ to the propert) sub<ect of this sale& -ccordin$ to the appellant! the water ri$ht was the primar) consideration for his purchase of EonorataLs propert)! for without it the propert) would be unproductive& Dater ri$hts! such as the ri$ht to use a draina$e ditch for irri$ation purposes! which are appurtenant to a parcel of land! pass with the conve)ance of the land! althou$h not specificall) mentioned in the conve)ance& *he purchaserLs easement of necessit) in a water ditch runnin$ across the $rantorLs land cannot be defeated even if the water is supplied b) a third person (Datson vs& >rench! 11. 4e 751 19 0&A& 8;86895)& *he fact that an easement b) $rant ma) also have (ualified as an easement of necessit) does detract from its permanenc) as propert) ri$ht! which survives the determination of the necessit) (Genedicto vs& 0-! .5 80'- 135)& -s an easement of waters in favor of the appellant has been established! he is entitled to en<o) it free from obstruction! disturbance or wron$ful interference (19 0A 983)! such as the appelleeLs act of levellin$ the irri$ation canal to deprive him of the use of water from the Pampan$a 'iver& *he alienation of the dominant and servient estates to different persons is not one of the $rounds for the e9tin$uishment of an easement under -rt ;71& On the contrar)! use of the easement is continued b) operation of law under -rt ;.3& #n the instant case! no statement abolishin$ or e9tin$uishin$ the easement of draina$e was mentioned in the deed of sale of "ot 55216- to %duardo *aSedo& /or did -ntonio 0ardenas stop the use of the drain pipe and septic tank b) the occupants of "ot 55216before he sold said lot to %duardo *afiedo& Eence! the use of the septic tank is continued b) operation of law& -ccordin$l)! the spouses 'omeo and Pacita 8im the new owners of the servient estate ("ot 55216 G)! cannot impair! in an) manner whatsoever! the use of the servitude&

*he owner of the dominant estate cannot violate an) of the followin$ prescribed restrictions on its ri$hts on the servient estate! to wit@ (1) it can onl) e9ercise ri$hts necessar) for the use of the easement? (.) it cannot use the easement e9cept for the benefit of the immovable ori$inall) contemplated? (7) it cannot e9ercise the easement in an) other manner than that previousl) established? (3) it cannot construct an)thin$ on it which is not necessar) for the use and preservation of the easement? (5) it cannot alter or make the easement more burdensome? (;) it must notif) the servient estate owner of its intention to make necessar) works on the servient estate? and (5) it should choose the most convenient time and manner to build said works so as to cause the least convenience to the owner of the servient estate& -n) violation of the above constitutes impairment of the easement& Eere! a careful scrutin) of Goldcrest=s acts shows that it breached a number of the aforementioned restrictions& >irst! it is obvious that the construction and the lease of the

4akati 0it)& Goldcrest and its directors! officers! and assi$ns likewise controlled the mana$ement and administration of the 0ondominium until 1995& >ollowin$ the turnover of the administration and mana$ement of the 0ondominium to the board of directors of 0)press in 1995! it was discovered that certain common areas pertainin$ to 0)press were bein$ occupied and encroached upon b) Goldcrest& *hus! in 1998! 0)press filed a complaint with dama$es a$ainst Goldcrest before the Eousin$ and "and Fse 'e$ulator) Goard (E"F'G)! seekin$ to compel the latter to vacate the common areas it alle$edl) encroached on and to remove the structures it built thereon& 0)press sou$ht to remove the door erected b) Goldcrest alon$ the stairwa) between the 8th and 9th floors! as well as the door built in front of the 9th floor elevator lobb)! and the removal of the c)clone wire fence on the roof deck& 0)press likewise pra)ed that Goldcrest pa) dama$es for its occupation of the said areas and for its refusal to remove the (uestioned structures& NPC +& H".-& /) M$*$9$n4(.' (.211) *he /P0 built an under$round tunnel throu$h the land of respondent heirs of 8an$ka)& *he purpose of this land was to channel water to the h)droelectric powerplant operated b) /P0& /P0 countered that the Eeirs of 4acaban$kit had no ri$ht to compensation under section 7(f) of 'epublic -ct /o& ;795! under which a mere le$al easement on their land was established? that their cause of action! should the) be entitled to compensation! alread) prescribed due to the tunnel havin$ been constructed in 1959? and that b) reason of the tunnel bein$ an apparent and continuous easement! an) action arisin$ from such easement prescribed in five )ears&

office structure were neither necessar) for the use or preservation of the roof deck=s limited area& 8econd! the wei$ht of the office structure increased the strain on the condominium=s foundation and on the roof deck=s common limited area! makin$ the easement more burdensome and addin$ unnecessar) safet) risk to all the condominium unit owners& "astl)! the construction of the said office structure clearl) went be)ond the intendment of the easement since it ille$all) altered the approved condominium pro<ect plan and violated 8ection 3 of the condominium=s eclaration of 'estrictions&

Petitioner contends that the under$round tunnels in this case constitute an easement upon the propert) of the respondents which does not involve an) loss of title or possession& *he manner in which the easement was created b) petitioner! however! violates the due process ri$hts of respondents as it was without notice and indemnit) to them and did not $o throu$h proper e9propriation proceedin$s& Petitioner could have! at an) time! validl) e9ercised the power of eminent domain to ac(uire the easement over respondents= propert) as this power encompasses not onl) the takin$ or appropriation of title to and possession of the e9propriated propert) but likewise covers even the imposition of a mere burden upon the owner of the condemned propert)& 8i$nificantl)! thou$h! landowners cannot be deprived of their ri$ht over their land until e9propriation proceedin$s are instituted in court& *he court must then see to it that the takin$ is for public use! that there is pa)ment of <ust compensation and that there is due process of law& *here was a full takin$ on the part of /P0! notwithstandin$ that the owners were not completel) and actuall) dispossessed& #t is settled that the takin$ of private propert) for public use! to be compensable! need not be an actual ph)sical takin$ or appropriation& #ndeed! the e9propriator=s action ma) be short of ac(uisition of title! ph)sical possession! or occupanc) but ma) still amount to a takin$& 0ompensable takin$ includes destruction! restriction! diminution! or interruption of the ri$hts of ownership or of the common and necessar) use and en<o)ment of the propert) in a lawful manner! lessenin$ or destro)in$ its value& #t is neither necessar) that the owner be wholl) deprived of the use of his propert)! nor material whether the propert) is removed from the possession of the owner! or in an) respect chan$es hands&

EE'.n4,.&!0"n' /) "$&"0"n'&, NCC =31, =, =DD

G L"4$# E$&"0"n'& 1 W$'"- C/d" 2 NCC =B0-=B1 3 NCC =2B-=B= B NCC =B> D R.4!' /) %$1

S2/,&"& V$#d"6 +& S2/,&"& T$9.&,#$ (.228)

8pouses :aldez bou$ht from spouses 0aridad *abisula a .22s(m portion of a 782 s(& m& parcel of land& *he deed of sale included a provision for a .&5 meter wide ri$ht of wa) on the western side of the propert) not included in the land sold& 'espondents subse(uentl) built a concrete wall on the western side of the sub<ect propert)& #n their complaint! petitioners alle$ed that the) purchased the sub<ect propert) on the stren$th of respondents= assurance of providin$ them a road ri$ht of wa)& *he) thus pra)ed that respondents be ordered to provide the sub<ect propert) with a .K6 meter wide easement and to remove the concrete wall blockin$ the same& 'espondents! in their -nswer averred that the .&5 meter easement should be taken from the western portion of the sub<ect propert) and not from theirs? and petitioners and their famil) are also the owners of two properties ad<oinin$ the sub<ect propert)! which ad<oinin$ properties have access to two public roads or hi$hwa)s&

>rom the alle$ations in petitioners= complaint! it is clear that what the) seek to enforce is an alle$ed $rant in the deed b) respondents of an easement readin$@ 1the) shall be provided a . K meters wide road ri$ht6of6wa) on the western side of their lot but which is not included in this sale&1 -rticle 1758 of the 0ivil 0ode provides that an) transaction involvin$ the sale or disposition of real propert) must be in writin$& *he stipulation harped upon b) petitioners that the) 1shall be provided a . K meters wide road ri$ht6of6wa) on the western side of their lot but which is not included in this sale1 is not a disposition of real propert)& *he proviso that the intended $rant of ri$ht of wa) is 1not included in this sale1 could onl) mean that the parties would have to enter into a separate and distinct a$reement for the purpose& *he use of the word 1shall!1 which is imperative or mandator) in its ordinar) si$nification! should be construed as merel) permissive where! as in the case at bar! no public benefit or private ri$ht re(uires it to be $iven an imperative meanin$& Gesides! a document stipulatin$ a voluntar) easement must be recorded in the 'e$istr) of Propert) in order not to pre<udice third parties& *hus! to be conferred a le$al easement of ri$ht of wa) under -rticle ;39! the followin$ re(uisites must be complied with@ (1) the propert) is surrounded b) other immovables and has no ade(uate outlet to a public hi$hwa)? (.) proper indemnit) must be paid? (7) the isolation is not the result of the owner of the dominant estate=s own acts? (3) the ri$ht of wa) claimed is at the point least pre<udicial to the servient estate? and (5) to the e9tent consistent with the fore$oin$ rule! the distance from the dominant estate to a public hi$hwa) ma) be the shortest& *he onus of provin$ the e9istence of these prere(uisites lies on the owner of the dominant estate! -s found! however! b) the trial court! petitioners and their famil) are also the owners of two properties ad<oinin$ the sub<ect propert) which have access to two public roads or hi$hwa)s& 8ince petitioners then have more than ade(uate passa$e to two public roads! the) have no ri$ht to demand the $rant b) respondents of an easement on the western side of respondents= lot&

S' M.*!$"# S*//# +& M$&$.'/ (2008)

8t& 4ichael is located outside the northern perimeter fence of 0itihomes! a subdivision owned! operated and mana$ed b) 4asaito& #ts passa$ewa) occupies a portion of the ;16s(uare meter lot described as "ot 3! Glock 5! Phase 1 of 0itihomes& *he $ate to the school is located at the subdivision=s northern perimeter fence and is the onl) entrance and e9it for the entire school population& Petitioners sued for ri$ht of wa)& *he '*0 dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action& #t also dismissed the complaint for the reason that 8t& 4ichael 8chool is not the owner of the land over which the school is built! hence 8t& 4ichael is not a real part)6in6 interest

*he 0omplaint! first- asserts that petitioners have a ri$ht to an easement of ri$ht6of6wa) that cuts across respondents= propert)? second- it refers to respondents= correlative obli$ation not to fence off and close the sin$le $ate which is used as the onl) entr) and e9it points of the school population? and t&ird- it refers to respondents= e9pansion and e9cessive terms and conditions! constitutin$ the acts violatin$ petitioners= ri$ht& De thus hold that the 0omplaint=s material alle$ations are enou$h to entitle petitioners to a favorable <ud$ment if these are assumed to be true& *he four corners of the initiator) pleadin$ do not reveal an) averment that the properties in (uestion are bounded b) public roads and there is an ade(uate access to a public hi$hwa)& *he trial court erred when it ruled that the school! not bein$ the re$istered owner of the sub<ect lot! is not a real part)6in6interest& #t will suffice under -rt& ;39 of the 0ivil 0ode that 1an) person who b) virtue of a real ri$ht ma) cultivate or use an) immovable which is surrounded b) other immovables pertainin$ to other persons and without ade(uate outlet to a public hi$hwa)! is entitled to demand a ri$ht of wa)&1 0learl)! the school is a real part)6in6interest since it has established a ri$ht to use the passa$ewa) for the benefit of its students& 4ore importantl)! the records reveal that petitioners6spouses are the owners of the lot where the school is located and the) are the incorporators! trustees! and officers of 8t& 4ichael& *he) are also authorized to represent the corporation in the complaint and subse(uent actions& *hus! petitioners are real parties6in6interest and we rule that the dismissal of the complaint is patentl) erroneous and bereft of an) le$al basis& Petitioners must be allowed to pursue their case before the trial court& *he easement is not $ranted& *he 80 sustained the 0-! the route of least dama$e shall be preferred over the route of shortest distance if the two do not concur& -s provided for under the provisions of -rticle ;52 of the /ew 0ivil 0ode! the easement of ri$ht of wa) shall be established at the point least pre<udicial to the servient estate! and! insofar as consistent with this rule! where the distance from the dominant estate to a public hi$hwa) ma) be the shortest& Dhere there are several tenements surroundin$ the dominant estate! and the easement ma) be established on an) of them! the one where the wa) is shortest and will cause the least dama$e should be chosen& ut if t&ese two circu$stances do not concur in a sin"le tene$ent- as in t&e instant case- t&e way w&ic& will cause t&e least da$a"e s&ould be used- even if it will not be t&e s&ortest. T&e criterion of least pre;udice to t&e servient estate $ust prevail over t&e criterion of s&ortest distance. *he court is not bound to establish what is the shortest? a lon$er wa) ma) be established to avoid in<ur) to the servient tenement! such as when there are constructions or walls which can be avoided b) a round6about wa)! as in the case at bar& -s between a ri$ht of wa) that would demolish a fence of stron$ materials to provide in$ress and e$ress to a public hi$hwa) and another ri$ht of wa) which althou$h lon$er will onl) re(uire a van or vehicle to make a turn! the second alternative should be preferred& 4ere convenience for the dominant estate is not what is re(uired b) law as the basis for settin$ up a compulsor) easement& %ven in the face of necessit)! if it can be satisfied without imposin$ the easement! the same should not be imposed& >inall)! worth) of note! is the undisputed fact that there is alread) a newl) opened public road barel) fift) (52) meters awa) from the propert) of appellants! which onl) shows that another re(uirement of the law! that is! there is no ade(uate outlet! has not been met to establish a compulsor) ri$ht of wa) /o pronouncement was ever made re$ardin$ the nature and le$alit) of this 1new1 pathwa)? therefore! no easement was established b) the 0ourt on petitioner=s propert) in the dismissed case& *hus! their claim for a ri$ht6of6wa) on the southern portion had no basis& 4ore importantl)! the case was dismissed b) the '*0! meanin$ no relief was $ranted b) the court to respondents& Grantin$ ar$uendo that the issue on the entitlement to respondents of a ri$ht6of6wa) over the southern portion was likewise raised and was implicit from the pleadin$s? nevertheless! respondents! b) the dismissal of the case! were not $ranted an) affirmative relief b) the trial court& Grantin$ for the sake of ar$ument that there was a voluntar) easement of ri$ht6of6wa)! the records of

C,.n'$n.##$ A9$n4$n (.228)

+&

Petitioners own U0 'attan #nc&! a domestic corporation en$a$ed in the manufacture and e9port of rattan6made furniture& #n the conduct of their business! the) use vans to haul and transport raw materials and finished products& -s the) wanted to e9pand their business and construct a warehouse on their propert) (the dominant estate)! the) asked for a ri$ht of wa) from -ban$an sometime in -pril 1993& Eowever! it appears that -ban$an! sold the lot (the servient estate) to respondent -'O"L8 on 4arch .3! 1993! and thereafter! -'O"L8 constructed a warehouse over the servient estate! enclosin$ the same with a concrete fence& Petitioners! thus! sou$ht the imposition of an easement of ri$ht of wa)! si9 (;) meters in width! or a total area of .33 s(uare meters! over the servient estate&

O9-$ +& S2/,&"& 3$d,$ (.225)

'espondents filed a complaint for ri$ht6of6wa) a$ainst petitioner! however! the '*0 dismissed& #t observed that when petitioner fenced the northern portion of her propert)! respondents were able to use another pathwa) as in$ress and e$ress to the hi$hwa)& #t stated further that 1the new pathwa) is more than ade(uate1 for respondents= use& *hus! the applied easement of ri$ht6of6wa) on the

northern portion of petitioner=s propert) was not allowed& *he said ecision became final and e9ecutor)& *he 1new1 pathwa) used b) respondents! however! traversed the southern portion of petitioner=s propert)& 8ometime in .221! petitioner constructed a fence on this portion of her lot! which a$ain restricted the use of respondents= 1new1 pathwa)& *he respondents sou$ht to enforce their alle$ed easement over this +new, pathwa)! which the '*0 $ranted& Petitioners had no access to a public road to and from their propert)! the) claimed to have used a portion of "ot /o& 1 in accessin$ the road since 1952& 'espondent! however! blocked the passa$ewa) with piles of sand& *hou$h petitioners have been $ranted another passa$ewa) b) the spouses Gen<amin and 8)lvia -rce (8pouses -rce)! the owners of another ad<acent lot! desi$nated as "ot /o& .15596G! the former instituted the complaint before the '*0 pra)in$ for ri$ht6of6wa) over defendant=s propert)&

the case do not reveal an) a$reement e9ecuted b) the parties on the claimed ri$ht6of6wa)& Glarin$ is the fact that the terms of the arran$ement were not a$reed upon b) the parties! more particularl)! the pa)ment of the proper indemnit)& *he evidence is not ample enou$h to support the conclusion that there was a verbal a$reement on the ri$ht6of6wa) over the southern portion& 4ore so! since a ri$ht6of6wa) is an interest in the land! an) a$reement creatin$ it should be drawn and e9ecuted with the same formalities as a deed to a real estate! and ordinaril) must be in writin$& /o written instrument on this a$reement was adduced b) respondents&

D.*!/&/ M$-*/& (.211)

+&

R$0/& G$'*!$#.$n R"$#'1 (1985)

+&

'espondent fenced off its land! which was bein$ used b) petitioner as his route to the main public thorou$hfare& ue to the closure he has been constrained to use as his 1temporar)1 wa) the ad<oinin$ lots belon$in$ to different persons& 8aid wa) is alle$edl) 1bump) and impassable especiall) durin$ rain) seasons because of flood waters! mud and tall LtalahibL $rasses thereon&1 Eowever! petitioner=s lot is bounded b) a proposed road that has not )et been constructed b) the owner of petitioner=s subdivision& Private respondent had been $ranted an ade(uate access to the public hi$hwa) (Parada 'oad) throu$h the ad<acent estate of %pifania ila even as he was tr)in$ to ne$otiate a satisfactor) a$reement with petitioner for another passa$ewa) throu$h the latterLs propert)& #f at the time he filed suit a$ainst the petitioner! such access (throu$h

F-$n*.&*/ IAC (1989)

+&

*o be entitled to an easement of ri$ht of wa)! the followin$ re(uisites should be met@ 1& *he dominant estate is surrounded b) other immovables and has no ade(uate outlet to a public hi$hwa)? .& *here is pa)ment of proper indemnit)? 7& *he isolation is not due to the acts of the proprietor of the dominant estate? and 3& *he ri$ht of wa) claimed is at the point least pre<udicial to the servient estate? and insofar as consistent with this rule! where the distance from the dominant estate to a public hi$hwa) ma) be the shortest& -dmittedl)! petitioners had been $ranted a ri$ht of wa) throu$h the other ad<acent lot owned b) the 8pouses -rce& #n fact! other lot owners use the said outlet in $oin$ to and comin$ from the public hi$hwa)& 0learl)! there is an e9istin$ outlet to and from the public road& Eowever! petitioners claim that the outlet is lon$er and circuitous! and the) have to pass throu$h other lots owned b) different owners before the) could $et to the hi$hwa)& De find petitioners= concept of what is 1ade(uate outlet1 a complete disre$ard of the well6entrenched doctrine that in order to <ustif) the imposition of an easement of ri$ht of wa)! there must be real! not fictitious or artificial! necessit) for it& 4ere convenience for the dominant estate is not what is re(uired b) law as the basis of settin$ up a compulsor) easement& %ven in the face of necessit)! if it can be satisfied without imposin$ the easement! the same should not be imposed& *here is a road ri$ht of wa) provided b) the 8abrina 'odri$uez "ombos 8ubdivision indicated as "ot 31776G61. in its subdivision plan for the bu)ers of its lots& *he fact that said lot is still undeveloped and causes inconvenience to the petitioner when he uses it to reach the public hi$hwa) does not brin$ him within the ambit of the le$al re(uisite& Petitioner should have! first and foremost! demanded from the 8abrina 'odri$uez "ombos 8ubdivision the improvement and maintenance of "ot 31776G61. as his road ri$ht of wa) because it was from said subdivision that he ac(uired his lot and not either from the Gatchalian 'ealt) or the respondents -sprec& *o allow the petitioner access to 8ucat 'oad throu$h Gatchalian -venue inspite of a road ri$ht of wa) provided b) the petitionerLs subdivision for its bu)ers simpl) because Gatchalian -venue allows petitioner a much $reater ease in $oin$ to and comin$ from the main thorou$hfare is to completel) i$nore what <urisprudence has consistentl) maintained throu$h the )ears re$ardin$ an easement of a ri$ht of wa)! that 1mere convenience for the dominant estate is not enou$h to serve as its basis& *o <ustif) the imposition of this servitude! there must be a real! not a fictitious or artificial! necessit) for it&1 >or an easement of ri$ht of wa) to be $ranted! the followin$ re(uisites must concur@ (1) *hat the dominant estate is surrounded b) other immovables and has no ade(uate outlet to a public hi$hwa) (-rt& ;39! par& 1)? (.) -fter pa)ment of proper indemnit) (-rt& ;39! par& 1! end)? (7) *hat the isolation was not due to acts of the proprietor of the dominant estate? and (3) *hat the ri$ht of wa) claimed is at the point least pre<udicial to the servient estate? and insofar as consistent with this rule! where the distance from the dominant estate to a public hi$hwa) ma) be the

the propert) of %pifania ila) could no lon$er be used! it was because he himself had closed it off b) erectin$ a stone wall on his lot at the point where the passa$ewa) be$an for no reason to which the record can attest e9cept to demonstrate the isolation of his propert) alle$ed in his complaint&

NPC G,''."-"6 (1991)

+&

/P0 filed a case for e9propriation for the construction of its electrical transmission lines over the propert) of respondents& *he issue is the determination of whether the ac(uisition of a mere ri$ht6of6wa) is an e9ercise of the power of eminent domain contemplated b) law

D./n.&./ +& O-'.6 (1991) F#/-/ + L#"n$d/ (1995)

'espondents opened a $ate into the private road of respondents& *he) claimed that it was necessar) for them to do so because due to the subdivision of their lot! the) were forced to construct a wall which left onl) a small passa$ewa)& >loro was the owner of a subdivision& Eere comes "lenado who bou$ht the ad<oinin$ subdivision lot! which was formerl) %mmanuel Eomes& - creek separates the propert) of "lenado from >loro& On the west side of "lenado=s propert) was a rice land& On the subdivision plan of "lenado=s propert)! there was a plan to construct an access road to 4c-rthur Ei$hwa) but no construction was made& Dith the two subdivisions! it was >loro=s which onl) had an access road& >loro allowed usa$e of his access road pendin$ ne$otiations but later on closed the propert)& Dhether or not the re(uirements for le$al easement e9isted to allow "lenado to claim the same a$ainst 4r& >loro&

shortest& (-rt& ;52)& *he law makes it ampl) clear that an owner cannot! as respondent has done! b) his own act isolate his propert) from a public hi$hwa) and then claim an easement of wa) throu$h an ad<acent estate& *he third of the cited re(uisites@ that the claimant of a ri$ht of wa) has not himself procured the isolation of his propert) had not been met indeed the respondent had actuall) brou$ht about the contrar) condition and thereb) vitiated his claim to such an easement& #t will not do to assert that use of the passa$ewa) throu$h "ot 8;26G was dffficult or inconvenient! the evidence bein$ to the contrar) and that it was wide enou$h to be traversable b) even a truck! and also because it has been held that mere inconvenience attendin$ the use of an e9istin$ ri$ht of wa) does not <ustif) a claim for a similar easement in an alternative location& *he 80 sustained the lower court statin$ that while it is true that /P0 is onl) after a ri$ht6of6wa) easement! it nevertheless perpetuall) deprives defendants of their proprietar) ri$hts as manifested b) the imposition b) the plaintiff upon defendants that below said transmission lines no plant hi$her than three (7) meters is allowed& >urthermore! because of the hi$h6tension current conve)ed throu$h said transmission lines! dan$er to life and limbs that ma) be caused beneath said wires cannot alto$ether be discounted! and to cap it all plaintiff onl) pa)s the fee to defendants once! while the latter shall continuall) pa) the ta9es due on said affected portion of their propert)& Eence! it is properl) an eminent domain takin$& #n the case at bar! the easement of ri$ht6of6wa) is definitel) a takin$ under the power of eminent domain& 0onsiderin$ the nature and effect of the installation of the .72 B: 4e9ico6"ima) transmission lines! the limitation imposed b) /P0 a$ainst the use of the land for an indefinite period deprives private respondents of its ordinar) use& >or these reasons! the owner of the propert) e9propriated is entitled to a <ust compensation! which should be neither more nor less! whenever it is possible to make the assessment! than the mone) e(uivalent of said propert)& 0ust co$pensation &as always been understood to be t&e ;ust and co$plete e#uivalent of t&e loss w&ic& t&e owner of t&e t&in" expropriated &as to suffer by reason of t&e expropriation *he construction of a wall between the . lots leavin$ onl) a small passa$ewa) between them is an act imputable to the private respondents which precludes them from assertin$ a ri$ht of wa)& *he openin$ of the new $ate would definitel) be ver) convenient to the private respondents but mere convenience is not enou$h to serve as basis for the assertion of a ri$ht of wa)& -s in the earlier case! the court held that to be entitled to a compulsor) easement of ri$ht of wa)! the preconditions provided under -rts& ;39 and ;52 of the 0ivil 0ode must be established& *hese include@ that the dominant estate is surrounded b) other immovables and has no ade(uate outlet to a public hi$hwa)? (.) that proper indemnit) has been paid? (7) that the isolation was not due to acts of the proprietor of the dominant estate? (3) that the ri$ht of wa) claimed is at a point least pre<udicial to the servient estate and! in so far as consistent with this rule! where the distance from the dominant estate to a public hi$hwa) ma) be the shortest& >or this case! it is apparent that the elements have not been met& *he ori$inal subdivision development plan presented b) "lenado indicates an e9istin$ and prior a$reement with 4s& #papo to create a ri$ht of wa) throu$h the abandoned #papo ricefield& #papo had lon$ a$reed to these terms but "lenado apparentl) thou$ht it too much work and cost to develop such road& #t was easier for him to create an easement via the >loro propert)& *he court ruled time and a$ain that one ma) not claim a le$al easement merel) out of convenience& 0onvenience motivated "lenando to abandon the #papo access road development and pursue an access road throu$h the >loro estate& Ee was stackin$ the cards in his favor to the unnecessar) detriment of his nei$hbor& *he court refused to countenance his behavior&

T!" "&&"n'.$# -"<,.&.'"& $-" '!" )/##/%.n4U 1& *he propert) is surrounded b) estate of others and there is no ade(uate outlet to a public hi$hwa) .& #t must be established at the point least pre<udicial to the servient estate and insofar as consistent with this rule! where the distance from the dominant estate to a public hi$hwa) ma) be the shortest 7& *here must be pa)ment of the proper indemnit) 3& *he isolation should not be due to the proprietor=s own acts Gurden of provin$ the e9istence of the prere(uisites to validl) claim a compulsor) ri$ht of wa) lies on the owner of the dominant estate& -nd it should be noted that mere convenience of the dominant estate is not what is contemplated b) the law in establishin$ a ri$ht of wa)& (1) 8ps e "a 0ru are /O* entitled to ri$ht of wa)& .asement%/er&itude@ real ri$ht constituted on corporeal immovable propert) of another! b) virtue of which the owner has to refrain from doin$ or allow someone to do! somethin$ on his propert)! for the benefit of another thin$Rperson& #n the case at bar! 'amiscal did not voluntaril) accord to the spouses the ri$ht of wa)& *he spouses failed to show competent evidence other than their bare claim that the) entered into an a$reement with 4an$ Pulin$! 'amiscal=s foreman! to use the pathwa)! which would be reciprocated with an e(uivalent easement b) owner of another ad<acent estate& 0onferment of le$al easement has 5 re(uisites@ (1) it is surrounded b) other immovable and has no ade(uate outlet to a public hi$hwa)? (lackin$ in this case as *0 found ade(uate in$ress and e$ress towards Goni 8errano -venue) (.) pa)ment of proper indemnit)? (lackin$ as no indemnit) was paid) (7) the isolation is not the result of its own acts? (lackin$ as isolation was due to acts of 0onception de la Pena (the real owner of the lot occupied b) 8ps e "a 0ruz)! who is re(uired b) law to $rant ri$ht of wa) to the occupants of her propert))& (3) ri$ht of wa) claimed is at the point least pre<udicial to the servient estate? and (5) to the e9tent consistent with the fore$oin$ rule! where the distance from the dominant estate to a public hi$hwa) ma) be the shortest& >urthermore! under 00 ;39! it is the owner O' an) person who b) virtue of a real ri$ht ma) cultivateRuse! who is entitled to demand a ri$ht of wa) in the nei$hborin$ estates& #n the case at bar! the e "a 0ruz spouses that it fell under either of the . classifications& *he title to both lots are still re$istered under the name of 0oncepcion e "a Pena& (.) 8ps e "a 0ruz cannot find sanctuar) in the e(uitable principle of laches& %ssential elements of laches are@ (a) conduct on the part of the defendant! or of one under whom he claims! $ivin$ rise to the situation complained of? (b) dela) in assertin$ complainant=s ri$hts after he had knowled$e of defendant=s acts and after he has had the opportunit) to sue? (c) lack of knowled$e or notice b) defendant that the complainant will assert the ri$ht on which he bases his suit? and (d) in<ur) or pre<udice to the defendant in the event the relief is accorded to the complainant& 8econd and third elements are lackin$ because it was onl) in 1995 that respondent 'amiscal found out that the pathwa) bein$ used b) petitioners was part of her propert) when a relocation surve) and location plan of her propert) and the ad<acent land bou$ht b) 8an Genito 'ealt) were prepared& #n the present case! respondent failed to establish b) clear and convincin$ evidence that the in<uries he

D"#$ C-,6 R$0.&*$# (.225)

6 'amiscal Towner of a parcel of land& 6 8ps e la 0ruz Toccupants of land at the back of 'amiscal=s propert)& 6 8ub<ect matter of this case@ 1&12 m 9 1.&; m pathwa) bein$ used b) 8ps e "a 0ruz as pathwa) to and from 18th avenue! the nearest public hi$hwa) from their propert)& 6 'amiscal filed a complaint seekin$ to demolish the structure ille$all) constructed b) the 8ps e "a 0ruz& 8he asserted that petitioners have an e9istin$ ri$ht of wa) to a public hi$hwa) other than the pathwa) in liti$ation& 6 efense of the e "a 0ruz spouses@ such use was with knowled$e of respondent& #ssues@ (1) DO/ 8ps e "a 0ruz are entitled to le$al easement of ri$ht of wa)! assumin$ no voluntar) ri$ht of wa) was $ranted to them b) respondent& /O& (.) DO/ operative e(uitable principle of laches bar the respondent from deprivin$ the petitioners continued use of the said ri$ht of wa)& /O&

= P$-'1 %$## R"4$#$ + C$-.n 'e$ala (petitioner) and 0arin (respondent) were

(.211)

ad<acent nei$hbors at 8piri$ 8treet! G> 'esort :illa$e! "as PiSas 0it)& Dhen petitioner decided to renovate his one store) residence b) constructin$ a second floor! he under the $uise of merel) buildin$ an e9tension to his residence! approached respondent sometime in 4a) 1998 for permission to bore a hole throu$h a perimeter wall shared b) both their respective properties! to which respondent verball) consented on condition that petitioner would clean the area affected b) the work& -s earlier indicated! petitioner=s real intention was to build a second floor! in fact with a terrace atop the dividin$ wall& #n the course of the construction of the second floor! respondent and his wife 4arietta suffered from the dust and dirt which fell on their propert)& -s petitioner failed to address the problem to respondent=s satisfaction! respondent filed a letter6complaint with the Office of the 0it) %n$ineer and Guildin$ Official of "as PiSas 0it) 'e$ala was ordered to pa) 0arin moral and e9emplar) dama$es as well as attorne)=s fees& #n findin$ for respondent! the trial court declared that! apart from the fact that petitioner knowin$l) commenced the renovation of his house without the re(uisite buildin$ permit from the 0it) %n$ineer=s Office! he misrepresented to respondent his true intent of introducin$ renovations& >or! it found that instead of <ust borin$ a hole in the perimeter wall as ori$inall) proposed! petitioner divided the wall into several sections to serve as a foundation for his firewall (which ended up hi$her than the perimeter wall) and the second store) of his house& *he trial court further declared that respondent and his famil) had thus to contend with the noise! dust and debris occasioned b) the construction! which petitioner and his work crew failed to address despite respondent=s protestations! b) refusin$ to clean the mess or install the necessar) safet) devices&

sustained were the pro9imate effect of petitioner=s act or omission& #t thus becomes necessar) to instead look into the manner b) which petitioner carried out his renovations to determine whether this was directl) responsible for an) distress respondent ma) have suffered since the law re(uires that a wron$ful or ille$al act or omission must have preceded the dama$es sustained b) the claimant& #t bears notin$ that petitioner was en$a$ed in the lawful e9ercise of his propert) ri$hts to introduce renovations to his abode& Dhile he initiall) did not have a buildin$ permit and ma) have misrepresented his real intent when he initiall) sou$ht respondent=s consent! the lack of the permit was inconse(uential since it onl) rendered petitioner liable to administrative sanctions or penalties& Petitioner! however! cannot steer clear from an) liabilit) whatsoever& 'espondent and his famil)=s ri$hts to the peaceful en<o)ment of their propert) have! at the ver) least! been inconvenienced from the incident borne of petitioner=s construction work& -n) pecuniar) loss or dama$e suffered b) respondent cannot be established as the records are bereft of an) factual evidence to establish the same& /ominal dama$es ma) thus be ad<udicated in order that a ri$ht of the plaintiff! respondent herein! which has been violated or invaded b) the defendant! petitioner herein! ma) be vindicated or reco$nized! and not for the purpose of indemnif)in$ the plaintiff for an) loss suffered b) him&

> L.4!' $nd +."% F$9." + Petitioner 4i$uel >abie applied for the re$istration L.*!$,*/ of his propert) in 4anila free from an) encumbrances e9cept the easement of ri$ht of wa) (1928) in favor of respondents Aulita "ichauco and Ei<os

/o& *he burden is not on the petitioner to prove on what time the $aller) in controvers) was constructed inasmuch as he limits himself to sustainin$ nad defendin$ the freedom of his propert)! den)in$ the easement o fli$ht and view of the respondent pretends to impose over it& - propert) is assumed to be from all encumbrance unless the contrar) is proved& 'espondent who claims the said easement is

de 'o9as& #n addition to the said ri$ht of wa)! respondents also claim that of li$ht and view and draina$e& Eowever!the claim was later reduce onl) to that of the li$ht and view& "ichauco cliamed that when Auan Gautista 0oloma! the ori$inal owner of bothestates! established not onl) an easement of ri$ht of wa) but also that of li$ht and view and that when both the properties were alienated! the apparent si$ns were not removed& *he apparent si$n alle$edl) consists of a $aller) with windows throu$h which li$ht is admitted& #t was supported on columns erected on the $round belon$in$ to the petitioner and the balcon) on "ichauco=s propert) is supported b) upri$hts erected on the land b) petitioner& *he parties admitted the e9istence of such $aller)& *he house was now a fronta$e of 18 meters and ;2 centimeters! of which 1; meters and ;2 centimeters correspond to the main part of the same! and 1 meter and 92 centimeters to the $aller) in (uestion& #t results! therefore! that at the present da)! the house has nearl) . meters more fronta$e than when it was alienated b) 0oloma& *herefore! at the present da) the house is erected partl) on the land belon$in$ to the owner and partl)! the $aller)! over a lot belon$in$ to another? that is! over that of the petitioner& Dhen it was sold in October! 1838! no portion of the house occupied the lot last mentioned! but the entire buildin$ was erected over a lot belon$in$ to the owner as set forth in the instrument of sale& *he lower court held that the ri$ht of wa) and draina$e e9ist in favor of the respondents= respective properties& *he claim as to the easement of li$ht and view was dismissed b) the court& #ssue@ Dhether or not 'espondents are entitled to the easement of li$ht and view& 8 O'!"- "$&"0"n'& $ d-$.n$4" /) 9,.#d.n4 9 .n'"-0"d.$'" d.&'$n*"& * n,.&$n*" On4&.$*/ + *here are 7 causes of action filed in this case& One On4&.$*/ of which is the obstruction of the dikes constructed b) the defendants in 1975& 8uch dikes obstructed (1955) the natural flow of e9cess water from the plaintiff=s hi$her tenement& #t was alle$ed that from time immemorial before the partition of the Eacienda %speranza! the water comin$ from the portion of the estate assi$ned to plaintiffs had been flowin$ re$ularl) and without artificial obstruction towards

obli$ed to prove the aforementioned $aller)! in which the apparent si$n of the easement is made to consist in the present case! e9isted at the time of ownership of her propert) and that of the petitioner were separated& -nd inasmuch as this issue has not been proved!the claim of the respondents as to the easements of the li$ht and view which the petitioner does not admit! must of necessit) be dismissed& *herefore! it does not appear from the a$reement of the parties that the respondents has balconies over the land of the petitioner? and as it is! since it has been positivel) shown that the said balconies e9ceed the limit of the lot owned b) the former! nor less that the) invade the atmospheric area of the lot belon$in$ to the latter! it follows that! even in accordance with the theor) maintained b) the respondents with which on account of its lack of basis! we consider it unnecessar) to deal herein as to its other aspect! the easement of view! which mi$ht result in such case from the e9istence of the balconies alluded to! would be ne$ative and not a positive one! because the erection of the same would not constitute! accordin$ to their own statement! an invasion of the ri$ht of another! but the lawful e9ercise of the ri$ht inherent to the dominion of the respondents to construct within their own lot& -nd as said easement is ne$ative! it cannot have prescribed in favor of the propert) of the respondents in the absence of an) act of opposition! accordin$ to thea$reement! b) which the) or their principals would have prohibited the petitioner or his principals to do an) work which obstruct the balconies in (uestion! inasmuch as said act of opposition is what constitutes the necessar) and indispensable point of departure for computin$ the time re(uired b) law for the prescription of ne$ative easements& *hus! the <ud$ment appealed from was affirmed in toto b) the 0ourt&

*he 80 affirmed the Order appealed from& 0onsiderin$ that the action was filed in 1951! the le$al easement sou$ht to be enforced had been e9tin$uished b) non6user and the action is therefore barred b) prescription&

the other areas of that same hacienda subse(uentl) assi$ned to the defendants! as a result of the partition in 19.9& *he 0># $ranted the 4otion to ismiss filed b) the defendant on the $round of prescription& C$#0$ + CA (1989) 4a) the dikes be demolishedC 8pouses 0alma bou$ht a lot in respondent Pleasantville evelopment 0orporationLs (hereinafter referred to as P"%-8-/*:#""%) subdivision in Gacolod& *he) built a house on said lot and established residence therein& *he On$s also purchased from P"%-8-/*:#""% a lot frontin$ that of the 0alma spouses and constructed their own buildin$s where the) resided and conducted their business& 0alma complained to the president of the association that the compound of the On$s was bein$ utilized as a lumber )ard and that a 1loathsome noise and nervous developin$ sound1 emanatin$ therefrom disturbed him and his famil) and caused them and their son to suffer nervous tension and illness& *he 44 - then sent a notice of demolition to Austice Ganca)co alle$in$ that a portion of his buildin$ violated the /ational Guildin$ 0ode of the Philippines in relation to Ordinance /o& .923& Ee did not compl) with the notice& *helma then proceeded to demolish the part) wall of the $round floor structure& *he 0it) Government of Uuezon 0it) claimed that the ordinance was a valid e9ercise of police power! re$ulatin$ the use of propert) in a business zone& Austice Ganca)co filed a Petition with pra)er for a temporar) restrainin$ order andRor writ of preliminar) in<unction& *he '*0 ruled that the ordinance was unconstitutional& *he 0ourt of -ppeals reversed the '*0=s decision and ruled that the ordinance was a valid e9ercise of the ri$ht of the local $overnment unit to promote the $eneral welfare of its constituents pursuant to its police powers& I&&,"K id 44 - 'esolution /o& 2.6.8! validl) empower the 44 - to demolish Austice Ganca)co=s propert)C -s found b) the 0ourt of -ppeals! the 0O44#88#O/Ls conclusion that the activities bein$ conducted and the structures in the propert) of the On$s constituted a nuisance was not supported b) an) evidence& *he 8olicitor General himself! in his comment filed in the 0ourt of -ppeals! admits that the decision of the 0O44#88#O/ did not make an) findin$ of a nuisance P0- 'ollo! p& 97Q& -pparentl)! on the basis of position papers! the 0O44#88#O/ assumed the e9istence of the nuisance! without receivin$ evidence on the matter! to support its order for the prevention or abatement of the alle$ed nuisance& 4oreover! the spouses On$! were not even part) to the proceedin$s before the 0O44#88#O/ which culminated in the order for the prevention or abatement of the alle$ed nuisance& *he parties before the 0O44#88#O/ were petitioner and P"%-8-/*:#""% onl)! althou$h the persons who would be directl) affected b) a decision favorable to petitioner would be the On$ spouses& 0ertainl)! to declare their propert) or the activities bein$ conducted therein a nuisance! and to order prevention and abatement! without $ivin$ them an opportunit) to be heard would be in violation of their basic ri$ht to due process& /o& the 8upreme 0ourt held that the power to enforce the provisions of the Guildin$ 0ode was lod$ed in the epartment of Public Dorks and Ei$hwa)s! not in 44 -& 8ince there was no evidence that the 44 - had been dele$ated b) the PDE to implement the Guildin$ 0ode! it necessaril) had no authorit) to carr) out the demolition& -dditionall)! the penalt) prescribed b) Ordinance /o& .923 itself does not include the demolition of ille$all) constructed buildin$s in case of violations& #nstead! it merel) prescribes a punishment of a fine or b) imprisonment! or both! at the discretion of the court& *he ordinance itself clearl) states that it is the re$ular courts that will determine whether there was a violation of the ordinance& 0itin$ !!.( v. Trackworks! the 0ourt stressed that the 44 - does not have the power to enact ordinances and thus +cannot supplement, Uuezon 0it) Ordinance /o& .923 throu$h 4etro 4anila 0ouncil 0ouncil 'esolution /o& 2.6.8! series of .22. authorizin$ it to +clear the sidewalks! streets! avenues! alle)s! brid$es! parks! and other public places in 4etro 4anila of all ille$al structures and obstructions&, #t found that the there was no valid dele$ation to the 44 - b) the 0it) Government of Uuezon 0it) of! amon$ others! the power to declare! prevent! and abate a nuisance and to further impose the penalt) of removal or demolition at the e9pense of the owner& #n an) case! the 0ourt did not find that the demolished portion of the buildin$ as a nuisance per se. #t held that <ust because an ordinance ma) declare a structure ille$al does not necessaril) make that structure a nuisance& #t found the 19;; e9emption the 0it) 0ouncil $ave Austice Ganca)co from constructin$ an arcade is an indication that the win$ walls of the buildin$ are not nuisances per se& *he 0ourt also ruled that Austice Ganca)co ma) still (uestion the constitutionalit) of the ordinance on the $round of takin$ of private propert) without due process of law and <ust compensation as it was onl) in .227 when he was alle$edl) deprived of his propert) when the 44 - demolished a portion of the buildin$& Eowever! it held that he ma) not do so on the $round of e(ual protection when he himself re(uested and was $ranted an e9emption from the application of the ordinance in 19;;& *he 0ourt also held Uuezon 0it) Ordinance /o& .923 as a valid e9ercise of the police power dele$ated b) 0on$ress to the cit) $overnment in '- 575! the Revised C&arter of :ue)on City! to provide safe and convenient passa$e alon$ the sidewalk for commuters and pedestrians more so in the case of sub<ect propert) which is located in a business zone alon$ % 8-&

G$n*$1*/ + CC (.211)

7 V/#,n'$-1 "$&"0"n'& Un.&/,-*" Petitioner Fnisource 0ommercial and evelopment C/00"-*.$# + 0orporation is the re$istered owner of a parcel of C!,n4 land& *he title contains a memorandum of encumbrance of a voluntar) easement which has (.229) been carried over from the Ori$inal 0ertificate of *itle of %ncarnacion 8& 8andico& *he certified %n$lish translation of the annotation reads@ G) order dated 28 October 19.3 of the 0ourt of >irst #nstance of 4anila! 0hamber #: (-P65551R*6.723;)! it is declared that >rancisco Eidal$o ) 4a$nifico has the ri$ht to open doors in the course of his lot described as "ot /o& .! Glock .;52 of the map that has been e9hibited! towards the left of the 0alle<on that is used as a passa$e and that appears as ad<acent to the said "ot . and to pass throu$h the land of %ncarnacion 8andico ) 8antana! until the bank of the estero that $oes to the Pasi$ 'iver! and towards the ri$ht of the other 0alle<on that is situated between the said "ot . and "ot 3 of the same Glock /& -s 8andico=s propert) was transferred to several owners! the memorandum of encumbrance of a voluntar) easement in favor of >rancisco 4& Eidal$o was consistentl) annotated at the back of ever) title coverin$ 8andico=s propert) until *0* /o& 15;.57 was issued in petitioner=s favor& On the other hand! Eidal$o=s propert) was eventuall) transferred to respondents Aoseph 0hun$! Biat 0hun$ and 0leto 0hun$& Fnisource file a Petition to 0ancel the %ncumbrance of :oluntar) %asement of 'i$ht of Da) on the $round that the dominant estate has an ade(uate access to a public road which is 4atienza 8treet& DIFFERENT MODES OF ACCUIRING OWNERSHIP A In 4"n"-$# A*$2 + CA -cap was a tenant of the lot owned b) 0osme Pido& Fpon PidoLs death! -cap paid the monthl)

6 6

*he openin$ of an ade(uate outlet to a hi$hwa) can e9tin$uish onl) le$al or compulsor) easements! not voluntar) easements like in the case at bar& *he fact that an easement b) $rant ma) have also (ualified as an easement of necessit) does not detract from its permanenc) as a propert) ri$ht! which survives the termination of the necessit)& - voluntar) easement of ri$ht of wa)! like an) other contract! could be e9tin$uished onl) b) mutual a$reement or b) renunciation of the owner of the dominant estate& /either can petitioner claim that the easement is personal onl) to Eidal$o since the annotation merel) mentioned 8andico and Eidal$o without e(uall) bindin$ their heirs or assi$ns& *hat the heirs or assi$ns of the parties were not mentioned in the annotation does not mean that it is not bindin$ on them& -$ain! a voluntar) easement of ri$ht of wa) is like an) other contract& -s such! it is $enerall) effective between the parties! their heirs and assi$ns! e9cept in case where the ri$hts and obli$ations arisin$ from the contract are not transmissible b) their nature! or b) stipulation or b) provision of law&

#n a contract of sale! one of the contractin$ parties obli$ates himself to transfer the ownership of and to deliver a determinate thin$! and the other part) to pa) a price certain in mone) or its e(uivalent& Fpon

(1995)

rental dues to the widow "auranciana Pido& Ee died intestate& *he widow and her 7 sons afterward e9ecuted a notarized document denominated as 1 eclaration of Eeirship and waiver of ri$hts1 in favor of private respondant e los 'e)es& -cap did not reco$nize e los 'e)es claim of ownership over the land as he contended that the land still belon$s to the heirs of 0osme Pido! and wonLt pa) the rent demanded b) e los 'e)es& #ssue@ Dhether or not the sub<ect eclaration of heirship and waiver of ri$hts is reco$nized mode of ac(uirin$ ownershipC 0an it be considered a deed of saleC

the other hand! a declaration of heirship and waiver of ri$hts operates as a public instrument when filed with the 'e$istr) of eeds whereb) the intestate heirs ad<udicate and divide the estate left b) the decedent amon$ themselves as the) see fit& #t is in effect an e9tra<udicial settlement between the heirs under 'ule 53 of the 'ules of 0ourt& *here is a marked difference between a sale of hereditar) ri$hts and a waiver of hereditar) ri$hts& *he first presumes the e9istence of a contract or deed of sale between the parties& *he second is a mode of e9tinction of an ownership where there is an abdication or intentional relin(uishment of a known ri$ht with knowled$e of its e9istence in favor of other persons who are co6heirs in the succession& e los 'e)es! bein$ then a stran$er to the succession of 0osme Pido! cannot conclusivel) claim ownership over the sub<ect lot on the sole basis of the waiver of document which neither recites the elements of either a sale or donation or an) other derivative modes of ac(uirin$ ownership&

3 M/d"& /) A*<,.-.n4 O%n"-&!.2 1 In'"##"*',$# *-"$'./n 2 O**,2$'./n P$#"-/-T$n + Palero6*an char$ed Frdaneta with 0onduct U-d$n"'$ Fnbecomin$ a 0ourt Personnel for stealin$ her rin$ and bracelet& Frdaneta claims he found a (.228) pklastic sachet containin$ the said <ewelr) under his table and thou$ht it belon$ed to a liti$ant and took them for safekeepin$& #nvesti$atin$ law)er found Frdaneta $uilt) of the char$e&

espite all the opportunities accorded to respondent to present substantial defense to refute the char$es a$ainst him! he failed to do so& 'espondent even admitted findin$ the small plastic sachet containin$ complainant=s rin$ and bracelet and keepin$ the <ewelr) in his possession until he purportedl) threw them awa)& Dhen a person who finds a thin$ that has been lost or mislaid b) the owner takes the thin$ into his hands! he ac(uires ph)sical custod) onl) and does not become vested with le$al possession& #n assumin$ such custod)! the finder is char$ed with the obli$ation of restorin$ the thin$ to its owner& #t is thus respondent=s dut) to report to his superior or his officemates that he found somethin$& *he 0ivil 0ode! in -rticle 519! e9plicitl) re(uires the finder of a lost propert) to report it to the proper authorities! thus@ -rticle 519& Dhoever finds a movable! which is not treasure! must return it to its previous possessor& #f the latter is unknown! the finder shall immediatel) deposit it with the ma)or of the cit) or municipalit) where the findin$ has taken place& *he findin$ shall be publicl) announced b) the ma)or for two consecutive weeks in the wa) he deems best& #f the movables cannot be kept without deterioration! or without the e9penses which considerabl) diminish its value! it shall be sold at public auction ei$ht da)s after the publication& 8i9 months from the publication havin$ elapsed without the owner havin$ appeared! the thin$ found! or its value! shall be awarded to the finder& *he finder and the owner shall be obli$ed! as the case ma) be! to reimburse the e9penses& 'izalvo and his predecessors6in6interest were not in open continuous! adverse! and public possession of the land in (uestion in the manner and len$th of time re(uired b) law as to entitle them to <udicial confirmation of imperfect title& Fnder 8ection 13 (1)! of P& & /o& 15.9 or the Propert) 'e$istration ecree! applicants for re$istration of title must sufficientl) establish first! that the sub<ect land forms part of the disposable and alienable lands of the public domain? second! that the applicant and his predecessors6in6interest have been in open! continuous! e9clusive and notorious possession and occupation of the same? and third! that it is under a bona fide claim of ownership since Aune 1.! 1935! or earlier&

R"2,9#.* + R.6$#+/ (.211)

'izalvo! Ar& filed before the 4*0 an application for the re$istration of a parcel of land& Ee alle$ed that he is the owner! that he obtained title over the land b) virtue of a eed of *ransfer! and that he is currentl) in possession of the land& #n support of his claim! he presented! amon$ others! *a9 eclaration for the )ear 1993 in his name! and Proof of Pa)ment of real propert) ta9es be$innin$ in 195. up to the time of filin$ of the application&

4*0 approved 'izalvo=s application&

*he third re(uirement that 'izalvo and his predecessors6in6interest be in open! continuous! e9clusive and notorious possession and occupation of the sub<ect propert) since Aune 1.! 1935 or earlier! has not been satisfied& Ee onl) mana$ed to present oral and documentar) evidence of his and his mother=s ownership and possession of the land since 1958 throu$h a photocop) of the eed of -bsolute 8ale dated Aul) 8! 1958& Ee presented *a9 eclaration for the )ear 1938 in the name of %ufrecina /avarro and real propert) ta9 receipts be$innin$ in 195.& #t is well settled that prescription is one of the modes of ac(uirin$ ownership and that properties classified as alienable public land ma) be converted into private propert) b) reason of open! continuous and e9clusive possession of at least thirt) )ears& *he 726)ear period of prescription for purposes of ac(uirin$ ownership and re$istration of public land onl) be$ins from the moment the 8tate e9pressl) declares that the public dominion propert) is no lon$er intended for public service or the development of the national wealth or that the propert) has been converted into patrimonial& #n the case at bar! 'izalvo merel) presented a certification and report from the %/'60%/'O dated Aul) 15! .221 certif)in$ that the land in (uestion entirel) falls within the alienable and disposable zone since Aanuar) .1! 1985? that it has not been earmarked for public use? and that it does not encroach an) area devoted to $eneral public use& Fnfortunatel)! such certification and report is not enou$h in order to commence the 726)ear prescriptive period under 8ection 13 (.)&

3 L$% B T-$d.'./n D D/n$'./n 1 F"$',-"& :,'.* + C/,-' /) #n 19;7! -rsenio e9ecuted an affidavit in favor of A22"$#& 4el(uiades e9pressin$ his desire to assi$n all his properties upon his death to his brother! (1985) 4el(uiades! upon his death& #n 19;8! -rsenio mort$a$ed the properties to the P/G in consideration of a loan& *his was done with the knowled$e and ac(uiescence of 4el(uiades& #n 1952! -rsenio died intestate! sin$le! without issue! and without an) debt& Ee was survived b) his brothers and sisters& *hereafter! 4el(uiades died and is survived b) his children& Petitioners filed a complaint with the 0># a$ainst the children of 4el(uiades for partition and accountin$ of the properties of -rsenio& *he children of 4el(uiades 8eville claimed e9clusive ownership of the properties and improvements thereon on the basis of the instrument e9ecuted b) -rsenio in favor of 4el(uiades and on their alle$ed actual possession! occupation! and cultivation of "ots /os& 152 and 15. since 1953 continuousl) and peacefull) in the concept of owner up to the time of -rsenioLs death& T$1/'/ + H".-& #n 19;7! Pres& 4acapa$al issued Proclamation /o& /) 5,&/2 1;8 withdrawin$ from sale or settlement and reservin$ for recreational and health resort site (1992) purposes a meter parcel of land of the public domain in General 8antos in the Province of 0otabato! known as the 4a$sa)sa) Park& -ccordin$ to said presidential proclamation! the

*here clearl) was no intention to transfer ownership from -rsenio to 4el(uiades at the time of the instrumentLs e9ecution& #t was a mere intention or a desire on the part of -rsenio 8eville that in the event of his death at some future time! his properties should $o to 4el(uiades 8eville& onations which are to take effect upon the death of the donor partake of the nature of testamentar) provisions and shall be $overned b) the rules established in the title on succession (-rt& 5.8! 0ivil 0ode)& *he petitioners could not have accepted somethin$! which b) the terms of the supposed 1donation1 was not $iven to them at the time& *he affidavit could not transmit ownership e9cept in clear and e9press terms& -n) claim of ownership of the petitioners is not based on the affidavit but on the fact that the) are heirs of -rsenio to$ether with the respondents&

*he donation is :O# & *here are three essential elements of donation is P1Q the reduction of the patrimon) of the donor! P.Q the increase in the patrimon) of the donee! and P7Q the intent to do an act of liberalit) ( ani$us donandi)& Grantin$ that there is an ani$us donandi we find that the alle$ed donation lacks the first two elements which presuppose the donorLs ownership ri$hts over the sub<ect of the donation which he transmits to the donee thereb) enlar$in$ the doneeLs estate& *his is in consonance with the rule that a donor cannot

V.'$ M/n'$n$n/ (1991)

park would be under the administration of the 4unicipalit) of General 8antos 1sub<ect to private ri$hts! if an) there be&1 4a$sa)sa) Park became known as the "ionLs Geach after it was developed b) the 4atutum "ionLs 0lub into a public park with swin$s and a skatin$ rink& *he beach also became an ideal place to $o swimmin$& #n 1957! respondents! claimin$ ownership over the entire 4a$sa)sa) Park! donated K of the western side thereof to the Aohn >& Benned) 4emorial ")ceum! #nc&! a non6stock private corporation! represented b) -tt)& *a)oto& #n 1987! the President issued Proclamation /o& ..57 e9cludin$ from the operation of Proclamation /o& 1;8 1certain portions of the lands embraced therein and declarin$ the same open to disposition under the provisions of the Public "and -ct&1 -fter a surve) had been conducted! said portions were identified as "ot O61 and "ot O6.& *he board of trustees of the ")ceum adopted 'esolution /o& 1 authorizin$ *a)oto to cede! transfer! conve) and assi$n "ot O61 in partial settlement of )ears of accumulated salaries& *he resolution states that the one6half western side of the 4a$sa)sa) Park had been definitel) identified as "ot O61& *he ")ceum! represented b)& *a)oto and his wife! e9ecuted a deed assi$nin$ its ownership ri$hts over "ot O61 in favor of *a)oto& - complaint was filed b) /azario :ita! in his capacit) as <udicial administrator of the estate of deceased %dilberto :ita! seekin$ to recover from defendants the possession of 7 parcels of land& :ita claims that durin$ the lifetime of %dilberto! he was the owner and possessor of these 7 parcels of land and he was en<o)in$ the fruits therefrom& Dhen he died on 19;.! defendants! throu$h stealth and strate$)! took possession of the above6stated parcels of land and $athered the fruits therefrom& /otwithstandin$ demands from :ita! defendants refused to surrender the possession of these parcels of land& efendants den) that the 7 parcels of land belon$ to the estate of %dilberto :ita& #nstead! the) claim that the two parcels of land belon$ to 8oledad 4ontanano as these were conve)ed to her b) #sidra 4ontanano (her aunt and wife of %dilberto) and %dilberto :ita in a document si$ned and e9ecuted b) them in 1978 and ratified b) one 4r& 4atienzo! a /otar) Public of /a$carlan! "a$una& Eowever! all copies of said document were lost durin$ the last war& *he 7' of land is owned in common b) 8oledad 4ontanano! her brother Aose and sisters %lena and -lodia&

lawfull) conve) what is not his propert)& #n other words! a donation of a parcel of land the dominical ri$hts of which do not belon$ to the donor at the time of the donation! is void& *his holds true even of the sub<ect of the donation is not the land itself but the possessor) and proprietar) ri$hts over said land& #n this case! althou$h the) alle$edl) declared 4a$sa)sa) Park as their own for ta9ation purposes! the heirs of 0abalo Busop did not have an) transmissible proprietar) ri$hts over the donated propert) at the time of the donation& #n fact! with respect to "ot O6.! the) still had to file a free patents application to obtain an ori$inal certificate of title thereon& *his is because Proclamation /o& ..57 declarin$ as 1open to disposition under the provisions of the Public "and -ct1 some portions of the 4a$sa)sa) Park! is not an operative law which automaticall) vests ri$hts of ownership on the heirs of 0abalo Busop over their claimed parcels of land&

*he land belon$s to the defendant b) virtue of a valid donation& >rom the provision of the document! it clearl) appears that the donors shall continue to be the owner and possessors of the properties involved in the donation and shall continue to en<o) the fruits of said properties while the) are still livin$ and it is onl) upon their death that ownership will transfer to the donees& #t was the evident intent of the donors in this case to $ive the donation after their death& #n the meantime! the) retain full or naked ownership and control of the properties while the) are still livin$ and title will pass to the donees onl) after their death& *his is donation mortis causa #t is true that the last para$raph in each donation contains the phrase 1that after the death of the donor the aforesaid donation shall become effective&1 & & & Eowever! said e9pression must be construed to$ether with the rest of the para$raph! and thus taken! its meanin$ clearl) appears to be that after the donorLs death! the donation will take effect so as to make the donees the absolute owners of the donated propert)! free from all liens and encumbrances? for it must be remembered that the donor reserved for himself a share of the fruits of the land donated& 8uch reservation constituted a char$e or encumbrance that would disappear upon the donorLs death! when full title would become vested in the donees& >urthermore! mention must be made of the fact that the consideration of the second deed of donation is love and services rendered b) defendants and intervenors to #sidra 4ontanano! as revealed b) the third and fourth para$raphs therein&

L$4$6/ + C/,-' /) A22"$#& (1998)

"a$azo flied an action a$ainst 0abanlit seekin$ to recover from the latter a parcel of land which the former claims to have ac(uired from his $randmother b) donation& 0abanlit claimed that when the alle$ed donation was e9ecuted! he had alread) ac(uired the propert) b) a eed of -ssi$nment from a transferee of "a$azoLs $randmother&

*he donation is :O# & - simple or pure donation is one whose cause is pure liberalit) (no strin$s attached)! while an onerous donation is one which is sub<ect to burdens! char$es or future services e(ual to or more in value than the thin$ donated& Fnder -rticle 577 of the 0ivil 0ode! donations with an onerous cause shall be $overned b) the rules on contracts? hence! the formalities re(uired for a valid simple donation are not applicable& *he donation was simple! not onerous& %ven concedin$ that the full pa)ment of the purchase price of the lot mi$ht have been a burden to "a$a)o! such pa)ment was not however imposed b) the donor as a condition for the donation& *he words in the deed are in fact t)pical of a pure donation& -cceptance of the donation b) the donee is indispensable? its absence makes the donation null and void& *he deed of donation does not show an) indication that "a$azo accepted the $ift& urin$ the trial! he did not present an) instrument evidencin$ such acceptance& onation to 8 - Ga)u$an is :O# & onation is an act of liberalit) whereb) a person disposes $ratuitousl) of a thin$ or ri$ht in favor of anot&er person who accepts it& *he donation could not have been made in favor of an entit) )et ine9istent at the time it was made& /or could it have been accepted as there was )et no one to accept it& *he deed of donation was not in favor of an) informal $roup of 8 - members but a supposed 8PF468 - Ga)u$an (the local church) which! at the time! had neither <uridical personalit) nor capacit) to accept such $ift& *he de facto doctrine e9ists to protect the public dealin$ with supposed corporate entities! not to favor the defective or non6e9istent corporation&

S"+"n'! D$1 Ad+"n'.& + N/-'!"$&'"M.nd$n$/ (.22;)

#n 1959! 8ps& 0osio donated a parcel of land to the 8outh Philippine Fnion 4ission of 8eventh a) -dventist 0hurch of Ga)u$an %speranza! -$usan (8PF468 - Ga)u$an)& *he donation was alle$edl) accepted b) one "iberato 'a)os! an elder of the 8eventh a) -dventist 0hurch! in behalf of the donee& .1 )ears later! the same parcel of land was sold b) the 8ps& 0osio to the 8eventh a) -dventist 0hurch of /ortheastern 4indanao 4ission (8 -6/%44)& 0laimin$ to be the alle$ed donee=s successors6in6 interest! 8 - Ga)u$an asserted ownership over the propert)& *his was opposed b) 8 -6/%44 who ar$ued that at the time of the donation! 8PF46 8 - Ga)u$an could not le$all) be a done because! not havin$ been incorporated )et! it had no <uridical personalit)& /either were petitioners members of the local church then! hence! the donation could not have been made particularl) to them& 8 - Ga)u$an filed a case for cancellation of title! (uietin$ of ownership and possession! declarator) relief and reconve)ance with pra)er for preliminar) in<unction and dama$es& '*0 upheld the sale in favour of 8 -6/%44& 2 C#$&&.).*$'./n& Gasilisa 0omerciante is a mother of five children& #n 1957! Gasilisa bou$ht a parcel of residential land to$ether with the improvement& #n 1955! Gasilisa e9ecuted a document desi$nated as +Basulatan sa Baloobpala, and donated the propert) in favour of her children& *he said document was notarized& #n 1959! Gasilisa e9ecuted a eed of -bsolute 8ale of the sub<ect house and lot in favor of -ustria64a$at! her dau$hter& *he other children and their heirs filed an action a$ainst -ustri64a$at for the annulment of the *0*! and other relevant documents! and for

A,&'-.$-M$4$' + C/,-' /) A22"$#& (.22.)

#t is a valid donation inter vivos& #t has been held that whether the donation is inter vivos or $ortis causa depends on whether the donor intended to transfer ownership over the properties upon the e9ecution of the deed& #n onsato v. C(this 0ourt enumerated the characteristics of a donation $ortis causa! to wit@ #t conve)s no title or ownership to the transferee before the death of the transferor? or! what amounts to the same thin$! that the transferor should retain the ownership (full or naked) and control of the propert) while alive? *hat before his death! the transfer should be revocable b) the transferor at will! ad nutu$? but revocabilit) ma) be provided for indirectl) b) means of a reserved power in the donor to dispose of the properties conve)ed? *hat the transfer should be void if the transferor should survive the transferee&

reconve)ance and dama$es&

C$&'-/ + C/,-' /) A22"$#& (19;9)

*he ori$inal application for re$istration and confirmation of title was filed b) -ustria in 1938 coverin$ 12 parcels of land& 0astro submitted an opposition! alle$in$ that the lands applied for had been donated to her b) the applicant in 1979& #n 1952 the 0ourt rendered <ud$ment findin$ that -ustria had been in possession of the lands in the concept of owner since 1893! and conse(uentl)! b) virtue of the donation! ordered the re$istration thereof in the name of the donee! 0astro! sub<ect onl) to the usufruct reserved b) the donor in herself for the rest of her lifetime& #n 1952 a number of persons! claimin$ to be heirs of -ustria=s husband (nephews and nieces) appeared and filed a petition to set aside the decision and the order of $eneral default previousl) entered! and to have their opposition to the application admitted& *heir petition was $ranted and the case was set for trial anew& 4eanwhile! -ustria died and 0astro was substituted in her place& *he averment of the oppositors was that the lands applied for were owned b) -ntonio :entenilla? that when he died he left a will be(ueathin$ them in usufruct to his wife -le<andra? and that upon her death the) were passed to the

0onstruin$ to$ether the provisions of the deed of donation! we find and so hold that in the case at bar the donation is inter vivos& *he e9press irrevocabilit) of the same (+hindi na mababawi,) is the distinctive standard that identifies that document as a donation inter vivos& *he other provisions therein which seemin$l) make the donation $ortis causa do not $o a$ainst the irrevocable character of the sub<ect donation& *he provision in the deed of donation that the donated propert) will remain in the possession of the donor <ust $oes to show that the donor has $iven up his naked title of ownership thereto and has maintained onl) the ri$ht to use ( ;us utendi) and possess (;us possidendi) the sub<ect donated propert)& >urthermore! it also appeared that the provision in the deed of donation re$ardin$ the prohibition to alienate the sub<ect propert) is couched in $eneral terms such that even the donor is deemed included in the said prohibition Goth the donor and the donees were prohibited from alienatin$ and encumberin$ the propert) durin$ the lifetime of the donor& *he prohibition on the donor to alienate the said propert) durin$ her lifetime is proof that naked ownership over the propert) has been transferred to the donees& #t also supports the irrevocable nature of the donation considerin$ that the donor has alread) divested herself of the ri$ht to dispose of the donated propert)& -nother ndication in the deed of donation that the donation is inter vivos is the acceptance clause therein of the donees& De have ruled that an acceptance clause is a mark that the donation is inter vivos& -cceptance is a re(uirement for donations inter vivos& On the other hand! donations $ortis causa! bein$ in the form of a will! are not re(uired to be accepted b) the donees durin$ the donor=s lifetime& *he act of sellin$ the sub<ect propert) to -ustri64a$at cannot be considered as a valid act of revocation of the deed of donation for the reason that a formal case to revoke the donation must be filed pursuant to -rticle 5;3 of the 0ivil 0ode which speaks of an action that has a prescriptive period of four (3) )ears from non6compliance with the condition stated in the deed of donation& *he rule that there can be automatic revocation without benefit of a court action does not appl) to the case at bar for the reason that the sub<ect deed of donation is devoid of an) provision providin$ for automatic revocation in event of non6compliance with the an) of the conditions set forth therein& *hus! a court action is necessar) to be filed within four (3) )ears from the non6compliance of the condition violated& *he donation is :-"# & Dhether a donation is inter vivos or $ortis causa depends upon the nature of the disposition made& #t is (uite clear from the terms of the donation that the donor intended to and did dispose of her properties irrevocabl) in favor of the donee! sub<ect onl) to the conditions therein e9pressed! one of which was that the latter would have no ri$ht to the products durin$ the donorLs lifetime& *his merel) indicates a reservation in herself of the usufruct over said properties! which usufruct would be consolidated with the naked ownership of the donee upon the formerLs death& *he use of the words 1se consolidaran1 implied transfer of the naked ownership! with which the beneficial title would be consolidated upon arrival of the term thus fi9ed& *he donation was inter vivos thus it was not necessar) to compl) with the formalities re(uired of a will&

A#";$nd-/ G"-$#d"6 (1955)

said oppositors as his heirs& #n 1939! 8ps& iaz e9ecuted a deed of donation coverin$ ei$ht lots of the "olombo) >riar "ands %state in favour of their dau$hter6in6law and their three children& *he husband died in 19;.& #n 19;3! the wife and her two children e9ecuted a deed of donation denominated as 1Basulatan n$ Pa$bibi$a) na 4a$kakabisa Pa$kamata) ( onation !ortis causa )1 over one6half of "ot /o& .7556-! which is a portion of "ot /o& .755 of the "olombo) >riar "ands %state& #n that deed of donation! the wife donated to -ndrea her K share in "ot .7556-! which one6half share is #dentified as "ot .7556-61! on condition that -ndrea would bear the funeral e9penses to be incurred after the donorLs death& 8he died in 19;3& #t should be noted that the other K share in "ot .7556- or "ot /o& .7556-6. was previousl) ad<udicated to -n$el because he defra)ed the funeral e9penses on the occasion of the death of the husband& #n 1952 -ndrea sued her brother! -n$el! for the partition of "ots /os& .7556- and .52.& *eodorico -le<andro! the survivin$ spouse of Olimpia! one of the iaz children! and their children intervened in the said case& *he) claimed 1R7 of "ot /o& .52.& -n$el alle$ed in his answer that he had& been occup)in$ his share of "ot /o& .52. 1for more than twent) )ears1& *he intervenors claimed that the 1939 donation was a void $ortis causa disposition&

*he donation is inter vivos& -n inter vivos donation of real propert) must be evidenced b) a public document and should be accepted b) the donee in the same deed of donation or in a separate instrument& #n the latter case! the donor should be notified of the acceptance in an authentic form and that step should be noted in both instruments& On the other hand! a transfer $ortis causa should be embodied in a last will and testament& #t should not be called donation $ortis causa & #t is in realit) a le$ac)& #f not embodied in a valid will! the donation is void& #t is the time of effectivit) (aside from the form) which distin$uishes a donation inter vivos from a donation $ortis causa & -nd the effectivit) is determined b) the time when the full or naked ownership (do$inu$ plenu$ or do$iniu$ directu$) of the donated properties is transmitted to the donees& *he donation in the instant case is inter vivos because it took effect durin$ the lifetime of the donors& #t was alread) effective durin$ the donorsL lifetime! or immediatel) after the e9ecution of the deed! as shown b) the $rantin$! &abendu$ and warrant) clause of the deed& #n that clause it is stated that! in consideration of the affection and esteem of the donors for the donees and the valuable services rendered b) the donees to the donors! the latter! b) means of the deed of donation! wholeheartedl) transfer and unconditionall) $ive to the donees the lots mentioned and described in the earl) part of the deed! free from an) kind of liens and debts& *he acceptance clause is another indication that the donation is inter vivos& onations $ortis causa ! bein$ in the form of a will! are never accepted b) the donees durin$ the donorsL lifetime& -cceptance is a re(uirement for donations inter vivos& #n the acceptance clause herein! the donees declare that the) accept the donation to their entire satisfaction and! b) means of the deed! the) acknowled$e and $ive importance to the $enerosit) and solicitude shown b) the donors and sincerel) thank them& #n the reddendu$ or reservation clause of the deed of donation! it is stipulated that the donees would shoulder the e9penses for the illness and the funeral of the donors and that the donees cannot sell to a third person the donated properties durin$ the donorsL lifetime but if the sale is necessar) to defra) the e9penses and support of the donors! then the sale is valid& *he limited ri$ht to dispose of the donated lots! which the deed $ives to the donees! implies that ownership had passed to them b) means ofL the donation and that! therefore! the donation was alread) effective durin$ the donorsL lifetime& *hat is a characteristic of a donation inter vivos& Eowever! para$raph 7 of the reddendu$ in or reservation clause provides that 1also! while we! the spouses Gabino iaz and 8evera 4endoza! are alive! our administration! ri$ht! and ownership of the lots mentioned earlier as our properties shall continue but! upon our death! the ri$ht and ownership of the donees to each of the properties allocated to each of them shall be full) effective&1 Our conclusion is that the afore(uoted para$raph 7 of the reddendu$ or reservation clause refers to the beneficial owners&ip (do$iniu$ utile) and not to the naked title and that what the donors reserved to themselves! b) means of that clause! was the mana$ement of the donated lots and the fruits thereof& Gut! notwithstandin$ that reservation! the donation! as shown in the &abendu$ clause! was alread) effective durin$ their lifetime and was not made in contemplation of their death because the deed transferred to the donees the naked ownership of the donated properties& *he donation is inter vivos& *hat the document in (uestion in this case was captioned 1 onation 4ortis 0ausa1 is not controllin$& *his 0ourt has held that! if a donation b) its terms is inter vivos! this character is not altered b) the fact that the donor st)les it $ortis causa& #n (ustria8!a"at v. Court of (ppeals! the 0ourt held that 1irrevocabilit)1 is a (ualit) absolutel) incompatible with the idea of conve)ances $ortis causa! where 1revocabilit)1 is precisel) the essence of the act& Eere! the donors plainl) said that it is 1our will that this onation 4ortis 0ausa shall be irrevocable and shall be respected b) the survivin$ spouse&1 *he intent to make the donation

D"# R/&$-./ + F"--"(.212)

#n 19;8! 8ps& Gonzales e9ecuted a document entitled 1 onation 4ortis 0ausa1 in favor of their two children! -suncion and %miliano! and their $randdau$hter! Aarabini! coverin$ the spouses= lot and the house on it& -lthou$h denominated as a donation mortis causa! which in law is the e(uivalent of a will! the deed had no attestation clause and was witnessed b) onl) two persons& *he named donees! however! si$nified their

acceptance of the donation on the face of the document& Guadalupe! the donor wife! died in 19;8& - few months later! "eopoldo! the donor husband! e9ecuted a deed of assi$nment of his ri$hts and interests in sub<ect propert) to their dau$hter -suncion& "eopoldo died in Aune 195.& #n 1998! Aarabini filed a petition for the probate deed of donation mortis causa& -suncion opposed the petition! invokin$ his father=s assi$nment of his ri$hts and interests in the propert) to her&

irrevocable becomes even clearer b) the proviso that a survivin$ donor shall respect the irrevocabilit) of the donation& 0onse(uentl)! the donation was in realit) a donation inter vivos& *he donors in this case of course reserved the 1ri$ht! ownership! possession! and administration of the propert)1 and made the donation operative upon their death& Gut this 0ourt has consistentl) held that such reservation (reddendu$) in the conte9t of an irrevocable donation simpl) means that the donors parted with their naked title! maintainin$ onl) 9"n").*.$# ownership of the donated propert) while the) lived& /otabl)! the three donees si$ned their acceptance of the donation! which acceptance the deed re(uired& *his 0ourt has held that an acceptance clause indicates that the donation is inter vivos! since acceptance is a re(uirement onl) for such kind of donations& onations $ortis causa! bein$ in the form of a will! need not be accepted b) the donee durin$ the donor=s lifetime& Pui" v. Peaflorida 8 in case of doubt! the conve)ance should be deemed a donation inter vivos rather than $ortis causa! in order to avoid uncertaint) as to the ownership of the propert) sub<ect of the deed& 8ince the donation in this case was one made inter vivos! it was immediatel) operative and final& *he reason is that such kind of donation is deemed perfected from the moment the donor learned of the donee=s acceptance of the donation& *he acceptance makes the donee the absolute owner of the propert) donated& Given that the donation in this case was irrevocable or one $iven inter vivos! "eopoldo=s subse(uent assi$nment of his ri$hts and interests in the propert) to -suncion should be re$arded as void for! b) then! he had no more ri$hts to assi$n& ISSUE1K oes the instrument conform to the re(uirements under the 0ivil 0odeC HELDK /O& - strict interpretation of -rticle ;77 can lead to no other conclusion than the annulment of the donation for bein$ defective in form as ur$ed b) the petitioners& ISSUE2K 8hould the donation be annulledC HELDK /o& T!" 2,-2/&" /) '!" )/-0$# -"<,.-"0"n' .& '/ .n&,-" '!$' '!" $**"2'$n*" /) '!" d/n$'./n .& d,#1 */00,n.*$'"d '/ '!" d/n/- #n the case at bar! it is not even su$$ested that Auana was unaware of the acceptance for she in fact confirmed it later and re(uested that the donated land be not re$istered durin$ her lifetime b) 8alud& Given this si$nificant evidence! the 0ourt cannot in conscience declare the donation ineffective because there is no notation in the e9tra<udicial settlement of the doneeLs acceptance& *hat would be placin$ too much stress on mere form over substance& #t would also disre$ard the clear realit) of the acceptance of the donation as manifested in these separate instrument and as later acknowled$ed b) Auana&

PA:ARILLO +& IAC 1989 -u$ 11

3 F/-0 FACTSK 1& Auana! >elipe! and Perfecta were siblin$s .& *he) owned the sub<ect parcel of land 7& Auana had a dau$hter named 8alud? therefore! 8alud was also Perfecta=s niece 3& Perfecta died& 5& Fpon the death of Perfecta! the two remainin$ owners Auana and >elipe donated the land to Perfecta ;& *he donation was made in a public instrument 5& *he acceptance of 8alud was made in a 8%P-'-*% public instrument 8& *he petitioners! who are alle$edl) bu)ers in $ood faith of the land! sou$ht to annul the donation& *he) ar$ue that the donation is defective in form because of non6compliance with the re(uirements of the law re$ardin$ its acceptance& a& Old 0ivil 0ode provides that +#f the acceptance is made b) separate public instrument! authentic notice thereof shall be $iven the donor! and this proceedin$ shall be noted in 9/'! instruments&, Goth instruments refer to the deed of donation and eed of -cceptance& 8ince acceptance of the donation was not made in both instruments! the donation should be invalidated

ANGELES U3ALDE PUIG, ET AL , 2#$.n'.))& $nd $22"##$n'&, +& ESTELA MAG3ANUA PEMAFLORIDA, ET AL , d")"nd$n'& $nd $22"##$n'& 19;5 /ov .9

B D.&'.n*'./n& 9"'%""n .n'"- +.+/& $nd 0/-'.& *$,&$ FACTSK 1& 0armen! 0atalino! and "uisa are siblin$s *he first donation is a donation inter vivos? therefore! no need to compl) with the formalit) of wills& *his .& 0armen was the owner of two parcels of land donation is valid& ("ot 1 and "ot .)& 7& 8he donated the two lots! #/ 8%P-'-*% *he second contract is a will& /ot havin$ complied with the formalit) of wills! the donation is invalid instruments! the two lots in (uestion to her niece %stela! dau$hter of "uisa& D.))"-"n*"& $nd O'!"- R,#"& 3& *he plaintiffs herein! children of 0atalino and In'"- V.+/& M/-'.& C$,&$ therefore plaintiff=s cousins! want to declare the act is immediatel) operative! even if the nothin$ is conve)ed to the $rantee and nothin$ the donations void for not compl)in$ with its actual e9ecution ma) be deferred until the death is ac(uired b) the latter! until the death of the formal re(uirements of the donor (transfer of ownership effective $rantor6testator! the disposition bein$ until then a& 8ince the donations are donations immediatel)& Dhat ma) be deferred is e9ecution) ambulator) and not final (transfer of ownership 4ortis 0ausa! the same should be effective upon death)8 void for not compl)in$ with the formal re(uirements of wills ISSUEK #rrevocable 'evocable& 'evocabilit) must be absolute 8hould the donations be annulled for not compl)in$ with the forms of donationsC *hat a conve)ance for onerous consideration is $overned b) the rules of contracts and not b) those of donation or testament& *hat .n *$&" /) d/,9'! the conve)ance should be deemed donation inter vivos rather than mortis causa! in order to avoid uncertaint) as to the ownership of the propert) sub<ect of the deed&

FIRST DONATION V$#.d D/n$'./n *he conve)ance of the properties described in the deed appears made in consideration of the undertakin$ of the donee! %stela 4a$banua! to bear 1all e9penses for medical treatment! hospital e9penses andRor burial of the onor1 %mphasizin$ the onerous character of the transaction is the re(uirement that if the donee should predecease the donor! Governor PeSaflorida shall assume the obli$ations of the donee

P/%"- '/ -"+/(" 91 D/n/- .& n/' A9&/#,'" Dhile there is a clause that the donor reserved her ri$ht 1to mort$a$e or even sell the donated propert)! %!"n $nd .) &!" &!/,#d n""d ),nd& '/ 0""' !"- /%n n""d&H, this last sentence of the stipulation appears incompatible with the $rantorLs freedom to revoke a true conve)ance mortis causa& SECOND DONATION D/n$'./n M/-'.& C$,&$ V/.d )/- n/' !$+.n4 */02#."d %.'! '!" )/-0$#.'."& /) W.##& #n the second donation! no proprietar) ri$ht was intended to pass to the alle$ed 1donee1 prior to the donorLs death! and that the same was a true conve)ance mortis causa! which b) law is invalid because it was not e9ecuted with the testamentar) formalities re(uired b) the statutes in force at the time& Eere! unlike in the previous donation! the desi$nation as donation mortis causa is confirmed b) the fact that n/ &.4n& */n'-$d.*' /- #.0.' '!" ,n<,$#.)."d $nd ,n-"&'-.*'"d -.4!' /) '!" d/n/- '/ $#."n$'" '!" */n+"1"d 2-/2"-'."& .n )$+/- /) /'!"- 2"-&/n& /) !"- *!/.*" $' $n1 '.0" '!$' &!" &!/,#d %.&! '/ 0hat the designation of the donation as mortis ca%sa" or a provision in the deed to the effect that the donation is 5to ta(e effect at the death of the donor5 are not controlling criteria6 s%ch statements are to be constr%ed together with the rest of the instr%ment" in order to give effect to the real intent of the transferor

d/ &/& #t is so e9pressed in the deed! and it indirectl) reco$nizes the donorLs power to nullif) the conve)ance to the alle$ed 1donee1 whenever the 1donor1 wished to do so! for an) reason or for no particular reason at all& CASTRO +& CA 19;9 -pr .8 FACTSK 1& -le<andra -ustria wanted to re$ister 12 parcels of land in his name .& Opposed b) 0astro sa)in$ that the lands applied for had been donated to her b) the applicant in 1979& a& -ustria had been in possession of the lands in concept of owner since 1893! and conse(uentl)! b) virtue of the donation! ordered the re$istration thereof in the name of the donee! 8ocorro -& 0astro! &,9;"*' /n#1 '/ '!" ,&,)-,*' -"&"-+"d 91 '!" d/n/.n !"-&"#) )/- '!" -"&' /) !"#.)"'.0" 7& -ustria=s heirs countered@ a& said donation was mortis causa and conse(uentl) void because it did not follow the formalities re(uired of a will ISSUEK #s the donation a donation mortis causaC A#";$nd-/ +& G"-$#d"6 1955 -u$ 18 FACTSK 1& - deed of donation was made& a& *he donation was accepted durin$ the lifetime of the donors b& *he donees cannot dispose of the donated properties durin$ the lifetime of the donors c& #t contains the followin$ clause (para$raph 7)@ 1also! while we! the spouses Gabino iaz and 8evera 4endoza (donors)! are alive! our administration! ri$ht! and ownership of the lots mentioned earlier as our properties shall continue, ISSUEK #s the donation a donation mortis cause or inter vivosC /o& #nter :ivos& *herefore! no need to compl) with formalities of wills id the donor intend to transfer the ownership of the propert) donated upon the e9ecution of the donationC #f this is so! as reflected from the provisions contained in the donation! then it is inter vivos? otherwise! it is merel) mortis causa! or made to take effect after death& 8ometimes the nature of the donation becomes controversial when '!" d/n""L& "n;/10"n' /) '!" 2-/2"-'1 d/n$'"d .& 2/&'2/n"d ,n'.# $)'"- '!" d/n/-L& d"$'! Dhen the time fi9ed for the */00"n*"0"n' /) '!" "n;/10"n' /) '!" 2-/2"-'1 donated be at the death of the donor! or when the suspensive condition is related to his death! confusion mi$ht arise& *o avoid it %" 0,&' d.&'.n4,.&! 9"'%""n '!" $*',$# d/n$'./n $nd '!" "E"*,'./n '!"-"/)& *hat the donation is to have effect durin$ the lifetime of the donor or at his death does not mean the deliver) of the propert) must be made durin$ his life or after his death& >rom the moment that the donor disposes freel) of his propert) and such disposal is accepted b) the donee! the donation e9ists! perfectl) and irrevocabl)& *hus! he who makes the donation effective upon a certain date! even thou$h to take place at his death! disposes of that which he donated and he cannot afterwards revoke the donation nor dispose of the said propert) in favor of another&L >rom the terms of the donation that the donor intended to and did dispose of her properties .--"+/*$9#1 in favor of the donee! sub<ect onl) to the conditions therein e9pressed! one of which was that the latter would have no ri$ht to the products durin$ the donorLs lifetime& *his merel) indicates a reservation in herself of the usufruct over said properties! which usufruct would be consolidated with the naked ownership of the donee upon the formerLs death& *he use of the words 1se consolidaran1 implied transfer of the naked ownership! with which the beneficial title would be consolidated upon arrival of the term thus fi9ed& #nter :ivos& I' .& '!" '.0" /) "))"*'.+.'1 ($&.d" )-/0 '!" )/-0) %!.*! d.&'.n4,.&!"& $ d/n$'./n .n'"- +.+/& )-/0 $ d/n$'./n 0/-'.& *$,&$ -nd the effectivit) is determined b) the time when the full or naked ownership (dominium plenum or dominium directum) of the donated properties is transmitted to the donees& #f the donation is made in contemplation of the donorLs death! meanin$ that the full or naked ownership of the donated properties will pass to the donee onl) because of the donorLs death! then it is at that time that the donation takes effect! and it is a donation mortis causa which should be embodied in a last will and testament& Gut if the donation takes effect durin$ the donorLs lifetime or independentl) of the donorLs death! meanin$ that the full or naked ownership (nuda proprietas) of the donated properties passes to the donee durin$ the donorLs lifetime! not b) reason of his death but because of the deed of donation! then the donation is inter vivos *he donation in the instant case is inter vivos because it took effect durin$ the lifetime of the donors& #t was alread) effective durin$ the donorsL lifetime! or immediatel) after the e9ecution of the deed! as shown b) the $rantin$! habendum and warrant) clause of the deed& P-/+.&./n .n D""d /) D/n$'./nK^ buon$ puson$ inililipat at lubos na ibinibi$a) sa nasabin$ pina$kakalooban an$ lupan$ binaban$$it at makikilala sa unahan nito! la)a sa ano man$ sa$utin at

pa$kakautan$! katulad nito@1 >ollowin$ the above6(uoted $rantin$! habendum and warrant) clause is the donorsL declaration that the) donate (ipina$kakaloob) "ot /o& .52.! the propert) in liti$ation! in e(ual shares to their children -n$el iaz and -ndrea iaz! the western part to -n$el and the eastern part to -ndrea& A**"2'$n*" C#$,&" T!" $**"2'$n*" *#$,&" .& $n/'!"- .nd.*$'./n '!$' '!" d/n$'./n .& .n'"- +.+/& onations mortis causa! bein$ in the form of a will! are never accepted b) the donees durin$ the donorsL lifetime& -cceptance is a re(uirement for donations inter vivos& L.0.'$'./n '/ S"## '/ T!.-d P"-&/n& #n the reddendum or reservation clause of the deed of donation! it is stipulated that the donees would shoulder the e9penses for the illness and the funeral of the donors and that '!" d/n""& *$nn/' &"## '/ $ '!.-d 2"-&/n '!" d/n$'"d 2-/2"-'."& d,-.n4 '!" d/n/-&L #.)"'.0" but if the sale is necessar) to defra) the e9penses and support of the donors! then the sale is valid& *he limited ri$ht to dispose of the donated lots! which the deed $ives to the donees! implies that ownership had passed to them b) means of the donation and that! therefore! the donation was alread) effective durin$ the donorsL lifetime& *hat is a characteristic of a donation inter vivos& In'"-2-"'$'./n /) 2$-$4-$2! 3 Our conclusion is that the afore(uoted para$raph 7 of the reddendum or reservation clause refers to the beneficial ownership (dominium utile) and not to the naked title and that what the donors reserved to themselves! b) means of that clause! was '!" 0$n$4"0"n' /) '!" d/n$'"d #/'& $nd '!" )-,.'& '!"-"/) RUPERTO REYES $nd REYNALDO C SAN :UAN, .n !.& *$2$*.'1 $& S2"*.$# Ad0.n.&'-$'/-, 2"'.'./n"-&, +& HON LOREN@O R MOSCUEDA, :,d4" /) CFI, P$02$n4$ (3-$n*! VII), $nd URSULA D PASCUAL, -"&2/nd"n'& 1992 Aul .7 FACTSK 1& .& 7& :alid& *he donation is a donation #nter :ivos? therefore! no need to compl) with the formalities of wills& r& %milio Pascual died intestate and without issue *he sub<ect propert) was included in the estate of Pascual Frsula Pascual filed a motion to e9clude some properties from the inventor) of PascualLs estate and to deliver the titles thereto to her& a& Frsula alle$ed that r& Pascual durin$ his lifetime or on /ovember .! 19;; e9ecuted a 1 onation 4ortis 0ausa1 in her favor coverin$ properties which are included in the estate of r& Pascual *he petitioners assert that the donation was null and void since it was not e9ecuted with the formalities of a will& *he followin$ are characteristics of a donation mortis causa@ (1) 0onve) no title or ownership to the transferee before the death of the transferor? or! what amounts to the same thin$! that the transferor should retain the ownership (full or naked) and control of the propert) while alive? (.) *hat before his death! the transfer should be revocable b) the transferor at will! ad nutum? but revocabilit) ma) be provided for indirectl) b) means of a reserved power in the donor to dispose of the properties conve)ed? (7) *hat the transfer should be void if the transferor should survive the transferee& -ppl)in$ the above principles to the instant petitions! there is no doubt that the so6called O/-*#O/ 4O'*#8 0-F8- is reall) a donation inter vivos& *he donation was e9ecuted b) r& Pascual in favor of his sister Frsula Pascual out of love and affection as well as a reco$nition of the personal services rendered b) the donee to the donor& T!" '-$n&)"- /) /%n"-&!.2 /+"- '!" 2-/2"-'."& d/n$'"d '/ '!" d/n"" %$& .00"d.$'" $nd .nd"2"nd"n' /) '!" d"$'! /) '!" d/n/- *he provision as re$ards the reservation of properties for the donorLs subsistence in relation to the other provisions of the deed of donation confirms the intention of the donor to $ive naked ownership of the properties to the donee immediatel) after the e9ecution of the deed of donation& >urthermore! the title $iven to a deed of donation is not the determinative factor which makes the donation 1inter vivos1 or 1mortis causa&1

3&

ISSUEK #s the donation void for not compl)in$ with the formalities of a willC

SPOUSES ERNESTO $nd EVELYN SICAD, 2"'.'./n"-&, +& COURT OF APPEALS, CATALINO VALDERRAMA, :UDY CRISTINA M VALDERRAMA $nd :ESUS ANTONIO VALDERRAMA, -"&2/nd"n'& 1998 -u$ 17

FACTSK 1& 8ub<ect propert) is owned b) -urora 4ontinola .& 8he e9ecuted a eed of onation in favor of her $randchildren (private respondents :alderrama& - relevant characteristic of the eed of onation reads +the donees shall not sell or encumber the properties herein donated within 12 )ears after the death of the donor&, 7& G) virtue of a eed of onation! *0* was issued in favor of private respondents 3& 4ontinola however retained the ownerLs duplicate cop) of the new title (/o& *61;;..)! as well as the propert) itself! 5& 8he transferred the same ten (12) )ears later to the spouses! %rnesto and %vel)n 8icad& ;& #n order avoid future controvers)! she filed the instant case to annul the eed of onation she made to her $randchildren& 8he ar$ues that the donation is a donation mortis causa which is re(uired to compl) with the formalities of wills& 5& *he $randchildren opposed sa)in$ that there was a valid inter vivos donation& ISSUEK #nter :ivos or 4ortis 0ausaC

4ortis 0ausa& onation void& *ransfer to the 8icad spouses is valid& *he real nature of a deed is to be ascertained b) both .'& #$n4,$4" and the intention of the parties as demonstrated b) the *.-*,0&'$n*"& $''"nd$n' ,2/n .'& "E"*,'./n& C.-*,0&'$n*"& "+.d"n*.n4 '!" "E.&'"n*" /) $ M/-'.& C$,&$ D/n$'./n -urora 4ontinola ordered the insertion in the deed of that proviso restrictin$ the donees ri$ht to dispose of the propert) onl) after 12 )ears from the death of the donor! after recordation of the deed of donation! she never stopped treatin$ the propert) as her own& 8he continued! as e9plicitl) authorized in the deed itself! to possess the propert)! en<o) its fruits and otherwise e9ercise the ri$hts of dominion! pa)in$ the propert) ta9es as the) fell due 6 all these she did until she transferred the propert) to the 8icad 8pouses& 8he did not $ive the new certificate of title to the ostensible donees but retained it! too! until she delivered it to the 8icads on the occasion of the sale of the propert) to them& 4ontinolaLs openl) e9pressed view that the donation was ineffectual and could not be $iven effect even after ten (12) )ears from her death& 8he brou$ht suit on to cancel *0* /o& *61;;.. (issued to her $randchildren) premised precisel) on the invalidit) of the donation for failure to compl) with the re(uisites of testamentar) dispositions& Gefore that! she attempted to undo the conve)ance to her $randchildren b) e9ecutin$ a deed of revocation 8he caused the annotation of an adverse claim on said *0*& 8he also e9ercised .nd.&2,'$9#" $*'& /) /%n"-&!.2 over said propert) b) e9ecutin$! as <ust stated! deeds intended to pass title over it to third parties 6 petitioners herein& L$n4,$4" /) '!" D""d *he) were prohibited to effect an) sale of encumbrance thereof for a period of ten (12) )ears after the ostensible donorLs decease& 1; A d/n$'./n %!.*! 2,-2/-'& '/ 9" /n" .n'"- +.+/& 9,' %.'!!/#d& )-/0 '!" d/n"" '!" -.4!' '/ d.&2/&" /) '!" d/n$'"d 2-/2"-'1 d,-.n4 '!" d/n/-L& #.)"'.0" .& .n '-,'! /n" 0/-'.& *$,&$ #n a donation mortis causa 1the ri$ht of disposition is not transferred to the donee while the donor is still alive& 19

SPS AGRIPINO GESTOPA $nd ISA3EL SILARIO GESTOPA, 2"'.'./n"-&, +& COURT OF APPEALS $nd MERCEDES DANLAG 1 PILAPIL, -"&2/nd"n'& .222 Oct 5

FACTSK 1& 8pouses anla$ were the owners of the sub<ect properties (; parcels of land) .& *he) donated the properties to private respondent 4ercedes& *he eeds of onation contained the followin$@ $ A## d""d& */n'$.n"d '!" -"&"-+$'./n /) '!" -.4!'& /) '!" d/n/-& (1) '/ $0"nd, *$n*"# /-"+/(" '!" d/n$'./n d,-.n4 '!".- #.)"'.0", $nd (2) '/ &"##, 0/-'4$4", /- "n*,09"- '!" 2-/2"-'."& d/n$'"d d,-.n4 '!" d/n/-&L #.)"'.0", .) d""0"d n"*"&&$-1 b& (1) the anla$ spouses shall

#nter :ivos& /ote first that the $rantin$ clause shows that ie$o donated the properties out of love and affection for the donee& *his is a mark of a donation inter vivos& 8econd! '!" -"&"-+$'./n /) #.)"'.0" ,&,)-,*' .nd.*$'"& '!$' '!" d/n/- .n'"nd"d '/ '-$n&)"- '!" n$("d /%n"-&!.2 /+"- '!" 2-/2"-'."&& -s correctl) posed b) the 0ourt of -ppeals! what was the need for such reservation if the donor and his spouse remained the owners of the propertiesC *hird! the donor reserved sufficient properties for his maintenance in accordance with his standin$ in societ)! indicatin$ that the donor intended to part with the si9 parcels of land& "astl)! the donee accepted the donation& #n the case of -le<andro vs& Geraldez! we said that an acceptance clause is a mark that the donation is inter vivos& -cceptance is a re(uirement for donations inter vivos& onations mortis causa! bein$ in the form of a will! are not re(uired to be accepted b) the donees durin$ the donorsL lifetime&

7& 3&

5& ;&

continue to en<o) the fruits of the land durin$ their lifetime! and that c& (.) the donee can not sell or dispose of the land durin$ the lifetime of the said spouses! without their prior consent and approval& ie$o and 0atalina anla$ sold parcels 7 and 3 to herein petitioners! 4r& and 4rs& -$ripino Gestopa& *he D$n#$4& '!"n "E"*,'"d $ d""d /) -"+/*$'./n -"*/+"-.n4 '!" &.E 2$-*"#& /) #$nd &,9;"*' /) '!" $)/-"*.'"d d""d /) d/n$'./n 4ercedes filed the instant case of (uietin$ of title& 8he ar$ued that the donations in her favor were irrevocable donations inter vivos *he petitioners ar$ue that the donations were mortis causa 1& .& 7& Gasilia owned the sub<ect propert) 8he had 5 children@ 'osario! 0onsolacion! -polinaria (petitioner)! "eonardo! >lorentino (private respondents) 8he donated the propert) to her 5 children& #mportant provsions@ a& the same will onl) take effect upon the death of the donor b& there is a prohibition to alienate! encumber! dispose! or sell the same! are proofs that the donation is mortis causa c& *he donation is irrevocable(+hindi na mababawi,) d& Fsufruct in favor of the donees until she lives e& Prohibition to alienate and encumber on both the donee and the donor until the death of the latter Eowever! she later donated the same propert) to -polinaria alone *he private respondents (other siblin$s and heirs of deceased siblin$s) filed the instant case to declare the second donation void a& *he) ar$ued that the first donation to the 5 siblin$s are alread) donations inter vivos& *he petitioner ar$ues that it was a donation mortis causa! hence! Gasilia can

*he donorLs ri$ht to $ive consent was merel) intended to protect his usufructuar) interests& #n -le<andro! we ruled that $ #.0.'$'./n /n '!" -.4!' '/ &"## d,-.n4 '!" d/n/-&L #.)"'.0" .02#."d '!$' /%n"-&!.2 !$d 2$&&"d '/ '!" d/n""& $nd d/n$'./n %$& $#-"$d1 "))"*'.+" d,-.n4 '!" d/n/-&L #.)"'.0"

APOLINARIA AUSTRIAMAGAT, 2"'.'./n"-, +& HON COURT OF APPEALS $nd FLORENTINO LUMU3OS, DOMINGO COMIA, TEODORA CARAMPOT, ERNESTO APOLO, SEGUNDA SUMPELO, MAMERTO SUMPELO $nd RICARDO SUMPELO, -"&2/nd"n'& .22. >eb 1

#nter :ivos& 8econd donation is void whether the donation is inter vivos or mortis causa d"2"nd& /n %!"'!"- '!" d/n/- .n'"nd"d '/ '-$n&)"- /%n"-&!.2 /+"- '!" 2-/2"-'."& ,2/n '!" "E"*,'./n /) '!" d""d & *he characteristics of a donation mortis causa are@ (1) #t conve)s no title or ownership to the transferee before the death of the transferor? or! what amounts to the same thin$! that the transferor should retain the ownership (full or naked) and control of the propert) while alive? (.) *hat before his death! the transfer should be revocable b) the transferor at will! ad nutum? but revocabilit) ma) be provided for indirectl) b) means of a reserved power in the donor to dispose of the properties conve)ed? (7) *hat the transfer should be void if the transferor should survive the transferee&

3& 5&

IRREVOCA3ILITY (W)HAT IS MOST SIGNIFICANT P.n d"'"-0.n.n4 '!" '12" /) d/n$'./nQ .& '!" $9&"n*" /) &'.2,#$'./n '!$' '!" d/n/- */,#d -"+/(" '!" d/n$'./n&T on the contrar)! the deeds e9pressl) declare them to be +irrevocable,! a (ualit) absolutel) incompatible with the idea of conve)ances mortis causa where revocabilit) is of the essence of the act! to the e9tent that a testator can not lawfull) waive or restrict his ri$ht of revocation 0onstruin$ to$ether the provisions of the deed of donation! we find and so hold that in the case at bar the donation is inter vivos& *he e9press irrevocabilit) of the same (+hindi na mababawi,) is the distinctive standard that identifies that document as a donation inter vivos& P-/+.&./n '!$' &$1& '!$' '!" d/n$'./n %.## /n#1 '$(" "))"*' ,2/n '!" d"$'! /) '!" d/n/- $nd '!$' '!"-" .& $ 2-/!.9.'./n '/ $#."n$'", "n*,09"-, d.&2/&", /- &"## '!" &$0", $-" 2-//)& '!$' '!" d/n$'./n .& 0/-'.& *$,&$

;&

validl) dispose of the same even after the first donation&

*he said statements onl) mean that +after the donor=s death! the donation will take effect so as to make the donees the absolute owners of the donated propert)! free from all liens and encumbrances? for it must be remembered that the donor reserved for himself a share of the fruits of the land donated&, #t onl) means that the usufruct is e9tin$uished and the doneness would now en<o) full) the ri$hts of ownership that was alread) $iven at the time of the donation& #n the case at bar! the provision in the deed of donation that the donated propert) will remain in the possession of the donor <ust $oes to show that the donor has $iven up his naked title of ownership thereto and has maintained onl) the ri$ht to use (<us utendi) and possess (<us possidendi) the sub<ect donated propert)& P-/!.9.'./n /n D/n/- $nd D/n"" '/ $#."n$'" Goth the donor and the donees were prohibited from alienatin$ and encumberin$ the propert) durin$ the lifetime of the donor& #f the donor intended to maintain full ownership over the said propert) until her death! she could have e9pressl) stated therein a reservation of her ri$ht to dispose of the same& *he prohibition on the donor to alienate the said propert) durin$ her lifetime is eproof that naked ownership over the propert) has been transferred to the donees& #t also supports the irrevocable nature of the donation considerin$ that the donor has alread) divested herself of the ri$ht to dispose of the donated propert)& -nother indication in the deed of donation that the donation is inter vivos is the acceptance clause therein of the donees& De have ruled that $n $**"2'$n*" *#$,&" .& $ 0$-( '!$' '!" d/n$'./n .& .n'"- +.+/&& -cceptance is a re(uirement for donations inter vivos& On the other hand! donations mortis causa! bein$ in the form of a will! are not re(uired to be accepted b) the donees durin$ the donor=s lifetime&

GANUELAS, +& CAWED, :,d4" /) '!" R"4./n$# T-.$# C/,-' /) S$n F"-n$nd/, L$ Un./n (3-$n*! 27), .227 -pr .3

1& .& 7& 3& 5&

;&

0elestina owned the sub<ect parcels of land& 8he e9ecuted a eed of onation coverin$ the seven parcels of land in favor of her niece Frsulina Ganuelas 0elestina e9ecuted a document denominated as R"+/*$'./n /) D/n$'./n 0elestina died& espite the revocation! Frsulina refused to $ive private respondents (heirs of 0elestina) an) share in the produce of the properties despite repeated demands& *he respondents filed the instant case to compel the petitioner to return to them as intestate heirs the possession and ownership of the properties& a& the eed of onation e9ecuted b) 0elestina in favor of Frsulina was void for lack of acknowled$ment b) the attestin$ witnesses thereto before notar) public -tt)& Eenr) :almonte! and '!" d/n$'./n %$& $ d.&2/&.'./n 0/-'.& *$,&$ %!.*! )$.#"d '/ */02#1 %.'! '!" 2-/+.&./n& /) '!" C.+.# C/d" -"4$-d.n4 )/-0$#.'."& /) %.##& $nd '"&'$0"n'&, !"n*", .' %$& +/.d&

onation 4ortis 0ausa& *herefore! void for not compl)in$ tawith the formalities of wills& onation inter vivos differs from donation mortis causa in that in the former! the act is immediatel) operative even if the actual e9ecution ma) be deferred until the death of the donor! while in the latter! nothin$ is conve)ed to or ac(uired b) the donee until the death of the donor6testator& #n the donation sub<ect of the present case! '!"-" .& n/'!.n4 '!"-".n %!.*! .nd.*$'"& '!$' $n1 -.4!', '.'#" /- .n'"-"&' .n '!" d/n$'"d 2-/2"-'."& %$& '/ 9" '-$n&)"--"d '/ U-&,#.n$ 2-./- '/ '!" d"$'! /) C"#"&'.n$ *he phrase +to become effective upon the death of the O/O', admits of no other interpretation but that 0elestina intended to transfer the ownership of the properties to Frsulina on her death! not durin$ her lifetime& 4ore importantl)! the provision in the deed statin$ that if the donee should die before the donor! the donation shall be deemed rescinded and of no further force and effect shows that the donation is a postmortem disposition& -s stated in a lon$ line of cases! one of the decisive characteristics of a donation mortis causa is that the transfer should be considered void if the donor should survive the donee& *o classif) the donation as inter vivos simpl) because it is founded on considerations of love and affection is erroneous& *hat the donation was prompted b) the affection of the donor for the donee and the services rendered b) the latter is of no particular si$nificance in determinin$ whether the deed constitutes a transfer inter vivos or not! because a le$ac) ma) have an identical motivation&P7.Q #n other words! love and affection ma) also underline transfers mortis causa&

ELOY IMPERIAL, 2"'.'./n"+& COURT OF APPEALS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF LEGASPI CITY, CESAR VILLALON, :R , TERESA VILLALON, ANTONIO VILLALON, AUGUSTO VILLALON, RO3ERTO VILLALON, RICARDO VILLALON $nd ESTHER VILLALON, -"&2/nd"n'& 1999 Oct 8

/O*%@ # do not know wh) this case is included under the topic donations #: vs& onation 40 1& .& 7& "eonicio had two sons@ petitioner %lo) (acknowled$ed natural) and :ictor (adopted) "eonicio donated the sub<ect propert) to %lo) "eonicio later on filed a complaint to revoke the same on the $round that he was deceived b) petitioner herein into si$nin$ the said document& *he dispute! however! was resolved throu$h a compromise a$reement& "eonicio died& :ictor substituted "eonicio& :ictor died& Ee was substituted b) natural siblin$s (0esar and *eresa) 0esar and *eresa sou$ht the nullification of the eed of -bsolute 8ale affectin$ the above propert)! that the conve)ance of said propert) in favor of petitioner .02$.-"d '!" #"4.'.0" /) V.*'/- I02"-.$#, '!".- n$',-$# 9-/'!"- $nd 2-"d"*"&&/--.n-.n'"-"&'& %lo) ar$ued that :ictor had alread) waived his ri$ht to his le$itime& Dhen "eoncio died on Aanuar) 8! 19;.! it was onl) :ictor who was entitled to (uestion the donation& Eowever! instead of filin$ an action to contest the donation! :ictor asked to be substituted as plaintiff in 0ivil 0ase /o& 1155 and even moved for e9ecution of the compromise <ud$ment therein&

-rticle 1251 of 0ivil 0ode@ *he repudiation of an inheritance shall be made in a public or authentic instrument! or b) petition presented to the court havin$ <urisdiction over the testamentar) or intestate proceedin$s& *hus! when :ictor substituted "eoncio in 0ivil 0ase /o& 1155 upon the latterLs death! his act of movin$ for e9ecution of the compromise <ud$ment cannot be considered an act of renunciation of his le$itime& Ee was! therefore! not precluded or estopped from subse(uentl) seekin$ the reduction of the donation! under -rticle 55.&

3& 5& ;& 5& 8&

9&

E*!$+"6 D/6"n (2010)

:icente %chavez is the owner of several lots which includes the land sub<ect of controvers)& #n 1985! he donated it to 4anuel %chavez throu$h a deed of donation 4ortis 0ausa& 4anuel accepted the donation& #n 198;! :icente sold the lots in favor of ozen 0orporation& -lso in that )ear! :icente died& 4anuel filed a petition to approve the donation mortis causa in his favor and to annul the contract of sale& *0 dismissed the petition and held that the contract of sale e9ecuted after the donation is an e(uivocal act which revoked the donation& 0- found that the deed of donation did not contain an attestation clause and was therefore void&

O/-*#O/ #8 :O# & onation mortis causa must compl) with the formalities prescribed b) law for the validit) of wills& Otherwise! the donation is void and would produce no effect& *he purported attestation clause embodied in the -cknowled$ment portion does not contain the number of pa$es on which the deed was written& *he e9ception to this rule in 8in$son v& >lorentino and *aboada v& Eon& 'osal! cannot be applied to the present case! as the facts of this case are not similar with those of 8in$son and *aboada& #n those cases! the 0ourt found that althou$h the attestation clause failed to state the number of pa$es upon which the will was written! the number of pa$es was stated in one portion of the will& *his is not the factual situation in the present case& *hat the re(uirements of attestation and acknowled$ment are embodied in two separate provisions of the 0ivil 0ode (-rticles 825 and 82;! respectivel)) indicates that the law contemplates two distinct acts that serve different purposes& -n acknowled$ment is made b) one e9ecutin$ a deed! declarin$ before a competent officer or court that the deed or act is his own& On the other hand! the attestation of a will refers to the act of the instrumental witnesses themselves who certif) to the e9ecution of the instrument before them and to the manner of its e9ecution&

-lthou$h the witnesses in the present case acknowled$ed the e9ecution of the eed of onation 4ortis 0ausa before the notar) public! this is not the avowal the law re(uires from the instrumental witnesses to the e9ecution of a decedentLs will& -n attestation must state all the details the third para$raph of -rticle 825 re(uires& #n the absence of the re(uired avowal b) the witnesses themselves! no attestation clause can be deemed embodied in the -cknowled$ement of the eed of onation 4ortis 0ausa& D L.0.'$'./n& $ W!/ 0$1 d/n$'" 9 W!/ 0$1 9" $ d/n"" * V/.d d/n$'./n& + Guenaventura %brado was issued b) the #nsular "ife -ssurance an insurance polic) on a whole6life plan for P5!88.&22 with a rider for -ccidental eath Genefits for the same amount& Ee desi$nated 0arponia *& %brado! his common6law wife! as his revocable beneficiar) in his polic)& #n the polic) he referred to her as his wife& Dhen Guenaventura died! 0arponia filed a claim to the insurance compan)& 8he admits however the) lived to$ether as husband and wife without the benefit of marria$e& Pascuala%brado also filed a claim alle$in$ that she is the le$al wife of Guenaventura and asserts a better ri$ht over the proceeds than 0arponia who is a common law wife&

In&,#$- L.)" E9-$d/ (17>>)

- common6law wife named as a beneficiar) in the life insurance polic) of a le$all) married man cannot claim the proceeds thereof in case the death of the latter& *he contract of insurance is $overn b) the provisions of the new civil code on matters not specificall) provided for in the insurance code& Fnder the -rticle 579 specificall) states +those made between persons who were $uilt) of adulter) or concubina$e at the time of donation, shall be void& *hus common6law spouses are barred from receivin$ donations from each other& /o criminal conviction for the offense is a condition precedent& On the contrar)! the law plainl) states that the $uilt of the part) ma) be proved 1in the same actin$ for declaration of nullit) of donation& -nd! it would be sufficient if evidence preponderates upon the $uilt of the consort for the offense indicated& *he (uantum of proof in criminal cases is not demanded& Polic) considerations and dictates of moralit) ri$htl) <ustif) the institution of a barrier between common law spouses in record to Propert) relations since such hip ultimatel) encroaches upon the nuptial and filial ri$hts of the le$itimate famil) *here is ever) reason to hold that the bar in donations between le$itimate spouses and those between ille$itimate ones should be enforced in life insurance policies since the same are based on similar consideration #n essence! a life insurance polic) is no different from a civil donation insofar as the beneficiar) is concerned& Goth are founded upon the same consideration@ liberalit)& - beneficiar) is like a donee! because from the premiums of the polic) which the insured pa)s out of liberalit)! the beneficiar) will receive the proceeds or profits of said insurance& -s a conse(uence! the proscription in -rticle 579 of the new 0ivil 0ode should e(uall) operate in life insurance contracts&

V.##$n,"+$ 3-$n/*/ (2011)

Gonzalo :illanueva! represented b) his heirs! sued 8pouses Granoco to recover a parcelof land& *he former claimed ownership over the propert) thru purchase from :ere! who in turn! bou$ht the propert) from 'odri$o& Gonzalo declared the propert) in his name for ta9 purposes soon after ac(uirin$ it& #n their answer! the 8pouses Garanoco similarl) claimed ownership over the propert) thru purchase from 'odri$uez! who in turn! ac(uired the propert) from 'odri$o b)wa) of donation& *he 8pouses entered the propert) and paid ta9es afterwards& *he trial court ruled in favor of Gonzalo and declared him owner of the propert)! and ordered the 8pouses Granoco to surrender possession to Gonzalo&

O/-*#O/ D-8 :-"# & #* D-8 #/*%' :#:O8& Eavin$ irrevocabl) transferred naked title over the Propert) to 'odri$uez in 19;5! 'odri$o 1cannot afterwards revoke the donation nor dispose of the said propert) in favor of another&1 *hus! 'odri$oLs post6donation sale of the Propert) vested no title to :ere& -s :ereLs successor6in6interest! petitioner ac(uired no better ri$ht than him& On the other hand! respondents bou$ht the Propert) from 'odri$uez! thus ac(uirin$ the latterLs title which the) ma) invoke a$ainst all adverse claimants! includin$ petitioner& 'odri$o stipulated that 1if the herein onee predeceases me! the propert) will not be reverted to the onor! but will be inherited b) the heirs of 'odri$uez, si$nalin$ the irrevocabilit) of the passa$e of title to 'odri$uezLs estate! waivin$ 'odri$oLs ri$ht to reclaim title& *his transfer of title was perfected the moment 'odri$o learned of 'odri$uezLs acceptance of the disposition which! bein$ reflected in the eed! took place on the da) of its e9ecution on 74a) 19;5& 'odri$oLs acceptance of the transfer underscores its essence as a $ift in presenti ! not in futuro! as onl) donations inter vivos need acceptance b) the recipient& 'odri$o e9pressl) waived title over the Propert) in case 'odri$uez predeceases her&

'odri$o (sale) :ere (sale) Gonzalo 'odri$o (donation) 'odri$uez (sale) 8ps& Granoco *he trial court re<ected 8pouses Granoco=s claim of ownership after treatin$ the eed as a donation mortis causa which 'odri$o effectivel) cancelled b) sellin$ the Propert) to :ere& *hus! b) the time 'odri$uez sold the propert) to the 8pouses! she had no title to transfer& On appeal! the 0- $ranted the 8pouses= appeal and set aside the trial courtLs rulin$& it held that the deed of donation is one of inter vivos& #n his petition! Gonzalo seeks the reinstatement of the trial courtLs rulin$& -lternativel)! petitioner claims ownership over the Propert) throu$h ac(uisitive prescription! havin$ alle$edl) occupied it for more than 12 )ears& 3#$n*/ + R.+"-$ (200=) d O'!"-& %u$enia sold her undivided share to Petitioner& *he sale could not be re$istered because the ori$inal owner=s cop) of the tile was alle$edl) in the custod) of 'espondent who refused to surrender the same and who did not consent to the sale& %u$enia a$ain sold her undivided share to 'espondent throu$h a (uitclaim deed& 8ale was re$istered and 'espondent took possession of the propert)& Petitioner then sou$ht the assistance of the baran$a) insistin$ that the lot was sold to him& Eowever! he cannot present the ori$inal *0*& 'espondent denied that he knew of the prior sale to petitioner and filed a case for (uietin$ of title&

Dhat 'odri$o reserved for herself was onl) the beneficial title to the Propert)! evident from 'odri$uezLs undertakin$ to 1$ive half of the produce of the land to -po)-lve durin$ her lifetime&1 *hus! the eedLs stipulation that 1the ownership shall be vested on P'odri$uezQ upon m) demise!1 takin$ into account the non6reversion clause! could onl) refer to 'odri$oLs beneficial title& #ndeed! if 'odri$o still retained full ownership over the Propert)! it was unnecessar) for her to reserve partial usufructuar) ri$ht over it& *he e9istence of consideration other than the donorLs death! such as the donorLs love and affection to the donee and the services the latter rendered! while also true of devises! nevertheless 1corroborates the e9press irrevocabilit) of 9 99 Pinter vivosQ transfers&1 /or can petitioner capitalize on 'odri$oLs post6donation transfer of the Propert) to :ere as proof of her retention of ownership& #f such were the barometer in interpretin$ deeds of donation! not onl) will $reat le$al uncertaint) be visited on $ratuitous dispositions! this will $ive license to ro$ue propert) owners to set at nau$ht perfected transfers of titles! which! while founded on liberalit)! is a valid mode of passin$ ownership& *he interest of settled propert) dispositions counsels a$ainst licensin$ such practice&

'%8PO/ %/* #8 *E% OD/%' G%#/G *E% >#'8* *O '%G#8*%' #/ GOO GO -'*& 1533&

>-#*E -8 '%UF#'%

Dhen immovable propert) is sold to two different bu)ers at different times! ownership is determined in accordance with -rticle 1533 of the 0ivil 0ode& -rt 1533@ 8hould it be immovable propert)! the ownership shall pertain to the person ac(uirin$ it who in $ood faith first recorded it in the 'e$istr) of Propert)& 8hould there be no inscription! the ownership shall pertain to the person! who in $ood faith was first in the possession? and! in the absence thereof! to the person who presents the oldest title! provided there is $ood faith& *he re(uirement of the law is two6fold@ ac(uisition in $ood faith and re$istration in $ood faith& *he vendee who first re$isters the sale in $ood faith in the re$istr) of propert) has a preferred ri$ht over another vendee who has not re$istered his title& *his is true even if the latter is in actual possession of the immovable propert)& 4ore credit is $iven to re$istration than to actual possession& Gut the law is clear T mere re$istration of title is not enou$h& Good faith must concur with re$istration& Dhat holds relevance and materialit) is not whether the second bu)er is a bu)er in $ood faith but whether he re$isters such second sale in $ood faith! meanin$! without knowled$e of an) defect in the title of the propert) sold& Eere! both the trial and appellate courts declared respondent to be the true owner of the propert)& Ee was uncontestedl) the first to re$ister his ownership over the propert)! untainted b) proof of an) knowled$e of the prior sale& 'espondent=s ac(uisition and re$istration of the propert) were therefore in $ood faith&

L,09-"& T$9#$d$

8prin$ Eomes entered into a 0ontract to 8ell with 'espondent spouses& Eavin$ paid the total amount

'%8PO/ %/* #8 *E% *'F% OD/%'& P%*#*#O/%'8= >#'8* '%G#8*'-*#O/ 0OF" %>%-* *E% '%8PO/ %/*=8 *#*"% -8 *E%O -'% #/ G- >-#*E&

/O*

(200>)

which 'espondent claims as the full purchase price! 8prin$ Eomes e9ecuted a eed of -bsolute 8ale& 'espondent constructed a residential house on the lot& *he) also demanded the owner=s cop) of *0*& *o their $reat disma)! the spouses subse(uentl) learned that the *0* was canceled and a new one issued to the Petitioners& Eence! 'espondent filed a case for nullification of title! reconve)ance and dama$es 8prin$ Eomes ar$ued that 'espondent failed to pa) the unpaid balance! hence! the sub<ect lot was sold to Petitioners& = R"d,*'./n $nd -"+/*$'./n #n 1979! on 'amon "opez 8r& e9ecuted a deed of donation in favor of 0PF to$ether with the followin$ conditions@ a) *he land should be utilized b) 0PF e9clusivel) for the establishment N use of medical colle$e? b) *he said colle$e shall not sell transfer or conve) to an) 7rd part)? c) *he said land shall be called +'amon "opez 0ampus, and an) income from that land shall be put in the fund to be known as +'amon "opez 0ampus >und,& Eowever! on 4a) 71! 1989! the heirs of on 'amon filed an action for annulment of donation! reconve)anceN dama$es a$ainst 0PF for not compl)in$ with the conditions& *he heirs also ar$ued that 0PF had ne$otiated with the /E- to e9chan$e the donated propert) with another land owned b) the latter&

Petitioners cannot claim $ood faith since at the time of the e9ecution of the 0ompromise -$reement& *he) were indisputabl) and reasonabl) informed that the sub<ect lot was previousl) sold to the respondents& #n fact! the) were alread) aware that the respondents had constructed a house thereon and are presentl) in possession of the same& Bnowled$e $ained b) the second bu)er of the first sale defeats his ri$hts even if he is the first to re$ister the second sale because such knowled$e taints his prior re$istration with bad faith& >or the second bu)er to displace the first! he must show that he acted in $ood faith throu$hout (i&e& in i$norance of the first sale and of the first bu)erLs ri$hts) from the time of ac(uisition until the title is transferred to him b) re$istration& 0onse(uentl)! the respondents are the bu)ers entitled to the ph)sical possession of the sub<ect lot since the prevailin$ doctrine is that as between the bu)er who is in possession of a *orrens title but who has ac(uired it in bad faith and the first bu)er who failed to have his title recorded in the 'e$istr) of Propert)! the first bu)er must prevail& O/-*#O/ #8 '%:OB% & - clear perusal of the conditions set forth in the deed of donation e9ecuted b) on 'amon "opez! 8r&! $ives us no alternative but to conclude that his donation was onerous! one e9ecuted for a valuable consideration which is considered the e(uivalent of the donation itself! e&$&! when a donation imposes a burden e(uivalent to the value of the donation& 4oreover! the time from which the cause of action accrued for the revocation of the donation and recover) of the propert) donated cannot be specificall) determined in the instant case& - cause of action arises when that which should have been done is not done! or that which should not have been done is done& *hus! when the obli$ation does not fi9 a period but from its nature and circumstances it can be inferred that a period was intended! the $eneral rule provided in -rt& 1195 of the 0ivil 0ode applies! which provides that the courts ma) fi9 the duration thereof because the fulfillment of the obli$ation itself cannot be demanded until after the court has fi9ed the period for compliance therewith and such period has arrived&*his $eneral rule however cannot be applied considerin$ the different set of circumstances e9istin$ in the instant case& 4ore than a reasonable period of fift) (52) )ears has alread) been allowed petitioner to avail of the opportunit) to compl) with the condition even if it be burdensome! to make the donation in its favor forever valid& Gut! unfortunatel)! it failed to do so& 8ince the (uestioned deed of donation herein is basicall) a $ratuitous one! doubts referrin$ to incidental circumstances of a $ratuitous contract should be resolved in favor of the least transmission of ri$hts and interests& 12 'ecords are clear and facts are undisputed that since the e9ecution of the deed of donation up to the time of filin$ of the instant action! petitioner has failed to compl) with its obli$ation as donee& Petitioner has slept on its obli$ation for an unreasonable len$th of time& Eence! it is onl) <ust and e(uitable now to declare the sub<ect donation alread) ineffective and! for all purposes! revoked so that petitioner as donee should now return the donated propert) to the heirs of the donor! private respondents herein! b) means of reconve)ance&

C"n'-$# P!.#.22.n" Un.+"-&.'1 + CA (177D)

L$4$6/ + CA (1778)

0atalina Aacob :da& de 'e)es! a widow and $randmother of plaintiff6appellee! was awarded in Aul) 1955 a ;2&126s(uare meter lot which is a

8imple donation! not onerous& PetitionerRPlaintiff cannot be deemed the owner for lack of acceptance& #t is clear that the donor did not have an) intention to burden or char$e petitioner as the donee& *he

portion of the 4onserrat %state& 8hortl) before she left for 0anada where she is now a permanent resident! 0atalina Aacob e9ecuted a 8P- in favor of her son6in6law %duardo G& %spaSol authorizin$ him to e9ecute all documents necessar) for the final ad<udication of her claim as awardee of the lot& ue to the failure of %duardo G& %spaSol to accomplish the purpose of the power of attorne) $ranted to him! 0atalina Aacob revoked said authorit)& 0atalina Aacob e9ecuted in 0anada a eed of onation over the lot in favor of the Plaintiff& >ollowin$ the donation! plaintiff6appellee checked with the 'e$ister of eeds and found out that the propert) was in the delin(uent list! so that he paid the installments in arrears and the remainin$ balance on the lot& Plaintiff then sent a demand letter to the defendant to vacate the lot& efendant claims that the lot was sold to them b) the %duardo& omin$o owned . lots! which he donated throu$h a private instrument to an$uilan for the consideration that the latter must take care of him for the remainder of his life and mana$e his burial& omin$o=s dau$hter! -polonia! laid claim to the land! presentin$ a public document alle$edl) e9ecuted in her favor! the purchase price bein$ paid for b) her mother& 8he however failed to take possession of the said propert) after the e9ecution of the deed& #n fact! she moved out of the farm when an$uilan started to cultivate the same for as lon$ as she was $iven a share from the harvests& 8he decided to file a case onl) after the deliveries of farm produce have ceased&

words in the deed are in fact t)pical of a pure donation& *he pa)ments even seem to have been made pursuant to the power of attorne) e9ecuted b) 0atalina 'e)es in favor of petitioner! her $randson! authorizin$ him to e9ecute acts necessar) for the fulfillment of her obli$ations& /othin$ in the records shows that such acts were meant to be a burden in the donation& "ike an) other contract! an a$reement of the parties is essential& *he donation! followin$ the theor) of co$nition (-rticle 1719! 0ivil 0ode)! is perfected onl) upon the moment the donor knows of the acceptance b) the donee& -cceptance of the donation b) the donee is! therefore! indispensable? its absence makes the donation null and void& *itle to immovable propert) does not pass from the donor to the donee b) virtue of a deed of donation until and unless it has been accepted in a public instrument and the donor dul) notified thereof& *he acceptance of a donation ma) be made at an) time durin$ the lifetime of the donor& -nd $rantin$ ar$uendo that such acceptance ma) still be admitted in evidence on appeal! there is still need for proof that a formal notice of such acceptance was received b) the donor and noted in both the deed of donation and the separate instrument embod)in$ the acceptance& -t the ver) least! this last le$al re(uisite of annotation in both instruments of donation and acceptance was not fulfilled b) petitioner& >or this reason! the sub<ect lot cannot be ad<udicated to him&

D$n4,.#$n IAC (1778)

R" D/n$'./nK 0onsiderin$ the lan$ua$e of the two instruments! that omin$o 4elad did intend to donate the properties to the petitioner! as the private respondent contends& De do not think! however! that the donee was moved b) pure liberalit)& Dhile trul) donations! the conve)ances were onerous donations as the properties were $iven to the petitioner in e9chan$e for his obli$ation to take care of the donee for the rest of his life and provide for his burial& Eence! it was not covered b) the rule in -rticle 539 of the 0ivil 0ode re(uirin$ donations of real properties to be effected throu$h a public instrument& On the other hand! both the trial court and the respondent court have affirmed the factual alle$ation that the petitioner did take care of omin$o 4elad and later arran$ed for his burial in accordance with the condition imposed b) the donor& #t is alle$ed and not denied that he died when he was almost one hundred )ears old! which would mean that the petitioner farmed the land practicall) b) himself and so provided for the donee (and his wife) durin$ the latter part of omin$o 4eladLs life& De ma) assume that there was a fair e9chan$e between the donor and the donee that made the transaction an onerous donation& R" '!" *#$.0 '!$' '!" 2-/2"-'1 %$& 2,-*!$&"d @ -t an) rate! even assumin$ the validit) of the deed of sale! the record shows that the private respondent did not take possession of the disputed properties and indeed waited until 19;. to file this action for recover) of the lands from the petitioner& #f she did have possession! she transferred the same to the petitioner in 193;! b) her own sworn admission! and moved out to another lot belon$in$ to her step6brother& Eer claim that the petitioner was her tenant (later chan$ed to administrator) was disbelieved b) the trial court! and properl) so! for its inconsistenc)& #n short! she failed to show that she consummated the contract of sale b) actual deliver) of the properties to her and her actual possession thereof in concept of purchaser6owner& #t is the findin$ of the trial court! which is not disputed b) the parties! that the donation sub<ect of this case is one with an onerous cause& #t was made sub<ect to the burden re(uirin$ the donee to construct a chapel! a nurser) and a kinder$arten school in the donated propert) within five )ears from e9ecution of the deed of donation&Fnder the old 0ivil 0ode! it is a settled rule that donations with an onerous cause are $overned not b) the law on donations but b) the rules on contracts&

D" L,n$ A9-.4/ (1770)

e "una donated a portion of lot to the "uzonian Fniversit) >oundation& *hedonation was embodied in a eed of onation #ntervivos and was sub<ect to certain terms andconditions&

#n case of violation or non6compliance! the propert) would automaticall) revert tothe donor& Dhen the >oundation failed to compl) with the conditions! de "una +revived, the said donation b) e9ecutin$ a 'evival of onation #nter vivos with the followin$ terms and conditions@ 1) *he onee shall construct on the land and at its e9pense a 0hapel! /urser)! andBinder$arten 8chool to be named after 8t& :eronica .) 0onstruction shall start immediatel) and must be at least 52b completed three )ears fromthe date of the eed unless the onor $rants e9tensions 7) -utomatic reversion in case of violation *he >oundation accepted and the donation was re$istered and annotated in the *0*& G) a eed of 8e$re$ation! the foundation was issued a *0* for area the lot donated while theremainin$ area was retained b) the e "una& *he children and onl) heirs of the late e "una (died after the donation) filed a complaint withthe '*0 for the cancellation of the donation on the $round that the terms were violated& *he>oundation defended itself b) sa)in$ that it had partiall) and substantiall) complied with theconditions and that the donor $ranted it an indefinite e9tension of time to completeconstruction&'espondent foundation claimed that it had partiall) and substantiall) complied with theconditions of the donation and that the donor has $ranted the foundation an indefinitee9tension of time to complete the construction of the chapel& #t also invoked the affirmativedefense of prescription of action and pra)ed for the dismissal of the complaint 8an$$unian Panlalawi$an of *arlac approved the conversion of Fr(uico 4emorial -thletic >ield into a Government 0enter! as well as the se$re$ation and donation of portions of said land to different $overnment a$encies for the purpose of constructin$ or relocatin$ their office buildin$s& *he Province of *arlac and the G8#8 then e9ecuted a 4emorandum of -$reement (4O-) on ecember 17! 1995! whereb) the Province of *arlac donated the said lot to the G8#8 sub<ect to

Fnder -rticle 172; of the /ew 0ivil 0ode! the parties to a contract have the ri$ht 1to establish such stipulations! clauses! terms and conditions as the) ma) deem convenient! provided the) are not contrar) to law! morals! $ood customs! public order or public polic)&1 *he validit) of the stipulation in the contract providin$ for the automatic reversion of the donated propert) to the donor upon non6compliance cannot be doubted& #t is in the nature of an a$reement $rantin$ a part) the ri$ht to rescind a contract unilaterall) in case of breach! without need of $oin$ to court& Fpon the happenin$ of the resolutor) condition of non6compliance with the conditions of the contract! the donation is automaticall) revoked without need of a <udicial declaration to that effect& #t is clear! however! that <udicial intervention is necessar) not for purposes of obtainin$ a <udicial declaration rescindin$ a contract alread) deemed rescinded b) virtue of an a$reement providin$ for rescission even without <udicial intervention! but in order to determine whether or not the recession was proper& *he case of Parks v& Province of *arlac! supra! relied upon b) the trial court! is not applicable in the case at bar& Dhile the donation involved therein was also onerous! there was no a$reement in the donation providin$ for automatic rescission! thus! the need for a <udicial declaration revokin$ said donation&*he trial court was therefore not correct in holdin$ that the complaint in the case at bar is barred b) prescription under -rticle 5;3 of the /ew 0ivil 0ode because -rticle 5;3 does not appl) to onerous donations&

GSIS P-/+.n*" T$-#$* (2003)

+ /)

0onsiderin$ that the assailed donation is clearl) onerous! the rules on contracts will appl)& - transfer of real propert) b) a local $overnment unit to an instrumentalit) of $overnment without first securin$ an appraised valuation from the local committee on awards does not appear to be one of the void contracts enumerated in the afore6(uoted -rticle 1329 of the 0ivil 0ode& /either does 8ection 781 of the "ocal Government 0ode e9pressl) prohibit or declare void such transfers if an appraised valuation from the local committee on awards is not first obtained& *he freedom of contract is both a constitutional and statutor) ri$ht and to uphold this ri$ht! courts should move with all the necessar) caution and prudence in holdin$ contracts void& >urthermore! a dul) e9ecuted contract carries with it the presumption of validit)&

the conditions stipulated therein& 8ubse(uentl)! Gov& Aose Oap was elected& Ee wrote a letter to the G8#8! invitin$ the latter to reevaluate their respective positions with respect to the 4O- of ecember 17! 1995& %videntl)! Gov& Oap was of the opinion that the provisions of the eed of onation were unfair to the Province& "ater! the Provincial -dministrator wrote the G8#8! demandin$ the pa)ment of P77!592!222&22 representin$ the balance of the value of the lot donated! which the G8#8 refused to pa)& Province of *arlac then filed a 0omplaint a$ainst the G8#8 for declaration of nullit) of donation and memorandum of a$reement! recover) of possession and enforcement of -rticle 339 in relation to -rticles 352 and 351 of the 0ivil 0ode Pedro 0alapine was the re$istered owner of a parcel of land& Ee e9ecuted a deed of donation inter vivos cedin$ K of the land to his niece! Eelen oria& 8ubse(uentl)! another deed was purportedl) e9ecuted b) Pedro 0alapine cedin$ unto Eelen oria the whole of the parcel of land& oria donated a portion of the lot (155 s(m) to the 0alauan 0hristian 'eformed 0hurch (00'0)& 0alapine sou$ht to annul the sale and donation to %duarte and 00'0 on the $round that the deed of donation was a for$er) and that oria was unworth) of his liberalit) claimin$ in$ratitude (commission of offense a$ainst the person! honor or propert) of donor Ppar& 1Q) Petitioners submit that par (1) of -rticle J32 of the 0ivil 0ode does not appl) because the acts of in$ratitude referred to therein pertain to offenses committed b) the donee a$ainst the person or propert) of the donor& *he) ar$ue that as the offense imputed to donee Eelen oria 6 falsification of a public document 6 is neither a crime a$ainst the person nor propert) of the donor but is a crime a$ainst public interest under the 'evised Penal 0ode! the same is not a $round for revocation& > S,**"&&./n 8 P-"&*-.2'./n NCC 110=-11DD V >austino 4anin$o sold b) pacto de retro the OF sub<ect propert) to spouses Pedro and *eresa :illamor& 8ubse(uentl)! >austino re(uested his father6in6law Aose e$uilmo! to bu) the land from *here bein$ a perfected contract! the Province of *arlac! throu$h Gov& Oap! cannot revoke or renounce the same without the consent of the other part)& >rom the moment of perfection! the parties are bound not onl) to the fulfillment of what has been e9pressl) stipulated but also to all the conse(uences which! accordin$ to their nature! ma) be in keepin$ with $ood faith! usa$e! and law&

EDUARTE COURT APPEALS (199;)

V OF

*he eed of onation is revocable on the $round of an act of in$ratitude& (/ote@ Eowever! the petitioners still won because the 0ourt applied the chain of title theor) because the lands were re$istered lands and it has alread) passed from the for$er ( oria) to innocent purchasers for value (%duarte! et al&)& 0ommentaries of *olentino@ +Offense -$ainst onor& A00 cri$es w&ic& offend t&e donor s&ow in"ratitude and are causes for revocation. *here is no doubt! therefore! that the donee who commits adulter) with the wife of the donor! $ives cause for revocation b) reason of in$ratitude& *he crimes a$ainst the person of the donor would include not onl) homicide and ph)sical in<uries! but also ille$al detention! threats! and coercion? those a$ainst honor include offenses a$ainst chastit)? and those a$ainst the propert)! include robber)! theft! usurpation! swindlin$! arson! dama$es! etc& P4anresa *J28 *J37.K (#talics supplied)& Obviousl)! the first sentence was deleted b) petitioners because it totall) controverts their contention& -s noted in the aforecited opinion +all crimes which offend the donor show in$ratitude and are causes for revocation&, Petitioners= attempt to cate$orize the offenses accordin$ to their classification under the 'evised Penal 0ode is therefore unwarranted considerin$ that ille$al detention! threats and coercion are considered as crimes a$ainst the person of the donor despite the fact that the) are classified as crimes a$ainst personal libert) and securit) under the 'evised Penal 0ode&

5IAMCO COURT APPEALS

Aose e$uilmo (and now his heirs)! no doubt! had alread) ac(uired ownership of the sub<ect propert) on the basis of ac(uisitive prescription& Pursuant to -rt& 111; of the /ew 0ivil 0ode! which provides for transitional rules on prescription! and

(199.)

the :illamors& *he :illamor spouses sold the land in dispute to Aose e$uilmo and immediatel) took possession of the propert)! introduced improvements and paid ta9es& -fter more than .2 )ears! >austino alle$edl) tried to forcibl) take possession of the propert) from his father6in6law althou$h he did not succeed& >austino then proceeded to e9ecute a deed of sale in favor of 4arcelino Biamco who alle$edl) knew! at the time of the sale! that defendant Aose e$uilmo! had alread) been in possession of the disputed propert) for more than twent) (.2) )ears& -fter the said sale! 4arcelino Biamco attempted to take possession but was not successful& Eowever! he did not file )et an) action for e<ectment or unlawful detainer& 8even (5) months after the e9ecution of the alle$ed sale! 4arcelino Biamco filed a complaint for (uietin$ of title and recover) of possession with dama$es a$ainst Aose e$uilmo&

which reads@ 1Prescription alread) runnin$ before the effectivit) of this 0ode shall be $overned b) laws previousl) in force? but if since the time this 0ode took effect the entire period herein re(uired for prescription should lapse! the present 0ode shall be applicable! even thou$h b) the former laws a lon$er period mi$ht be re(uired!1 the law to be applied in this case is the 0ode of 0ivil Procedure (-ct 192)& #nasmuch as here the prescription was alread) runnin$ before -u$ust 72! 1952! it follows that onl) ten (12) )ears would be re(uired! because under the 0ode of 0ivil Procedure! re"ardless of "ood fait& or bad fait&- the period for ac(uirin$ land b) prescription was onl) ten (12) )ears (8ec& 31! -ct 192! 0ode of 0ivil Procedure)& #t therefore follows necessaril) that in 19;2! Aose e$uilmo had alread) ac(uired the sub<ect propert) b) ac(uisitive prescription& *hus! 4arcelino Biamco should have lost the case! unless of course! the land was covered b) a *orrens 0ertificate of *itle& -s found b) the 0-! the evidence shows that the land is not a titled propert)& *he period of ten (12) )ears must necessaril) start from Aanuar)! 1952! and not from -u$ust 1952! since here! the prescriptive period under the old law was shorter& Ead the period under the old law been lon$er! it is the shorter period under the /ew 0ivil 0ode that should appl)! but this time! the period should commence from the date of effectivit) of the /ew 0ivil 0ode M -u$ust 72! 1952 M in view of the clause 1but if since the time this 0ode took effect & & &1 Dith the facts obtainin$ in the present case! it is immaterial whether the propert) in dispute was possessed b) Aose e$uilmo in $ood or bad faith& Eis adverse possession for more than twent) )ears is more than sufficient for purposes of ac(uisitive prescription under the 0ode of 0ivil Procedure& *hus! even if the alle$ed eed of 8ale e9ecuted on Aanuar) 12! 1952 (%9h& .) was void ab initio! as claimed b) petitioner (because >austino 4anin$o could still repurchase the propert) until 1951! thus the :illamor spouses were not )et the owners thereof)! what is important is that Aose e$uilmo immediatel) took possession of the propert) and continuousl) and adversel) possessed and en<o)ed it for more than twent) )ears& Gesides! as correctl) found b) the respondent court! if >austino claims that the eed of 8ale of Aanuar) 12! 1952 was not authentic and valid! wh) did he not disturb Aose e$uilmo from 1952 until 1957?1 it is hardl) the actuation of an owner for >austino 4anin$o to do what he did for the last .3 )ears! if as the :illamor spouses said >austino 4anin$o had alread) repurchased the propert) in 1939&1 4%'-"0O never ac(uired an) easement over the "%O:-sL propert) to construct and operate the steel towers& 0onse(uentl)! the "%O:-s must be compensated and awarded temperate dama$es! attorne)Ls fees and annual compensation for the loss of use and deprivation of opportunit) to profit and benefit from their lands& *here bein$ no evidence that the ori$inal use of the propert) in (uestion b) 4eralco was based upon an) e9press $rant of a fee to the said propert)! or of an easement of ri$ht of wa) nor that it be$an under the assertion of a ri$ht on its part! the presumption must be that the ori$in of the use was the mere tolerance or license of /azalio 0risostomo& *he provision of -rticle 193. of the 0ivil 0ode to the effect that acts which are merel) tolerated produce no effect with respect to possession is applicable as much to the prescription of real ri$hts as to the prescription of the fee! it bein$ a $larin$ and self6evident error to affirm the contrar)! as does the appellant in his motion papers& Possession is the fundamental basis of the prescription& Dithout it no kind of prescription is possible! not even the e9traordinar)& 0onse(uentl)! if acts of mere tolerance produce no effect with respect to possession! as that article provides! in conformit) with -rticle 333 of the same 0ode! it is evident that the) can produce no effect with respect to prescription! whether ordinar) or e9traordinar)& *his is true whether the prescriptive ac(uisition be of a fee or of real ri$hts! for the same reason holds in one and the other case? that is! that there has been no true possession in the le$al sense of the word& (8ee also -)ala de 'o9as vs& 4a$lonso! 8 Phil& 'ep&! 535? 4unicipalit) of /ueva 0aceres vs& irector of "ands and 'oman 0atholic Gishop of /ueva 0aceres! .3 Phil& 'ep&! 385)& Possession! under the 0ivil 0ode! to constitute the foundation of a prescriptive ri$ht! must be

MERALCO IAC (1989)

/azario 0risostomo and 4aria %scusar owned a parcel of land situated in 0ainta& Fpon the death of both! the propert) passed on to their dau$hter Gibiana 0risostomo :da& de %ladio "e)va! whose title was evidenced b) *0* 8133& Fltimatel)! the propert) was inherited b) the "%O:-s who were the children of Gibiana& Prior to the issuance of title in the name of /azario between 19.9 and 1972! 4%'-"0O erected thereon two transmission steel towers& *he "%O:-s sued 4%'-"0O for dama$es and sum of mone) for its continued use of the "%O:-sL propert)! claimin$ that the propert) became off limits because of the hi$h volta$e of electric current runnin$ in the cable lines& 4%'-"0O claimed that it had ac(uired a $rant from the ori$inal owner of the land! /azario 0risostomo! for a perpetual easement of ri$ht of wa) for the erection and operation of the transmission steel towers for which it had paid 0risostomo the total sum of ]1.&32& 4oreover!

even without the $rant of perpetual easement! the "%O:-sL complaint is deemed barred b) prescription and laches! because of 4%'-"0OLs open! continuous and uninterrupted en<o)ment of the easement for a period of 37 )ears&

SOLIS COURT APPEALS (1989)

V OF

-ntonio 8olis and -n$ela 8olis 0alimlim alle$ed that the) are co6owners of a parcel of residential land situated at Garrio Gued! 0alasiao! Pan$asinan? that this parcel of land was inherited from their parents (8imeon 8olis and Petronila Gauzon)? that in 1979! the) allowed defendants Aose 8olis and his wife >lorencia io(uino to construct a house on the eastern portion of plaintiffsL parcel of land (consistin$ of 57; s(uare meters) with the understandin$ that the) (defendants) should vacate the premises as soon as their financial conditions would permit them& #n 19;5! plaintiffs demanded that the defendants vacate the premises but the latter refused& *he answer of defendants raised as affirmative defense the fact of their ownership of the propert) in (uestion havin$ ac(uired the same b) wa) of donacion proper nuptias from spouses *omas 8olis and Eermene$ilda Aimenez! wa) back in 1971& *he) also alle$ed that since 1971! the) were in possession of said propert) openl)! continuousl) and adversel)! to the e9clusion of all others! and in the concept of owners and that since 1971 the) have paid the ta9es due on the propert)&

possession under claim of title (en concepto de dueSo) or to use the common law e(uivalent of the term! it must be adverse& -cts of a possessor) character performed b) one who holds b) mere tolerance of the owner are clearl) not en concepto de dueSo and such possessor) acts! no matter how lon$ so continued! do not start the runnin$ of the period of prescription& #n the case at bar! the evidence discloses that sometime after the war! plaintiffs complained a$ainst 4%'-"0OLs use and occupanc) of the premises& 8ubse(uentl)! defendant sometime in 19;8 ne$otiated with plaintiff for the purchase of the entire lot but the ne$otiation did not prosper as 4%'-"0O suspended the ne$otiations on the $round that it was considerin$ the selection of another site& >inall)! plaintiff filed the present action on -u$ust 5! 1957 after their demand for compensation was refused& #t is obvious that there can be no prescription or laches to bar plaintiffsL present action& Aose 8olis and >lorencia io(uino 8olis are the lawful owners of the eastern portion of the lot b) prescription& %ven a void donation ma) be the basis of claim of ownership which ma) ripen into title b) prescription (Pensador vs& Pensador 35 Phil& 959! 9;1)& #t is the essence of the statute of limitations that! whether the part) had a ri$ht to the possession or not! if he entered under the claim of such ri$ht and remained in possession for the period (ten )ears) named in the statute of limitations! the ri$ht of action of the plaintiff who had the better title is barred b) that adverse possession& *he ri$ht $iven b) the statute of limitations does not depend upon! and has no necessar) connection! (with) the validit) of the claim under which the possession is held& &&&1 (:da& de "ima vs& *io! "6.5181! -pril 72! 1952! citin$ 0onspecto v& >ruto! 1.9 F8 18. P1889Q)& *he 1<ust title1 re(uired for ac(uisitive prescription to set in is not Gtitulo verdadero y validG6or such title which b) itself is sufficient to transfer ownership Dithout necessit) of lettin$ the prescriptive period elapse but onl) Gtitulo coloradorG H such title where! althou$h there was a mode of transferrin$ ownership! still somethin$ is wron$ because the $rantor is not the owner& *he donacion was made in 1971 and spouses Aose 8olis and >lorencia io(uino took possession of the land in 1977 b) virtue of the donacion& #t was the 0ode of 0ivil Procedure which was then in force& Fnder the 0ode of 0ivil Procedure! ten )ears of adverse possession b) a person claimin$ to be the owner! in w&atever way suc& occupancy $ay &ave co$$enced s&all vest in every actual possessor of suc& land a full co$plete title& *he lapse of more than twent) (.2) )ears of adverse possession b) private respondents is sufficient to confer ownership on them of the disputed portion under the Old 0ivil 0ode which re(uires onl) ten (12) )ears of adverse possession& *he Old 0ivil 0ode provides@ 8ec& 31& Title to land by prescription& M *en )ears of adverse possession b) an) person claimin$ to be the owner for that time of an) land or interest in land! uninterruptedl)! continuousl) for ten )ears b) occupanc)! descent! $rants or otherwise! in whatever wa) such occupanc) ma) have commenced or continued! shall vest in ever) actual possessor of such land a full complete title! savin$ to the person under disabilities the ri$hts! secured b) the ne9t 8ection& -lthou$h petitionersL action for (uietin$ of title was filed in 4a) 72! 19;5 when the /ew 0ivil 0ode was alread) in effect! -rticle 111; of the /ew 0ivil 0ode provides that 1prescription alread) runnin$ before the effectivit) of this 0ode (-u$ust 72! 1952) shall be $overned b) laws previousl) in force? &&&1 which in this case is the afore(uoted 8ection 31 of the Old 0ivil 0ode& *herefore! whatever claim petitioners had over the disputed propert) had prescribed in view of private LrespondentsL open! actual! peaceful! continuous and adverse possession of the same propert) for more than thirt) )ears or at the least! for more than twent) (.2) )ears&

DINO V COURT

($) D.&'.n*'./n 9"'%""n A*<,.&.'.+" $nd EE'.n*'.+" P-"&*-.2'./n Petitioner spouses ino and respondent 8io Petitioners= action is alread) barred b) prescription&

OF APPEALS (.221)

entered into a contract whereb) the latter would manufacture for the petitioners .2!222 pieces of vin)l fro$s and .2!222 pieces of vin)l mooseheads at P5&22 per piece in accordance with the sample approved b) the petitioners& *hese fro$s and mooseheads were to be attached to the shirts petitioners would manufacture and sell& 8io delivered in several installments the 32!222 pieces of fro$s and mooseheads& 8ubse(uentl)! petitioners returned to 8io .9!55. pieces of fro$s and mooseheads for failin$ to compl) with the approved sample& Petitioners demanded a refund of the purchase price but 8io refused to pa)& *he petitioners filed an action for collection of sum of mone) which the '*0 $ranted& 8io appealed to the 0-& *he 0dismissed petitionersL 0omplaint for havin$ been filed be)ond the prescriptive period&

G) returnin$ the .9!55. pieces of vin)l products to 8io and askin$ for a return of their purchase price! petitioners were in effect 1withdrawin$ from the contract1 as provided in -rt& 15;5& -rt& 1551& -ctions arisin$ from the provisions of the precedin$ ten articles shall be barred $)'"- &.E 0/n'!& from the deliver) of the thin$ sold& *here is no dispute that 8io made the last deliver) of the vin)l products to petitioners on 8eptember .8! 1988& #t is also settled that the action to recover the purchase price of the $oods petitioners returned to the respondent was filed on Aul) .3! 1989 or more than nine months from the date of last deliver)& Petitioners havin$ filed the action three months after the si96month period for filin$ actions for breach of warrant) a$ainst hidden defects stated in -rt& 1551! the appellate court dismissed the action& >ollowin$ the =icano doctrine that allows dismissal of an action on the $round of prescription even after <ud$ment on the merits! or even if the defense was not raised at all so lon$ as the relevant dates are clear on the record! the 80 ruled that the action filed b) the petitioners has prescribed& *he dates of deliver) and institution of the action are undisputed& *here are no new issues of fact arisin$ in connection with the (uestion of prescription! thus carvin$ out the case at bar as an e9ception from the $eneral rule that prescription if not impleaded in the answer is deemed waived& 'ule 9! 8ec& 1 of the 1995 'ules of 0ivil Procedure! provide@ 18ection 1& efense and ob<ections not pleaded& 6 efenses and ob<ections not pleaded whether in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived& Eowever! when it appears from the pleadin$s that the court has no <urisdiction over the sub<ect matter! that there is another action pendin$ between the same parties for the same cause! or that the action is barred b) a prior <ud$ment or b) &'$','" /) #.0.'$'./n&! the court shall dismiss the claim&1 Petitioners have not ac(uired the sub<ect fishpond thru prescription& Dhile the heirs of the e Guzman spouses knew of the possession of petitioners commencin$ in the )ear 1938! the) knew of the sale onl) when the) were told b) their brothers who sold their share& Dhat this proves is that appellees were not definitel) aware that appellantLs possession e9tended over the whole fishpond! includin$ that which pertained to them as their share& #n that state of their knowled$e as to the e9tent and nature of petitioners6appellantLs possession! said possession cannot be said to be adverse and open as to $ive rise to title b) prescription in favor of petitioners6appellants& - fishpond is not as ph)sicall) or actuall) occupied or held in possession as a parcel of land! in that the si$ns of possession in the latter are more visible! and the e9tent of its e9ercise or en<o)ment! more manifest and easil) determined& Eence! the adverse nature of the possession of parcel of land is more overt as to satisf) also the other element of proscription that the possession must be open and public& #n the case of a fishpond! owned in common! one or some of whose co6owners sell their undivided share to another! the onl) wa) the whole fishpond! includin$ the shares of the other co6owners ma) be said to have been held in adverse possession b) the vendee! as a$ainst the co6owners who did not sell is if he harvests all the fish in the fishpond! leavin$ nothin$ for the other co6owners who did not sell their share& *his is not as easil) ascertained as in the e9ercise of possession over a piece of land! which is relativel) (uite eas) to show that the possession is to the e9clusion of the other co6owners b) the e9tent of the possession! as b) actual occupation or the land is for occupanc)! or the e9tent of the en<o)ment of the produce of said land! as when it is for cultivation or raisin$ of products sustained b) the soil& Dhen one harvests from a fishpond! of which he is onl) a part6owner! it must be assumed that his harvest is onl) to the e9tent he is ri$htfull) entitled to! until the contrar) is positivel) shown! which was not done in the present case& #n tr)in$ to refute this rulin$ of the 0ourt of -ppeals! petitioners6appellants cite -rticle 1155 of the /ew 0ivil 0ode which reads@ *he prescription of action is interrupted when the) are filed before the 0ourt! when there is a written e9tra6<udicial demand b) the creditors and when there is an) written acknowled$ment of the debt b) the debtor!

SUNGA V GU@MAN (1959)

DE

- private contract of sale was si$ned b) five (5) of the nine (9) le$itimate heirs of the spouses Auan de Guzman and "ucia 4ontema)or& *he propert) in (uestion was a fishpond of 5!592 s(& m situated in the barrio of 8ebitanan! 8e9moa! Pampan$a& #t is undisputed that five (5) of the heirs were the onl) heirs amon$ the nine (9) children who sold their respective shares to >eliciano 8ibu$! for and in consideration of P522&22& Eowever! the deed of sale is not notarized nor re$istered in the 'e$ister of eeds of Pampan$a& *he e Guzman couple died in 1975 and 1975! respectivel)! hence b) operation of law! the nine (9) children succeeded in the ownership of the propert) in (uestion& emands were made b) plaintiffs6appellees for the deliver) of their respective shares from the defendants6appellants since 1955! but the latter refused to compl) with their lawful demands& >rom the e9ecution of the deed of sale! defendants6appellants were in ph)sical possession of the fishpond in (uestion! hence an action was instituted a$ainst the defendants on >ebruar) 5!19;.&

OVERSEAS 3AN5 GERALDE@ (1959)

:alenton and Auan obtained from the Overseas Gank a credit accommodation of P152!222 which was secured b) a chattel mort$a$e& espite written e9tra<udicial demands! :alenton and Auan refused to pa) alle$in$ that their obli$ation has been assumed b) a third part)& *he bank filed an action for the recover) of sum of mone)& *he trial court dismissed the complaint and reasoned that! because the bankLs cause of action accrued on >ebruar) 1;! 19;; (the date of the mana$erLs check for P152!222 issued b) the plaintiff bank to the 'epublic Gank) and as the complaint was filed on October ..! 195; or more than ten )ears from the accrual of the cause of action! the complaint was barred b) the statute of limitations& *he trial court also held that a demand letter tolls the prescriptive period onl) for the period of time indicated in the letter within which pa)ment should be made and prescription commences to run a$ain after the e9piration of that period and no pa)ment is made&

-s ma) easil) be discerned! the cited provision has no relevance to possession as an element of prescription! referrin$ as it does to 1prescription of action1! an entirel) different matter from the 1interruption of possession1 for ac(uisitive prescriptive purposes! as held in the case of San Carlos vs. !unicipality of Cebu- supra& *he action has not )et prescribed& *he lower court erred in holdin$ that each of the demand letters suspended the prescriptive period for one da) onl)& *he interruption of the prescriptive period b) written e9tra<udicial demand means that the said period would commence anew from the receipt of the demand& *hat is the correct meanin$ of interruption as distin$uished from mere suspension or tollin$ of the prescriptive period& -n action upon a written contract must be brou$ht within ten )ears from the tune the ri$ht of action accrues (-rt& 1133P1Q! 0ivil 0ode)& 1*he prescription of actions is interrupted when the) are filed before the court! when there is a written e9tra<udicial demand b) the creditors! and when there is an) written acknowled$ment of the debt b) the debtor1& #nterruption of the prescription of actions b) means of a written e9tra<udicial demand b) the creditor is a rule of civil law ori$in& -rticle 1155 specifies that the e9tra<udicial demand and the acknowled$ment should be in writin$& - written e9tra<udicial demand wipes out the period that has alread) elapsed and starts anew the prescriptive period& Fnder article 1957& it was held that if the action for the collection of a sum of mone) accrued on -u$ust 71! 1895 and there were written e9tra<udicial demands b) the creditor in 192;! 1925 and 1912! the fifteen6)ear period for enforcin$ that kind of personal action had not elapsed when the action was filed on dul) 18! 1917 (4arella vs& -$oncillo! 33 Phil& 833! 85365)& #nterruption of the prescriptive period as meanin$ renewal of the ori$inal term seems to be the basis of the rulin$ in Ra$os vs. Conde)- "6..25.! -u$ust 72! 19;5! .2 80'- 113;! 1151& #n that case the cause of action accrued on Aune .5! 195.& *here was a written acknowled$ment b) the vendors on /ovember 12! 195; of the validit) of the deed of sale& #t was held that the vendeesL action a$ainst the vendors on the basis of the said deed of sale! which action was filed on 4a) ..! 19;7! had not prescribed because the ten6)ear prescriptive period was interrupted on /ovember 12! 195;& Petitioners have no ri$ht to continue in occupation of the land& #n den)in$ that the) are 1s(uatters1 on the / 0 lot! as the) were so held b) the court a #uo! petitioners rel) on the followin$ definition of a s(uatter! 1one who settles on the land of another without an) le$al authorit)& *his term is applied particularl) to person who settle on the public land&1 (7 4art& "a& F&8& .97? 5 Gles& F&8& 572)& 0)clopedic "aw ictionar) b) 8humaker and "on$sdorf & >rom this definition! petitioners can derive no comfort from the fact that the) built their houses alle$edl) with the knowled$e and consent of the / 0! and that the lot is not a public land& Dhat the above definition contemplates is a ri$ht that owes its source from the law! and which! accordin$l) ma) be protected b) and under the law& Eavin$ built their houses with the knowled$e and consent of the / 0 which is a $overnment owned corporation! is not sufficient to vest in them an) ri$ht which the) can assert a$ainst the lot6owner when the latter demands that the) vacate the premises on le$al and <ustifiable $rounds& Dhen their continued occupation of the lot becomes one a$ainst the will of the owner! even if the latter had allowed their occupation at the be$innin$ without even collectin$ rentals! the owner is certainl) not barred! under an) known principle of law! either b) estopped or waiver! to demand that the lot be vacated so that he ma) himself en<o) his dominical and possessor) ri$hts thereto&

3UENAVENTE V MELCHOR (1959)

*he petitioners! numberin$ thirt)6three (77) famil)6 heads! with houses erected on the river bank portion of a lot owned b) the /ational evelopment 0orporation (/ 0) located at Pureza 8treet! 8ta& 4esa! 4anila! filed in the 0># of 4anila! a petition for eclarator) 'elief and Prohibition with Preliminar) #n<unction a$ainst the respondents with pra)er for the issuance of a writ of ima$inar) in<unction to prevent the demolition of their houses and their relocation to 0armona! 0avite! as was threatened to be done b) respondent 8ebastian 8antia$o! O#0 of the Presidential -ssistant on Eousin$ 'esettlement -$enc)&

LEDESMA V COURT OF APPEALS O RI@AL COMMERCIAL 3AN5ING CORPORATION (RC3C) (1997)

'0G0 filed 0ase /o& 78.85 in the then 0ourt of >irst #nstance of 'izal a$ainst petitioner to enforce the terms of *rust 'eceipt -$reement /o& 5789 e9ecuted b) them on -pril 1! 1953 but which petitioner had failed to compl) with& -s summons could not be served on the latter! said case was dismissed without pre<udice on 4arch 7! 1981& On ecember .! 1988! '0G0 instituted 0ivil 0ase /o& 886.55. in the 'e$ional *rial 0ourt of 4akati! 4etro 4anila! Granch 177! a$ainst petitioner on the same cause of action and sub<ect matter& Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss on the $round of prescription but was denied and <ud$ment was rendered in favor of '0G0&

#n an) case! petitioners have no ri$ht to continue in occupation of the land! whether! as le$all) defined! the) are s(uatters or not& *heir occupation b) mere tolerance can b) no means $iven rise to a ri$ht that the law should protect in their favor as a$ainst the true le$al owners& *hat the land is a public land can neither be denied as to $ive an) semblance of plausibilit) to petitionersL contention that the) are not s(uatters under the definition the) have invoked because the land is not a public land& #t is owned b) the / 0 hence a 1public land1 in the broad acceptation of these words& *he action has not )et prescribed& -rticle 1155 of the 0ivil 0ode provides that the prescription of an action! involvin$ in the present case the 126)ear prescriptive period for filin$ an action on a written contract under -rticle 1133(1) of the 0ode! is interrupted b) (a) the filin$ of an action! (b) a written e9tra<udicial demand b) the creditor! and (c) a written acknowled$ment of the debt b) the debtor& *he effects of the last two instances have alread) been decided b) this 0ourt! the rationale wherein should necessaril) appl) to the first& ?verseas ank of !anila vs. =eralde)- et al. @ +9 9 9 *he interruption of the prescriptive period b) written e9tra<udicial demand means that the said period would commence anew from the receipt of the demand& *hat is the correct meanin$ of interruption as distin$uished from mere suspension or tollin$ of the prescriptive period& 999 999 999 - written e9tra<udicial demand wipes out the period that has alread) elapsed and starts anew the prescriptive period& & & & 999 999 999 *hat same view as to the meanin$ of interruption was adopted in >lorendo vs& Or$ano! 92 Phil 387! 388! where it was ruled that the interruption of the ten6)ear prescriptive period throu$h a <udicial demand means that 1the full period of prescription commenced to run anew upon the cessation of the suspension&1 Dhen prescription is interrupted b) a <udicial demand! the full time for the prescription must be reckoned from the cessation of the interruption& & & & #n P&ilippine 5ational Railways vs. 5ational Labor Relations Co$$ission- et al@ -rticle 1155 of the 0ivil 0ode provides that the 1prescription of actions is interrupted1 inter alia! 1when there is an) written acknowled$ment of the debt b) the debtor&1 *his simpl) means that the period of prescription! when interrupted b) such a written acknowled$ment! be$ins to run anew? and whatever time of limitation mi$ht have alread) elapsed from the accrual of the cause of action is thereb) ne$ated and rendered inefficacious& & & & 999 999 999 & & & *he effect of the interruption spoken of in -rticle 1155 is to renew the obli$ation! to make prescription run a$ain from the date of the interruption & & & Gased on the aforecited cases! -rticle 1155 has twice been interpreted to mean that upon the cessation of the suspension of the prescriptive period! the full period of prescription commences to run anew& Petitioner! on the other hand! insists that in case of the filin$ of an action! the prescriptive period is merel) tolled and continues to run a$ain! with onl) the balance of the remainin$ period available for the filin$ of another action& *his postulation of petitioner! if we are to adopt it! would result in an absurdit) wherein -rticle 1155 would be interpreted in two different wa)s! i.e.! the prescriptive period is interrupted in case of an e9tra<udicial demand and a written acknowled$ment of a debt! but it is merel) tolled where an action is filed in court&

MIGUEL CATALINO

(9) D.&'.n*'./n 9"'%""n EE'.n*'.+" P-"&*-.2'./n $nd L$*!"& 8imeon! %milia and 4arcelina 4i$uel! and Grace *he plaintiffs= cause of action is barred b) laches& *he <ud$ment in favor of defendant6appellee :entura brou$ht suit a$ainst >lorendo 0atalino for >lorendo 0atalino must be sustained& the recover) of land& Plaintiffs claim to be the

(19;8)

children and heirs of the ori$inal re$istered owner! and averred that 0atalino! without their knowled$e or consent! had unlawfull) taken possession of the land! $athered its produce and unlawfull) e9cluded plaintiffs therefrom& 0atalino answered pleadin$ ownership adverse possession for 72 )ears! counterclaimed for attorne)Ls fees& and and

-s in the case of !e;ia de Lucas v. =a$ponia! the four elements of laches are present in the case at bar! namel)@ (a) conduct on the part of the defendant! or of one under whom he claims! $ivin$ rise to the situation of which complaint is made and for which the complaint seeks a remed)? (b) dela) in assertin$ the complainantLs ri$hts! the complainant havin$ had knowled$e or notice! of the defendantLs conduct and havin$ been afforded an opportunit) to institute a suit? (c) lack of knowled$e or notice on the part of the defendant that the complainant would assert the ri$ht on which he bases his suit? and (d) in<ur) or pre<udice to the defendant in the event relief is accorded to the complainant! or the suit is not held to be barred& #n the case at bar! Gaca(uio sold the land in 19.8 but the sale is void for lack of the $overnorLs approval& *he vendor! and also his heirs after him! could have instituted an action to annul the sale from that time! since the) knew of the invalidit) of the sale! which is a matter of law? the) did not have to wait for 73 )ears to institute suit& *he defendant was made to feel secure in the belief that no action would be filed a$ainst him b) such passivit)! and also because he 1bou$ht1 a$ain the land in 1939 from Grace :entura who alone tried to (uestion his ownership? so that the defendant will be plainl) pre<udiced in the event the present action is not held to be barred& *he difference between prescription and laches was elaborated in /ielsen N 0o&! #nc& vs& "epanto 0onsolidated 4inin$ 0o&! "6.1;21! 15 ecember 19;;! 18 80'- p& 1232! as follows@ -ppellee is correct in its contention that the defense of laches applies independentl) of prescription& "aches is different from the statute of limitations& Prescription is concerned with the fact of dela)! whereas laches is concerned with the effect of dela)& Prescription is a matter of time? laches is principall) a (uestion of ine(uit) of permittin$ a claim to be enforced! this ine(uit) bein$ founded on some chan$e in the condition of the propert) or the relation of the parties& Prescription is statutor)? laches is not& "aches applies in e(uit)! whereas prescription applies at law& Prescription is based on fi9ed time laches is not! (72 0&A&8&! p& 5..& See also Pomero)Ls E#uity 0urisprudence! :ol& .! 5th ed&! p& 155) (18 80'- 1257)& "aches bar olores from recoverin$ the lot in dispute& -lthou$h the defense of prescription is unavailin$ to the >r& "ola because! admittedl)! the title to "ot /o& 5515 is still re$istered in the name of olores! still the he has ac(uired title to it b) virtue of the e(uitable principle of laches due to the olores= failure to assert her claims and ownership for thirt) two (7.) )ears& *here are precedents for this rulin$& #n a lon$ line of cases! the e(uitable defense of laches was upheld when there is lon$ inaction and dela) of the title holder in assertin$ his ri$ht over a disputed lot& 8uch bars him from recoverin$ the same& :ictoriano is barred b) laches and cannot be declared the owner of the land& "aches is defined as 1such ne$lect or omission to assert a ri$ht taken in con<unction with the lapse of time and other circumstances causin$ pre<udice to an adverse part)! as will operate as a bar in e(uit)&1 4asi$la has been in continuous possession of the land 8ince 19.5 and the) were not ousted therefrom b) the $randfather of :ictoriano who sold the propert) to them! nor b) the immediate successors& #t was onl) after decades had passed that it was discovered that the sale was never re$istered or the title cancelled and transferred in the name of 4asi$la& *rue! titled lands cannot be ac(uired b) prescription! however! defendant6appelleeLs inaction for more than 52 )ears now bars her from ac(uirin$ possession of the land on the $round of laches&

-fter trial the 0ourt dismissed the complaint! declared 0atalino to be the ri$htful owner! and ordered the 'e$ister of eeds to issue a transfer certificate in lieu of the ori$inal&

L/#$ + C/,-' /) A22"$#&

(198;)

olores sold to >r& "ola a parcel of land& *he land was composed of "ot 551; and 5515 with two certificates of title& >r& "ola occupied both& olores! 7. )ears later! claimed that she onl) sold "ot&551; to >r& "ola and that she was the re$istered owner of "ot 5515 which was still under her name&

V.*'/-.$n/ C/,-' A22"$#& (1991)

+ /)

4asi$la had been in possession of "ot 895 since 19.5& Eer son entered into possession of the ad<oinin$ lot 898& *he owner of lot 898! :ictoriano! filed a criminal case a$ainst the son& #n the process! :ictoriano discovered that "ot 895 was under the name of his $randfather& Ee re$istered it under his name& Ee then filed this complaint to be declared the owner of "ot 895& 4asi$la claims that the land was sold to them b) the $randfather& Eowever! the) had no title nor deed of sale&

E&2.-.', + C/,-' /) F.-&' In&'$n*"

(195.)

(*) S2"*.$# C$&"& efendants sold to petitioners two parcels of land in 1938& *he) $ave the *0*s but did not e9ecute a deed of sale& *he defendants claimed that the) would e9ecute the deed as soon as their predecessors6in6interest transferred the title to their names& *he) never did& 0ompaint was filed in 19;3& efendants claimed that the cause of action had prescribed&

Petitioner=s action had alread) prescribed& Fnder -rticle 1137! onl) the followin$ ri$hts 1are not e9tin$uished b) prescription@ (1) to demand a ri$ht of wa)! re$ulated in -rticle ;39 and (.) to brin$ an action to abate a public or private nuisance1! which are actions involvin$ public polic)& /or is there an) other provision of the 0ivil 0ode or an) unrepealed law or <urisprudential rulin$ of this 0ourt! under which petitionerLs claim of imprescriptibilit) can be sustained& De believe that the specific enumeration in the 0ivil 0ode of imprescriptible actions e9cludes an) other ones& *he applicable provision here is -rticle 1135 which reads thus@ -'*& 1135& *he followin$ actions must be commenced within si9 )ears@ (1) Fpon an oral contract? (.) Fpon a (uasi6contract& -ssumin$ otherwise! the onl) other possibilit) is that petitionerLs case comes under -rticle 1139 providin$@ -'*& 1139& -ll other actions whose periods are not fi9ed in this 0ode or in other laws must be brou$ht within five )ears from the time the ri$ht of action accrues& #n either case! since the cause of action of petitioner accrued in 1938 and the present suit was instituted in 19;3 or si9teen )ears later! and none of the interruptin$ circumstances enumerated in -rticle 1155 has been shown to have intervened! it is un(uestionable that petitionerLs action filed in the court below has alread) prescribed& -ction had not prescribed& *he applicable prescription period for such actions based upon a written contract and for reformation thereof as provided b) law is ten (12 )ears as provided in -rticle 1133! 0ivil 0ode&) 8uch ri$ht to reformation is e9pressl) reco$nized in -rticle 17;5 of the 0ivil 0ode which provides that 1#f two parties a$ree upon the mort$a$e or pled$e of real or personal propert) but the instrument states that the propert) is sold absolutel) or with a ri$ht to repurchase! reformation of the instrument is proper&1 PetitionersL action for reformation and recover) of title was brou$ht on /ovember .9! 195. less than ei$ht )ears after e9ecution of the (uestioned deed on ecember .3! 19;3 and had therefore not prescribed& "ev) should be cancelled& #t is the rule in the (nsaldo case that 1a valid execution issued and levy $ade wit&in t&e five8year period after entry of t&e ;ud"$ent $ay be enforced by sale of t&e property levied upon t&ereafterprovided t&e sale is $ade wit&in ten years after t&e entry of t&e ;ud"$ent1&

S/#.d$-./& A#$02$1

(1955)

Plaintiffs and On$ entered into an a$reement whereb) plaintiffs would borrow amount of P1;!522 with "ot .526- as securit)& On$ asked them to e9ecute a deed of sale in favor of him& Plaintiffs acceded because of their trust in On$ and need of mone)& On$ has since occupied the land and refuses to return it even when the loan was offered to be paid& Plaintiffs sou$ht reformation of instrument to properl) reflect a contract of mort$a$e and not a sale& On$ raises the defense of prescription& Aalandoni was ordered b) <ud$ment to pa) P/G an amount of mone)& Eis lot in 8ila) was levied upon pursuant to the alias writ of e9ecution& - notice of embar$o was annotated on the title&

:$#$nd/n. PN3

(1981) 4ore than 12 )ears had passed since the lev) was made but P/G had not sold the land at public auction& Aalandoni filed a petition for cancellation of the lev) on the $round of prescription& *he e9ecution sale should take place within the ten6)ear prescriptive period for enforcin$ the <ud$ment& De find that the 1notice of embar$o1 annotated in 19;3 on AalandoniLs title is no lon$er enforceable and has become a cloud upon his title& >ollowin$ the rule in the -nsaldo case! he and his heirs have a $ood cause of action under article 35; of the 0ivil 0ode for the removal of that state encumbrance& 4oreover! article 358 of the 0ivil 0ode provides that 1there ma) also be an action to (uiet title or remove a cloud therefrom when the contract! instrument or other obli$ation has been e9tin$uished or has terminated! or has been barred b) e9tinctive prescription1&

3/$-d L.<,.d$'/-& @,#,"'$

/) +

#n 1955! a decision was made pursuant to an amicable settlement which ordered Hulueta to pa) "and 8ettlement and evelopment 0orp& ("8 0) the sum of P12!791 with interest of 3b per annum until full) paid& #n 19;5! or 12 )ears later! a complaint was filed to revive the <ud$ment which had not been enforced at the time& #t was dismissed because of difficult) in servin$ summons on Hulueta& #n 19;;! another complaint was filed to revive the <ud$ment& Hulueta claims that the action had prescribed& "8 0 claims that the filin$ of the action in 19;5 stopped the runnin$ of the period& #n 1937 defendant olores #nfants obtained loans from the Gank of *aiwan! "td&! pa)able at its office in Gacolod 0it) in the total amount of P;87&12 with interest at the rate of si9 percent per annum! compounded (uarterl)& On 8eptember 15! 19;1! plaintiff 'epublic of the Philippines filed a complaint in the Austice of the Peace 0ourt of :illadolid! /e$ros Occidental! to collect from the defendant the said amount of P;87&12& *he defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the $round of prescription&

-ction had not prescribed& -rticle 1155 of the /ew 0ivil 0ode e9pressl) provides that the 1prescription of action is interrupted when the) are filed before the court &&&1 ( Sotelo vs. .i)on- ;5 Phil& 575? Cabrera vs. Tianco! 8 80'58.&) 8uch interruption lasts durin$ the pendenc) of the action& (/lorendo vs. ?r"ano! 9 Phil& 387&)

(198.)

R"2,9#.* C/,-' /) In&'$n*"

+ F.-&'

(1987)

L,6/n S,-"'1 + In'"-0"d.$'" A22"##$'" C/,-'

(1985)

A'/( 3.4 W"d4" + C/,-' /) A22"$#&

#n 0ivil 0ase /o& 5952;! <ud$ment was rendered a$ainst Gil Pu)at! for the principal sum of P.2!222& *he <ud$ment became final on -pril 17! 19;5! but was not enforced& Dithin the prescribed period! 0ivil 0ase /o& 97.;8 was instituted to revive the <ud$ment in 0ivil 0ase /o& 5952;& #t was $iven due course in 1953& #n 1981! Pu)at died& Dhen the claim was filed a$ainst the estate! the administrators opposed it is unenforceable and barred b) laches for no steps were taken bv the claimant to secure a writ of e9ecution a$ainst defendant Gil Pu)at durin$ his lifetime to enforce the <ud$ment -&#& 'e)nolds located the >redia mineral claim in accordance with the Philippine Gill of 192.& -&#& 'e)nolds sold the >redia mineral claim to -tok Gi$ Ded$e 0ompan) in 1971& -tok has been in possession up to the present& 'espondent "iwan 0onsi constructed a hut in the area of the mineral claim in 19;3& #n 1983! he was

(1991)

/o prescription& #n the case at bar! the loans which had no maturit) dates were contracted in 1937! or durin$ the period of the Aapanese occupation of the Philippines& Ordinaril)! the countin$ of the prescriptive period should be reckoned from the date the debt became due and demandable& Eowever! there were moratorium decrees (later struck down as unconstitutional) supervenin$ at this time which suspended the enforcement of pa)ments of all debts and other monetar) obli$ations contracted durin$ the war! *he moratorium laws suspended the runnin$ of the prescriptive period durin$ their effectivit)& *hus! the 126)ear period within which to institute the action a$ainst herein appellee be$an the da) after the moratorium laws were declared unconstitutional or! to be precise! on 4a) 19! 1957& #t was on 8eptember .5! 1953 when plaintiff (appellant) made e9tra6<udicial written demand on defendant (appellee)& -s the loans in (uestion did not have an) maturit) dates and! therefore! pa)able on demand! prescription could have accrued! if at all! onl) on 8eptember .5! 1953 when petitioner made the e9tra6<udicial demand& PlaintiffLs cause of action will therefore prescribe onl) on 8eptember .5! 19;3& -nd! since the complaint in this case was filed on 8eptember 15! 19;1! which is within the 126 )ear period! the action has not )et prescribed& -ction had alread) prescribed& *he decision in 0ivil 0ase /o& 5952; became final and e9ecutor) on -pril 17! 19;5& *he <ud$ment was not enforced& *he petitioner instituted 0ivil 0ase /o& 97.;8 within the prescriptive period to revive the <ud$ment in 0ivil 0ase /o& 5952;& *he revived <ud$ment was rendered on 4a) .3! 1953& *his <ud$ment became final and e9ecutor) sometime in 1953& -$ain! this was not enforced& On 8eptember 1! 198.! the petitioner filed a claim in 8pecial Proceedin$s /o& U67..91 before the then 0ourt of >irst #nstance of 'izal& Dhat is sou$ht is a second revival of the <ud$ment that had become final in 19;5& *his can no lon$er be done due to the lapse of the allowable period& #n P&ilippine 5ational ank v. .eloso it was said that the 126)ear prescriptive period must commence from the finalit) of the ori$inal <ud$ment& De appl) it to the instant case& De find that the ri$ht of the petitioner to enforce the <ud$ment a$ainst Gil Pu)at! an accomodation part) and a defendant in 0ivil 0ase /os& 5952; and 97.;8! filed on 8eptember 1! 198. had alread) prescribed considerin$ that more than ten (12) )ears had alread) elapsed from the finalit) of the ori$inal <ud$ment on -pril 17! 19;5& -tok could file a complaint for forcible entr) a$ainst "iwan 0onsi& -tok has e9clusive ri$hts to the propert) in (uestion b) virtue of their respective minin$ claims which the) validl) ac(uired before the 0onstitution of 1975 prohibited the alienation of all lands of the public domain e9cept a$ricultural lands! sub<ect to vested ri$hts e9istin$ at the time of its adoption& *he land was not and could not have been transferred to the private respondents b) virtue of ac(uisitive prescription! nor could its use be shared simultaneousl) b) them and the minin$ companies for a$ricultural and mineral purposes& 8ince the sub<ect lot is mineral land! private respondentLs possession of the sub<ect lot no matter how

told that the land belon$ed to -tok& -tok filed a complaint for forcible entr) and detainer a$ainst "iwan 0onsi& C M/d"& /) EE'.n4,.&!.n4 O%n"-&!.2 SUCCESSION I GENERAL PROVISIONS A D").n.'./n $nd C/n*"2' NCC >>B, >12, 1311 E&'$'" /) H"0$d1 + L,6/n S,-"'1 "uzon 8uret) filed a claim a$ainst the %state of Eemad) based on .2 indemnit) a$reements all $uaranteed solidaril) b) the deceased Eemad)& *he adminstrati9 contends that upon the death of Eemad)! his liabilit) as a $uarantor terminated& (195;) A#+$-"6 + IAC (1770) Petitioners! the heirs of deceased -lvarez contend that the liabilit) arisin$ from the sale of the lots b) the deceased to r& 'odolfo 8iason should be the sole liabilit) of the deceased or of his estate! after his death&

lon$ did not confer upon him possessor) ri$hts over the same& >urthermore! -tok is the one +lon$er in possession,who will be $iven preference under -rt& 578 of the 0ivil 0ode since the) possessed it in1971 while "iwan possessed it onl) on 19;3&

*he solidar) $uarantor=s liabilit) is not e9tin$uished b) his death& Dhile in our successional s)stem the responsibilit) of the heirs for the debts of their decedent cannot e9ceed the value of the inheritance the) receive from him! the principle remains intact that these heirs succeed not onl) to the ri$hts of the deceased but also to his obli$ations& Fnder our law! therefore! the $eneral rule is that a part)=s contractual ri$hts and obli$ations are transmissible to the successors& 8uch contention is untenable for it overlooks the doctrine obtainin$ in this <urisdiction on the $eneral transmissibilit) of the ri$hts and obli$ations of the deceased to his le$itimate children and heirs& *hus! the pertinent provisions of the 0ivil 0ode state@ -rt& 553& 8uccession is a mode of ac(uisition b) virtue of which the propert)! ri$hts and obli$ations to the e9tent of the value of the inheritance! of a person are transmitted throu$h his death to another or others either b) his will or b) operation of law& -rt& 55;& *he inheritance includes all the propert)! ri$hts and obli$ations of a person which are not e9tin$uished b) his death& -rt& 1711& 0ontract stake effect onl) between the parties! their assi$ns and heirs e9cept in case where the ri$hts and obli$ations arisin$ from the contract are not transmissible b) their nature! or b) stipulation or b) provision of law& *he heir is not liable be)ond the value of the propert) received from the decedent& -s e9plained b) this 0ourt throu$h -ssociate Austice A&G&"& 'e)es in the case of %state of Eemad) vs& "uzon 8uret) 0o&! #nc&@ +*he bindin$ effect of contracts upon the heirs of the deceased part) is not altered b) the provision of our 'ules of 0ourt that mone) debts of a deceased must be li(uidated and paid from his estate before the residue is distributed amon$ said heirs ('ule 89)& *he reason is that whatever pa)ment is thus made from the state is ultimatel) a pa)ment b) the heirs or distributees! since the amount of the paid claim in fact diminishes or reduces the shares that the heirs would have been entitled to receive& Fnder our law! therefore& the $eneral rule is that a part)Ls contractual ri$hts and obli$ations are transmissible to the successors& *he rule is a conse(uence of the pro$ressive 1depersonalization1 of patrimonial ri$hts and duties that! as observed b) :ictorio Polacco has characterized the histor) of these institutions& >rom the 'oman concept of a relation from person to person! the obli$ation has evolved into a relation from patrimon) to patrimon) with the persons occup)in$ onl) a representative position! barrin$ those rare cases where the obli$ation is strictl) personal! i&e&! is contracted intuitu personae! in consideration of its performance b) a specific person and b) no other&, Petitioners bein$ the heirs of the late 'osendo -lvarez! the) cannot escape the le$al conse(uences of their fatherLs transaction! which $ave rise to the present claim for dama$es& *hat petitioners did not inherit the propert) involved herein is of no moment because b) le$al fiction! the monetar) e(uivalent thereof devolved into the mass of their fatherLs hereditar) estate! and we have ruled that the hereditar) assets are alwa)s liable in their totalit) for the pa)ment of the debts of the estate&

#t must! however! be made clear that petitioners are liable onl) to the e9tent of the value of their inheritance& Dith this clarification and considerin$ petitionersL admission that there are other properties left b) the deceased which are sufficient to cover the amount ad<ud$ed in favor of private respondents! we see no co$ent reason to disturb the findin$s and conclusions of the 0ourt of -ppeals& N$'./n$# H/,&.n4 A,'!/-.'1 + A#0".d$ (.212) /E- awarded awarded 4ar$arita Eerrera several portions of land& Dhen 4ar$arita died! the /Eawarded the lands to onl) one of the deceased=s heirs& Dhen the petitioner received the 18inumpaan$ 8ala)sa)!1 it should have noted that the effectivit) of the said document commences at the time of death of the author of the instrument? in her words 1sakalin" akoLy bawian na n" .ios n" akin" bu&ay^1 Eence! in such period! all the interests of the person should cease to be hers and shall be in the possession of her estate until the) are transferred to her heirs b) virtue of -rticle 553 of the 0ivil 0ode which provides that@ -rt& 553& 8uccession is a mode of ac(uisition b) virtue of which '!" 2-/2"-'1, -.4!'& $nd /9#.4$'./n& to the e9tent of the value of the inheritance! /) $ 2"-&/n $-" '-$n&0.''"d '!-/,4! !.& d"$'! '/ $n/'!"- /- /'!"-& ".'!"- 91 !.& %.## /- 91 /2"-$'./n /) #$% & G) considerin$ the document! petitioner /E- should have noted that the ori$inal applicant has alread) passed awa)& 4ar$arita Eerrera passed awa) on October .5! 1951& *he /E- issued its resolution on >ebruar) 5! 198;& *he /E- $ave due course to the application made b) >rancisca Eerrera without considerin$ that the initial applicantLs death would transfer all her propert)! ri$hts and obli$ations to the estate includin$ whatever interest she has or ma) have had over the disputed properties& *o the e9tent of the interest that the ori$inal owner had over the propert)! the same should $o to her estate& 4ar$arita Eerrera had an interest in the propert) and that interest should $o to her estate upon her demise so as to be able to properl) distribute them later to her heirsMin accordance with a will or b) operation of law& *he death of 4ar$arita Eerrera does not e9tin$uish her interest over the propert)& 4ar$arita Eerrera had an e9istin$ 0ontract to 8ell with /E- as the seller& Fpon 4ar$arita EerreraLs demise! this 0ontract to 8ell was neither nullified nor revoked& *his 0ontract to 8ell was an obli$ation on both partiesM 4ar$arita Eerrera and /E-& Obli$ations are transmissible& 4ar$arita EerreraLs obli$ation to pa) became transmissible at the time of her death either b) will or b) operation of law& #f we sustain the position of the /E- that this document is not a will! then the interests of the decedent should transfer b) virtue of an operation of law and not b) virtue of a resolution b) the /E-& >or as it stands! /E- cannot make another contract to sell to other parties of a propert) alread) initiall) paid for b) the decedent& 8uch would be an act contrar) to the law on succession and the law on sales and obli$ations& Dhen the ori$inal bu)er died! the /E- should have considered the estate of the decedent as the ne9t 1person1 likel) to stand in to fulfill the obli$ation to pa) the rest of the purchase price& *he opposition of other heirs to the repurchase b) >rancisca Eerrera should have put the /E- on $uard as to the award of the lots& >urther! the ecision in the said 0ivil 0ase /o& G61.;7 ((uestionin$ the eed of 8elf6 -d<udication) which rendered the deed therein null and void should have alerted the /E- that there are other heirs to the interests and properties of the decedent who ma) claim the propert) after a testate or intestate proceedin$ is concluded& *he /E- therefore acted arbitraril) in the award of the lots&

N$6$-"n/ + CA (2000)

Petitioners and respondent 'omeo /azareno are three of the five children of spouses 4a9imino and -urea /azareno! who durin$ their marria$e had ac(uired properties& -fter the death of 4a9imino! 8r&! 'omeo filed for intestate proceedin$s and he was thereafter appointed administrator of his

*he estate of a deceased person is a <uridical entit) that has a personalit) of its own& *hou$h 'omeo represented at one time the estate of 4a9imino! 8r&! the latter has a separate and distinct personalit) from the former& Eence! the <ud$ment in 0-6G' 0: /o& 1.97. re$ardin$ the ownership of 4a9imino! Ar& over "ot 76G binds 'omeo and %liza onl)! and not the estate of 4a9imino! 8r&! which also has a ri$ht to recover properties which were wron$full) disposed&

Un./n 3$n( + S$n'.9$n"6 (200D)

father=s estate& 'omeo discovered a deed of sale sellin$ petitioner /atividad si9 lots includin$ "ot67b occupied b) 'omeo but which was sold to petitioner 4a9imino! Ar& 4a9imino! Ar& filed an action for recover) of possession which was favored b) the court& 'omeo in turn filed an annulment of the sales on the $round of lack of consideration in that the transfer was merel) to avoid inheritance ta9 and that /atividad was onl) to hold the said lots in trust for her siblin$s& Petitioners on the other hand filed a third part) complaint a$ainst 'omeo and his wife %liza seekin$ the annulment of the transfer to 'omeo of "ot 7 which is $ranted b) the trial court e9cept as to "ots 7! 176b! 17 and 13 which had passed on to third persons& >irst 0ountr)side 0redit 0orporation (>000) and %fraim 8antibaSez entered into a loan a$reement to bu) tractors& #n view thereof! %fraim and his son! %dmund! e9ecuted a promissor) note in favor of the >000& >000 and %fraim entered into another loan a$reement& -$ain! %fraim and %dmund e9ecuted a promissor) note and a 0ontinuin$ Guarant) -$reement for the later loan& %fraim died! leavin$ a holo$raphic will& *estate proceedin$s commenced before the '*0 of #loilo 0it)& %dmund was appointed as the special administrator of the estate& urin$ the pendenc) of the testate proceedin$s! the survivin$ heirs! %dmund and his sister >lorence! e9ecuted a Aoint -$reement! wherein the) a$reed to divide between themselves and take possession of several tractors& %ach of them was to assume the indebtedness of their late father to >000! correspondin$ to the tractor respectivel) taken b) them& #n the meantime! a eed of -ssi$nment with -ssumption of "iabilities was e9ecuted b) and between >000 and Fnion Gank! wherein the >000 assi$ned all its assets and liabilities to Fnion Gank& emand letters were sent b) Fnion Gank to %dmund! but the latter refused to pa)& *hus! Fnion Gank filed a 0omplaint for sum of mone) a$ainst the heirs of %fraim 8antibaSez! %dmund and >lorence! before the '*0 of 4akati 0it)& 8ummonses were issued a$ainst both! but the one intended for %dmund was not served since he was in the Fnited 8tates and there was no information on his address or the date of his return to the Philippines& >lorence filed her -nswer and alle$ed that the loan documents did not bind her since she

Dell6settled is the rule that a probate court has the <urisdiction to determine all the properties of the deceased! to determine whether the) should or should not be included in the inventor) or list of properties to be administered& *he said court is primaril) concerned with the administration! li(uidation and distribution of the estate& #n our <urisdiction! the rule is that there can be no valid partition amon$ the heirs until after the will has been probated& #n the present case! %fraim left a holo$raphic will which contained the provision which reads as follows@ (e) -ll other properties! real or personal! which # own and ma) be discovered later after m) demise! shall be distributed in the proportion indicated in the immediatel) precedin$ para$raph in favor of %dmund and >lorence! m) children& *he above6(uoted is an all6encompassin$ provision embracin$ all the properties left b) the decedent which mi$ht have escaped his mind at that time he was makin$ his will! and other properties he ma) ac(uire thereafter& #ncluded therein are the three (7) sub<ect tractors& *his bein$ so! an) partition involvin$ the said tractors amon$ the heirs is not valid& *he <oint a$reement e9ecuted b) %dmund and >lorence! partitionin$ the tractors amon$ themselves! is invalid! speciall) so since at the time of its e9ecution! there was alread) a pendin$ proceedin$ for the probate of their late father=s holo$raphic will coverin$ the said tractors& *he 0ourt notes that the loan was contracted b) the decedent& *he bank! purportedl) a creditor of the late %fraim 8antibaSez! should have thus filed its mone) claim with the probate court in accordance with 8ection 5! 'ule 8; of the 'evised 'ules of 0ourt& *he filin$ of a mone) claim a$ainst the decedent=s estate in the probate court is mandator)& *his re(uirement is for the purpose of protectin$ the estate of the deceased b) informin$ the e9ecutor or administrator of the claims a$ainst it! thus enablin$ him to e9amine each claim and to determine whether it is a proper one which should be allowed& *he plain and obvious desi$n of the rule is the speed) settlement of the affairs of the deceased and the earl) deliver) of the propert) to the distributees! le$atees! or heirs& Perusin$ the records of the case! nothin$ therein could hold >lorence accountable for an) liabilit) incurred b) her late father& *he documentar) evidence presented! particularl) the promissor) notes and the continuin$ $uarant) a$reement! were e9ecuted and si$ned onl) b) the late %fraim 8antibaSez and his son %dmund& -s the petitioner failed to file its mone) claim with the probate court! at most! it ma) onl) $o after %dmund as co6maker of the decedent under the said promissor) notes and continuin$ $uarant)&

was not a part) thereto& 0onsiderin$ that the <oint a$reement si$ned b) her and her brother %dmund was not approved b) the probate court! it was null and void? hence! she was not liable to Fnion Gank under the <oint a$reement& Fnion Gank asserts that the obli$ation of the deceased had passed to his le$itimate heirs (%dmund and >lorence) as provided in -rticle 553 of the 0ivil 0ode? and that the unconditional si$nin$ of the <oint a$reement estopped >lorence! and that she cannot den) her liabilit) under the said document& #n her comment to the petition! >lorence maintains that Fnion Gank is tr)in$ to recover a sum of mone) from the deceased %fraim 8antibaSez? thus the claim should have been filed with the probate court& 8he points out that at the time of the e9ecution of the <oint a$reement there was alread) an e9istin$ probate proceedin$s& 8he asserts that even if the a$reement was voluntaril) e9ecuted b) her and her brother %dmund! it should still have been sub<ected to the approval of the court as it ma) pre<udice the estate! the heirs or third parties& S,9;"*'& /) S,**"&&./n NCC >>D, >82, 88>, 1003 1 W!/ $-" '!" &,9;"*'&V - NCC >>D, >82 2 R"#$'./n&!.2, NCC 7=3-7=7 3 C$2$*.'1 '/ &,**""d $ D"'"-0.n$'./n&, NCC 103B, 1037, 1=(2) C$1"'$n/ + Petitioner 0a)etano maintains that since the L"/n.d"& (178B) respondent <ud$e "eonidas allowed the reprobate of -doracionLs will! Eermo$enes 0& 0ampos was divested of his le$itime which was reserved b) the law for him& 3

*his contention is without merit& -lthou$h on its face! the will appeared to have preterited the petitioner and thus! the respondent <ud$e should have denied its reprobate outri$ht! the private respondents have sufficientl) established that -doracion was! at the time of her death! an -merican citizen and a permanent resident of Philadelphia! Penns)lvania! F&8&-& *herefore! under -rticle 1; par& (.) and 1279 of the 0ivil 0ode which respectivel) provide@ -rt& 1; par& (.)& 999 999 999

Eowever! intestate and testamentar) successions! both with respect to the order of succession and to the amount of successional ri$hts and to the intrinsic validit) of testamentar) provisions! shall be re$ulated b) the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration! whatever ma) be the nature of the propert) and re$ardless of the countr) wherein said propert) ma) be found& -rt& 1279& 0apacit) to succeed is $overned b) the law of the nation of the decedent&

the law which $overns -doracion 0ampoLs will is the law of Penns)lvania! F&8&-&! which is the national law of the decedent& -lthou$h the parties admit that the Penns)lvania law does not provide for le$itimes and that all the estate ma) be $iven awa) b) the testatri9 to a complete stran$er! the petitioner ar$ues that such law should not appl) because it would be contrar) to the sound and established public polic) and would run counter to the specific provisions of Philippine "aw& #t is a settled rule that as re$ards the intrinsic validit) of the provisions of the will! as provided for b) -rticle 1;(.) and 1279 of the 0ivil 0ode! the national law of the decedent must appl)& 9 W!/ 0$1 &,**""dV NCC 102B-2=, 1027-30 *his case is about the efficaciousness or enforceabilit) of a devise of ricelands located at Guimba! /ueva %ci<a! *hat devise was made in the will of the late >ather Pascual 'i$or! a native of :ictoria *arlac! in favor of his nearest male relative who would stud) for the priesthood& De hold that the said be(uest refers to the testatorLs nearest male relative livin$ at the time of his death and not to an) indefinite time thereafter& 1#n order to be capacitated to inherit! the heir! devisee or le$atee must be livin$ at the moment the succession opens! e9cept in case of representation! when it is proper1 (-rt& 12.5! 0ivil 0ode)& *he reasonable view is that the testator was referrin$ to a situation whereb) his nephew livin$ at the time of his death! who would like to become a priest! was still in $rade school or in hi$h school or was not )et in the seminar)& #n that case! the parish priest of :ictoria would administer the ricelands before the nephew entered the seminar)& Gut the moment the testatorLs nephew entered the seminar)! then he would be entitled to en<o) and administer the ricelands and receive the fruits thereof& #n that event! the trusteeship would be terminated& >ollowin$ that interpretation of the will the in(uir) would be whether at the time >ather 'i$or died in 1975 he had a nephew who was stud)in$ for the priesthood or who had manifested his desire to follow the ecclesiastical career& *hat (uer) is cate$oricall) answered in para$raph 3 of appellant priestLs petitions of >ebruar) 19! 1953 and Aanuar) 71! 1955& Ee une(uivocall) alle$ed therein that 1not male relative of the late (>ather) Pascual 'i$or has ever studied for the priesthood1 (pp& .5 and 75! 'ecord on -ppeal)& #nasmuch as the testator was not survived b) an) nephew who became a priest! the unavoidable conclusion is that the be(uest in (uestion was ineffectual or inoperative& * d " C REYES DIMAGI3A (17DB) V W!/ $-" .n*$2$9#" /) &,**""d.n4V E))"*' /) $#."n$'./n& 91 "E*#,d"d !".P-"&*-.2'./n /) A*'./n

P$-.&! P-."&' /) V.*'/-.$ + R.4/(17>7)

O9;"*' /) &,**"&&./n Y1953 case is missin$

ESTATE OF HEMADY V LU@ON SURETY GUINTO V MEDINA

8upra "eon Guinto filed an action for forcible entr) a$ainst 8antia$o 4edina& *he trial court ruled in favor of Guinto& Eowever! Guinto still appealed because the trial court dismissed his claim for dama$es& Dhile the case was on appeal! 4edina died& 4edina was substituted b) his heirs& *he heirs of 4edina! havin$ been merel) substituted in his place at the time of his death! their liabilit) for dama$es is onl) to the e9tent of the value of the propert) the) mi$ht have received! if an)! from him&

N$6$-"n/ + CA (.222) H".-& /) U-"'$ + U-"'$ (.211)

8upra & #nfra

O2"n.n4 /) &,**"&&./n R"<,.&.'"& /) '-$n&0.&&./n /) &,**"&&./n$# -.4!'& 1 EE2-"&& %.## /) '"&'$'/- /- 2-/+.&./n /) #$% 2 D"$'! /) '!" 2"-&/n %!/&" 2-/2"-'1 .& '!" &,9;"*' /) &,**"&&./n 3 A**"2'$n*" /) '!" .n!"-.'$n*" H".-& /) %liodoro 8ande<as 8r& filed a petition for the CA@ *he shares conve)ed were limited onl) to 7R5 of the whole estate& *his is because half of the S2/,&"& issuance of letters of administration in his favor for con<u$al estate $oes to the husband after the death of the wife! and the other half (the share of the REMEDIOS R the settlement of the estate of his wife who died on wife) shall be divided amon$ the 12 le$al heirs (includin$ 8ande<as Ar) of the deceased wife& SANDE:AS $nd -pril 15! 1955& *he "etters were issued& *he 3th ELIODORO P floor of 4anila 0it) Eall was burned and the SC@ 0-Ls computation of %liodoro 8r&Ls share in the disputed parcels of land was erroneous& %liodoroLs SANDE:AS SR records were lost& *hus 8ande<as 8r& filed a 4otion share should be 11R.2 of the entire propert)! not 7R5& *he 0- computed %liodoroLs share as an heir + ALEF A LINA for 'econstitution of the records! which motion was based on one tenth of the entire disputed propert)& #t should be based onl) on the remainin$ half! after P"'.'./n )/$ranted b) the 0ourt& deductin$ the con<u$al share& 8uccession laws and <urisprudence re(uire that when a marria$e is R"+."% ,nd"On -pril 19! 1987! an Omnibus Pleadin$ for motion dissolved b) the death of the husband or the wife! the decedentLs entire estate 6 under the concept of R,#" BD to intervene and petition6in6intervention was filed con<u$al properties of $ains 66 must be divided e(uall)! with one half $oin$ to the survivin$ spouse and b) 4ovant -le9 -& "ina alle$in$ that 8ande<as 8r& the other half to the heirs of the deceased& -fter the settlement of the debts and obli$ations! the bound and obli$ated himself! his heirs! remainin$ half of the estate is then distributed to the le$al heirs! le$atees! and devices& administrators! and assi$ns! to sell forever and absolutel) and in their entiret) the parcels of land belon$in$ to the con<u$al estate& *his a$reement was covered b) a 'eceipt of the %arnest 4one) with Promise to 8ell and Gu)& *he counsel for 8ande<as 8r& filed a 4anifestation alle$in$ that 8ande<as 8r& ied in 0anada in 1983& Ee further alle$ed that the matter of the claim of #ntervenor "ina becomes a mone) claim to be filed n the estate of the late 8ande<as 8r& On /ovember .9! 1997! #ntervenor filed an Omnibus 4otion to approve the deed of conditional sale e9ecuted between Plaintiff6in6lntervention -le9 -& "ina and 8ande<as 8r& On Aanuar) 17! 1995! the TC rendered the (uestioned order $rantin$ intervenorLs 4otion& :OSE C LEE r& Auvencio P& OrtaSez incorporated the Philippine *here can be no ad<udication of a propert) under intestate proceedin$s without the approval of the AND ALMA #nternational "ife #nsurance 0ompan) #nc& -nd court& Eowever under -rt& 577 of the 0ivil 0ode! possession of hereditar) propert) is deemed AGGA3AO, $nd owned 92b of its subscribed capital stock& r& transmitted to the heir without interruption from the moment of death of the decedent& *hus an heir can FILIPINO LOAN OrtaSez died! and he left behind wife Auliana onl) vlidl) sell his ri$ht! interest! or participation in the propert) under administration& Eowever! an heir ASSISTANCE 8al$ado OrtaSez! three le$itimate children ('afael! can onl) alienate such portion of the estate that ma) be allotted to him in the division of the estate b) GROUP, +& Aose! and -ntonio OrtaSez) and five ille$itimate the probate or intestate court after final ad<udication666that is! after all debtors shall have been paid or RTC OF CC children (herein private respondent 4a& ivina the devisees or le$atees shall have been $iven their shares& -n heir ma) onl) sell his ideal or undivided 3RANCH 8D $nd OrtaSez6%nderes and her siblin$s Aose! 'omeo! share in the estate! not an) specific propert) therein& #n the present case! Auliana OrtaSez and Aose MA DIVINA %nrico 4anuel! and 0esar! all surnamed OrtaSez sold specific properties of the estate& 8ince court approval is necessar) for the validit) of an) ENDERES (R,#" OrtaSez)&On 8eptember .3! 1982! 'afael OrtaSez disposition of the decedent=s estate! the disposition of the shares of stocks was invalid! and passes no BD) filed before the 0># of 'izal a petition for letters of title to the purchaser& Dhen the estate of the deceased person is alread) the sub<ect of a testate or

SPS VIRGILIO F SANTOS O ESPERAN@A LATI SANTOS, SPS VICTORINO F SANTOS, O LAGRIMAS SANTOS, ERNESTO F SANTOS, $nd TADEO F SANTOS, +& SPS :OSE LUM3AO $nd PROSERFINA LUM3AO (R,#" BD)

administration of the intestate estate of r& OrtaSez& Private respondent and her siblin$s opposed& *he '*0 appointed 'afael and Aose OrtaSez as <oint special administrators& 8everal )ears before (but alread) durin$ the pendenc) of the intestate proceedin$s)! Auliana OrtaSez and her two children! 8pecial -dministrators 'afael and Aose OrtaSez! entered into a memorandum of a$reement dated 4arch 3! 198. for the e9tra<udicial settlement of the estate of r& Auvencio OrtaSez! partitionin$ the estate& *he decedent=s wife! Auliana 8& OrtaSez! claimin$ that she owned 1!213 Philinterlife shares of stock as her con<u$al share in the estate! sold said shares with ri$ht to repurchase in favor of petitioner >ilipino "oan -ssistance Group (>"-G& Auliana OrtaSez failed to repurchase the shares& -lso 8pecial -dministrator Aose OrtaSez! claimin$ that he owned the remainin$ 1!211 Philinterlife shares of stocks as his inheritance share in the estate! sold said shares with ri$ht to repurchase also in favor of >"-G& Ee also failed to repurchase& Private respondent 4a& ivina OrtaSezT%nderes and her siblin$s (hereafter referred to as private respondents %nderes et al&) filed a motion for appointment of special administrator of Philinterlife shares of stock& *he '*0 $ranted the motion and appointed %nderes as special administratri9 of the Philinterlife shares of stock& %nderes later filed an ur$ent motion to declare void ab initio the memorandum of a$reement and an ur$ent motion to declare void ab initio the deeds of sale of Philinterlife shares of stock& 8antos! are the le$itimate and survivin$ heirs of the late 'ita 0atoc 8antos ('ita)! who died& urin$ her lifetime! 'ita sold to respondents 8pouses "umbao the sub<ect propert) which is a part of her share in the estate of her deceased mother& 'ita sold 122 s(uare meters of her inchoate share in her mother=s estate throu$h a document denominated as 1Gilihan n$ "upa!1 and an additional seven s(uare meters was added to the land& -fter ac(uirin$ the sub<ect propert)! respondents 8pouses "umbao took actual possession thereof and erected thereon a house which the) have been occup)in$ as e9clusive owners& 8pouses "umbao made several verbal demands upon 'ita! durin$ her lifetime! and thereafter upon herein petitioners! for them to e9ecute the necessar) documents to effect the issuance of a separate title in favor of respondents& 'ita informed respondent Proserfina "umbao she

intestate proceedin$! the administrator cannot enter into an) transaction involvin$ it without prior approval of the probate court&

*he 1256s(uare meter lot alread) sold to respondents 8pouses "umbao can no lon$er be inherited b) the petitioners because the same was no lon$er part of their inheritance? it was alread) sold durin$ the lifetime of their mother& Fnder -rticle 1711 of the /00! whatever ri$hts and obli$ations the decedent have over the propert) were transmitted to the heirs b) wa) of succession! a mode of ac(uirin$ the propert)! ri$hts! and obli$ations of the decedent to the e9tent of the value of the inheritance of the heirs& *he heirs have inherited the propert) sub<ect to the liabilit) affectin$ their common ancestor& Gein$ heirs! there is privit) of interest between them and their deceased mother& *he) onl) succeed to what ri$hts their mother had and what is valid and bindin$ a$ainst her is also valid and bindin$ as a$ainst them& -t the time of the e9ecution of the documents denominated as 1Gilihan n$ "upa!1 the entire propert) owned b) 4aria! the mother of 'ita! was not )et divided amon$ her and her co6heirs& /evertheless! that does not make the contract of sale between 'ita and respondents 8pouses "umbao invalid& *his is because even while an estate remains undivided! co6owners have each full ownership of their respective ali(uots or undivided shares and ma) therefore alienate! assi$n or mort$a$e them& *he co6 owner! however! has no ri$ht to sell or alienate a specific or determinate part of the thin$ owned in common! because such ri$ht over the thin$ is represented b) an ali(uot or ideal portion without an) ph)sical division&

OSCAR C REYES +& RTC, @ENITH INSURANCE CORPORATION, $nd RODRIGO C REYES 3RION, : (R,#" BD)

could not deliver the title to the sub<ect propert) because the entire propert) inherited b) her and her co6heirs from 4aria had not )et been partitioned& 8pouses "umbao claimed that petitioners! actin$ fraudulentl) and in conspirac) with one another! e9ecuted a eed of %9tra<udicial 8ettlement! ad<udicatin$ and partitionin$ amon$ themselves and the other heirs! the estate left b) 4aria! which included the sub<ect propert) alread) sold to respondents& Petitioners still failed and refused to reconve) the sub<ect propert) to the respondents 8pouses "umbao& 0onse(uentl)! the latter filed a 0omplaint for 'econve)ance with ama$es before the '*0 of Pasi$ 0it)& Oscar and private respondent 'odri$o 0& 'e)es ('odri$o) are two of the four children of the spouses Pedro and -nastacia 'e)es& Pedro! -nastacia! Oscar! and 'odri$o each owned shares of stock of Henith #nsurance 0orporation (Henith)& Pedro died in 19;3! while -nastacia died in 1997& /o settlement and partition appear to have been made with -nastacia=s estate& Henith and 'odri$o filed a derivative suit with the 8%0 a$ainst Oscar to obtain an accountin$ of the funds and assets of H%/#*E #/8F'-/0% 0O'PO'-*#O/ and to determine the shares of stock of deceased spouses Pedro and -nastacia 'e)es that were arbitraril) and fraudulentl) appropriated b) Oscar& Dhen '- 85995 took effect! the 8%0=s e9clusive and ori$inal <urisdiction over cases enumerated in 8ection 5 of P 92.6- was transferred to the '*0 desi$nated as a special commercial court& Oscar filed a 4otion to eclare 0omplaint as /uisance or Earassment 8uit claimin$ that the complaint is not a bona fide derivative suit as it partakes of the nature of a petition for the settlement of estate of the deceased -nastacia& *he '*0 denied the motion& 0- via petition for certiorari! prohibition! and mandamus@ affirmed the '*0 and denied the petition& 0arlos "& Puno! who died on Aune .5! 19;7! was an incorporator of respondent Puno %nterprises! #nc& On 4arch 13! .227! petitioner Aoselito 4usni Puno! claimin$ to be an heir of 0arlos "& Puno! initiated a complaint for specific performance a$ainst respondent& Petitioner averred that he is the son of the deceased with the latter=s common6 law wife! -melia Puno& -s survivin$ heir! he

'ulin$@ (*o determine the nature of the dispute! the two6tiered test is applied@ the relationship test and the nature of the controvers) test& *he controvers) must not onl) be rooted in the e9istence of an intra6 corporate relationship! but must as well pertain to the enforcement of the parties= correlative ri$hts and obli$ations under the 0orporation 0ode and the internal and intra6corporate re$ulator) rules of the corporation&) #s there an intra6corporate relationship between the partiesC Dhile 'odri$o holds shares of stock in Henith! he holds them in two capacities@ in his own ri$ht with respect to the 3!.52 shares re$istered in his name! and as one of the heirs of -nastacia 'e)es& -rticle 555 of the 0ivil 0ode declares that the successional ri$hts are transmitted from the moment of death of the decedent& -ccordin$l)! upon -nastacia=s death! her children ac(uired le$al title to her estate (which title includes her shareholdin$s in Henith)! and the) are! prior to the estate=s partition! deemed co6owners thereof& *his status as co6 owners! however! does not immediatel) and necessaril) make them stockholders of the corporation! unless and until there is compliance with 8ection ;7 of the 0orporation 0ode on the manner of transferrin$ shares&*he transfer of title b) means of succession! thou$h effective and valid between the parties involved (i&e&! between the decedent=s estate and her heirs)! does not bind the corporation and third parties& *he transfer must be re$istered in the books of the corporation& /ote that the case at bar is different from -be<o v& ela 0ruz and *0" 8ales 0orporation v& 0ourt of -ppeals where the transferees held definite and uncontested titles to a specific number of shares of the corporation& #n the present case! each of -nastacia=s heirs holds onl) an undivided interest in the shares& *his interest! at this point! is still inchoate and sub<ect to the outcome of a settlement proceedin$? the ri$ht of the heirs to specific! distributive shares of inheritance will not be determind until all the debts of the estate of the decedent are paid& #n short! the heirs are onl) entitled to what remains after pa)ment of the decedent=s debts&

PUNO +& PUNO En'"-2-.&"&

U2/n '!" d"$'! /) $ &!$-"!/#d"-, '!" !".-& d/ n/' $,'/0$'.*$##1 9"*/0" &'/*(!/#d"-& /) '!" */-2/-$'./n $nd $*<,.-" '!" -.4!'& $nd 2-.+.#"4"& /) '!" d"*"$&"d $& &!$-"!/#d"- /) '!" */-2/-$'./n T!" &'/*(& 0,&' 9" d.&'-.9,'"d ).-&' '/ '!" !".-& .n "&'$'" 2-/*""d.n4&, $nd '!" '-$n&)"- /) '!" &'/*(& 0,&' 9" -"*/-d"d .n '!" 9//(& /) '!" */-2/-$'./n 8ection ;7 of the 0orporation 0ode provides that no transfer shall be valid! e9cept as between the parties! until the transfer is recorded in the books of the corporation& urin$ such interim period! the heirs stand as the e(uitable owners of the stocks! the e9ecutor or administrator dul) appointed b) the court bein$ vested with the le$al title to the stock& Fntil a settlement and division of the estate is effected! the stocks of the

claimed entitlement to the ri$hts and privile$es of his late father as stockholder of respondent& *he complaint thus pra)ed that respondent allow petitioner to inspect its corporate book! render an accountin$ of all the transactions it entered into from 19;.! and $ive petitioner all the profits! earnin$s! dividends! or income pertainin$ to the shares of 0arlos "& Puno& 'espondent filed a motion to dismiss on the $round that petitioner did not have the le$al personalit) to sue because his birth certificate names him as +Aoselito 4usni 4uno&, Petitioner submitted the corrected birth certificate with the name +Aoselito 4& Puno!, certified b) the 0ivil 'e$istrar of the 0it) of 4anila! and the 0ertificate of >inalit) thereof& *o hasten the disposition of the case! the court conditionall) admitted the corrected birth certificate as $enuine and authentic& *he "ower court rendered a decision in favor of Aoselito Puno& *he 0- ordered the dismissal of the complaint& E 5.nd& /) S,**"&&./n 1 T"&'$0"n'$-1 2 L"4$# /- .n'"&'$'" 3 M.E"d B C/n'-$*',$# 8imeon Glas contracted a first marria$e with 4arta 0ruz and had three children! onl) one of whom! %ulalio! left children namel)@ 4aria Gervacio Glas (one of the plaintiffs)! 4arta Gervacio Glas (one of the defendants)! and "azaro Gervacio Glas& "azaro died and is survived b) three le$itimate children who are plaintiffs herein namel)! 4anuel! "eoncio and "oid& 8ubse(uentl) after 4arta=s death! 8imeon contracted a second marria$e with 4a9ima 8antos& -t the time of second marria$e! no li(uidation of the properties of 8imeon and 4arta was made& - week before 8imeon=s death! he e9ecuted a last Dill and *estament! and he $#&/ /-d"-"d $ 2-"2$-$'./n /) $ d/*,0"n' (EE!.9.' A) because the properties he had ac(uired durin$ his first marria$e with 4arta had not been li(uidated and were not separated from those ac(uired durin$ the second marria$e& Suc& docu$ent contains pro$ises by !axi$a to respect the disposition of said will and to $ive one6half (1R.) of the properties she and her husband will leave to the heirs! le$atees or beneficiaries named in the will (the heirs of 8imeon=s 1st marria$e)& Pursuant to this

decedent are held b) the administrator or e9ecutor& 0onse(uentl)! durin$ such time! it is the administrator or e9ecutor who is entitled to e9ercise the ri$hts of the deceased as stockholder& *hus! even if petitioner presents sufficient evidence in this case to establish that he is the son of 0arlos "& Puno! he would still not be allowed to inspect respondent=s books and be entitled to receive dividends from respondent! absent an) showin$ in its transfer book that some of the shares owned b) 0arlos "& Puno were transferred to him& *his would onl) be possible if petitioner has been reco$nized as an heir and has participated in the settlement of the estate of the deceased& >urthermore! petitioner was not able to prove satisfactoril) his filiation to the deceased stockholder? thus! the former cannot claim to be an heir of the latter&

3LAS +& SANTOS

*he heirs of 8imeon Glas and his wife 4arta 0ruz can no lon$er make an) claim for the unli(uidated con<u$al properties ac(uired durin$ said first marria$e because the same were alread) included in the mass properties constitutin$ the estate of the deceased 8imeon Glas and in the ad<udications made b) virtue of his will& Eowever! the) can claim promised properties under the docu$ent containinin" pro$ises by !axi$a to $ive one6half (1R.) of the properties she and her husband will leave to the heirs of her Eusband in the latter=s 1st marria$e(%VE#G#* -)& %9hibit - appears to be the compromise defined in -rticle 1829 of the 0ivil 0ode of 8pain! in force at the time of the e9ecution of such document! which provides as follows@ Co$pro$ise is a contract by w&ic& eac& of t&e parties in interest- by "ivin"- promising- or retainin" so$et&in" avoids t&e provocation of a suitor ter$inates one w&ic& &as already provocation been instituted. Gein$ a compromise! which is an obli$ation! it is <ust to conve) and deliver the sub<ect properties& -bsent the compromise! however! a claim for the unli(uidated con<u$al properties ac(uired durin$ the first marria$e can no lon$er lie because the same were alread) included in the mass properties constitutin$ the estate of 8imeon and in the ad<udications made b) virtue of his will& *he a$reement or promise that 4a9ima 8antos made in %9hibit - is to hold one6half of her share in the con<u$al assets in trust for the heirs and le$atees of her husband=s heirs in the latter=s first marria$e! with the obli$ation of conve)in$ the same to such of his heirs or le$atees as she ma) choose in her last will and testament& *his kind of compromiseRpromise is valid&

document! the plaintiffs instituted an action a$ainst the administration of the estate of 4a9ima 8antos to secure a <udicial declaration that one6half (1R.) of the properties left b) 4a9ima be ad<udicated to them& Fpon filin$ of opposition b) the administrati9! the trial court dismissed the complaint& Eence! this appeal& 3$#,& +& 3$#,& Eerein petitioner and respondents are the children of the spouses 'ufo and 8ebastiana Galus& 'ufo mort$a$ed a parcel of land! which he owns! as a securit) for a loan he obtained from the 'ural Gank of 4ai$o! "anao del /orte& 'ufo failed to pa) his loan& -s a result! the mort$a$ed propert) was foreclosed and was sold to the bank as the sole bidder at a public auction held for that purpose& *he propert) was not redeemed within the period allowed b) law& 4ore than two )ears after the auction! or on Aanuar) .5! 1983! the sheriff e9ecuted a efinite eed of 8ale in favor of the Gank& *hereafter! a new title was issued in the name of the Gank& #n 1989! herein petitioner and respondents e9ecuted an %9tra<udicial 8ettlement of %state ad<udicatin$ to each of them a specific one6third portion of the sub<ect propert) consistin$ of 12!.3; s(uare meters& *he %9tra<udicial 8ettlement also contained provisions wherein the parties admitted knowled$e of the fact that their father mort$a$ed the sub<ect propert) to the Gank and that the) intended to redeem the same at the soonest possible time& *hree )ears after the e9ecution of the %9tra<udicial 8ettlement! herein respondents bou"&t t&e sub;ect property fro$ t&e ank& - eed of 8ale of 'e$istered "and was e9ecuted b) the Gank in favor of respondents& 8ubse(uentl)- a TCT was issued in t&e na$e of respondents. !eanw&ilepetitioner continued possession of t&e sub;ect lot. #n 1995! respondents filed a 0omplaint for 'ecover) of Possession and ama$es a$ainst petitioner! contendin$ that the) had alread) informed petitioner of the fact that the) were the new owners of the disputed propert)! but the petitioner still refused to surrender possession of the same to them& *he '*0 decided in favor of petitioner& *he 0- ruled in favor of respondent& *he ri$hts to a personLs succession are transmitted from the moment of his death& #n addition! the inheritance of a person consists of the propert) and transmissible ri$hts and obli$ations e9istin$ at the time of his death! as well as those which have accrued thereto since the openin$ of the succession& #n the present case! since 'ufo lost ownership of the sub<ect propert) durin$ his lifetime! as the Gank ac(uired e9clusive ownership of the contested lot durin$ the lifetime of 'ufo& #t onl) follows that at the time of his death! the disputed parcel of land no lon$er formed part of his estate to which his heirs ma) la) claim& 8tated differentl)! petitioner and respondents never inherited the sub<ect lot from their father& >urthermore! petitionerLs contention that he and his siblin$s intended to continue their supposed co6 ownership of the sub<ect propert) contradicts the provisions of the sub<ect %9tra<udicial 8ettlement where the) clearl) manifested their intention of havin$ the sub<ect propert) divided or partitioned b) assi$nin$ to each of the petitioner and respondents a specific 1R7 portion of the same& Partition calls for the se$re$ation and conve)ance of a determinate portion of the propert) owned in common& *he purpose of partition is to put an end to co6ownership! an ob<ective which ne$ates petitionerLs claims in the present case&

TESTAMENTARY SUCCESSION II WILLS A D").n.'./n

V.',4 + CA

'omarico :itu$ and /enita -lonte were co6 administrators of olores :itu$=s (deceased) estate& 'owena 0orona was the e9ecutri9& 'omarico! the deceased=s husband! filed a motion with the probate court askin$ for authorit) to sell certain shares of stock and real properties belon$in$ to the estate to cover alle$ed advances to the estate! which he claimed as personal funds& *he advances were used to pa) estate ta9es& 0orona opposed the motion on $round that the advances came from a savin$s account which formed part of the con<u$al partnership properties and is part of the estate& *hus! there was no $round for reimbursement& 'omarico claims that the funds are his e9clusive propert)! havin$ been ac(uired throu$h a survivorship a$reement e9ecuted with his late wife and the bank& *he a$reement stated that after the death of either one of the spouses! the savin$s account shall belon$ to and be the sole propert) of the survivor! and shall be pa)able to and collectible or withdrawable b) such survivor& *he lower court upheld the validit) of the a$reement and $ranted the motion to sell& 0- reversed statin$ that the survivorship a$reement constitutes a conve)ance mortis causa which did not compl) with the formalities of a valid will& -ssumin$ that it was a donation inter vivos! it is a prohibited donation (donation between spouses)& 3 C C!$-$*'"-.&'.*& In'"-2-"'$'./n /) W.##& Dona 4aria 8olla=s will reads as follows@ > x x < desire and &ereby na$e 0eandro /errano$y "randson x x x and < desire &i$ to co$ply wit& t&e obli"ation to "ive or to deliver to t&e paris& priest of t&is town a sufficient su$ of $oney necessary for a yearly novena and for an ordinary re#uie$ $ass for t&e *st M days t&ereof and on t&e At& or last day- a sole$n re#uie$ $ass wit& a vi"il and a lar"e bier %a stand on w&ic& a corpse or coffin is placed before burial N defn not included in will' for t&ese $asses are for t&e repose of $y soul and t&ose of $y parents- &usband- c&ildrenand ot&er relatives. < repeat and insist t&at $y &eir s&all execute and co$ply wit& t&is re#uest wit&out fail. And at the hour of his death, he +ill insist that his heirs compl! +ith all that " ha&e here ordered.1 #n the earlier part of the will! ona 4aria ordered the distribution of le$acies to her brothers!

*he conve)ance is not mortis causa! which should be embodied in a will& - will is a personal! solemn! revocable and free act b) which a capacitated person disposes of his propert) and ri$hts and declares or complies with duties to take effect after his death& *he be(uest or devise must pertain to the testator& #n this case! the savin$s account involved was in the nature of con<u$al funds& 8ince it was not shown that the funds belon$ed e9clusivel) to one part)! it is presumed to be con<u$al& #t is also not a donation inter vivos because it was to take effect after the death of one part)& #t is also not a donation between spouses because it involved no conve)ance of a spouse=s own properties to the other& #t was an error to include the savin$s account in the inventor) of the deceased=s assets because it is the separate propert) of 'omarico& *hus! 'omarico had the ri$ht to claim reimbursement& 8urvivorship a$reements are permitted b) the /00& Eowever! its operation or effect must not be violative of the law (i&e& used as a cloak to hide an inofficious donation or to transfer propert) in fraud of creditors or to defeat the le$itime of a forced heir)&

SOLLA VS ASCUENTA

#n order to determine the testator=s intention! the court should place itself as near as possible in his position! Dhere the lan$ua$e of the will is ambi$uous or doubtful! the court should take into consideration the situation of the testator and the facts and circumstances surroundin$ him at the time the will was e9ecuted& Dhere the testator=s intention is manifest from the conte9t of the will and surroundin$ circumstances! but is obscured b) inapt and inaccurate modes of e9pression! the lan$ua$e will be subordinated to the intention! and in order to $ive effect to such intention! as far as possible! the court ma) depart from the strict wordin$ and read word or phrase in a sense different from that which is ordinaril) attributed to it! and for such purpose! ma) mould or chan$e the lan$ua$e of the will! such as restrictin$ its application or suppl)in$ words or phrases& #n this case! it clearl) appearin$ that it was 4aria 8olla=s intention to insist upon compliance of her order b) "eandro=s heirs! that the latter should compl) with the pious orders and that she was not referrin$ to her order concernin$ the le$acies! the will should onl) be interpreted in so far as the pious orders are concerned (the pra)ers and masses)&

nephew! protX$Xes and servant& "eandro 8errano=s will on the other hand reads as follows@ < co$$and $y executor to put all of $y property in order x x x < order $y son Si$eon not to for"et annually all t&e souls of t&e relatives of $y "rand$ot&er and also of $ine and to &ave a $ass said on t&e *st and At& days of t&e yearly novena and t&at &e erect a *st class bier x x x < sincerely desire t&at t&e property of $y deceased "rand$ot&er- Capitana !aria %Solla' be disposed of in confor$ity wit& all t&e provisions of &er will and of $ine. "eandro named his son 8imeon 8errano! as e9ecutor of his will and that he directed him to put all of his propert) in order and to separate that which came from his deceased $randmother! 4aria 8olla& "eandro took possession of the propert) left b) his $randmother when she died on Aune 11! 1887& Ee continued in possession of the same until his death on -u$ust 5! 19.1& *he petitioners ($randnieces and $randnephews) now assail his continued possession& *he respondent is the widow of "eandro 8errano& Dhat are the orders and re(uests that 4aria 8olla wanted her $randson and his heirs to faithfull) compl) withC id she want "eandro=s heirs to continue the distribution of le$acies tooC D In -"K W.## /) R"+ A9$d.$ L$% 4/+"-n.n4 )/-0 1 T.0" /) "E"*,'./n 2 P#$*" /) "E"*,'./n On 8ept& ;! 19.7! >r& 8ancho -badia! parish priest of *alisa)! 0ebu! e9ecuted a document purportin$ to be his last will and testament& Ee died Aan& 13! 1937& Ee left properties estimated at P 8k in value& On Oct& .! 193;! one of the le$atees in the purported last will filed a petition to probate the will! to which the cousins and nephews of the deceased opposed& *he purported last will and testament turned out to be a holo$raphic will! as one of the attestin$ witnesses! the two others bein$ also dead! testified that >r& 8ancho wrote out his will in 8panish! which he knew and understood! and that testator si$ned on the left hand mar$in of the front pa$e of each of the three folios or sheets of which the document is composed! and numbered the same with -rabic numerals! and finall) si$ned his name at the end of his writin$ at the last pa$e! all this! in the presence

*he will ma) not be probated! and the estate will be divided intestate& -rt& 595 1*he validit) of a will as to its form depends upon the observance of the law in force at the time it is made&1 *he above provision is but an e9pression or statement of the wei$ht of authorit) to the affect that the validit) of a will is to be <ud$ed not b) the law enforce at the time of the testatorLs death or at the time the supposed will is presented in court for probate or when the petition is decided b) the court but at the time the instrument was e9ecuted& One reason in support of the rule is that althou$h the will operates upon and after the death of the testator! the wishes of the testator about the disposition of his estate amon$ his heirs and amon$ the le$atees is $iven solemn e9pression at the time the will is e9ecuted! and in realit)! the le$ac) or be(uest then becomes a completed act& *his rulin$ has been laid down b) this court in the case of #n re Dill of 'iosa! 79 Phil&! .7& #t is a wholesome doctrine and should be followed& Dhen one e9ecutes a will which is invalid for failure to observe and follow the le$al re(uirements at the time of its e9ecution then upon his death he should be re$arded and declared as havin$ died intestate! and his heirs will then inherit b) intestate succession! and no subse(uent law with more liberal re(uirements or which dispenses with such re(uirements as to e9ecution should be allowed to validate a defective will and thereb) divest the heirs of their vested ri$hts in the estate b) intestate succession& *he $eneral rule is that the "e$islature can not validate void wills&

of the three attestin$ witnesses after tellin$ that it was his last will and that the said three witnesses si$ned their names on the last pa$e after the attestation clause in his presence and in the presence of each other& *he oppositors did not submit an) evidence& F#",0"- + H.E Petitioner >leumer is the special administrator of %dward Ei9=s estate& Ee appeals the decision of the 0># den)in$ the probate of Ei9=s will& *he will was alle$ed to be e9ecuted in Dest :ir$ina on /ov 7! 19.5 b) Ei9! who then resided there& *hus! the laws of Dest :ir$inia $overn& Ee submitted a cop) of section 78;8 of -cts 188. as found in the Dest :ir$inia 0ode& Gut the 0># found that this is not compliance with the law& of "ela alton filed for the le$alization of the documents which claims to be the holo$raphic will of Dilliam Giberson! e9ecuted in 0alifornia& *he decedent was a citizen of #llinois! F8 and a resident of 0ebu who died in F8*! 4anila& 8prin$ Giberson! a le$itimate son of the decedent opposed with the contention that before a will e9ecuted in a forei$n countr) ma)be probated here! it must be shown that it has been previousl) probated in said forei$n countr)& *he opposition! in support of his theor)! he ar$ues that -rticle ;75 of the 0ode of 0ivil Procedure has been repealed b) 'ule 58! under 8ection 17! -rticle :### of the 0onstitution& *hat -rticle ;75 of the 0ode of 0ivil Procedure reads as follows@ - will e9ecuted outside of the Philippines! which ma) be authenticated and le$alized under the laws of the state or countr) where it was $ranted! ma) be authenticated! le$alized and re$istered in the Philippine #slands! and will have the same efficac) (uesi has been $ranted in accordance with the laws of these #slands& *he laws of a forei$n <urisdiction do not prove themselves in Philippine 0ourts& *he Philippine #slands are not authorized to take <udicial notice of the laws of various 8tates of the -merican Fnion& 8uch laws must be proved as facts& Eere the re(uirements of the law were not met& *here was no showin$ that the book from which an e9tract was taken was printed or published under the authorit) of the 8tate of Dest :ir$inia& /or was the e9tract of the law attested b) the certificate of the officer havin$ char$e of the ori$inal under the seal of Dest :ir$inia! as provided in section 721 of the 0ode of 0ivil Procedure& /o evidence was introduced to show that the e9tract from the laws of Dest :ir$inia was in force at the time the alle$ed will was e9ecuted& #t was also necessar) for the petitioner to prove that the testator had his domicile in Dest :ir$inia and not in the Philippine #slands& *he onl) evidence introduced to establish this fact was a recital of the alle$ed will and the testimon) of the petitioner& - person ma) dispose of their propert) for after his death b) will& *he $rantin$ of a le$al act testamentoes that can be done in the Philippines or abroad! if $ranted in a forei$n countr)! must be in accordance with the laws of that countr)! it is a rule universall) adopted& *he alien ma) have to after his death his propert) in the Philippines b) will and not forced to $ive it in the Philippines can do in their own countr) or another! but accordin$ to the laws of the countr) $rantin$ it& -rticle ;75 of the 0ode of 0ivil Procedure! respectin$ the freedom of the testator to $ive his will an)where! has the will to be le$alized in a forei$n countr) in accordance with the laws of that countr) can le$alizsarse also in the Philippines& *hat provision is substantive! it creates the ri$hts of beneficiaries of the will@ the) are said to le$alize wills otor$adosfuera Philippine #slands if the) can be le$alized in the countr) in which the) were $ranted! $ivin$ them cause of action for compliance pedir<udicialmente the last testatorLs will whatever the place of e9ecution& 8inesa provision would be truncated to test the power& -nd -rticle ;75 reads@ 1*he wills authenticated and le$alized in the Fnited 8tates! or an) state or territor) thereof! or a state or paise9tran<ero! in accordance with the laws of that state! territor) or countr)! ma) be le$alized )archivados re$istered in the 0ourt of >irst #nstance of the testator hath provinciaen propert)! or propert) efectados b) such wills& 1 *his articulono is in conflict with -rticle ;75! in fact! more than its corollar) noes& #f a will made in a forei$n countr) can be le$alized in accordance with the laws of that countr) ma) also le$alized in the Philippines! with more reason le$alizadosen wills and forei$n countries in accordance with the laws of those countries ma) also le$alized in the Philippines& -rticle 1 of 'ule 58 is nothin$ more than a transplantation of -rticle ;75 of the 0ode of 0ivil Procedure& 'eproduce the two provisions@ 'F"% 58 6 8%0*#O/ 1& Dills Philippines ma) be outside P'O:% allowed here& 6 Dills P'O:% and allowed in a forei$n countr)! -ccordin$ *o *he "aws of 8uch countr)! ma) be allowed! filed! and 'ecorded b) the 0ourt of >irst #nstance proper in the Philippines& 8%0& ;75& Dills islands ma) be outside P'O:% allowed here& 6 Dills P'O:% and allowed in the Fnited 8tates! or 8tate or *erritor) -n) thereof! or in a forei$n state or countr)! -ccordin$ *o *he "aws of 8uch 8tate! *erritor)! or countr)! ma) be allowed! filed! and 'ecorded in the 0ourt of >irst #nstance of the province in Dhich the testator has real or estate staff on Dhich 8uch will ma) Operate& *he underlined words in the second arran$ement is not shown in the first& -rticle 1 of 'ule 58 can not prevent a le$alized in the Philippines will made in a forei$n countr)! if it can be le$alized in accordance with the laws of that countr)! not previousl) re(uired to be le$alized in that countr)& #t is untenable! therefore! the theor) of the opponent& #t follows that the validit) of the <oint will! in so far as the estate of the wife was concerned! must be! on her death! ree9amined and ad<udicated de novo! since a <oint will is considered a separate will of each

%state Giberson

ela Potot

0erna

On 4a) 9! 1979! the spouses! Gernabe de la 8erna and Gervasia 'ebaca! e9ecuted a <oint last

will and testament in the local dialect whereb) the) willed that 1our two parcels of land ac(uired durin$ our marria$e to$ether with all improvements thereon shall be $iven to 4anuela 'ebaca! our niece! whom we have nurtured since childhood! because God did not $ive us an) child in our union! 4anuela 'ebaca bein$ married to /icolas Potot1! and that 1while each of the testators is )et livin$! he or she will continue to en<o) the fruits of the two lands& Gernabe dela 8erna died on -u$ust 72! 1979! and the aforesaid will was submitted to probate b) said Gervasia and 4anuela before the 0ourt of >irst #nstance of 0ebu which! after due publication as re(uired b) law and there bein$ no opposition! heard the evidence& Fpon the death of Gervasia 'ebaca on October 13! 195.! another petition for the probate of the same will insofar as Gervasia was concerned was filed on /ovember ;! 195.! bein$ 8pecial Proceedin$s /o& 121;6' of the same 0ourt of >irst #nstance of 0ebu! but for failure of the petitioner! 4anuela '& Potot and her attorne)! 4anuel Potot to appear! for the hearin$ of said petition! the case was dismissed on 4arch 72! 1953 8pec& Proc& /o& 121;6'! #n the matter of the Probate of the Dill of Gervasia 'ebaca)& L$% 4/+"-n.n4 */n'"n' 1 T.0" 2 S,**"&&./n$# -.4!'&, "'* E&'$'" /) %dward 0hristensen was born in /ew Oork but he C!-.&'"n&"n mi$rated to 0alifornia where he resided for a period of 9 )ears& #n 1917! he came to the Philippines where he became a domiciliar) until his death& #n his will! he instituted an acknowled$ed natural dau$hter! 4aria "uc) 0hristensen (le$itimate)! as his onl) heir! but left a le$ac) sum of mone) in favor of Eelen 0hristensen Garcia (ille$itimate)& 0ounsel for Eelen claims that under -rticle 1;! para$raph . of the 0ivil 0ode! 0alifornia law should be applied? that under 0alifornia law! the matter is referred back to the law of the domicile& On the other hand! counsel for 4aria! averred that the national law of the deceased must appl)! ille$itimate children not bein$ entitled to an)thin$ under 0alifornia law& T"&'$'" E&'$'" /acts6 /) A0/& 3"##.& +& 3"##.& (17=>) -mos G& Gellis was +a citizen of the 8tate of *e9as and of the Fnited 8tates,& Ee had five le$itimate children (one of whom predeceased him) b) his E

testator& *hus re$arded! the holdin$ of the court of >irst #nstance of 0ebu that the <oint will is one prohibited b) law was correct as to the participation of the deceased Gervasia 'ebaca in the properties in (uestion& *herefore! the undivided interest of Gervasia 'ebaca should pass upon her death to her heirs intestate! and not e9clusivel) to the testamentar) heir! unless some other valid will in her favor is shown to e9ist! or unless she be the onl) heir intestate of said Gervasia& #t is unnecessar) to emphasize that the fact that <oint wills should be in common usa$e could not make them valid when our 0ivil 0odes consistentl) invalidated them! because laws are onl) repealed b) other subse(uent laws! and no usa$e to the contrar) ma) prevail a$ainst their observance (-rt& 5! 0iv& 0ode of 1889? -rt& 5! 0ivil 0ode of the Philippines of 1952)&

*here are two rules in 0alifornia on the matter? the internal law which applies to 0alifornians domiciled in 0alifornia and the conflict rule for 0alifornians domiciled outside of 0alifornia& 0hristensen bein$ domiciled in the Philippines! the law of his domicile must be followed& *he case was remanded to the lower court for further proceedin$s T the determination of the successional ri$hts under Philippine law onl)&

Ratio6 *he ille$itimate children! in claimin$ that Philippine law should appl)! contend that -rticle 15(7) of the 0ivil 0ode should be treated as an e9ception to -rticle 1; of said 0ode& -rticle 1; +renderPsQ applicable the national law of the decedent! in intestate or testamentar) successions! with re$ard to four items@ (a)

first wife! three le$itimate children b) his second wife! and finall) three ille$itimate children& -mos e9ecuted a will in the Philippines! providin$! amon$ others! that his three ille$itimate children should first be $iven P32!222 each from his distributable estate before the distribution of the remainder of the estate to his le$itimate children in e(ual shares& -mos died a resident of 8an -ntonio! *e9as& 8ubse(uentl)! his will was admitted to probate in a 0ourt of >irst in 4anila& -fter satisf)in$ the le$acies of the three ille$itimate children! the e9ecutor divided the residuar) estate amon$ -mos= seven le$itimate children& *he three ille$itimate children filed an opposition to the pro<ect of partition! ar$uin$ that! as compulsor) heirs! the) have been deprived of their le$itimes& *he lower court denied the opposition after appl)in$ the national law of the decedent! which did not provide for le$itimes& <ssue6 Dhether or not the national law of the decedent (*e9as law) or Philippine law should be applied& ff 2eld' T!" n$'./n$# #$% /) '!" d"*"d"n' &!/,#d 9" $22#."d /acts6 -doracion 0ampos was an -merican citizen and a permanent resident of Philadelphia! Penns)lvania& #n 1955! she e9ecuted a last will and testament& #n 1955! she died in the Philippines while temporaril) residin$ with one of her sisters in 4alate& -s -doracion was survived onl) b) his father! Eermo$enes 0ampos! and three sisters! his father (and onl) compulsor) heir) e9ecuted an -ffidavit under the 'ules of 0ourt whereb) he ad<udicated unto himself the ownership of -doracion=s entire estate& 8ubse(uentl)! one of -doracion=s sisters! /enita! filed a +petition for the reprobate, of the former=s will with a 0ourt of >irst #nstance in 4anila! claimin$ that the will which was e9ecuted in the Fnited 8tates had been +probated! allowed! and re$istered with the 'e$istr) of Dills PinQ Philadelphia^and that therefore! there is an ur$ent need for the appointment of an administratri9 to administer and eventuall) distribute the properties of the estate located in the Philippines&, *he father opposed the probate of the will! claimin$ that it was a for$er)& Eowever! he later filed a 4otion to ismiss! sa)in$ that he had verified that the document was indeed -doracion=s will& *he 0>#

the order of succession! (b) the amount of successional ri$hts! (c) the intrinsic validit) of the provisions of the will! and (d) the capacit) to succeed& On the other hand! -rticle 15(7) provides that +prohibitive laws concernin$ persons! their acts or propert)! and those which have for their ob<ect public order! public polic) and $ood customs shall not be rendered ineffective b) laws or <ud$ments promul$ated! or b) determinations or conventions a$reed upon in a forei$n countr)&, *he 0ourt held that +whatever public polic) or $ood customs ma) be involved in our s)stem of le$itimes! 0on$ress has not intended to e9tend the same to the succession of forei$n nationals&, 0on$ress= purpose was to make -rticle 1;(.) a specific provision in itself which must be applied in testate and intestate succession& +-s a further indication of this le$islative intent! 0on$ress added a new provision! under -rticle 1279! which decrees that capacit) to succeed is to be $overned b) the national law of the decedent&, *he ille$itimate children also ar$ued that -mos e9ecuted two wills T one to $overn his *e9as estate and the other his Philippine estate& +-ssumin$ that such was the decedent=s intention in e9ecutin$ a separate Philippine will! it will not alter the law for^a provision in a forei$ner=s will to the effect that his properties shall be distributed in accordance with Philippine law and not with his national law! is ille$al and void for his national law cannot be i$nored in re$ard to those matters PinQ -rticle 1;&, *hus! -mos= national law $overns! which law does not reco$nize le$itimes&

C$1"'$n/ +& L"/n.d$& (178B)

Ratio6 #t is a settled rule that as re$ards the intrinsic validit) of the provisions of the will! as provided for in -rticle 1;(.) and 1279 of the 0ivil 0ode! the national law of the decedent must appl)& *he 0ourt (uoted the rulin$ in Gellis vs& Gellis (.2 80'- 758)! that +whatever public polic) or $ood customs ma) be involved in our s)stem of le$itimes! 0on$ress has not intended to e9tend the same to the succession of forei$n nationals for it has specificall) chosen to leave! inter alia! the amount of successional ri$hts! to the decedent=s national law&,

thus allowed reprobate& *he father then filed a 4otion to :acate! contendin$ that his earlier motion was secured throu$h fraud& Ee! however! failed to show up in the motion hearin$s and eventuall) died durin$ the pendenc) of the case& 0a)etano was appointed e9ecutri9 of his estate& 0a)etano now claims that the 0># erred in allowin$ the reprobate of the -doracion=s will since in doin$ so! it applied Penns)lvania law! which does not provide for le$itimes! hence divestin$ Eermo$enes of the same& <ssue6 Dhether or not the national law of the decedent (Penns)lvania law) or Philippine law should $overn& ff 2eld' T!" n$'./n$# #$% /) '!" d"*"d"n' $22#."& TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY AND INTENT A W!/ 0$1 0$(" $ %.##V 3 S,2"-+"n.n4 .n*$2$*.'1 T/--"& +& /acts6 L/2"6 (172=) #n -u$ust 19.7! on *omas 'odri$uez! then sevent)6si9 (5;) )ears old! appointed his cousin! :icente "opez! as the administrator of his propert)& >or a lon$ time prior to said date! *omas had been in feeble condition due to old a$e& #n October 19.7! on *omas= other cousin! 4ar$arita "opez! petitioned the 0ourt of >irst #nstance of 4anila for his $uardianship& *he lower court! findin$ that *omas was incapable of takin$ care of himself! named :icente "opez $uardian& #n Aanuar)! 19.3! while confined in the Philippine General Eospital! on *omas e9ecuted a will! namin$ :icente as heir! in the presence of several witnesses! amon$ them four ph)sicians& -fter on *omas= death the followin$ month! his cousin 4ar$arita sou$ht to have the will voided on the $round of the former=s incapacit)& 4ar$arita relied on the statements made b) the doctors who had earlier e9amined on *omas in relation to the $uardianship proceedin$s T that he was +of unsound mind! sufferin$ from senile dementia, and that +this form of mental disease is pro$ressive in its patholo$ical tendenc)! $oin$ on to pro$ressive atrop) and de$eneration of the brain&, :icente! on the other hand! relied on the testimonies of the doctors present at the e9ecution of the will T that +the result of the different tests to which the patient was submitted is that his intellectual faculties are sound! e9cept that his III

+*he presumption is that ever) adult is sane& #t is onl) when those seekin$ to overthrow the will have clearl) established the char$e of mental incapacit) that the courts will intervene to set aside a testamentar) document&, +%ven where the (uestion of insanit) is out in issue in the $uardianship proceedin$s! the most that can be said of the findin$ is that it raises a presumption of incapacit) to make a will but does not PrenderCQ invaluable the testament if competenc) can be shown& *he burden of provin$ sanit) in such case is cast upon the proponents&, #n this case! +*omas 'odri$uez! in our opinion! comprehended the nature of the transaction in which he was en$a$ed& Ee had two conferences with his law)er^and knew what the will was to contain^Ee si$ned the will and its two copies in the proper places at the bottom and on the left mar$in& -t that time! the testator recollected the propert) to be disposed of and the persons who would naturall) be supposed to have claims upon him& Dhile for some months prior to the makin$ of the will he had not mana$ed his propert)! he seemed to have retained a distinct recollection of what it consisted and of his income&, +PEeQ ma) have been of advanced )ears! ma) have been ph)sicall) decrepit! ma) have been weak in intellect! ma) have suffered a loss of memor)! ma) have had a $uardian and ma) have a been e9tremel) eccentric! but he still possessed the spark of reason and of life! that stren$th of mind to form a fi9ed intention and to summon his enfeebled thou$hts to enforce that intention! which the law terms `testamentar) capacit)=&1

3$#'$6$L$E$ (2012)

+&

memor) is weak! which is almost a loss for recent facts! or events which have recentl) occurred! due to his ph)sical condition and old a$e&, <ssue6 Dhether or not the testator! characterized as sufferin$ from senile dementia! had testamentar) capacit) at the time of the e9ecution of the will& ff 2eld' Y"&, !" !$d '"&'$0"n'$-1 *$2$*.'1 d"&2.'" '!" &"n.#" d"0"n'.$ Paciencia 'e$ala was sevent)6ei$ht (58) )ears old! sin$le! and without an) children or siblin$s when she e9ecuted her last will and testament in Pampan$a in the house of one Aud$e "impin and in the presence of three instrumental witnesses& -ll the formalities in the e9ecution of a will were observed! with Paciencia be(ueathin$ all her properties to her nephew! "orenzo! and the latter=s wife and two children& Paciencia apparentl) raised "orenzo as her own child& "orenzo and his famil) later mi$rated to the Fnited 8tates& 8hortl) after the e9ecution of the will! Paciencia went abroad to live with them& 8he died in the 8tates si9teen (1;) )ears later& "orenzo filed a petition for the probate of the will with an '*0 in Pampan$a& -ntonio Galtazar! claimin$ to be a nephew of the deceased! opposed& Other relatives <oined -ntonio=s opposition! claimin$ that the will was null and void since! amon$ other reasons! +Paciencia was mentall) incapable Pof makin$Q a Dill at the time of its e9ecution&, One of them testified that Paciencia was + `ma$ul)an= or `for$etful= because she would sometimes leave her wallet in the kitchen then start lookin$ for it moments later&, *he lower court $ave full credence to the last testimon)! declared that Paciencia did not have testamentar) capacit)! and denied the probate of the will& *he 0ourt of -ppeals reversed the lower court! reasonin$ that 1the state of bein$ `ma$ul)an= does not make a person mentall) unsound so PasQ to render PPacienciaQ unfit for e9ecutin$ a Dill&1 <ssue6 Dhether or not the testator! characterized as `ma$ul)an= or for$etful! had testamentar) capacit)&

2eld' Y"&, '!" '"&'$'/- !$d '"&'$0"n'$-1 *$2$*.'1 d"&2.'" !"- )/-4"'),#n"&& +>or$etfulness is not e(uivalent to bein$ of unsound mind& Gesides! -rticle 599 of the /ew 0ivil 0ode states that `to be of sound mind! it is not necessar) that the testator be in full possession of all his reasonin$ faculties! or that his mind be wholl) unbroken! unimpaired! or unshattered b) disease! in<ur) or other cause^, +P-Qpart from the Prelative=sQ testimon)^pertainin$ to Paciencia=s for$etfulness! there is no substantial evidence! medical or otherwise! that would show that Paciencia was of unsound mind at the time of the e9ecution of the Dill& On the other hand! we find more worth) of credence Pone of the instrumental witnesses=Q testimon) as to the soundness of mind of Paciencia when the latter went to Aud$e "impin=s house and voluntaril) e9ecuted the Dill& `*he testimon) of subscribin$ witnesses to a Dill concernin$ the testator=s mental condition is entitled to $reat wei$ht where the) are truthful and intelli$ent&= 4ore importantl)! a testator is presumed to be of sound mind at the time of the e9ecution of the Dill and the burden to prove otherwise lies on the oppositor&,

SOLEMNITIES OF WILLS A 5.nd& /) W.##& 3 N/'$-.$# W.##& 1 G"n"-$# -"<,.-"0"n'& A9$n4$n +& -na -ban$an=s will consisted of two sheets! the A9$n4$n (1717) first of which contained all of the dispositions of the testatri9! dul) si$ned at the bottom b) 4artin 4ontalban (in the name and under the direction of

IV

3es, there +as compliance +ith the solemnities of +ills. Ratio6 +P#Qn a will consistin$ of two sheets the first of which contains all the testamentar) dispositions and is si$ned at the bottom b) the testator and three witnesses and the second contains onl) the attestation

the testatri9) and b) three witnesses& *he followin$ sheet contained onl) the attestation clause dul) si$ned at the bottom b) the three instrumental witnesses& /either of these sheets was si$ned on the left mar$in b) the testatri9 and the three witnesses! nor numbered b) letters? and these omissions! accordin$ to appellantsL contention! are defects whereb) the probate of the will should have been denied& -lso! the will was in 0ebuano and there was no proof that the testatri9 knew the dialect in which the will was written& <ssue6 Dhether or not there was compliance with the solemnities of wills& S,-/6$ +& H/n-$d/ (1781) 4arcelina 8uroza was 57 )ears old and illiterate when she supposedl) e9ecuted a notarial will written in %n$lish& Eer thumbmark appears on the document& #n the openin$ para$raph of the will! it was stated that %n$lish was a lan$ua$e 1understood and known1 to the testatri9& Gut in its concludin$ para$raph! it was stated that the will was read to the testatri9 1and translated into >ilipino lan$ua$e1& <ssue6 Dhether or not the will is void& 2 3$-,' +& C$9$*,n4$n (1712) S2"*.).* -"<,.-"0"n'& 8evero! *imotea! 0atalina! and -&4& Aimenez were witnesses to the e9ecution of 4aria 8alomon=s will& *he si$nature of the testatri9 was written b) 8evero at the former=s re(uest and in her presence and in the presence of all the other witnesses to the will& *he probate of the will was contended on the $round that the handwritin$ of 8evero looked more like the handwritin$ of one of the 7 other attestin$ witnesses to the will& <ssue6 Dhether or not the will is valid&

clause and is si$ned also at the bottom b) the three witnesses! it is not necessar) that both sheets be further si$ned on their mar$ins b) the testator and the witnesses! or be pa$ed& *he ob<ect of the solemnities surroundin$ the e9ecution of wills is to close the door a$ainst bad faith and fraud! to avoid substitution of wills and testaments and to $uarant) their truth and authenticit)& *herefore the laws on this sub<ect should be interpreted in such a wa) as to attain these primordial ends& Gut! on the other hand! also one must not lose si$ht of the fact that it is not the ob<ect of the law to restrain and curtail the e9ercise of the ri$ht to make a will& 8o when an interpretation alread) $iven assures such ends! an) other interpretation whatsoever! that adds nothin$ but demands more re(uisites entirel) unnecessar)^ must be disre$arded& -s another $round for this appeal! it is alle$ed the records do not show that the testatri9 knew the dialect in which the will is written& Gut the circumstance appearin$ in the will itself that same was e9ecuted in the cit) of 0ebu and in the dialect of this localit) where the testatri9 was a nei$hbour is enou$h! in the absence of an) proof to the contrar)! to presume that she knew this dialect in which this will is written&, 4he +ill is &oid. Ratio6 *he fact that the will had to be translated +could onl) mean that the will was written in a lan$ua$e not known to the illiterate testatri9 and! therefore! it is void because of the mandator) provision of -rticle 823 of the 0ivil 0ode that ever) will must be e9ecuted in a lan$ua$e or dialect known to the testator& *hus! a will written in %n$lish! which was not known to the #$orot testator! is void and was disallowed (-cop vs& Piraso! 5. Phil& ;;2)^(P>urtherQ *he hast) preparation of the will is shown in the attestation clause and notarial acknowled$ment where 4arcelina^8uroza is repeatedl) referred to as the 1testator1 instead of `testatri9=)&,

N"-$ +& R.0$nd/ (1711)

*here was a dispute as to the circumstances attendin$ the si$nin$ of the will on the da) of its e9ecution@ 1& whether one of the subscribin$ witnesses was present in the small room where it was e9ecuted at the time when the testator and the other subscribin$ witnesses attached their si$natures? or .& whether he was outside! some ei$ht or ten feet awa)! in a lar$e room connectin$ to

3es, the +ill is &alid. Ratio6 +De do not believe that a mere dissimilarit) in writin$ thus mentioned b) the court is sufficient to overcome the uncontradicted testimon) of all the witnesses to the will that the si$nature of the testatri9 was written b) 8evero^at her re(uest and in her presence and in the presence of all the witnesses to the will& #t is immaterial who writes the name of the testatri9 provided it is written at her re(uest and in her presence and in the presence of all the witnesses to the e9ecution of the will&, +#t is unimportant whether the person who writes the name of the testatri9 si$ns his own or not& *he important thin$ is that it clearl) appears that the name of the testatri9 was si$ned at her e9press direction in the presence of three witnesses and that the) attested and subscribed it in her presence and in the presence of each other& *hat is all the statute re(uires&, P>rom Prof& Galane@ +*he essential thin$! for validity! is that the a$ent write the testator=s name! nothin$ more& #t would be a $ood thin$! but not re(uired! for the a$ent to indicate the fact of a$enc) or authorit)^,Q 4he Court admitted the first scenario and ruled that the +ill is &alid. Ratio6 +*he true test of presence of the testator and the witnesses in the e9ecution of a will is not whether the) actuall) saw each other si$n! but whether the) mi$ht have seen each other si$n! had the) chosen to do so! considerin$ their mental and ph)sical condition and position with relation to each other at the moment of inscription of each si$nature& +Gut it is especiall) to be noted that the position of the parties with relation to each other at t&e $o$ent of t&e subscription of eac& si"nature! must be such that the) ma) see each other si$n if the) choose to do so& *his! of course! does not mean that the testator and the subscribin$ witnesses ma) be held to have e9ecuted the instrument in the presence of each other if it appears that the) would not have been

the smaller room throu$h a doorwa)! where a curtain was hun$ and which made it impossible for one in the outside room to see the testator and the other subscribin$ witnesses in the act of si$nin$ the instrument <ssue6 Dhether or not the will is valid in said instances *he probate of the will was denied on the $round that the attestation clause was not in conformit) with the re(uirements of law in that it was not stated therein that the testatri9 caused -tt)& -lmario to write her name at her e9press direction&*he evidence established that the testatri9! assisted b) -tt)& -lmario placed her thumb mark on each and ever) pa$e of the (uestioned will and that said attorne) merel) wrote her name to indicate the place where she placed said thumb mark& <ssue6 Dhether or not probate of the will should be allowed& *his case involves the will of -ntero 4ercado! which amon$ other defects was si$ned b) the testator throu$h a cross mark (an +V,)& *he will was si$ned b) -tt)& Aavier who wrote the name of 4ercado as testator and the latter alle$edl) wrote a cross mark after his name& *he 0># allowed the will but the 0- disallowed it because its attestation clause was defective for failin$ to certif) 1) that the will was si$ned b) -tt)& Aavier at the e9press direction of the testator! .) that the testator wrote a cross at the end of his name after -tt)& Aavier si$ned for him! and 7) that the 7 witnesses si$ned the will in the presence of the testator and of each other& <ssue6 Dhether the will should be allowed despite the defect of the attestation clause since the testator had placed a cross mark himself as his si$nature& on 8i9to "iboro e9ecuted a last will and testament in 8panish& +*he will compromises two pa$es! each of which is written on one side of a separate sheet& *he first sheet is not pa$ed either in letters or in -rabic numerals&, *he document was contested on the $round of failure to compl) with the solemnities of wills and of its silence on the testator=s understandin$ of the 8panish lan$ua$e& <ssue6 Dhether or not the will is valid&

able to see each other si$n at that moment! without chan$in$ their relative positions or e9istin$ conditions&,

P$1$d +& T/#"n'.n/ (173=)

3es, probate of the +ill should be allo+ed . Ratio6 +-tt)& -lmario did not si$n for the testatri9& 8he si$ned b) placin$ her thumb mark on each and ever) pa$e thereof& `- statute re(uirin$ a will to be `si$ned= is satisfied if the si$nature is made b) the testator=s mark^= #t is clear! therefore! that it was not necessar) that the attestation clause in (uestion should state that the testatri9 re(uested -tt)& -lmario to si$n her name in as much as the testatri9 si$ned the will in (uestion in accordance with law&,

G$-*.$ +& L$*,"&'$ (17D1)

-o, the +ill should not be allo+ed. Ratio6 *he attestation clause is fatall) defective for failin$ to state that 4ercado directed Aavier to write the testator=s name under his e9press direction& Petitioner=s ar$ument that such recital is unnecessar) because the testator si$ned the will himself usin$ a cross mark which should be considered the same as a thumb6mark (which has been held sufficient in past cases) is not acceptable& +#t is not here pretended that the cross appearin$ on the will is the usual si$nature of -ntero 4ercado or even one of the wa)s b) which he si$ned his name& -fter mature reflection! we are not prepared to liken the mere si$n of the cross to a thumb mark! and the reason is obvious& *he cross cannot and does not have the trustworthiness of a thumb mark&,

L/2"6 +& L.9/-/ (17B8)

3es, the +ill is &alid. Ratio6 +#n the present case! the omission to put a pa$e number on the first sheet! if that be necessar)! is supplied b) other forms of identification more trustworth) than the conventional numerical words or characters& *he unnumbered pa$e is clearl) identified as the first pa$e b) the internal sense of its contents considered in relation to the contents of the second pa$e& G) their meanin$ and coherence! the first and second lines on the second pa$e are undeniabl) a continuation of the last sentence of the testament! before the attestation clause! which starts at the bottom of the precedin$ pa$e& >urthermore! the unnumbered pa$e contains the caption 1*%8*-4%/*O!1 the invocation of the -lmi$ht)! and a recital that the testator was in full use of his testamentar) facult)! M all of which! in the lo$ical order of se(uence! precede the direction for the disposition of the markerLs propert)& -$ain! as pa$e two

R"1"& +& Vd$ d" V.d$# (17D2)

*he lower court disallowed the probate of the will of 4aria HuSi$a :da& de Pando on the $round that it was not proven that the deceased knew the 8panish lan$ua$e in which the document was written& <ssue6 Dhether or not the will should be allowed&

M$'.$& +& S$#,d (17D>)

:$+"##$n$ +& L"d"&0$ (17DD)

*he 0># denied probate of the will of Gabina 'a(uel& #t must be noted that Gabina 'a(uel was sufferin$ from herpes zoster that afflicted the ri$ht arm and shoulder of the testatri9! which made writin$ difficult and a painful act& *hus! upon the insistence of the attorne)! Gabina attempted to si$n! but since it was so painful she <ust mana$ed to thumbmark the foot of the document and the left mar$in of each pa$e& *he parties opposin$ the probate of the will contended that the will was void due to the irre$ularities in the e9ecution thereof& One of the points raised b) the oppositors was that the fin$er mark cannot be re$arded as the decedent=s valid si$nature as it does not show distinct identif)in$ rid$elines& -nd since the fin$er mark was an invalid si$nature! there must appear in the attestation clause that another person wrote the testator=s name at his re(uest& <ssue6 Dhether or not the will is valid *he 0ourt of >irst #nstance of #loilo admitted to probate the testament and codicil dul) e9ecuted b) the deceased a& -polinaria "edesma :da& de Aavellana on 4arch 72! 1952 and 4a) .9! 195.! respectivel)! with 'amon *abiana! Gloria

contains onl) the two lines above mentioned! the attestation clause! the mark of the testator and the si$natures of the witnesses! the other sheet cannot b) an) possibilit) be taken for other than pa$e one&, -s re$ards the silence of the will on the testatorLs understandin$ of the 8panish lan$ua$e!,PtQhere is no statutor) re(uirement that such knowled$e be e9pressl) stated in the will itself& #t is a matter that ma) be established b) proof aliunde& *his 0ourt so impliedl) ruled in =on)ales vs. Laurel! 3; Phil&! 581! in which the probate of a will written in *a$alo$ was ordered althou$h it did not sa) that the testator knew that idiom& #n fact! there was not even e9traneous proof on the sub<ect other than the fact that the testator resided in a *a$alo$ re$ion! from which the court said 1a presumption arises that said 4aria *apia knew the *a$alo$ dialect&, 3es, the +ill should be allo+ed. Ratio6 +*here is indeed nothin$ in the testimon) of the witnesses presented b) the petitioner which would indicate that the testatri9 knew and spoke the 8panish lan$ua$e used in the preparation of the will in (uestion& Gut! in our opinion! this failure alone does not in itself suffice to conclude that this important re(uirement of the law has not been complied with! it appearin$ that there is enou$h evidence on record which supplies this technical omission& #n the first place! we have the undisputed fact that the deceased was a $esti)a espaola! was married to a 8paniard! 'ecaredo Pando! and made several trips to 8pain& #n the second place! we have the ver) letters submitted as evidence b) the oppositor written in 8panish b) the deceased possessed the 8panish lan$ua$e! oppositor cannot now be allowed to alle$e the contrar)& *hese facts $ive rise to the presumption that the testatri9 knew the lan$ua$e in which the testament has been written! which presumption should stand unless the contrar) is proven (-ban$an vs& -ban$an! 32 Phil&! 35;? Gonzales vs& "aurel! 3; Phil& 552)& -nd this presumption has not been overcome& -nd finall)! we have the ver) attestation clause of the will which states that the testatri9 knew and possessed the 8panish lan$ua$e& #t is true that this matter is not re(uired to be stated in the attestation clause! but its inclusion can onl) mean that the instrumental witnesses wanted to make it of record that the deceased knew the lan$ua$e in which the will was written& *here is! therefore! no valid reason wh) the will should be avoided on this $round&, 3es, the +ill is &alid. Ratio6 -s to the clarit) of the rid$e impressions! +it is so dependent on aleator) re(uirements (consistenc) of the ink! overinkin$! slippin$ of the fin$er! etc&) as to re(uire de9terit) that can be e9pected of ver) few persons? and we do not believe that testators should not be re(uired to possess the skill of trained officers& #t is to be conceded that where a testator emplo)s an unfamiliar wa) of si$nin$! and both the attestation clause and the will are silent on the matter! such silence is a factor to be considered a$ainst the authenticit) of the testament? but the failure to describe the unusual si$nature b) itself alone is not sufficient to refuse probate when the evidence for the proponent full) satisfies the court (as it does satisf) us in this case) that the will was e9ecuted and witnessed as re(uired b) law&, -nd as to the validit) of the thumbprints as si$nature! the 80 held that it has been held in a lon$ line of cases that a thumbprint is alwa)s a valid and sufficient si$nature for the purpose of compl)in$ with the re(uirement of the article& >urthermore! the validit) of thumbprints should not be limited in cases of illness or infirmit)& thumbprint is considered as a valid and sufficient si$nature in compl)in$ with the re(uirements of the article&

3es, the codicil +as &alidl! e5ecuted. Ratio6 +Dhether or not the notar) si$ned the certification of acknowled$ment in the presence of the testatri9 and the witnesses! does not affect the validit) of the codicil& *he new 0ivil 0ode does not re(uire that the si$nin$ of the testator! witnesses and notar) should be accomplished in one sin$le act& -

3$#/n$n +& A9"##$n$ (17=0)

I*$&.$n/ +& I*$&.$n/ (17=B)

G$-*.$ G$'*!$#.$n

+&

4ontinola de *abiana and :icente Oap as witnesses& *he contestant! 4atea "edesma! sister and nearest survivin$ relative of said deceased! appealed from the decision! insistin$ that the said e9hibits were not e9ecuted in conformit) with law& *he instrumental witnesses asserted that after the codicil was si$ned b) the testatri9 and the witnesses at the 8an Pablo Eospital! the same was si$ned and sealed b) notar) public Gimotea on the same occasion& On the other hand! Gimotea affirmed that he did not do so! but brou$ht the codicil to his office! and si$ned and sealed it there& "edesma now (uestions the validit) of the codicil on the $round that the notar) did not si$n the instrument in the presence of the testator and the witnesses& <ssue6 Dhether or not the codicil was validl) e9ecuted& -nacleta -bellana e9ecuted a last will and testament written in the 8panish lan$ua$e and consistin$ of two (.) t)pewritten pa$es& T&e first pa"e was si"ned by 0uan ello and under &is na$e appears typewritten GPor la testadora (nacleta (bellana- residence Certificate (8 **3J31A- Enero 1+- *A2*- Ciudad de Oa$boan"aLC on the second pa$e appears the si$nature of three (7) instrumental witnesses& *he oppositors (uestioned the will because it was not si$ned in the name of the testator but rather in the name of r& -bello& <ssue6 Dhether or not the si$nature of r& Auan -& -bello above the t)pewritten statement 1Por la *estadora -nacleta -bellana & & &! 0iudad de Hamboan$a!1 complies with the re(uirements of law prescribin$ the manner in which a will should be e9ecuted& Aosefa :illacorte e9ecuted a last will and testament in duplicate! +published before and attested b) three instrumental witnesses&, *he will was acknowled$ed b) the testatri9 and b) the said three instrumental witnesses on the same date before a notar) public& +*he records show that the ori$inal of the will^consists of five pa$es! and while si$ned at the end and in ever) pa$e! it does not contain the si$nature of one of the attestin$ witnesses! -tt)& Aose :& /atividad! on pa$e three thereof! but the duplicate cop)^is si$ned b) the testatri9 and her three attestin$ witnesses in each and ever) pa$e&, <ssue6 Dhether or not the will is valid& *he allowance of the will of Gatchalian was denied on the $round that the attestin$ witnesses did not

comparison of -rticles 825 and 82; of the new 0ivil 0ode reveals that while testator and witnesses si$n in the presence of each other! all that is thereafter re(uired is that 1ever) will must be acknowled$ed before a notar) public b) the testator and the witnesses1 (-rt& 82;)? i&e&! that the latter should avow to the certif)in$ officer the authenticit) of their si$natures and the voluntariness of their actions in e9ecutin$ the testamentar) disposition& *his was done in this case& *he subse(uent si$nin$ and sealin$ b) the notar) of his certification that the testament was dul) acknowled$ed b) the participants therein is no part of the acknowled$ment itself nor of the testamentar) act& Eence their separate e9ecution out of the presence of the testatri9 and her witnesses cannot be said to violate the rule that testaments should be completed without interruption& #t is noteworth) that -rticle 82; of the new 0ivil 0ode does not contain words re(uirin$ that the testator and the witnesses should acknowled$e the testament on the same da) or occasion that it was e9ecuted&,

-o, there +as no compliance +ith the legal re,uisites. Ratio6 +/ote that the old law as well as the new re(uire that the testator himself si$n the will! or if he cannot do so! the testatorLs name must be written b) some other person in his presence and b) his e9press direction&999 #n the case at bar the name of the testatri9! -nacleta -bellana! does not appear written under t&e will by said (bellana &erself- or by .r. 0uan (bello & *here is! therefore! a failure to compl) with the e9press re(uirement in the law that the testator must himself si$n the will! or that his name be affi9ed thereto b) some other person in his presence and b) his e9press direction&,

3es, the +ill is &alid. Ratio6 +PDQe hold that the inadvertent failure of one witness to affi9 his si$nature to one pa$e of a testament! due to the simultaneous liftin$ of two pa$es in the course of si$nin$! is not per se sufficient to <ustif) denial of probate& #mpossibilit) of substitution of this pa$e is assured not onl) of the fact that the testatri9 and two other witnesses did si$n the defective pa$e! but also b) its bearin$ the coincident imprint of the seal of the notar) public before whom the testament was ratified b) testatri9 and all three witnesses&, +*hat the failure of witness /atividad to si$n pa$e three (7) was entirel) throu$h pure oversi$ht is shown b) his own testimon) as well as b) the duplicate cop) of the will! which bears a complete set of si$natures in ever) pa$e& *he te9t of the attestation clause and the acknowled$ment before the /otar) Public likewise evidence that no one was aware of the defect at the time&, -o, the +ill should not be allo+ed. Ratio@ 0ompliance with the re(uirement contained in -rticle 82; to the effect that a will must be

(17=>)

Vd$ D" R$0/& +& C/,-' /) A22"$#& (17>8)

acknowled$e it before a notar) public as re(uired b) law& *he document was acknowled$ed before a notar) public b) the testator but not b) the instrumental witnesses& <ssue6 Dhether or not the will should be allowed& *he lower court allowed the probate of the will and codicil of %u$enia anila despite testimon) b) two of the attestin$ witnesses that the) did not see the testatri9 si$n the will but that the same was alread) si$ned b) her when the) affi9ed their own si$natures thereon& On appeal! the lower court=s decision was reversed& <ssue6 Dhether or not the will should be allowed&

acknowled$ed before a notar) public b) the testator and also b) the witnesses is indispensable for its validit)& -s the document under consideration does not compl) with this re(uirement! it is obvious that the same ma) not be probated& 3es, the +ill should be allo+ed. Ratio6 +Fnlike other deeds! ordinar) wills b) necessit) of law must contain an attestation clause which si$nificantl) is a separate memorandum or record of the facts surroundin$ the e9ecution^*his 0ourt had previousl) held that the attestation clause basicall) contracts the pretence of undue e9ecution which later on ma) be made b) the attestin$ witnesses& #n the attestation clause! the witnesses do not merel) attest to the si$nature of the testatri9 but also to the proper e9ecution of the will! and their si$nature followin$ that of the testatri9 show that the) have in fact attested not onl) to the $enuineness of the testatri9Ls si$nature but also to the due e9ecution of the will as embodied in the attention clause& G) si$nin$ the will! the witnesses impliedl) PadmittedCQ the truth of the facts which admit Pthe willQ to probate! includin$ the sufficienc) of e9ecution! the capacit) of the testatri9! the absence of undue influence! and the like&, + POnQ the absence of a photo$raph of the testator %u$enia anila in the act of si$nin$ her willP@Q *he fact that the onl) pictures available are those which show the witnesses si$nin$ the will in the presence of the testatri9 and of each other does not belie the probabilit) that the testatri9 also si$ned the will before the presence of the witnesses& De must stress that the pictures are worth) onl) of what the) show and prove and not of what the) did not speak of includin$ the events the) failed to capture& *he probate of a will is a proceedin$ not imbued with adverse character! wherein courts should rela9 the rules on evidence `to the end that nothin$ less than the best evidence of which the matter is susceptible= should be presented to the court before a reported will ma) be probated or denied probate&, -o, the +ill +as not e5ecuted in accordance +ith la+. @eld6 F*he notar) public before whom the will was acknowled$ed cannot be considered as the third instrumental witness since he cannot acknowled$e before himself his havin$ si$ned the will& *o acknowled$e before means to avow (Aavellana v& "edesma? 0astro v& 0astro)? to own as $enuine! to assent! to admit? and 1before1 means in front or precedin$ in space or ahead of& 0onse(uentl)! if the third witness were the notar) public himself! he would have to avow assent! or admit his havin$ si$ned the will in front of himself& *his cannot be done because he cannot split his personalit) into two so that one will appear before the other to acknowled$e his participation in the makin$ of the will& *o permit such a situation to obtain would be sanctionin$ a sheer absurdit)& >urthermore! the function of a notar) public is! amon$ others! to $uard a$ainst an) ille$al or immoral arran$ement (Galinon v& e "eon)& *hat function would defeated if the notar) public were one of the attestin$ instrumental witnesses& #t would place him in inconsistent position and the ver) purpose of acknowled$ment! which is to minimize fraud! would be thwarted& -dmittedl)! there are -merican precedents holdin$ that notar) public ma)! in addition! act as a witness to the e9ecutive of the document he has notarized& *here are others holdin$ that his si$nin$ merel) as notar) in a will nonetheless makes him a witness thereon& Gut these authorities do not serve the purpose of the law in this <urisdiction or are not decisive of the issue herein because the notaries public and witnesses referred to in these cases merel) acted as instrumental! subscribin$ attestin$ witnesses! and not as acknowled$in$ witnesses& Eere! the notar) public acted not onl) as attestin$ witness but also acknowled$in$ witness! a situation not envisa$ed b) -rticle 82562;& Probate of will set aside&, 3es, probate of the +ill should be allo+ed. @eld6 De hold that the lower court manifestl) erred in declarin$ that! because no documentar) stamp was affi9ed to the will! there was 1no will and testament to probate1 and! conse(uentl)! the alle$ed 1action

C-,6 +& V.##$&/(17>3)

Of the 7 instrumental witnesses thereto! -tt)& *eves! Ar& is at the same time the /otar) Public before whom the will was supposed to have been acknowled$ed& -s the 7rd witness is the notar) public himself! petitioner ar$ues that the result is that onl) . witnesses appeared before the notar) public to acknowled$e the will& <ssue6 Dhether or not the will was e9ecuted in accordance with law&

G$9,*$n +& C/,-' /) A22"$#& (1780)

*he petition for probate of a will was dismissed on the $round that it does not bear a thirt)6centavo documentar) stamp fi9ed in section ..5 of the *a9 0ode! now section .75 of the 1955 *a9 0ode&&

<ssue6 Dhether or not probate of the will should be allowed&

T$9/$d$ +& R/&$# (198.)

Dritten in the 0ebuano6:isa)an dialect! the will of orotea Perez consists of two pa$es& *he first pa$e contains the entire testamentar) dispositions and is si$ned at the end or bottom of the pa$e b) the testatri9 alone and at the left hand mar$in b) the three (7) instrumental witnesses& *he second pa$e which contains the attestation clause and the acknowled$ment is si$ned at the end of the attestation clause b) the three (7) attestin$ witnesses and at the left hand mar$in b) the testatri9& *he <ud$e denied the probate of the will& >or the validit) of a formal notarial will! does -rticle 825 of the 0ivil 0ode re(uire that the testatri9 and all the three instrumental and attestin$ witnesses si$n at t&e end of the will and in the presence of the testatri9 and of one anotherC 1) Oppositor 0aponon$6/oble asserts that the will of -bada does not indicate that it is written in a lan$ua$e or dialect known to the testator& >urther! she maintains that the will is not acknowled$ed before a notar) public& .) 0aponon$6/oble alle$es that the attestation clause fails to state the number of pa$es on which the will is written& 7) 0aponon$6/oble further alle$es that the attestation clause fails to state e9pressl) that the testator si$ned the will and its ever) pa$e in the presence of three witnesses& 8he then faults the 0ourt of -ppeals for appl)in$ to the present case the rule on substantial compliance found in -rticle 829 of the /ew 0ivil 0ode& 3) 0aponon$6/oble ar$ues that the will is invalid because the attestation clause does not indicate the number of witnesses& 5) 0aponon$6/oble alle$es that the attestation clause does not e9pressl) state the circumstances that the witnesses %.'n"&&"d and si$ned the will and all its pa$es in the presence of the testator and of each other& *he followin$ appeared on the alle$ed will of deceased %u$enia #$solo@

must of necessit) be dismissed1& Dhat the probate court should have done was to re(uire the petitioner or proponent to affi9 the re(uisite thirt)6centavo documentar) stamp to the notarial acknowled$ment of the will which is the ta9able portion of that document& *hat procedure ma) be implied from the provision of section .78 that the non6admissibilit) of the document! which does not bear the re(uisite documentar) stamp! subsists onl) 1until the re(uisite stamp or stamps shall have been affi9ed thereto and cancelled&1 *he si$natures of the instrumental witnesses on the left mar$in of the first pa$e of the will attested not onl) to the $enuineness of the si$nature of the testatri9 but also the due e9ecution of the will as embodied in the attestation clause& #t must be noted that the law uses the terms attested and subscribed -ttestation consists in witnessin$ the testatorLs e9ecution of the will in order to see and take note mentall) that those thin$s are! done which the statute re(uires for the e9ecution of a will and that the si$nature of the testator e9ists as a fact& On the other hand! subscription is the si$nin$ of the witnessesL names upon the same paper for the purpose of #dentification of such paper as the will which was e9ecuted b) the testator& ('a$sdale v& Eill! .;9 8D .d 911)& #nsofar as the re(uirement of subscription is concerned! it is our considered view that the will in this case was subscribed in a manner which full) satisfies the purpose of #dentification& De have e9amined the will in (uestion and noticed that the attestation clause failed to state the number of pa$es used in writin$ the will& *his would have been a fatal defect were it not for the fact that! in this case! it is discernible from the entire will that it is reall) and actuall) composed of onl) two pa$es dul) si$ned b) the testatri9 and her instrumental witnesses& 1) Fnder the 0ode of 0ivil Procedure (the applicable law when the will was e9ecuted in 197.)! the intervention of a notar) is not necessar) in the e9ecution of an) will& -lso! there is no statutor) re(uirement to state in the will itself that the testator knew the lan$ua$e or dialect used in the will& *his is a matter that a part) ma) establish b) proof aliunde& .) *he phrase +en el $ar"en i)#uierdo de todas y cada una de las dos &o;as de #ue esta co$puesto el $is$o, which means +in the left mar$in of each and ever) one of the two pa$es consistin$ of the same, shows that the will consists of two pa$es& *he pa$es are numbered correlativel) with the letters +O/%, and +*DO, as can be $leaned from the phrase +las cuales estan pa"inadas correlativa$ente con las letras FU5?K y F.?S&, 7) *he %n$lish translation of the first sentence is@ +8ubscribed and professed b) the testator -lipio -bada as his last will and testament in our presence! the testator havin$ also si$ned it in our presence on the left mar$in of each and ever) one of the pa$es of the same&, *he attestation clause clearl)states that -bada si$ned the will and its ever) pa$e in the presence of the witnesses& 3) Ee=s correct& GF* the 0ourt a$rees with the appellate court in appl)in$ the rule on substantial compliance in determinin$ the number of witnesses& Dhile the attestation clause does not state the number of witnesses! a close inspection of the will shows that three witnesses si$ned it& *his 0ourt has applied the rule on substantial compliance even before the effectivit) of the /ew 0ivil 0ode& De rule to appl) the liberal construction in the probate of -bada=s will& -bada=s will clearl) shows four si$natures@ that of -bada and of three other persons& #t is reasonable to conclude that there are three witnesses to the will& *he (uestion on the number of the witnesses is answered b) an e9amination of the will itself and without the need for presentation of evidence aliunde& 5) Precision of lan$ua$e in the draftin$ of an attestation clause is desirable& Eowever! it is not imperative that a parrot6like cop) of the words of the statute be made& Ee clause +in its witness! ever) one of us also si$ned in our presence and of the testator, satisfies the re(uirement& - will whose attestation clause does not contain the number of pa$es on which the will is written is fatall) defective& - will whose attestation clause is not si$ned b) the instrumental witnesses is fatall)

T"&'$'" E&'$'" /) '!" L$'" A#.2./ A9$d$ +& A9$;$ (.225)

A6,"#$ +& CA

(.22;)

G,"--"-/ +& 3.!.& (.225) L"" +& T$09$4/ (.228)

+P-*F/-O /G 4G- 8-B8# -n$ kasulatan$ ito! na binubuo n$ gggg dahon pati an$ hulin$ dahon$ ito! na ipinaha)a$ sa amin ni %u$enia %& #$solo! ta$apa$mana na si)a ni)an$ Eulin$ Eabilin! n$a)on ika612 n$ Eun)o 1981! a) nila$daan n$ nasabin$ ta$apa$mana sa ilalim n$ kasulatan$ naban$$it at sa kaliwan$ pani$ n$ lahat at bawa=t dahon! sa harap n$ lahat at bawa=t sa amin! at kami naman$ m$a saksi a) luma$da sa harap n$ nasabin$ ta$apa$mana at sa harap n$ lahat at bawa=t isa sa amin! sa ilalim n$ nasabin$ kasulatan at sa kaliwan$ pani$ n$ lahat at bawa=t dahon n$ kasulatan ito&, +/ila$daan ko at ninotario ko n$a)on$ 12 n$ Eun)o 12! 1981 dito sa "un$sod n$ 4a)nila& (8$d&) P%*'O/#O O& G-F*#8*-, *he three named witnesses to the will affi9ed their si$natures on the left6hand mar$in of both pa$es of the will! but not at the bottom of the attestation clause& *he will was acknowled$ed b) the testator and the witnesses at the testator=s residence in Uuezon 0it) before a commissioned notar) public for and in 0aloocan 0it)& *his is a disciplinar) case a$ainst the notar) public before whom the will was acknowled$ed& *he will was purportedl) e9ecuted and acknowled$ed before respondent on Aune 72! 19;5& 0omplainant! however! pointed out that the residence certificate of the testator noted in the acknowled$ment of the will was dated Aanuar) 5! 19;.& 0omplainant also (uestioned the absence of notation of the residence certificates of the purported witnesses /o)na) and Gra<o& 0omplainant further asserted that no cop) of such purported will was on file in the archives division of the 'ecords 4ana$ement and -rchives Office of the /ational 0ommission for 0ulture and the -rts (/00-)& Petitioner raises the followin$ issues@ whether or not the will was si$ned b) the testator in the presence of the witnesses and of one another! whether or not the si$natures of the witnesses on the pa$es of the will were si$ned on the same da)! and whether or not undue influence was e9erted upon the testator which compelled her to si$n the will&

defective& -nd perhaps most importantl)! a will which does not contain an acknowled$ment! but a mere <urat! is fatall) defective& -n) one of these defects is sufficient to den) probate& - notarial will with all three defects is <ust achin$ for <udicial re<ection&

-n acknowled$ement taken outside the territorial limits of the officer=s <urisdiction is void as if the person takin$ it were wholl) without official character& - notarial commission is issued +within and for, a particular territorial <urisdiction and the notar) public=s authorit) is co6e9tensive with it& - notar) public is authorized to perform notarial acts! includin$ takin$ acknowled$ements! within that territorial <urisdiction onl)& - cursor) e9amination of the acknowled$ment of the will in (uestion shows that this particular re(uirement was neither strictl) nor substantiall) complied with& >or one! there was the conspicuous absence of a notation of the residence certificates of the notarial witnesses /o)na) and Gra<o in the acknowled$ment& 8imilarl)! the notation of the testator=s old residence certificate in the same acknowled$ment was a clear breach of the law& *hese omissions b) respondent invalidated the will& *he /otarial "aw then in force re(uired the e9hibition of the residence certificate upon notarization of a document or instrument& #n the issuance of a residence certificate! the law seeks to establish the true and correct identit) of the person to whom it is issued! as well as the pa)ment of residence ta9es for the current )ear& G) havin$ allowed decedent to e9hibit an e9pired residence certificate! respondent failed to compl) with the re(uirements of both the old /otarial "aw and the 'esidence *a9 -ct& -s much could be said of his failure to demand the e9hibition of the residence certificates of /o)na) and Gra<o& 'espondent=s failure! inadvertent or not! to file in the archives division a cop) of the notarized will was not a cause for disciplinar) action! based on -rt 82;& *he notar) was suspended from the practice of law for one )ear and his commissioned was revoked and she was perpetuall) dis(ualified from reappointment& *he petitioner raises (uestions of fact and 80 did not disturb the findin$s of the lower courts& 80 (uoted with approval the '*0@ Dith Pre$ardQ to the contention of the oppositors PPaz 8amanie$o60elada! et al&Q that the testator P4ar$arita 4a)oresQ was not mentall) capable of makin$ a will at the time of the e9ecution thereof! the same is without merit& *he oppositors failed to establish! b) preponderance of evidence! said alle$ation and contradict the presumption that the testator was of sound mind (8ee -rticle 822 of the 0ivil 0ode)& #n fact! witness for the oppositors! r& 'amon "amberte! who! in some occasions! attended to the testator months before her death! testified that 4ar$arita 4a)ores could en$a$e in a normal

S$0$n."4/C"#$d$ +& A9"n$ (.228)

conversation and he even stated that the illness of the testator does not warrant hospitalization^& /ot one of the oppositor=s witnesses has mentioned an) instance that the) observed actRs of the testator durin$ her lifetime that could be construed as a manifestation of mental incapacit)& *he testator ma) be admitted to be ph)sicall) weak but it does not necessaril) follow that she was not of sound mind& P*heQ testimonies of contestant witnesses are pure aforethou$ht& -nent the contestants= submission that the will is fatall) defective for the reason that its attestation clause states that the will is composed of three (7) pa$es while in truth and in fact! the will consists of two (.) pa$es onl) because the attestation is not a part of the notarial will! the same is not accurate& Dhile it is true that the attestation clause is not a part of the will! the court! after e9aminin$ the totalit) of the will! is of the considered opinion that error in the number of pa$es of the will as stated in the attestation clause is not material to invalidate the sub<ect will& #t must be noted that the sub<ect instrument is consecutivel) lettered with pa$es -! G! and 0 which is a sufficient safe$uard from the possibilit) of an omission of some of the pa$es& *he error must have been brou$ht about b) the honest belief that the will is the whole instrument consistin$ of three (7) pa$es inclusive of the attestation clause and the acknowled$ement& *he position of the court is in consonance with the +doctrine of liberal interpretation, enunciated in -rticle 829& 3$#'$6$- +& L$E$ (.21.) 'osie testified that the decedent Paciencia was referred to as 1ma$ul)an1 or 1for$etful1 because she would sometimes leave her wallet in the kitchen then start lookin$ for it moments later& On cross e9amination! it was established that 'osie was neither a doctor nor a ps)chiatrist! that her conclusion that Paciencia was 1ma$ul)an1 was based on her personal assessment& *he oppositors dispute the validit) of the will insistin$ that all the subscribin$ witnesses and the notar) should have been presented& De a$ree with the position of the 0- that the state of bein$ for$etful does not necessaril) make a person mentall) unsound so as to render him unfit to e9ecute a Dill& >or$etfulness is not e(uivalent to bein$ of unsound mind& #n this case! apart from the testimon) of 'osie pertainin$ to Paciencia=s for$etfulness! there is no substantial evidence! medical or otherwise! that would show that Paciencia was of unsound mind at the time of the e9ecution of the Dill& On the other hand! we find more worth) of credence ra& "impin=s testimon) as to the soundness of mind of Paciencia when the latter went to Aud$e "impin=s house and voluntaril) e9ecuted the Dill& 1*he testimon) of subscribin$ witnesses to a Dill concernin$ the testator=s mental condition is entitled to $reat wei$ht where the) are truthful and intelli$ent&1 4ore importantl)! a testator is presumed to be of sound mind at the time of the e9ecution of the Dill and the burden to prove otherwise lies on the oppositor& *he ver) fact that she cared for and raised "orenzo ("orenzo was the decedent=s nephew to whom she be(ueathed all of her properties in the will)and lived with him both here and abroad! even if the latter was alread) married and alread) has children! hi$hli$hts the special bond between them& *his un(uestioned relationship between Paciencia and the devisees tends to support the authenticit) of the said document as a$ainst petitioners= alle$ations of duress! influence of fear or threats! undue and improper influence! pressure! fraud! and tricker) which! aside from bein$ factual in nature! are not supported b) concrete! substantial and credible evidence on record& #t is worth stressin$ that bare ar$uments! no matter how forceful! if not based on concrete and substantial evidence cannot suffice to move the 0ourt to uphold said alle$ations& De note that the inabilit) of >austino and Aud$e "impin to appear and testif) before the court was satisfactoril) e9plained durin$ the probate proceedin$s& -s testified to b) his son! >austino had a heart attack! was alread) bedridden and could no lon$er talk and e9press himself due to brain dama$e& *o prove this! said witness presented the correspondin$ medical certificate& >or her part! ra& "impin testified that her father! Aud$e "impin! suffered a stroke in 1991 and had to under$o brain sur$er)& -t that time! Aud$e "impin could no lon$er talk and could not even remember his dau$hter=s name so that ra& "impin stated that $iven such condition! her father could no lon$er testif)& W.'n"&& '/ $ %.## (.) W!/ $-" */02"'"n'V Petitioner6oppositor ar$ues that the re(uirement in -rticle 82;! 0ivil 0ode! that the witnesses must be credible is an absolute re(uirement which must be $

G/n6$#"& +& CA (1959)

Fnder the law! there is no mandator) re(uirement that the witness testif) initiall) or at an) time durin$ the trial as to his $ood standin$ in the communit)! his reputation for trustworth)thiness and reliableness! his honest) and upri$htness in order that his testimon) ma) be believed and accepted b)

complied with before an alle$ed last will and testament ma) be admitted to probate and that to be a credible witness! there must be evidence on record that the witness has a $ood standin$ in his communit)! or that he is honest and upri$ht! or reputed to be trustworth) and reliable& -ccordin$ to petitioner! unless the (ualifications of the witness are first established! his testimon) ma) not be favorabl) considered&

N"-$ +& R.0$nd/ (1911)

*he onl) (uestion raised b) the evidence in this case as to the due e9ecution of the instrument propounded as a will in the court below! is whether one of the subscribin$ witnesses was present in the small room where it was e9ecuted at the time when the testator and the other subscribin$ witnesses attached their si$natures? or whether at that time he was outside! some ei$ht or ten feet awa)! in a lar$e room connectin$ with the smaller room b) a doorwa)! across which was hun$ a curtain which made it impossible for one in the outside room to see the testator and the other subscribin$ witnesses in the act of attachin$ their si$natures to the instrument&

the trial court& #t is enou$h that the (ualifications enumerated in -rticle 8.2 of the 0ivil 0ode are complied with! and that the witness has none of the dis(ualifications& De also re<ect as without merit petitionerLs contention that the term 1credible1 as used in the 0ivil 0ode should be $iven the same meanin$ it has under the /aturalization "aw where the law is mandator) that the petition for naturalization must be supported b) two character witnesses who must prove their $ood standin$ in the communit)! reputation for trustworthiness and reliableness! their honest) and upri$htness& *he two witnesses in a petition for naturalization are character witnesses& #n probate proceedin$s! the instrumental witnesses are not character witnesses for the) merel) attest the e9ecution of a will or testament and affirm the formalities attendant to said e9ecution& *he main (ualification of a witness in the attestation of wills! if other (ualifications as to a$e! mental capacit) and literac) are present! is that said witness must be credible! that is to sa)! his testimon) ma) be entitled to credence& *he instrumental witnesses must be competent and their testimonies must be credible before the court allows the probate of the will the) have attested& - ma<orit) of the members of the court is of opinion that this subscribin$ witness was in the small room with the testator and the other subscribin$ witnesses at the time when the) attached their si$natures to the instrument& Gut we are unanimousl) of opinion that had this subscribin$ witness been proven to have been in the outer room at the time when the testator and the other subscribin$ witnesses attached their si$natures to the instrument in the inner room! it would have been invalid as a will! the attachin$ of those si$natures under circumstances not bein$ done 1in the presence1 of the witness in the outer room& *his because the line of vision from this witness to the testator and the other subscribin$ witnesses would necessaril) have been impeded b) the curtain separatin$ the inner from the outer one 1at the moment of inscription of each si$nature&1 *he lower court <ud$e erroneousl) believed that the issue is not important! rel)in$ on a case which stated that +*he true test of presence of the testator and the witnesses in the e9ecution of a will is not whether the) actuall) saw each other si$n! but whether the) mi$ht have been seen each other si$n! had the) chosen to do so! considerin$ their mental and ph)sical condition and position with relation to each other at the moment of inscription of each si$nature&, Gut 80 e9plained that the (uestion whether the testator and the subscribin$ witnesses to an alle$ed will si$n the instrument in the presence of each other does not depend upon proof of the fact that their e)es were actuall) cast upon the paper at the moment of its subscription b) each of them! but that at that moment e9istin$ conditions and their position with relation to each other were such that b) merel) castin$ the e)es in the proper direction the) could have seen each other si$n& On the (uestion of law! we hold that the inadvertent failure of one witness to affi9 his si$nature to one pa$e of a testament! due to the simultaneous liftin$ of two pa$es in the course of si$nin$! is not per se sufficient to <ustif) denial of probate& #mpossibilit) of substitution of this pa$e is assured not onl) the fact that the testatri9 and two other witnesses did si$n the defective pa$e! but also b) its bearin$ the coincident imprint of the seal of the notar) public before whom the testament was ratified b) testatri9 and all three witnesses& *he law should not be so strictl) and literall) interpreted as to penalize the testatri9 on account of the inadvertence of a sin$le witness over whose conduct she had no control! where the purpose of the law to $uarantee the identit) of the testament and its component pa$es is sufficientl) attained! no intentional or deliberate deviation e9isted! and the evidence on record attests to the full observance of the statutor) re(uisites& Otherwise! as stated in 9da. de =il. vs. !urciano! 39 Off& Gaz& 1359! at 1359 (decision on reconsideration) 1witnesses ma) sabota$e the will b) muddlin$ or bun$lin$ it or the attestation clause1& *hat the failure of witness /atividad to si$n pa$e three (7) was entirel) throu$h pure oversi$ht is shown

I*$&.$n/ +& I*$&.$n/ (19;3)

*he records show that the ori$inal of the will! which was surrendered simultaneousl) with the filin$ of the petition and marked as %9hibit 1-1 consists of five pa$es! and while si$ned at the end and in ever) pa$e! it does not contain the si$nature of one of the attestin$ witnesses! -tt)& Aose :& /atividad! on pa$e three (7) thereof? but the duplicate cop) attached to the amended and supplemental petition and marked as %9hibit 1-611 is si$ned b) the testatri9 and her three attestin$ witnesses in each and ever) pa$e&

b) his own testimon) as well as b) the duplicate cop) of the will! which bears a complete set of si$natures in ever) pa$e& *he te9t of the attestation clause and the acknowled$ment before the /otar) Public likewise evidence that no one was aware of the defect at the time& C$4-/ + C$4-/ (1957) - will! alle$edl) e9ecuted b) the deceased :icente 0a$ro! was not si$ned b) the attestin$ witnesses in the attestation clause& *heir si$natures however were found in the left6hand mar$in& -pellant 0a$ro contends that the absence of the si$natures renders the will fatall) defective& *he will is fatall) defective& *he attestation clause is La memorandum of the facts attendin$ the e9ecution of the willL re(uired b) law to be made b) the attestin$ witnesses! and it must necessaril) bear their si$natures& -n unsi$ned attestation clause cannot be considered as an act of the witnesses! since the omission of their si$natures at the bottom thereof ne$atives their participation& *he si$natures on the upper left hand corner cannot correct the absence of their si$natures! because said si$natures are in compliance with the le$al mandate that the will be si$ned on the left6hand mar$in of all its pa$es& #f an attestation clause not si$ned b) the three witnesses at the bottom thereof! be admitted as sufficient! it would be eas) to add such clause to a will on a subse(uent occasion and in the absence of the testator and an) or all of the witnesses&

G$-*.$ + V$&<,"6

(..) S,2"-+"n.n4 .n*/02"'"n*1 (...) C/02"'"n*1 /) .n'"-"&'"d %.'n"&&"& 3 S2"*.$# -"<,.-"0"n'& )/- d"$), "'* & Oppositors contest the will of Gliceria -velino del *he will is fatall) defective& 'osario since 00 828 was not complied with& *he deceased was said to be unable to read at near *he provision of -rticle 828 mandator)& *he rationale behind the re(uirement of readin$ the will to the distances because of cataracts& testator if he is blind or incapable of readin$ the will himself (as when he is illiterate) ! is to make the provisions thereof known to him! so that he ma) be able to ob<ect if the) are not in accordance with his wishes& + 59 )ear old Gri$ido -lvarado! who was sufferin$ from $laucoma! e9ecuted a notarial will! disinheritin$ his ille$itimate son (the petitioner)& -s testified b) the three instrumental witnesses! the notar) public and the respondent! the will was not read b) the testator but was read to him aloud b) the law)er who drafted the 86pa$e document in the presence of the three instrumental witnesses and the notar) public& *he latter four followed the readin$ with their own respective copies previousl) furnished them& Petitioner contends that the will is fatall) defective since it does not compl) with 00 828! which re(uires that the will must be read to him twice@ once! b) one of the subscribin$ witnesses! and a$ain! b) the notar) public before whom the will is acknowled$ed B *he will is valid& -rt 828 applies not onl) to blind testators but also to those who! for one reason or another! are 1incapable of readin$ the(ir) will(s)&1 8ince Gri$ido -lvarado was incapable of readin$ the final drafts of his will and codicil on the separate occasions of their e9ecution due to his 1poor!1 1defective!1 or 1blurred1 vision! Gri$ido -lvarado comes within the scope of the term 1blind1 as it is used in -rt& 828& -rt 828=s re(uirement of the will bein$ read twice is to make known to the incapacitated testator the contents of the document before si$nin$ and to $ive him an opportunit) to ob<ect if an)thin$ is contrar) to his instructions& #n this case! althou$h 00 828 was not strictl) followed! substantial compliance is acceptable where the purpose of the law has been satisfied& *he circumstances of the law)er readin$ the will at loud! with the notar) public and 7 instrumental witnesses readin$ it silentl) with them! and considerin$ that the three instrumental witnesses were persons known to the testator! shows that the spirit behind the law was served thou$h the letter was not& -lthou$h there should be strict compliance with the substantial re(uirements of the law in order to insure the authenticit) of the will! the formal imperfections should be brushed aside when the) do not affect its purpose and which! when taken into account! ma) onl) defeat the testatorLs will&

A#+$-$d/ G$-*.$ (1997)

G.# + M,-*.$n/ (1951)

S,9&'$n'.$# */02#.$n*" *he 0ourt of >irst #nstance of 4anila admitted to probate the alle$ed will and testament of the deceased 0arlos Gil& *he oppositor Pilar Gil :da& de 4urciano appealed to the 80 on the $round that

*he will is fatall) defective& *he attestation clause merel) declares it was si$ned b) the witnesses and not the testator& *his is a fatal defect! for the precise purpose of the attestation clause is to certif) that the testator si$ned the will!

the attestation clause does not state that the alle$ed testor si$ned the will

C$n"d$ + CA (1997) 4ate 0aballero e9ecuted a will before three attestin$ witnesses& *he said testator was dul) assisted b) his law)er! -tt)& %milio "umontad! and a notar) public! -tt)& >iloteo 4ani$os! in the preparation of that last will& Fpon his death! petitioners opposed the validit) of the will since its attestation clause fails to specificall) state the fact that the the testator si$ned the will and all its pa$es in the attestin$ witnesses presence and that the)! the witnesses! likewise si$ned the will and ever) pa$e thereof in the presence of the testator and of each other C H/#/4-$2!.* W.##& 1 G"n"-$# -"<,.-"0"n'& 2 S2"*.).* -"<,.-"0"n'& 3 P-/9$'" D" Gibiana de Aesus e9ecuted a holo$raphic with the date >ebR;1& #t was alle$ed that this does not compl) with 00 812 which re(uires that the Dill should contain the da)! month and )ear of its e9ecution and that this should be strictl) complied with& 4elecio "abrador e9ecuted a holo$raphic will which is alle$ed to be fatall) defective because of the absence of a date& Gre$orio Balaw! claimin$ to be the sole heir of the deceased /atividad Balaw! filed a petition for the probate of her holo$raphic will& *he holo$raphic Dill! as first written! named 'O8B& Balaw! a sister of the testatri9 as her sole heir& Eence! on! petitioner 'O8- B& Balaw opposed probate alle$in$! in substance! that the holo$raphic Dill contained alterations! corrections! and insertions without the proper authentication b) the full si$nature of the testatri9

this bein$ the most essential element of the clause& Dithout it there is no attestation at all& #t is said that the court ma) correct a mere clerical error& *his is too much of a clerical error for it effects the ver) essence of the clause& -lle$ed errors ma) be overlooked or correct onl) in matters of form which do not affect the substance of the statement& #t is said that the rules of statutor) construction are applicable to documents and wills& *his is true! but said rules appl) to the bod) of the will! containin$ the testamentar) provisions! but not to the attestation clause! which must be so clear that it should not re(uire an) construction& *he will is fatall) defective& *he attestation clause lacked the state$ent t&at t&e witnesses si"ned t&e will and every pa"e t&ereof in t&e presence of t&e testator and of one anot&er& *his absence is a fatal defect or imperfection which must necessaril) result in the disallowance of the will that is here sou$ht to be admitted to probate& *he rule on -rt 829 cannot be relied on since the rule is that omissions which can be supplied b) an e9amination of the will itself! without the need of resortin$ to e9trinsic evidence! will not be fatal and! correspondin$l)! would not obstruct the allowance to probate of the will bein$ assailed& Eowever! those omissions which cannot be supplied e9cept b) evidence aliunde would result in the invalidation of the attestation clause and ultimatel)! of the will itself& *he absence in the attestation clause falls on the latter&

R/E$& :"&,& (1985)

*he will is valid& -s a $eneral rule! the 1date1 in a holo$raphic Dill should include the da)! month! and )ear of its e9ecution& Eowever! when as in the case at bar! there is no appearance of fraud! bad faith! undue influence and pressure and the authenticit) of the Dill is established and the onl) issue is whether or not the date 1>%G&R;11 appearin$ on the holo$raphic Dill is a valid compliance with -rticle 812 of the 0ivil 0ode! probate of the holo$raphic Dill should be allowed under the principle of substantial compliance& *he will is valid& *he will has been dated in the hand of the testator himself in perfect compliance with -rticle 812 within the para$raphs of the will& *he law does not specif) a particular location where the date should be placed in the will& *he onl) re(uirements are that the date be in the will itself and e9ecuted in the hand of the testator& *hese re(uirements are present in the sub<ect will& *he will is defective& Ordinaril)! when a nu$ber of erasures! corrections! and interlineations made b) the testator in a holo$raphic Dill litem not been noted under his si$nature! &&& the Dill is not thereb) invalidated as a whole! but at most onl) as respects the particular words erased! corrected or interlined& Eowever! when as in this case! the holo$raphic Dill in dispute had onl) one substantial provision! which was altered b) substitutin$ the ori$inal heir with another! but which alteration did not carr) the re(uisite of full authentication b) the full si$nature of the testator! the effect must be that the entire Dill is voided or revoked for the simple reason that nothin$ remains in the Dill after that which could remain valid& *o state that the Dill as first written should be $iven efficac) is to disre$ard the seemin$ chan$e of mind of

L$9-$d/- + CA (1992) 5$#$% + R"#/+$ (1983)

A6$/#$ S.n4&/n (19;2)

*he holo$raphic will of >ortunata de Oance was denied b) the trial court on the $round that under 00 811! the proponent must present three witnesses who could declare that the will and the si$nature are in the writin$ of the testatri9! the probate bein$ contested? and because the lone witness presented b) the proponent 1did not prove sufficientl) that the bod) of the will was written in the handwritin$ of the testatri9&

the testatri9& Gut that chan$e of mind can neither be $iven effect because she failed to authenticate it in the manner re(uired b) law b) affi9in$ her full si$nature! *he will should be admitted to probate& *he rule to provide three witnesses in 00 811 is merel) director) and is not mandator)& -rticle 811 of our present 0ivil 0ode can not be interpreted as to re(uire the compulsor) presentation of three witnesses to identif) the handwritin$ of the testator! under penalt) of havin$ the probate denied& 8ince no witness ma) have been present at the e9ecution of a holo$raphic will! none bein$ re(uired b) law (-rt& 812! new 0ivil 0ode)! it becomes obvious that the e9istence of witness possessin$ the re(uisite (ualifications is a matter be)ond the control of the proponent& Fnder 00 811 par .! the law even foresees the possibilit) that no competent witness ma) be able to testif) and resorts to e9pert evidence to suppl) the deficienc) +if the court finds it necessar),&

C/d/1 C$#,4$1

- holo$raphic will alle$edl) written b) deceased 4atile :da de 'amonal was admitted to probate b) the 0-! despite the fact that it did not follow the 76 witness re(uirement under 00 811 since the $enuiness of the will was contested& *he 0- held that the re(uirement under 00 811 is onl) director) as found in the rulin$ in -zaola v 8in$son& -fter the death of >elicidad %s$uerra -lto6Oap! >austo Gan filed a petition for the probate of a holo$raphic will alle$edl) e9ecuted b) the fomer& Opposin$ the petition! her survivin$ husband #ldefonso Oap asserted that the deceased had not left an) will! nor e9ecuted an) testament durin$ her lifetime& *he will itself was not presented& Gan tried to establish its contents and due e9ecution b) the statements of alle$edl) four (3) witnesses to the e9ecution of the alle$ed will& -fter hearin$ the parties and considerin$ their evidence! the court refused to probate the alle$ed will& ue to the denial of motion for reconsideration! Gan appealed&

#n this case! the presentation of one witness! since the will was not contested! is sufficient& *he case is remanded to the trial court in order to allow petitioners to adduce evidence in support of their opposition to the probate of the holo$raphic will of the deceased 4atilde 8eSo :da& de 'amonal& -rticle 811 of the 0ivil 0ode is mandator)& *he word +shall, connotes a mandator) order thus the need to present three witnesses& *he court also considered the ff circumstances (1) *he will was found not in the personal belon$in$s of the deceased but with one of the respondents! who kept it even before the death of the deceased& (.) - visual e9amination of the holo$raphic will shows that the strokes are different when compared with other documents written b) the testator& *he si$nature of the testator in some of the disposition is not readable& *here were uneven strokes! retracin$ and erasures on the will& *he e9ecution and the contents of a lost or destro)ed holo$raphic will ma) not be proved b) the bare testimon) of witnesses who have seen andRor read such will& *he 'ules of 0ourt allow proof (and probate) of a lost or destro)ed will b) secondar) evidence T the testimon) of witnesses in lieu of the ori$inal document& Oet such 'ules could not have contemplated holo$raphic wills which could not then be validl) made here& Obviousl)! when the will itself is not submitted! the $eans of opposition! and of assessin" t&e evidence arenot available& -nd then the onl) $uarant) of authenticit) M the testatorLs handwritin$ M has disappeared& Fndoubtedl)! the intention of the law is to $ive the near relatives the choice of either compl)in$ with the will if the) think it authentic! or to oppose it! if the) think it spurious& 8uch purpose is frustrated when the document is not presented for their e9amination& #f it be ar$ued that such choice is not essential! because an)wa) the relatives ma) oppose! the answer is that their opposition will be at a distinct disadvanta$e! and the) have t&e ri"&t and privile"e to compl) with the will! if $enuine! a ri"&t w&ic& t&ey should not be denied b) withholdin$ inspection thereof from them& Fnlike holo$raphic wills! ordinar) wills ma) be proved b) testimonial evidence when lost or destro)ed& *he difference lies in the nature of the wills& #n the first! the onl) $uarantee of authenticit) is the handwritin$ itself? in the second! the testimon) of the subscribin$ or instrumental witnesses (and of the notar)! now)& *he loss of the holo$raphic will entails the loss of the onl) medium of proof? if the ordinar) will is lost! the subscribin$ witnesses are available to authenticate& ( iscussion of footnote in ne9t case)

(1999)

G$n + Y$2 (1958)

R/d"#$& A-$n6$

Petitioner6appellant filed a petition with the 0>#6 'izal for the probate of the holo$raphic will

- holo$raphic will which was lost or cannot be found 0-/ be proved b) means of a photostatic cop)&

(1983)

R.+"-$ + IAC (1992)

A;"-/ + CA (1993)

of 'icardo G& Gonilla and the issuance of letters testamentar) in her favor& *he petition was opposed b) appellees -mparo -ranza Gonilla! Dilferine Gonilla *re)es! %9pedita Gonilla>rias and %phraim Gonilla& *he $rounds of their opposition are as follows@ 1& -ppellant was estopped from claimin$ that the deceased left a will b) failin$ to produce the will within twent) da)s of the death of the testator^& 7& *he ori$inal must be presented and not the cop) thereof! 3& *he deceased did not leave an) will& *he appellees also moved for the dismissal of the petition for the probate of the will& :enancio 'ivera died& Aose 'ivera! claimin$ to be the onl) survivin$ le$itimate son of the deceased! filed a petition for the issuance of letters of administration over :enancio=s estate& ocketed as 8P /o& 125;! this petition was opposed b) -delaido A& 'ivera& Dho denied that Aose was the son of the decedent& -delaido averred that :enancio was his father and did not die interstate but in fact left two holo$raphic wills& Petitioner submitted for probate the holo$raphic will of the late -nnie 8and who died& Private respondent opposed the probate because the purported will was not -nnie=s hand writin$? it contained alterations and corrections! which were not dul) si$ned b) decedent and it was procured b) petitioners throu$h pressure and undue influence& *he lower court allowed the will for probate as 7 witnesses were presented who testified on the authenticit) and that the latter is of sound mind&

- photostatic cop) or 9ero9 cop) of the holo$raphic will ma) be allowed because comparison can be made with the standard writin$s of the testator& #n the case of Gan vs& Oap! the 0ourt ruled that 1the e9ecution and the contents of a lost or destro)ed holo$raphic will ma) not be proved b) the bare testimon) of witnesses who have seen andRor read such will& *he will itself must be presented? otherwise! it shall produce no effect& *he law re$ards the document itself as material proof of authenticit)& 1Gut! in >ootnote 8 of said decision! it sa)s that 1Perhaps it ma) be proved b) aphoto$raphic or photostatic cop)& %ven a mimeo$raphed or carbon cop)? or b) othersimilar means! if an)! whereb) the authenticit) of the handwritin$ of the deceased ma) bee9hibited and tested before the probate court!1 %videntl)! the photostatic or 9ero9 cop) of the lost or destro)ed holo$raphic will ma) be admitted because then the authenticit) of the handwritin$ of the deceased can be determined b) the probate court& #n case of doubt! all presumptions favor the solidarit) of the famil)& Gased on this unrefuted le$al presumption! Aose 'ivera is not the son of the deceased :enancio 'ivera whose estate is in (uestion& Aose 'ivera is not the son of the deceased :enancio 'ivera whose estate is in (uestion& Eence! bein$ a mere stran$er! he had no personalit) to contest the wills and his opposition thereto did not have the le$al effect of re(uirin$ the three witnesses& *he testimon) of Henaida and :enancio 'ivera! Ar&! who authenticated the wills as havin$ been written and si$ned b) their father! was sufficient&

1. Ialaw vs& Relova@ Ordinaril)! when a number of erasures! corrections! and interlineations made b) the testator in a holo$raphic Dill have not been noted under his si$nature! & & & the Dill is not thereb) invalidated as a whole! but at most onl) as respects the particular words erased! corrected or interlined& *hus! unless the unauthenticated alterations! cancellations or insertions were made on the date of the holo$raphic will or on testatorLs si$nature! their presence does not invalidate the will itself& *he lack of authentication will onl) result in disallowance of such chan$es& .& -s a $eneral rule! courts in probate proceedin$s are limited to pass onl) upon the e9trinsic validit) of the will sou$ht to be probated& Eowever! in e9ceptional instances! courts are not powerless to do what the situation constrains them to do! and pass upon certain provisions of the will& #n the case at bench! decedent herself indubitabl) stated in her holo$raphic will that the 0abadbaran propert) is in the name of her late father! Aohn E& 8and (which led oppositor r& Aose -<ero to (uestion her conve)ance of the same in its entiret))& *hus! as correctl) held b) respondent court! she cannot validl) dispose of the whole propert)! which she shares with her fatherLs other heirs& A& '/ )/-0$#.'."& >aithful compliance with the formalities laid down b) law is apparent from the face of the Dill& 0ourts are tasked to determine nothin$ more than the e9trinsic validit) of a Dill in probate proceedin$s& *his is e9pressl) provided for in 'ule 55! 8ection 1 of the 'ules of 0ourt! which states@ 8ection 1& -llowance necessar)& 0onclusive as to e9ecution& T /o will shall pass either real or personal estate unless it is proved and allowed in the proper court& 8ub<ect to the ri$ht of appeal! such allowance of the will shall be conclusive as to its due e9ecution& ue e9ecution of the will or its e9trinsic validit) pertains to whether the testator! bein$ of sound mind! freel) e9ecuted the will in accordance with the formalities prescribed b) law& *hese formalities are enshrined in -rticles 825 and 82; of the /ew 0ivil 0ode! to wit@ Eere! a careful e9amination of the face of the Dill shows faithful compliance with the formalities laid down b) law&& 1 A& '/ &/,ndn"&& /) 0.nd /) d"*"d"n'

3$#'$6$- + L$E$ (.21.)

Paciencia was a 58 )ear old spinster when she made her last will and testament entitled 1*auli /an$ Gilin o *estamento 4iss Paciencia 'e$ala1 (Dill) in the Pampan$o dialect on 8eptember 17! 1981& *he Dill! e9ecuted in the house of retired Aud$e %rnestino G& "impin (Aud$e "impin)! was read to Paciencia twice& -fter which! Paciencia e9pressed in the presence of the instrumental witnesses that the document is her last will and testament& *he witnesses to the Dill were ra& 4aria "ioba -& "impin ( ra& "impin)! >rancisco Garcia (>rancisco) and >austino '& 4ercado (>austino)& *he three

attested to the Dill=s due e9ecution b) affi9in$ their si$natures below its attestation clause and on the left mar$in of pa$es 1! . and 3 thereof! in the presence of Paciencia and of one another and of Aud$e "impin who acted as notar) public& ra& "impin was the onl) instrumental witness who testified& Uuestioned b) the prosecutor re$ardin$ Aud$e "impin=s present mental fitness! ra& "impin testified that her father had a stroke in 1991 and had to under$o brain sur$er)& *he <ud$e can walk but can no lon$er talk and remember her name& Gecause of this! ra& "impin stated that her father can no lon$er testif) in court& Oppositors of the probate alle$e that Paciencia was 1ma$ul)an1 or for$etful so much so that it effectivel) stripped her of testamentar) capacit)& *he) also claimed she was sufferin$ from paranoia& *he) also insist that all subscribin$ witnesses and the notar) public should have been presented in court since all but one witness! >rancisco! are still livin$&&

W" $4-"" %.'! '!" 2/&.'./n /) '!" CA '!$' '!" &'$'" /) 9".n4 )/-4"'),# d/"& n/' n"*"&&$-.#1 0$(" $ 2"-&/n 0"n'$##1 ,n&/,nd &/ $& '/ -"nd"- !.0 ,n).' '/ "E"*,'" $ W.## F/-4"'),#n"&& .& n/' "<,.+$#"n' '/ 9".n4 /) ,n&/,nd 0.nd (S"" A-'.*#" >77) #n this case! apart from the testimon) of 'osie pertainin$ to Paciencia=s for$etfulness! there is no substantial evidence! medical or otherwise! that would show that Paciencia was of unsound mind at the time of the e9ecution of the Dill& On the other hand! we find more worth) of credence ra& "impin=s testimon) as to the soundness of mind of Paciencia when the latter went to Aud$e "impin=s house and voluntaril) e9ecuted the Dill& 1*he testimon) of subscribin$ witnesses to a Dill concernin$ the testator=s mental condition is entitled to $reat wei$ht where the) are truthful and intelli$ent&1 4ore importantl)! a testator is presumed to be of sound mind at the time of the e9ecution of the Dill and the burden to prove otherwise lies on the oppositor& (8ee -rticle 822) Eere! there was no showin$ that Paciencia was publicl) known to be insane one month or less before the makin$ of the Dill& 0learl)! thus! the burden to prove that Paciencia was of unsound mind lies upon the shoulders of petitioners& Eowever and as earlier mentioned! no substantial evidence was presented b) them to prove the same! thereb) warrantin$ the 0-=s findin$ that petitioners failed to dischar$e such burden& >urthermore! we are convinced that Paciencia was aware of the nature of her estate to be disposed of! the proper ob<ects of her bount) and the character of the testamentar) act& -s aptl) pointed out b) the 0-@ - scrutin) of the Dill discloses that PPacienciaQ was aware of the nature of the document she e9ecuted& 8he speciall) re(uested that the customs of her faith be observed upon her death& 8he was well aware of how she ac(uired the properties from her parents and the properties she is be(ueathin$ to "O'%/HO! to his wife 0O'-HO/ and to his two (.) children& - third child was born after the e9ecution of the will and was not included therein as devisee& Gare alle$ations of duress or influence of fear or threats! undue and improper influence and pressure! fraud and tricker) cannot be used as basis to den) the probate of a will& 2 A& '/ 2-"&"n'$'./n /) .n&'-,0"n'$# %.'n"&&"& ISSUEK WON A>= %$& */02#."d %.'! %!"n /n#1 /n" .n&'-,0"n'$# %.'n"&& '"&'.)."dU Y"&

Petitioners dispute the authenticit) of Paciencia=s Dill on the $round that 8ection 11 of 'ule 5; of the 'ules of 0ourt was not complied with& 9 De note that the inabilit) of >austino and Aud$e "impin to appear and testif) before the court was satisfactoril) e9plained durin$ the probate proceedin$s& -s testified to b) his son! >austino had a heart attack! was alread) bedridden and could no lon$er talk and e9press himself due to brain dama$e& *o prove this! said witness presented the correspondin$ medical certificate& >or her part! ra& "impin testified that her father! Aud$e "impin! suffered a stroke in 1991 and had to under$o brain sur$er)& -t that time! Aud$e "impin could no lon$er talk and could not even remember his dau$hter=s name so that ra& "impin stated that $iven such condition! her father could no lon$er testif)& #t is well to note that at that point! despite ample opportunit)! petitioners neither interposed an) ob<ections to the testimonies of said witnesses nor challen$ed the same on cross e9amination& De thus hold that for all intents and purposes! "orenzo was able to satisfactoril) account for the incapacit) and failure of the said subscribin$ witness and of the notar) public to testif) in court& Gecause of this the probate of
5 S"*'./n 11 Subscribin" witnesses produced or accounted for w&ere will contested & T #f the will is contested! all the subscribin$ witnesses! and the notar) in the case of wills e9ecuted under the 0ivil 0ode of the Philippines! if present in the Philippines and not insane! must be produced and e9amined! and the death! absence! or insanit) of an) of them must be satisfactoril) shown to the court & #f all or some of such witnesses are present in the Philippines but outside the province where the will has been filed! their deposition must be taken& #f an) or all of them testif) a$ainst the due e9ecution of the will! or do not remember havin$ attested to it! or are otherwise of doubtful credibilit)! the will ma) nevertheless! be allowed if the court is satisfied from the testimon) of other witnesses and from all the evidence presented that the will was e9ecuted and attested in the manner re(uired b) law& #f a holo$raphic will is contested! the same shall be allowed if at least three (7) witnesses who know the handwritin$ of the testator e9plicitl) declare that the will and the si$nature are in the handwritin$ of the testator? in the absence of an) competent witnesses! and if the court deem it necessar)! e9pert testimon) ma) be resorted to& (%mphasis supplied&)

Paciencia=s Dill ma) be allowed on the basis of ra& "impin=s testimon) provin$ her sanit) and the due e9ecution of the Dill! as well as on the proof of her handwritin$& #t is an established rule that 1PaQ testament ma) not be disallowed <ust because the attestin$ witnesses declare a$ainst its due e9ecution? neither does it have to be necessaril) allowed <ust because all the attestin$ witnesses declare in favor of its le$alization? what is decisive is that the court is convinced b) evidence before it! not necessaril) from the attestin$ witnesses! althou$h the) must testif)! that the will was or was not dul) e9ecuted in the manner re(uired b) law&1 4oreover! it bears stressin$ that 1PiQrrespective 9 9 9 of the posture of an) of the parties as re$ards the authenticit) and due e9ecution of the will 9 9 9 in (uestion! it is the mandate of the law that it is the evidence before the court andRor Pevidence thatQ ou$ht to be before it that is controllin$&1 1*he ver) e9istence of Pthe DillQ is in itself prima facie proof that the supposed Ptestatri9Q has willed that PherQ estate be distributed in the manner therein provided! and it is incumbent upon the state that! if le$all) tenable! such desire be $iven full effect independent of the attitude of the parties affected thereb)&1 INCORPORATION OF DOCUMENTS 3Y REFERENCE CODICILS A D").n.'./n 3 S/#"0n.'."& VII REVOCATION OF WILLS AND TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITIONS A D").n.'./n /) -"+/*$'./n 3 W!"n 0$1 -"+/*$'./n 9" "))"*'"d C L$% 4/+"-n.n4 -"+/*$'./n D M/d"& /) -"+/*$'./n G$4/ + 1& Aul) .5! 1918 4i$uel 4amu)ac e9ecuted T!" %.## !$d 9""n -"+/("d M$0,1$* a last will and testament& .& Aanuar) 9..@ 4amu)ac died& >rancisco Dhere a will which cannot be found is shown to have been in the possession of the testator! when last (19.5) Ga$o petitioned for the probation of seen! the presumption is! in the absence of other competent evidence! that the same was cancelled or 4amu)ac=s will destro)ed& 7& *his was opposed b) 0ornelio 4amu)ac! -mbrosio "ariosa! >eliciana Gauzon and 8ame presumption rises where it is shown that the testator had read) access to the will and it cannot 0atalina 4amu)ac& 0># denied the be found after his death& #t will not be presumed that such will has been destro)ed b) an) other person petition for probation on the $round that without the knowled$e or authorit) of the testator& *he presumption of cancellation is never conclusive the deceased e9ecuted a new will and but ma) be overcome b) proof that the will was not destro)ed b) the testator with intent to revoke it& testament on -pril 1919& #n this case! since the ori$inal will of 1919 could not be found after the death of the testator and in view 3& >eb& 19.5@ action to secure the probation of the positive proof that it had been cancelled! the conclusion is that it had been cancelled and of the -pril 1919 will! which was opposed revoked& with oppositors alle$in$ that said will is a cop) of the .nd will and testament #n a $reat ma<orit) of instances in which wills are destro)ed for the purpose of revokin$ them there is no e9ecuted b) 4i$uel 4amu)ac cancelled witness to the act of cancellation or destruction and all evidence of its cancellation perishes with the and revoked durin$ the lifetime of 4i$uel testator& 0opies of wills should be admitted b) the courts with $reat caution& Dhen it is proven! not the last will and testament of 4i$uel& however! b) proper testimon) that a will was e9ecuted in duplicate with all the formalities and Ditnessed b) >eno) who t)ped the will re(uirements of the law! then the duplicate ma) be admitted in evidence when it is made to appear that and Ge<ar who saw it actuall) cancelled b) the ori$inal has been lost and was not cancelled or destro)ed b) the testator& 4i$uel (because 4i$uel sold to Ge<ar a house and the land where the house wasbuilt! he had to cancel the 1919 will) C$&.$n/ + CA -driana 4aloto died leavin$ as heirs the parties N/ -"+/*$'./n (-ldina! 0onstantcio! Panfilo and >elino) in this #t is clear that the ph)sical act of destruction of a will! like burnin$ in this case! does not per se (1988) case who are her niece and nephews& Gelievin$ constitute an effective revocation! unless the destruction is coupled with ani$us revocandi on the part that the deceased did not leave behind a last will of the testator& #t is not imperative that the ph)sical destruction be done b) the testator himself& #t ma) V VI

and testament! the four (3) heirs commenced an intestate proceedin$ for the settlement of their aunt=s estate which was instituted in the then 0>#& Eowever! while the case was still in pro$ress! the heirs e9ecuted an a$reement of e9tra<udicial settlement of -driana=s estate which provides for the division of the estate into four e(ual parts amon$ themselves& Dhen presented before the court! said a$reement was approved& Eowever! three )ears later! -tt)& 8ulpicio Palma! a former associate of -driana=s counsel! discovered a document entitled +B-*-PF8-/ /GP-GGFGF"-*6-/ (*estamento) and purportin$ to be the last will and testament of -driana& Panfilo and >elino are still named as heirs in the said will! -ldina and 0onstancio are be(ueathed much bi$$er and more valuable shares in the estate that what the) have received b) virtue of the a$reement of e9tra<udicial settlement& *he will likewise $ives devises and le$acies to other parties! amon$ them bein$ the petitioners& *hus! -ldino and 0onstancio <oined b) other devisees and le$atees filed a motion for reconsideration and annulment of the proceedin$s therein and for the allowance of the will& Fpon denial of the trial court! the petitioners came before the 8upreme 0ourt b) wa) or petition for certiorari and mandamus which were dismissed because the) were not the proper remedies& *he appellate court found out that the will was burned b) the househelper of -driana and was at the possession of the law)er in because -driana was seekin$ the services of the law)er in order to have a new will drawn up& E E))"*' /) R"+/*$'./n F D/*'-.n" /) D"2"nd"n' R"#$'.+" R"+/*$'./n D.$6 + D" L"/n *he onl) (uestion raised in this case is whether or to the will e9ecuted b) Aesus de "eon! now! was (19..) revoked b) him& *he petitioner denies such revocation! while the contestant affirms the same b) alle$in$ that the testator revoked his will b) destro)in$ it! and b) e9ecutin$ another will e9pressl) revokin$ the former& >rom the evidence submitted in this case! it appears that the testator! shortl) after the e9ecution of the first will in (uestion! asked that the same be returned to him& *he instrument was returned to the testator who ordered his servant to

be performed b) another person but under the express direction and in the presence of the testator& Of course! it $oes without sa)in$ that the document destro)ed must be the will itself& #n this case! while ani$us revocandi or the intention to revoke! ma) be conceded! for that is a state of mind! )et that re(uisite alone would not suffice& 1 (ni$us revocandi is onl) one of the necessar) elements for the effective revocation of a last will and testament& *he intention to revoke must be accompanied b) the overt ph)sical act of burnin$! tearin$! obliteratin$! or cancellin$ the will carried out b) the testator or b) another person in his presence and under his e9press direction& *here is paucit) of evidence to show compliance with these re(uirements& >or one! the document or papers burned b) -drianaLs maid! Guadalupe! was not satisfactoril) established to be a will at all! much less the will of -driana 4aloto& >or another! the burnin$ was not proven to have been done under the e9press direction of -driana& -nd then! the burnin$ was not in her presence& Goth witnesses! Guadalupe and %ladio! were one in statin$ that the) were the onl) ones present at the place where the stove (presumabl) in the kitchen) was located in which the papers proffered as a will were burned&

T!" &"*/nd %.## EE!.9.' 1 "E"*,'"d 91 '!" d"*"$&"d .& n/' *#/'! %.'! $## '!" n"*"&&$-1 -"<,.&.'"& '/ */n&'.','" $ &,)).*."n' -"+/*$'./n *he intention of revokin$ the will is manifest from the established fact that the testator was an9ious to withdraw or chan$e the provisions he had made in his first will& *his fact is disclosed b) the testator=s own statements to the witnesses 0anto and the 4other 8uperior of the Eospital where he was confined& *he ori$inal will herein presented for probate havin$ been destro)ed with animo revocandi! cannot now be probated as the will and last testament of Aesus de "eon&

tear the document& *his was done in his presence and before a nurse who testified to this effect& -fter some time! the testator! bein$ asked b) r& 0ornelio 4apa about the will! said that it had been destro)ed&

M/#/ + M/#/

4ariano 4olo died on Aanuar) .3! 1931 without leavin$ an) forced heir either in the descendin$ or ascendin$ line& Eis wife Auana 4olo (petitioner) survived him! and b) his nieces and nephew "uz! Gliceria and 0ornelio! all surnamed 4olo (oppositors6 appellants)& Oppositors T appellants were the le$itimate children of a deceased brother of the testator& 4ariano left two wills! one e9ecuted on -u$ust 15! 1918 and another e9ecuted on Aune .2! 1979& #n both the 1918 and 1979 wills Auana was instituted as his universal heir& *he latter will contains a clause! which e9pressl) revokes the will e9ecuted in 1918& Auana 4olo filed in the 0># a petition seekin$ the probate of the will e9ecuted in 1979& *he court rendered a decision den)in$ the probate of said will on the $round that the petitioner failed to prove that the same was e9ecuted in accordance with law& #n view of the disallowance of the will! the widow filed another petition for the probate of the will e9ecuted b) the deceased on -u$ust 18! 1918& *he oppositors filed an opposition to the petition contendin$ that! notwithstandin$ the disallowance of the 1979 will! the revocator) clause is valid and still has the effect of nullif)in$ the prior will of 1918& "ikewise! re$ardless of the revocator) clause! said will of 1918 cannot still be $iven effect because of the presumption that the testator himself deliberatel) revoked it&

- subse(uent will containin$ a clause revokin$ a previous will! havin$ been disallowed! for the reason that it was not e9ecuted in conformit) with the provisions of law as to the makin$ of wills! cannot produce the effect of annullin$ the previous will! inasmuch as said revocator) clause is void& *he doctrine of dependent relative revocation is usuall) applied where the testator cancels or destro)s a will or e9ecuted an instrument intended to revoke a will with a present intention to make a new testamentar) disposition as a substitute for the old! and the new disposition is not made or! if made! fails to effect for same reason& *he failure of the new testamentar) disposition! upon whose validit) the revocation depends! is e(uivalent to the non6fulfillment of a suspensive condition! and hence prevents the revocation of the ori$inal will& Gut a mere intent to make at some time a will in place of that destro)ed will not render the destruction conditional& #t must appear that the revocation is dependent upon the valid e9ecution of a new will& %ven in the supposition that the destruction of the ori$inal will b) the testator could be presumed from the failure of the petitioner to produce it in court! such destruction cannot have the effect of defeatin$ the prior will of 1918 because of the fact that it is founded on the mistaken belief that the will of 1979 has been validl) e9ecuted and would be $iven due effect& *he theor) on which the +principle of dependent relative revocation + is predicated in that the testator did not intend to die intestate& -nd this intention is clearl) manifest when he e9ecuted two wills on different occasions and instituted his wife as his universal heir& *here can therefore be no mistake as to his intention of d)in$ testate&

VIII IF

REPU3LICATION AND REVIVAL OF WILLS ALLOWANCE OF WILLS

G,"+"-$ G,"+"-$ (1937)

:ictorino "& Guevara e9ecuted a will wherein he made be(uests to his le$itimate son! natural dau$hter and stepchildren and wife of .nd marria$e& 8ubse(uentl)! :ictorino e9ecuted a deed of sale in favor of %rnesto 4& Guevara conve)in$ to him a parcel of land& :ictorino died& Eis last will and testament! however! was never presented to the court for probate! nor has an) administration proceedin$ ever been instituted for the settlement of his estate& 'osario Guevara! who had her fatherLs last will and testament in her custod)! did nothin$ <udiciall) to invoke the testamentar) dispositions made therein in her favor! whereb) the testator acknowled$ed her as his natural dau$hter and! aside from certain le$acies and be(uests! devised to her a portion of .1&;151 hectares of the lar$e parcel of land described in the will& Gut a little over four )ears after the testatorLs demise! she commenced the present action a$ainst %rnesto 4& Guevara alone for the purpose hereinbefore indicated? and it was onl) durin$ the trial of this case that she presented the will to the court! not for the purpose of havin$ it probated but onl) to prove that the deceased :ictorino "& Guevara had acknowled$ed her as his natural dau$hter& Fpon that proof of acknowled$ment she claimed her share of the inheritance from him! but on the theor) or assumption that he died intestate! because the will had not been probated! for which reason! she asserted! the betterment therein made b) the testator in favor of his le$itimate son %rnesto 4& Guevara should be disre$arded& Goth the trial court and the 0ourt of -ppeals sustained that theor)& 1979! the spouses e la cerna e9ecuted a <oint will& *he) willed that their properties be $iven to 4anuela (their niece and the wife of /icolas Potot)& *he husband died! and the will was submitted to probate b) his wife and 4anuela before the 0>#! which admitted the same to probate&

ISSUE DO/ the procedure adopted b) the 'osario Guevara is sanctioned b) law HELD /o& De cannot sanction the procedure adopted b) the respondent 'osario Guevara! it bein$ in violation of procedural law and an attempt to circumvent and disre$ard the last will and testament of the decedent& *he proceedin$ for the probate of a will is one in rem! with notice b) publication to the whole world and with personal notice to each of the known heirs! le$atees! and devisees of the testator& -lthou$h not contested (section 5! 'ule 55)! the due e9ecution of the will and the fact that the testator at the time of its e9ecution was of sound and disposin$ mind and not actin$ under duress! menace! and undue influence or fraud! must be proved to the satisfaction of the court! and onl) then ma) the will be le$alized and $iven effect b) means of a certificate of its allowance! si$ned b) the <ud$e and attested b) the seal of the court? and when the will devises real propert)! attested copies thereof and of the certificate of allowance must be recorded in the re$ister of deeds of the province in which the land lies& (8ection 1.! 'ule 55! and section ;.3! 0& 0& P&) #t will readil) be seen from the above provisions of the law that the presentation of a will to the court for probate is mandator) and its allowance b) the court is essential and indispensable to its efficac)& *o assure and compel the probate of a will! the law punishes a person who ne$lects his dut) to present it to the court with a fine not e9ceedin$ P.!222! and if he should persist in not presentin$ it! he ma) be committed to prison and kept there until he delivers the will& De hold that if the decedent left a will and no debts and the heirs and le$atees desire to make an e9tra<udicial partition of the estate! the) must first present that will to the court for probate and divide the estate in accordance with the will& *he) ma) not disre$ard the provisions of the will unless those provisions are contrar) to law& /either ma) the) do awa) with the presentation of the will to the court for probate! because such suppression of the will is contrar) to law and public polic)& *he law en<oins the probate of the will and public polic) re(uires it! because unless the will is probated and notice thereof $iven to the whole world! the ri$ht of a person to dispose of his propert) b) will ma) be rendered nu$ator)! as is attempted to be done in the instant case& -bsent le$atees and devisees! or such of them as ma) have no knowled$e of the will! could be cheated of their inheritance thru the collusion of some of the heirs who mi$ht a$ree to the partition of the estate amon$ themselves to the e9clusion of others& *he final decree of probate has conclusive effect as to the will! despite the fact that <oint wills are invalid& *he error thus committed b) the probate court was an error of law which should have been corrected b) appeal! but which did not affect the <urisdiction of the probate court! nor the conclusive effect of its final decision! however erroneous& - final <ud$ment rendered on a petition for the probate of a will is bindin$ upon the whole world! and public polic) and sound practice demand that! at the risk of occasional errors! <ud$ment of courts should become final at some definite date fi9ed b) law& <nterest rei publicae ut finis set litiu$& Eowever! the probate decree in could onl) affect Gernabe=s share! as Gervasia was then still alive and so the probate court had no <urisdiction over her interest in the con<u$al properties (prior to the new 0ivil 0ode! a will could not be probated durin$ the testatorLs lifetime)& 0># committed a $rave abuse of discretion in its reconsideration& Dhat the plaintiffs seek is the 1annulment1 of a will dul) probated in 1979 b) the 0># itself& *he proceedin$ is coupled with an action to recover the lands ad<udicated b) virtue of the probated will& *his

DE LA CERNA, ET AL +& POTOT, ET AL (19;3)

GALLANOSA +& HON ARCANGEL

>lorentino e9ecuted a will& Ee died (1979)! and was survived b) his brother! "eon& - petition for probate was filed in the 0>#& #n the

(1958)

will! he be(ueathed his K share in the con<u$al estate to *ecla! and! should she predecease him (which was the case)! his K share would be assi$ned to the spouses Pedro N 0orazon Gallanosa& "eon opposed! however the 0># admitted the will to probate&

action is a revival of the complaint which the 0># had alread) previousl) dismissed T this action is barred b) res <udicata& *he 1979 decree of probate is conclusive as to the due e9ecution or formal validit) of the will& *his means that the testator was of sound N disposin$ mind at when he e9ecuted the will and was not actin$ under duress! menace! fraud! or undue influence? that the will was si$ned b) him in the presence of the re(uired number of witnesses! and that the will is $enuine trial is not a for$er)& -ccordin$l)! these facts cannot a$ain be (uestioned in a subse(uent proceedin$! not even in a criminal action for the for$er) of the will& Fnless le$all) flawed! a testatorLs intention in his last will and testament is its 1life and soul1! which deserves reverential observance& G%/& 'F"%@ 0ourts in probate proceedin$s are limited to pass onl) upon the e9trinsic validit) of the will! merel) in(uirin$ on its due e9ecution 6 whether or not it complies with the formalities prescribed b) law! and the testamentar) capacit) of the testator& *he intrinsic validit) is not considered since the consideration thereof usuall) comes onl) after the will has been proved and allowed& %V0%P*#O/8@ 1) Dhen the defect of the will is apparent on its face and the probate of the will ma) become a useless ceremon) if it is intrinsicall) invalid! .) Dhen there is preterition of heirs! 7) the testamentar) provisions are of doubtful le$alit)! or 3) where the parties a$ree that the intrinsic validit) be first determined& *he testimonies of the witnesses were merel) hearsa) and even uncertain as to the whereabouts or e9istence of "upo %barle! the supposed husband of -suncion& *he petition is without merit& - final and e9ecutor) decision or order can no lon$er be disturbed or reopened no matter how erroneous it ma) be& *he matters of due e9ecution of the will and the capacit) of the testator ac(uired the character of res ;udicata and cannot a$ain be brou$ht into (uestion! all <uridical (uestions in connection therewith bein$ closed& 8uch final order makes the will conclusive a$ainst the whole world! as to its e9trinsic validit) and due e9ecution& *he intrinsic validit) is another matter! and (uestions re$ardin$ the same ma) still be raised even after the will has been authenticated? #t does not necessaril) follow that an e9trinsicall) valid last will and testament is alwa)s intrinsicall) valid& /ot that this 0ourt finds the will to be intrinsicall) valid! but a final and e9ecutor) decision (of which the part) had the opportunit) to challen$e) must stand& >ailure to avail of the remedies constitutes waiver& *he onl) instance where a part) interested in a probate proceedin$ ma) have a final li(uidation set aside is when he is left out b) reason of circumstances be)ond his control or throu$h mistake or inadvertence not imputable to ne$li$ence! which circumstances do not concur herein& *he probate court e9ceeded its <urisdiction when it further declared the deed of sale and the titles of petitioners null and void& - probate court or one in char$e of proceedin$s whether testate or intestate cannot ad<udicate or determine title to properties claimed to be a part of the estate and which are e(uall) claimed to belon$ to outside parties& -ll that said court could do as re$ards said properties is to determine whether the) should or should not be included in the inventor) or list of properties to be administered b) the administrator& Eowever! thou$h the <ud$ment in the partition case had become final and e9ecutor)! it specificall) provided that it was without pre<udice to the probate of the codicil& *herefore! the probate of the codicil was lawful! and the <ud$ment therein affirmed! e9cept as to the nullification of the title&

REYES +& COURT OF APPEALS (1995)

#n 199.! *orcuato e9ecuted his will! $ivin$ certain properties to his wife -suncion& P'espondent filed a petition for probate of the will before the '*0& *he children of *orcuato filed an opposition alle$in$ inter alia that -suncion e9erted undue influence and that -suncion was then still married to "upo %barle&

DOROTHEO +& COURT OF APPEALS (1999)

Private 'espondents=s were the le$itimate children of -le<andro N -niceta orotheo& *he latter died without her estate bein$ settled? -le<andro died thereafter& Petitioner! who claims to have taken care of -le<andro before he died! filed for the probate of the latterLs will 6 the court issued an order admittin$ the will to probate! and an entr) of <ud$ment was made b) the 0-& P'=s did not appeal! and several )ears after! the) filed a 14otion *o eclare *he Dill #ntrinsicall) :oid&1

CAMAYA +& PATULANDONG (.223)

195.! 'e)es e9ecuted a will! devisin$ a lot to her 4an$ulabnan& *he latter later sou$ht the deliver) to him b) e9ecutor Patulandon$ of the title to the lot& Patulandon$ refused due to a codicil which modified the testator=s will& 4an$ulabnan filed for partition! which was $ranted but without pre<udice to the probate of the codicil& Ee sold the lot to Petitioners& Patulandon$ previousl) filed a petition for probate of the codicil! and the '*0 admitted the codicil to probate! declarin$ the 8ale void&

A C/n*"2' /) P-/9$'" RODRIGUE@ +& Auanito e9ecuted a will! $ivin$ Petitioner two RODRIGUE@ apartments! and one each for his children ('espondents)& Auanito later sold the entire (.225) propert) in favor of Petitioner& Petitioner filed for unlawful detainer a$ainst 'espondents& -lso! there was a Partition -$reement! where the) reco$nized each other as co6owners and partitioned the propert) in accordance with the will& HEIRS OF LASAM +& UMENGAN (.22;) *he sub<ect lot is the eastern half portion of two lots& *he sub<ect lot was inherited b) #sabel! and the other b) #rene& *he Petitioners filed for unlawful detainer a$ainst 'espondent! who was the dau$hter of #sabel=s son b) her first husband& *he 4*00 ruled for Petitioners due to the newl) discovered alle$ed will of #sabel! where she be(ueathed the sub<ect lot to her son! 'osendo "asam&

'espondents failed to prove their ri$ht of possession! as the will and the Partition -$reement have no le$al effect since the will has not been probated& Gefore an) will can have force or validit) it must be probated& *his cannot be dispensed with and is a matter of public polic)& -s the will was not probated! the Partition -$reement which was e9ecuted pursuant thereto cannot be $iven effect& *hus! the fact that Petitioner was a part) to the -$reement becomes immaterial in the determination of the issue of possession& 4oreover! at the time of the sale! Auanito was still the owner! since ownership would onl) pass to his heirs at the time of his death&

*he 0- correctl) held that 'espondent has a better ri$ht to possess the sub<ect lot& *he purported will of #sabel could not be relied upon to establish Petitioners= ri$ht to possess the sub<ect lot because! without havin$ been probated! the said will could not be the source of an) ri$ht& - will is essentiall) ambulator)& -t an) time prior to the testator=s death! it ma) be chan$ed or revoked! and until admitted to probate! it has no effect whatever and no ri$ht can be claimed thereunder& Gefore an) will can have force or validit) it must be probated& *o probate a will means to prove before some officer or tribunal! vested b) law with authorit) for that purpose! that the instrument offered to be proved is the last will and testament of the deceased person whose testamentar) act it is alle$ed to be! and that it has been e9ecuted! attested and published as re(uired b) law! and that the testator was of sound and disposin$ mind& #t is a proceedin$ to establish the validit) of the will& 4oreover! the presentation of the will for probate is mandator) and is a matter of public polic)& *he law en<oins the probate of the Dill and public polic) re(uires it! because unless the Dill is probated and notice thereof $iven to the whole world! the ri$ht of a person to dispose of his propert) b) Dill ma) be rendered nu$ator)& /ormall)! the probate of a Dill does not look into its intrinsic validit)& Eowever! where practical considerations demand that the intrinsic validit) of the will be passed upon! even before it is probated! the 0ourt should meet that issue& *he probate of a will mi$ht become an #dle ceremon) if on its face it appears to be intrinsicall) void& G) virtue of the dismissal of the *estate 0ase! the determination of that controversial issue has not been thorou$hl) considered& Dhile the reconve)ance suit was still bein$ liti$ated! the probate court ordered %9ecution and Garnishment! rulin$ in effect that the le$ac) to Uuemada was not inofficious& #n a special proceedin$ for the probate of a will! the issue b) and lar$e is restricted to the e9trinsic validit) of the will! i&e&! whether the testator! bein$ of sound mind! freel) e9ecuted the will in accordance with the formalities prescribed b) law& Eowever! for the purpose of determinin$ whether a certain propert) should or should not be included in the inventor) of estate properties! the Probate 0ourt ma) pass upon the title thereto! but such determination is provisional! sub<ect to the final decision in a separate action to resolve title& *he Probate Order did not resolve the (uestion of ownership! considerin$ that the issue of ownership was the ver) sub<ect of controvers) in the reconve)ance suit that was still pendin$& *he intestate proceedin$s were not )et concluded! and the '*0 still had to hear and rule on the pendin$ claim of "0/ a$ainst the estate of the late 'a)mond *riviere and onl) thereafter can it distribute the residue of the estate! if an)! to his heirs& P*he case followin$ the citation does not deal with probate T it deals with intestate proceedin$s&Q

MANINANG +& COURT OF APPEALS (198.)

-seneta died! leavin$ a holo$raphic will! $ivin$ all her properties to Petitioner! and declarin$ that she does not consider 'espondent to be her adopted son& Petitioners filed for probate of the will? 'espondent instituted intestate proceedin$s T these were consolidated& 'espondent filed a 4otion to ismiss the *estate 0ase as he was preterited& Pastor! 8r& died and survived b) Petitioners! and an ille$itimate child! Uuemada& Uuemada filed for probate of an alle$ed holo$raphic will of Pastor! 8r& which had one disposition@ a le$ac) in favor of Uuemada consistin$ of shares in -tlas 4inin$ and some minin$ claims& *he will was later allowed to probate& Uuemada was appointed special administrator! and later filed a$ainst Petitioners for reconve)ance of alle$ed properties of the estate& *riviere died! and proceedin$s for the settlement of his intestate estate were instituted b) his widow! with Petitioners as their counsel& -s administrators! Petitioners incurred e9penses (real estate ta9es! etc&)&

PASTOR, SR +& COURT OF APPEALS (1987)

CUASHA LAW +& LCN CONSTRUCTION (.228)

Petitioners filed a 4otion for Pa)ment of their liti$ation e9penses! which was denied& *he) filed another 4otion for Pa)ment& 'espondent was the onl) remainin$ claimant a$ainst the %state! and it countered that the court had alread) resolved the issue& *he '*0 $ranted the second 4otion for Pa)ment& :.0"n"6 + IAC (1992) "eonardo ("ino) Aimenez married 0onsolacion!with whom he had four children (-lberto! "eonardo Ar!-le<andra and -n$eles)& urin$ this marria$e! he ac(uired 5 parcels of lot& Dhen 0onsolacion died! he contracted marria$e with Genoveva and be$ot seven children (*omas! :isitacion! i$no! -ntonio! -madeo!4odesto and :ir$inia)& Fpon :ir$inia=s petition in the probate court! she (:ir$inia) was appointed administratri9 of "ino=s propert)! and in the inventor) thereof! she included the said 5 parcels of lot& "eonardo Ar! however! opposed such on the $round of havin$ alread) ad<udicated the sub<ect lots to "ino=s children with 0onsolacion and that the properties were ac(uired durin$ "ino and 0onsolacion=s marria$e& On ec 12! 1983! :ir$inia filed for recover) of the 5 parcels of land in the '*0 but this was denied on the $round of res <udicata and prescriptionRlaches& I&&,"K DO/ in a settlement proceedin$! the lower court has <urisdiction to settle (uestions of ownership& 4aria 0uartero and 'osa Gonz -les both claimed that the) were married to 0arlos Palanca *a$uinla) in 19.9 and 1935! respectivel)& *he marria$e of 'osa to 0arlos had been dul) established b) testimonial and documentar) evidence& One of the pieces of evidence presented was the will e9ecuted b) 0arlos Palance wherein he declared that he married 'osa Gonzales in which marria$e the) had ei$ht children& #ssue@ DO/ the declarations in the last will and testament ma) be admitted as conclusive evidence of an e9istence of a fact durin$ the lifetime of the testator& *he testator! a married man! became ac(uainted with 'osario "opez and had illicit relations with her for man) )ears& *he) be$ot an ille$itimate son& *he testator=s will $ives the tercio de libre disposicion to the ille$itimate son and also provides for the pa)ment of nineteen hundred -s a $eneral rule! a probate court can onl) pass upon (uestions of title provisionall)& 8ince the probate! courtLs findin$s are not conclusive bein$ prima facie! a separate proceedin$ is necessar) to establish the ownership of the five (5) parcels of land& #n a special proceedin$ for the probate of a will! the (uestion of ownership is an e9traneous matter which the probate court cannot resolve with finalit)& *his applies with e(ual force to an intestate proceedin$ as in the case at bar&

O6$"'$ C,$-'"-/ (195;)

eclarations in a valid will and testament ma) be admitted as conclusive evidence of an e9istence of a fact durin$ the lifetime of the testator of the said will& Palanca e9ecuted e9ecuted his will and he made the solemn declaration in said document that since 19.7 and for some )ears! thereafter! he maintained amorous relations with 4aria 0uartero and had b) her si9 natural children whom! accordin$ to him! he had liberall) fed and supported& Ee said nothin$ about havin$ married 4aria? on the contrar) he declared that for $rave reasons he re$arded her unworth) of bein$ $uardian of the persons and propert) of his children b) her and so appointed >elisa Aoson de >ernandez and the Philippine /ational Gank as $uardians of their persons and propert)! respectivel)& On the same will! he spoke of his marria$e to 'osa Gonzales and the ei$ht children he had b) her! which accordin$ to him were le$itimated b) reason of their subse(uent marria$e& 8aid declaration in the will ma) not be taken li$htl)& 4ere $eneral or reasonable influence over a testator is not sufficient to invalidate a will? to have that effect! the influence must be undue& *he rule as to what constitutes undue influence has been variousl) stated! but the substance of the different statements is that! to be sufficient to avoid a will! the influence e9erted must be of a kind that so overpowers and sub<u$ates the mind of the testator as to destro) his free a$enc) and make him e9press the will of another rather than his own&

C/&/ + F"-n$nd"6 D"6$ (19.1)

N"2/0,*"n/ CA (1985)

O-'"4$ V$#0/n'" (.225)

8panish duros to 'osario "opez b) wa) of reimbursement for e9penses incurred b) her in talkin$ care of the testator when he is alle$ed to have suffered from severe illness& *he will was set aside on the $round of undue influence alle$ed to have been e9erted over the mind of the testator b) 'osario "opez& *here is no doubt that 'osario e9ercised some influence over the testator& 4artin Au$o named and appointed herein petitioner 8ofia /epomuceno as his sole and onl) e9ecutor of his estate& *he will clearl) stated that the testator was le$all) married to a certain 'ufina Gomez b) whom he had le$itimate children! Oscar and 0armelita& Ee stated that since 195. he had been estran$ed from his lawfull) wedded wife and had been livin$ with petitioner as husband and wife& *he testator and the petitioner herein were married in :ictoria! *arlac before the Austice of the Peace& *he testator devised to his forced heirs! namel) his le$al wife and his children (Oscar N 0armelita) his entire estate& Ee devised the free portion thereof to herein petitioner& *he pet filed a petition for the probate of the last will and testament of the deceased& *he le$al wife and her children filed an opposition& *he lower court denied the probate of the will on the $round that the testator admitted to cohabitin$ with the pet& *he DillLs admission to probate will be an #dle e9ercise because on the face of the Dill! the invalidit) of its intrinsic provisions is evident& *he respondent court set aside the decision of the 0>#& #t declared the will to be valid e9cept the devise in favor of the pet pursuant to -rt! 579 in relation with -rt& 12.8& *wo )ears after the arrival of Placido from the Fnited 8tates and at the a$e of 82 he wed Aosefina who was then .8 )ears old& Gut in a little more than two )ears of wedded bliss! Placido died& Placido e9ecuted a notarial last will and testament written in %n$lish and consistin$ of . pa$es! and dated 15 Aune 1987hbut acknowled$ed onl) on 9 -u$ust 1987& *he allowance to probate of this will was opposed b) "eticia! Placido=s sister& -ccordin$ to the notar) public who notarized the testator=s will! after the testator instructed him on the terms and dispositions he wanted on the will! the notar) public told them to come back on 15 -u$ust 1987 to $ive him time to prepare& *he testator and his witnesses returned on the appointed date but the notar) public was out of town so the) were instructed b) his wife to come back on 9 -u$ust

Dhile it is shown that the testator entertained stron$ affections for 'osario "opez! it does not appear that her influence so overpowered and sub<u$ated his mind as to destro) his free a$enc) and make him e9press the will of another rather than his own& 4ere affection! even if ille$itimate! is not undue influence and does not invalidate a will& #nfluence $ained b) kindness and affection will not be re$arded as undue! if no imposition or fraud be practiced! even thou$h it induces the testator to make an une(ual and un<ust disposition of his propert) in favor of those who have contributed to his comfort and ministered to his wants! if such disposition is voluntaril) made& *he respondent court acted within its <urisdiction when after declarin$ the Dill to be validl) drawn! it went on to pass upon the intrinsic validit) of the Dill and declared the devise in favor of the petitioner null and void& *he $eneral rule is that in probate proceedin$s! the courtLs area of in(uir) is limited to an e9amination and resolution of the e9trinsic validit) of the Dill& *he rule! however! is not infle9ible and absolute& Given e9ceptional circumstances! the probate court is not powerless to do what the situation constrains it to do and pass upon certain provisions of the Dill& #n view of certain unusual provisions of the will! which are of dubious le$alit)! and because of the motion to withdraw the petition for probate (which the lower court assumed to have been filed with the petitionerLs authorization) the trial court acted correctl) in passin$ upon the willLs intrinsic validit) even before its formal validit) had been established& *he probate of a will mi$ht become an #dle ceremon) if on its face it appears to be intrinsicall) void& Dhere practical considerations demand that the intrinsic validit) of the will be passed upon! even before it is probated! the court should meet the issue& *he disposition in favor of petitioner is not valid& *he records do not sustain a findin$ of innocence or $ood faith& -s ar$ued b) the private respondents@ >irst& *he last will and testament itself e9pressl) admits indubitabl) on its face the meretricious relationship between the testator and petitioner! the devisee& 8econd& Petitioner herself initiated the presentation of evidence on her alle$ed i$norance of the true civil status of the testator! which led private respondents to present contrar) evidence&

1&

O%8& espite his advanced a$e! he was still able to identif) accuratel) the kinds of propert) he owned! the e9tent of his shares in them and even their location& -s re$ards the proper ob<ects of his bount)! it was sufficient that he identified his wife as sole beneficiar)& *he omission of some relatives from the will did not affect its formal validit)& *here bein$ no showin$ of fraud in its e9ecution! intent in its disposition becomes irrelevant& /O& >raud is a trick! secret devise! false statement! or pretense! b) which the sub<ect of it is cheated& #t ma) be of such character that the testator is misled or deceived as to the nature or contents of the document which he e9ecutes! or it ma) relate to some e9trinsic fact! in conse(uence of the deception re$ardin$ which the testator is led to make a certain will which! but for fraud! he would not have made& *he part) challen$in$ the will bears the burden of provin$ the e9istence of fraud at the time of its e9ecution& *he burden to show otherwise shifts to the proponent of the will onl) upon a showin$ of credible evidence of fraud& Omission of some relatives does not affect the due e9ecution of a will& 4oreover! the conflict between the dates appearin$ on the will does not invalidate the document! +because '!" #$% d/"& n/' "+"n -"<,.-" '!$' $ n/'$-.$# %.## 9" "E"*,'"d $nd $*(n/%#"d4"d /n '!" &$0" /**$&./n

.&

1987& *he formal e9ecution was actuall) on 9 -u$ust 1987& Ee reasoned he no lon$er chan$ed the t)pewritten date of 15 Aune 1987 because he did not like the document to appear dirt)& Petitioner=s ar$ument@ 1& -t the time of the e9ecution of the notarial will Placido was alread) 87 )ears old and was no lon$er of sound mind& .& Aosefina conspired with the notar) public and the 7 attestin$ witnesses in deceivin$ Placido to si$n it& eception is alle$edl) reflected in the var)in$ dates of the e9ecution and the attestation of the will& #88F%@ 1& DR/ Placido has testamentar) capacit) at the time he alle$edl) e9ecuted the will& .& DR/ the si$nature of Placido in the will was procured b) fraud or tricker) Private respondents were the le$itimate children of -le<andro orotheo and -niceta 'e)es& *he latter died in 19;9 without her estate bein$ settled& -le<andro died thereafter& 8ometime in 1955! after -le<androLs death! petitioner! who claims to have taken care of -le<andro before he died! filed a special proceedin$ for the probate of the latterLs last will and testament& #n 1981! the court issued an order admittin$ -le<androLs will to probate& Private respondents did not appeal from said order& #n 1987! the) filed a 14otion *o eclare *he Dill #ntrinsicall) :oid&1 *he trial court $ranted the motion and issued an order& Petitioner moved for reconsideration ar$uin$ that she is entitled to some compensation since she took care of -le<andro prior to his death althou$h she admitted that the) were not married to each other& "ater on! Aud$e Hain G& -n$as set aside the final and e9ecutor) Order! as well as the Order directin$ the issuance of the writ of e9ecution! on the $round that the order was merel) 1interlocutor)1! hence not final in character& #88F%@ 4a) a last will and testament admitted to probate but declared intrinsicall) void in an order that has become final and e9ecutor) still be $iven effectC

*he variance in the dates of the will as to its supposed e9ecution and attestation was satisfactoril) and persuasivel) e9plained b) the notar) public and instrumental witnesses&

D/-/'!"/ + CA (1999)

- final and e9ecutor) decision or order can no lon$er be disturbed or reopened no matter how erroneous it ma) be& #n settin$ aside the Order that has attained finalit)! the trial court in effect nullified the entr) of <ud$ment made b) the 0ourt of -ppeals& #t is well settled that a lower court cannot reverse or set aside decisions or orders of a superior court! for to do so would be to ne$ate the hierarch) of courts and nullif) the essence of review& #t has been ruled that a final <ud$ment on probated will! albeit erroneous! is bindin$ on the whole world&

P$#$4$n$& P$#$4$n$& (2011)

'uperta 0& Pala$anas ('uperta)! a >ilipino who became a naturalized Fnited 8tates (F&8&) citizen! died sin$le and childless& #n the last will and testament she e9ecuted in 0alifornia! she desi$nated her brother! 8er$io 0& Pala$anas (8er$io)! as the e9ecutor of her will for she had left properties in the Philippines and in the F&8& 'espondent %rnesto 0& Pala$anas (%rnesto)! another brother of 'uperta! filed with the a petition for the probate of 'uperta=s will and for his appointment as special administrator of her estate& Eowever! petitioners 4anuel 4i$uel Pala$anas (4anuel) and Gen<amin Gre$orio Pala$anas (Gen<amin)! nephews of 'uperta! opposed the petition on the $round that 'uperta=s will should not be probated in the Philippines but in the F&8& where she e9ecuted it

*he rules do not re(uire proof that the forei$n will has alread) been allowed and probated in the countr) of its e9ecution& #n insistin$ that 'uperta=s will should have been first probated and allowed b) the court of 0alifornia! petitioners 4anuel and Gen<amin obviousl) have in mind the procedure for the reprobate of will before admittin$ it here& Gut! reprobate or re6authentication of a will alread) probated and allowed in a forei$n countr) is different from that probate where the will is presented for the first time before a competent court& 'eprobate is specificall) $overned b) 'ule 55 of the 'ules of 0ourt& 0ontrar) to petitioners= stance! since this latter rule applies onl) to reprobate of a will! it cannot be made to appl) to the present case& #n reprobate! the local court acknowled$es as bindin$ the findin$s of the forei$n probate court provided its <urisdiction over the matter can be established& Gesides! petitioners= stand is frau$ht with impracticall)& #f the instituted heirs do not have the means to $o abroad for the probate of the will! it is as $ood as deprivin$ them outri$ht of their inheritance! since our law re(uires that no will shall pass either real or personal propert) unless the will has been proved and allowed b) the proper court&

A4'$-$2 A4'$-$2 (2011)

Aoa(uin died intestate on /ovember .1! 19;3 in Pasa) 0it) without an) known debts or obli$ations& urin$ his lifetime! Aoa(uin contracted two marria$es! first with "ucia Garcia ("ucia)!P5Q and second with 0aridad Garcia (0aridad)& Aoa(uin and "ucia had three childrenMAesus (died without issue)! 4ila$ros! and Aose& Aoa(uin married 0aridad and had three childrenM%duardo! 8ebastian! and 4ercedes& -t the time of his death! Aoa(uin left two parcels of land with improvements in Pasa) 0it)& %duardo filed with the 'e$ional *rial 0ourt ('*0)! Granch 113! Pasa) 0it)! a verified petition for the <udicial settlement of the estate of his deceased father Aoa(uin -$tarap (Aoa(uin)& Aoseph! Gloria! and *eresa filed their answerRopposition& *he) alle$ed that the two sub<ect lots belon$ to the con<u$al partnership of Aoa(uin with "ucia! and that! upon "ucia=s death in -pril 19.3! the) became the pro indiviso owners of the sub<ect properties& *he) said that their residence was built with the e9clusive mone) of their late father Aose! and the e9penses of the e9tensions to the house were shouldered b) Gloria and *eresa! while the restaurant (4anon$=s 'estaurant) was built with the e9clusive mone) of Aoseph and his business partner& *he) opposed the appointment of %duardo as administrator on

*he $eneral rule is that the <urisdiction of the trial court! either as a probate or an intestate court! relates onl) to matters havin$ to do with the probate of the will andRor settlement of the estate of deceased persons! but does not e9tend to the determination of (uestions of ownership that arise durin$ the proceedin$s& *he $eneral rule does not appl) to the instant case considerin$ that the parties are all heirs of Aoa(uin and that no ri$hts of third parties will be impaired b) the resolution of the ownership issue& 4ore importantl)! the determination of whether the sub<ect properties are con<u$al is but collateral to the probate court=s <urisdiction to settle the estate of Aoa(uin&

the followin$ $rounds@ (1) he is not ph)sicall) and mentall) fit to do so? (.) his interest in the lots is minimal? and (7) he does not possess the desire to earn& *he) claimed that the best interests of the estate dictate that Aoseph be appointed as special or re$ular administrator& 3 N"*"&&.'1 /) P-/9$'" D" 3/-;$ + D" >rancisco de Gor<a filed a petition for probate of the 3/-;$ will of his wife who died! Aosefa *an$co! with the (17>2) 0># of 'izal& Ee was appointed e9ecutor and administrator! until he died? his son Aose became the sole administrator& >rancisco had taken a .nd wife *asiana before he died? she instituted testate proceedin$s with the 0># of /ueva %ci<a upon his death and was appointed special administatri9& Aose and *asiana entered upon a compromise a$reement! but *asiana opposed the approval of the compromise a$reement& 8he ar$ues that it was no valid! because the heirs cannot enter into such kind of a$reement without first probatin$ the will of >rancisco! and at the time the a$reement was made! the will was still bein$ probated with the 0># of /ueva %ci<a& #88F%@ DR/ the compromise a$reement is valid! even if the will of >rancisco has not )et been probated C M/d"& /) P-/9$'" G,"+$-$ + :ictorino "& Guevara e9ecuted a will with all the G,"+$-$ (17B3) formalities of the law! wherein he made be(uests to his le$itimate son! natural dau$hter and stepchildren and wife of .nd marria$e& :ictorino "& Guevara e9ecuted a deed of sale in favor of %rnesto 4& Guevara conve)in$ to him the southern half of a lar$e parcel of land in consideration of the sum of P1 and other valuable considerations& - final decree of re$istration was issued in favor of %rnesto 4& Guevara over the whole parcel of land described in the deed of sale above referred to& *he re$istration proceedin$ had been commenced b) :ictorino "& Guevara and %rnesto 4& Guevara as applicants! with 'osario! amon$ others! as oppositor? but before the trial of the case :ictorino "& Guevara withdrew as applicant and 'osario Guevara and her co6 oppositors also withdrew their opposition! thereb) facilitatin$ the issuance of the title in the name of %rnesto 4& Guevara alone& De cannot sanction the procedure adopted b) the respondent 'osario Guevara! it bein$ in violation of procedural law and an attempt to circumvent and disre$ard the last will and testament of the decedent& *he proceedin$ for the probate of a will is one in rem! with notice b) publication to the whole world and with personal notice to each of the known heirs! le$atees! and devisees of the testator& -lthou$h not contested (section 5! 'ule 55)! the due e9ecution of the will and the fact that the testator at the time of its e9ecution was of sound and disposin$ mind and not actin$ under duress! menace! and undue influence or fraud! must be proved to the satisfaction of the court! and onl) then ma) the will be le$alized and $iven effect b) means of a certificate of its allowance! si$ned b) the <ud$e and attested b) the seal of the court? and when the will devises real propert)! attested copies thereof and of the certificate of allowance must be recorded in the re$ister of deeds of the province in which the land lies& (8ection 1.! 'ule 55! and section ;.3! 0& 0& P&) #t will readil) be seen from the above provisions of the law that the presentation of a will to the court for probate is mandator) and its allowance b) the court is essential and indispensable to its efficac)& *o assure and compel the probate of a will! the law punishes a person who ne$lects his dut) to present it to the court with a fine not e9ceedin$ P.!222! and if he should persist in not presentin$ it! he ma) be committed to prison and kept there until he delivers the will& De hold that if the decedent left a will and no debts and the heirs and le$atees desire to make an e9tra<udicial partition of the estate! the) must first present that will to the court for probate and divide the estate in accordance with the will& *he) ma) not disre$ard the provisions of the will unless those provisions are contrar) to law& /either ma) the) do awa) with the presentation of the will to the court for *he compromise a$reement is valid& *he a$reement stipulated that *asiana will receive P822!222 as full pa)ment for her hereditar) share in the estate of >rancisco and Aosefa& *here was here no attempt to settle or distribute the estate of >rancisco de Gor<a amon$ the heirs thereto before the probate of his will& *he clear ob<ect of the contract was merel) the conve)ance b) *asiana On$sin$co of an) and all her individual share and interest! actual or eventual! in the estate of >rancisco de Gor<a and Aosefa *an$co& *here is no stipulation as to an) other claimant! creditor or le$atee& -nd as a hereditar) share in a decedentLs estate is transmitted or vested immediatel) from the moment of the death of such causante or predecessor in interest (0ivil 0ode of the Philippines! -rt& 555) there is no le$al bar to a successor (with re(uisite contractin$ capacit)) disposin$ of her or his hereditar) share immediatel) after such death! even if the actual e9tent of such share is not determined until the subse(uent li(uidation of the estate&

:ictorino "& Guevara died& Eis last will and testament! however! was never presented to the court for probate! nor has an) administration proceedin$ ever been instituted for the settlement of his estate& Dhether the various le$atees mentioned in the will have received their respective le$acies or have even been $iven due notice of the e9ecution of said will and of the dispositions therein made in their favor! does not affirmativel) appear from the record of this case& %ver since the death of :ictorino "& Guevara! his onl) le$itimate son %rnesto 4& Guevara appears to have possessed the land ad<udicated to him in the re$istration proceedin$ and to have disposed of various portions thereof for the purpose of pa)in$ the debts left b) his father& 'osario Guevara! who had her fatherLs last will and testament in her custod)! did nothin$ <udiciall) to invoke the testamentar) dispositions made therein in her favor! whereb) the testator acknowled$ed her as his natural dau$hter and! aside from certain le$acies and be(uests! devised to her a portion of .1&;151 hectares of the lar$e parcel of land described in the will& Gut a little over four )ears after the testatorLs demise! she commenced the present action a$ainst %rnesto 4& Guevara alone for the purpose hereinbefore indicated? and it was onl) durin$ the trial of this case that she presented the will to the court! not for the purpose of havin$ it probated but onl) to prove that the deceased :ictorino "& Guevara had acknowled$ed her as his natural dau$hter& Fpon that proof of acknowled$ment she claimed her share of the inheritance from him! but on the theor) or assumption that he died intestate! because the will had not been probated! for which reason! she asserted! the betterment therein made b) the testator in favor of his le$itimate son %rnesto 4& Guevara should be disre$arded& Goth the trial court and the 0ourt of -ppeals sustained that theor)& ISSUE DO/ the procedure adopted b) the 'osario Guevara is sanctioned b) law D GAN + YAP (1958) R"<,.-"0"n'& )/- 2-/9$'" /) $ !/#/4-$2!.* %.## 1951@ >elicidad Oap died of heart failure 195.@ >austo Gan initiated petition for probate of holo$raphic will of >elicidad& >elicidad=s husband opposed the same claimin$ that his wife did not leave an) will& Probate court

probate! because such suppression of the will is contrar) to law and public polic)& *he law en<oins the probate of the will and public polic) re(uires it! because unless the will is probated and notice thereof $iven to the whole world! the ri$ht of a person to dispose of his propert) b) will ma) be rendered nu$ator)! as is attempted to be done in the instant case& -bsent le$atees and devisees! or such of them as ma) have no knowled$e of the will! could be cheated of their inheritance thru the collusion of some of the heirs who mi$ht a$ree to the partition of the estate amon$ themselves to the e9clusion of others&

THE EFECUTION AND THE CONTENTS OF A LOST OR DESTROYED HOLOGRAPHIC WILL MAY NOT 3E PROVED 3Y THE 3ARE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES WHO HAVE SEEN ANDNOR READ SUCH WILL -uthenticit) and due e9ecution is the dominant re(uirements to be fulfilled when such will is submitted

refused to probate the will& T!" %.## .'&"#) %$& n/' 2-"&"n'"d & Petitioner tried to establish its contents and due e9ecution b) the statements in open court of >elina %s$uerra! Primitivo 'e)es! 8ocorro Olarte and 'osario Gan Aimenez& *he) claim the >elicidad wanted to keep it a secret from her bad6tempered husband& #88F%@ DR/ the will should be probatedC

to the courts for allowance& >or that purpose the testimon) of one of the subscribin$ witnesses would be sufficient if there is no opposition (8ec& 5! 'ule 55)& #f there is! the three must testif)! if available& (0aban$ vs. elfinado! 73 Phil&! .91? *olentino vs.>rancisco! 55 Phil&! 53.)& >rom the testimon) of such witnesses (and of other additional witnesses) the court ma) form its opinion as to the $enuineness and authenticit) of the testament! and the circumstances its due e9ecution& /ow! in the matter of holo$raphic wills! no such $uaranties of truth and veracit) are demanded! since as stated! the) need no witnesses? provided however! that the) are 1entirel) written! dated! and si$ned b) the hand of the testator himself&1 *he law! it is reasonable to suppose! re$ards t&e docu$ent itself as material proof of authenticit)! and as its own safe$uard! since it could at an) time! be demonstrated to be M or not to be M in the hands of the testator himself& 1#n the probate of a holo$raphic will1 sa)s the /ew 0ivil 0ode! 1it shall be necessar) that at least one witness who knows the handwritin$ and si$nature of the testator e9plicitl) declare that the will and the si$nature are in the handwritin$ of the testator& #f the will is contested! at least three such witnesses shall be re(uired& #n the absence of an) such witnesses! (familiar with decedentLs handwritin$) and if the court deem it necessar)! e9pert testimon) ma) be resorted to&1 *he witnesses so presented do not need to have seen the e9ecution of the holo$raphic will& *he) ma) be mistaken in their opinion of the handwritin$! or the) ma) deliberatel) lie in affirmin$ it is in the testatorLs hand& Eowever! the oppositor ma) present other witnesses who also know the testatorLs handwritin$! or some e9pert witnesses! who after comparin$ the will with other writin$s or letters of the deceased! have come to the conclusion that such will has not been written b) the hand of the deceased& (8ec& 52! 'ule 1.7)& -nd the court! in view of such contradictor) testimon) ma) use its own visual sense! and decide in t&e face of t&e docu$ent ! whether the will submitted to it has indeed been written b) the testator& Obviousl)! when the will itself is not submitted! these $eans of opposition! and of assessin" t&e evidence are not available& -nd then the onl) $uarant) of authenticit)7 M the testatorLs handwritin$ M has disappeared& *he onl) (uestion here is whether a holo$raphic will which was lost or cannot be found can be proved b) means of a photostatic cop)& Pursuant to -rticle 811 of the 0ivil 0ode! probate of holo$raphic wills is the allowance of the will b) the court after its due e9ecution has been proved& *he probate ma) be uncontested or not& #f uncontested! at least one #dentif)in$ witness is re(uired and! if no witness is available! e9perts ma) be resorted to& #f contested! at least three #dentif)in$ witnesses are re(uired& Eowever! if the holo$raphic will has been lost or destro)ed and no other cop) is available! the will can not be probated because the best and onl) evidence is the handwritin$ of the testator in said will& #t is necessar) that there be a comparison between sample handwritten statements of the testator and the handwritten will& Gut! a photostatic cop) or 9ero9 cop) of the holo$raphic will ma) be allowed because comparison can be made with the standard writin$s of the testator& #n the case of Gam vs& Oap! 123 PE#"& 529! the 0ourt ruled that 1the e9ecution and the contents of a lost or destro)ed holo$raphic will ma) not be proved b) the bare testimon) of witnesses who have seen andRor read such will& *he will itself must be presented? otherwise! it shall produce no effect& *he law re$ards the document itself as material proof of authenticit)&1 Gut! in >ootnote 8 of said decision! it sa)s that 1Perhaps it ma) be proved b) a photo$raphic or photostatic cop)& %ven a mimeo$raphed or carbon cop)? or b) other similar means! if an)! whereb) the authenticit) of the handwritin$ of the deceased ma) be e9hibited and tested before the probate court!1 %videntl)! the photostatic or 9ero9 cop) of the lost or destro)ed holo$raphic will ma) be admitted because then the authenticit) of the handwritin$ of the deceased can be determined b) the probate court& OUR CONCLUSION IS THAT THE RULE OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 811 OF THE CIVIL CODE IS MERELY DIRECTORY AND IS NOT MANDATORY

RODELAS ARAN@A (198.)

-ranza filed petition for probate of holo$raphic will of 'icardo Gonilla& Gut what was produced was a photocop) and not the actual alle$ed holo$raphic will&

A@AOLA

*he probate was denied on the $round that under -rticle 811 of the 0ivil 0ode! the proponent must

SINGSON (19;2)

present three witnesses who could declare that the will and the si$nature are in the writin$ of the testatri9! the probate bein$ contested? and because the lone witness presented b) the proponent 1did not prove sufficientl) that the bod) of the will was written in the handwritin$ of the testatri9&1 *he proponent appealed! ur$in$@ first! that he was not bound to produce more than one witness because the willLs authenticit) was not (uestioned? and second! that -rticle 811 does not mandatoril) re(uire the production of three witnesses to identif) the handwritin$ and si$nature of a holo$raphic will! even if its authenticit) should be denied b) the adverse part)&

8ince the authenticit) of the will was not contested! he was not re(uired to produce more than one witness? but even if the $enuineness of the holo$raphic will were contested! we are of the opinion that -rticle 811 of our present 0ivil 0ode can not be interpreted as to re(uire the compulsor) presentation of three witnesses to identif) the handwritin$ of the testator! under penalt) of havin$ the probate denied& 8ince no witness ma) have been present at the e9ecution of a holo$raphic will! none bein$ re(uired b) law (-rt& 812! new 0ivil 0ode)! it becomes obvious that the e9istence of witness possessin$ the re(uisite (ualifications is a matter be)ond the control of the proponent& >or it is not merel) a (uestion of findin$ and producin$ an) three witnesses? the) must be witnesses 1who know the handwritin$ and si$nature of the testator1 and who can declare (truthfull)! of course! even if the law does not so e9press) 1that the will and the si$nature are in the handwritin$ of the testator1& *here ma) be no available witness of the testatorLs hand? or even if so familiarized! the witnesses ma) be unwillin$ to $ive a positive opinion& 0ompliance with the rule of para$raph 1 of -rticle 811 ma) thus become an impossibilit) *he law foresees the possibilit) that no (ualified witness ma) be found (or what amounts to the same thin$! that no competent witness ma) be willin$ to testif) to the authenticit) of the will)! and provides for resort to e9pert evidence to suppl) the deficienc)& Fnder -rticle 811! the resort to e9pert evidence is conditioned b) the words 1if the 0ourt deem it necessar)1! which reveal that what the law deems essential is that the 0ourt should be convinced of the willLs authenticit)& Dhere the prescribed number of witnesses is produced and the court is convinced b) their testimon) that the ill is $enuine! it ma) consider it unnecessar) to call for e9pert evidence& On the other hand! if no competent witness is available! or none of those produced is convincin$! the 0ourt ma) still! and in fact it should! resort to handwritin$ e9perts& *he dut) of the 0ourt! in fine! is to e9haust all available lines of in(uir)! for the state is as much interested as the proponent that the true intention of the testator be carried into effect&

CODOY CALUGAY (1999)

evisees and le$atees of the holo$raphic will of the deceased 4atilde 8eSo :da& de 'amonal! filed a petition for probate of the holo$raphic will of the deceased! who died on Aanuar) 1;! 1992& On Aune .8! 1992! %u$enia 'amonal 0odo) and 4anuel 'amonal filed an opposition to the petition for probate! alle$in$ that the holo$raphic will was a for$er) and that the same is even ille$ible& *his $ives an impression that a 1third hand1 of an interested part) other than the 1true hand1 of 4atilde 8eSo :da& de 'amonal e9ecuted the holo$raphic will& *he) ar$ued that the repeated dates incorporated or appearin$ on will after ever) disposition is out of the ordinar)& #f the deceased was the one who e9ecuted the will! and was not forced! the dates and the si$nature should appear at the bottom after the dispositions! as re$ularl) done and not after ever) disposition& -nd assumin$ that the holo$raphic will is in the handwritin$ of the deceased! it was procured b) undue and improper pressure and influence on the part of the beneficiaries! or throu$h fraud and tricker)& #n this petition! the petitioners ask whether the provisions of -rticle 811 of the 0ivil 0ode are

De are convinced! based on the lan$ua$e used! that -rticle 811 of the 0ivil 0ode is mandator)& *he word 1shall1 connotes a mandator) order W" !$+" -,#"d '!$' H&!$##H .n $ &'$','" */00/n#1 d"n/'"& $n .02"-$'.+" /9#.4$'./n $nd .& .n*/n&.&'"n' %.'! '!" .d"$ /) d.&*-"'./n $nd '!$' '!" 2-"&,02'./n .& '!$' '!" %/-d H&!$##,H %!"n ,&"d .n $ &'$','" .& 0$nd$'/-1 #t will be noted that not all the witnesses presented b) the respondents testified e9plicitl) that the) were familiar with the handwritin$ of testator& >rom the testimonies of these witnesses! the 0ourt of -ppeals allowed the will to probate and disre$ard the re(uirement of three witnesses in case of contested holo$raphic will! citin$ the decision in ()aola vs& Sin"son!71 rulin$ that the re(uirement is merel) director) and not mandator)& #n the case of (;ero vs& Court of (ppeals!7. we said that 1the ob<ect of the solemnities surroundin$ the e9ecution of wills is to close the door a$ainst bad faith and fraud! to avoid substitution of wills and testaments and to $uarant) their truth and authenticit)& *herefore! the laws on this sub<ect should be interpreted in such a wa) as to attain these primordial ends& Gut on the other hand! also one must not lose si$ht of the fact that it is not the ob<ect of the law to restrain and curtail the e9ercise of the ri$ht to make a will& Eowever! we cannot eliminate the possibilit) of a false document bein$ ad<ud$ed as the will of the testator! which is wh) if the holo$raphic will is contested! that law re(uires three witnesses to declare that the will was in the handwritin$ of the deceased& *he will was found not in the personal belon$in$s of the deceased but with one of the respondents! who kept it even before the death of the deceased& #n the testimon) of 4s& Ginana)! she revealed that the will was in her possession as earl) as 1985! or five )ears before the death of the deceased&

permissive or mandator)& *he article provides! as a re(uirement for the probate of a contested holo$raphic will! that at least three witnesses e9plicitl) declare that the si$nature in the will is the $enuine si$nature of the testator&

*here was no opportunit) for an e9pert to compare the si$nature and the handwritin$ of the deceased with other documents si$ned and e9ecuted b) her durin$ her lifetime& *he onl) chance at comparison was durin$ the cross6e9amination of 4s& Ginana) when the law)er of petitioners asked 4s& Ginana) to compare the documents which contained the si$nature of the deceased with that of the holo$raphic will and she is not a handwritin$ e9pert& %ven the former law)er of the deceased e9pressed doubts as to the authenticit) of the si$nature in the holo$raphic will& - visual e9amination of the holo$raphic will convince us that the strokes are different when compared with other documents written b) the testator& *he si$nature of the testator in some of the disposition is not readable& *here were uneven strokes! retracin$ and erasures on the will& De! therefore! cannot be certain that rulin$ holo$raphic will was in the handwritin$ b) the deceased& *he $eneral rule is that in probate proceedin$s! the courtLs area of in(uir) is limited to an e9amination and resolution of the e9trinsic validit) of the Dill& T!" -,#", !/%"+"-, .& n/' .n)#"E.9#" $nd $9&/#,'" G.+"n "E*"2'./n$# *.-*,0&'$n*"&, '!" 2-/9$'" */,-' .& n/' 2/%"-#"&& '/ d/ %!$' '!" &.',$'./n */n&'-$.n& .' '/ d/ $nd 2$&& ,2/n *"-'$.n 2-/+.&./n& /) '!" W.## *here appears to be no more dispute at this time over the e9trinsic validit) of the Dill& Goth parties are a$reed that the Dill of 4artin Au$o was e9ecuted with all the formalities re(uired b) law and that the testator had the mental capacit) to e9ecute his Dill& *he prohibition in -rticle 579 of the 0ivil 0ode is a$ainst the makin$ of a donation between persons who are livin$ in adulter) or concubina$e& #t is the donation which becomes void& *he $iver cannot $ive even assumin$ that the recipient ma) receive& *he ver) wordin$s of the Dill invalidate the le$ac) because the testator admitted he was disposin$ the properties to a person with whom he had been livin$ in concubina$e& *he donation onl) and not the entire will is void&

NEPOMUCENO + CA (1985)

4artin Au$o died on Aul) 1;! 1953 in 4alabon! 'izal& Ee left a last Dill and *estament dul) si$ned b) him at the end of the Dill on pa$e three and on the left mar$in of pa$es 1! . and 3 thereof in the presence of 0elestina -le<andro! 4)rna 0& 0ortez! and "eandro "eano! who in turn! affi9ed their si$natures below the attestation clause and on the left mar$in of pa$es 1! . and 3 of the Dill in the presence of the testator and of each other and the /otar) Public& *he Dill was acknowled$ed before the /otar) Public 'omeo %scareal b) the testator and his three attestin$ witnesses& On -u$ust .1! 1953! the petitioner filed a petition for the probate of the last Dill and *estament of the deceased 4artin Au$o and asked for the issuance to her of letters testamentar)& On 4a) 17! 1955! the le$al wife of the testator! 'ufina Gomez and her children filed an opposition alle$in$ inter alia that the e9ecution of the Dill was procured b) undue and improper influence on the part of the petitioner? that at the time of the e9ecution of the Dill! the testator was alread) ver) sick and that petitioner havin$ admitted her livin$ in concubina$e with the testator! she is wantin$ in inte$rit) and thus! letters testamentar) should not be issued to her& 0- declared donations to concubine null and void as bein$ contrar) to law&

E))"*' /) $##/%$n*" /) %.##& >lorentino Eitosis e9ecuted a will in the Gicol GALLANOSA + dialect on Aune 19! 1978 when he was ei$ht) )ears ARCANGHEL old& Ee died on 4a) .;! 1979& On Aune .3! 1979 a petition for the probate of his will was filed& -fter a (1958) hearin$! wherein the oppositors did not present an) evidence in support of their opposition! Aud$e

Dhat the plaintiffs seek is the 1annulment1 of a last will trial testament dul) probated in 1979 b) the lower court itself& *he proceedin$ is coupled with an action to recover the lands ad<udicated to the defendants b) the same court in 1937 b) virtue of the probated will! which action is a resuscitation of *he complaint of the same parties that the same court dismissed in 195.& Our procedural law does not sanction an action for the 1annulment1 of a will& #n order that a will ma)

Pablo 8& 'ivera! in his decision of October .5! 1979! admitted the will to probate and appointed Gallanosa as e9ecutor& On >ebruar) .2! 195.! "eon Eitosis trial the heirs of >lorentinoLs deceased brothers trial sisters instituted an action a$ainst Pedro Gallanosa for the recover) of the said si9t)6 one parcels of land&

take effect! it has to be probated! le$alized or allowed in the proper testamentar) proceedin$& *he probate of the will is mandator)& - decree of probate is conclusive as to the due e9ecution or formal validit) of the will& *hat means that the testator was of sound trial disposin$ mind at the time when he e9ecuted the will and was not actin$ under duress! menace! fraud! or undue influence? that the will was si$ned b) him in the presence of the re(uired number of witnesses! and that the will is $enuine trial is not a for$er)& -ccordin$l)! these facts cannot a$ain be (uestioned in a subse(uent proceedin$! not even in a criminal action for the for$er) of the will& -fter the finalit) of the allowance of a will! the issue as to the voluntariness of its e9ecution cannot be raised an)more& De hold that respondent <ud$e did not commit an) $rave abuse of discretion! amountin$ to lack of <urisdiction! in den)in$ %thelLs motion to dismiss& - testate proceedin$ is proper in this case because Grimm died with two wills and 1no will shall pass either real or personal propert) unless it is proved and allowed1& *he probate of the will is mandator)& #t is anomalous that the estate of a person who died testate should be settled in an intestate proceedin$& *herefore! the intestate case should be consolidated with the testate proceedin$ and the <ud$e assi$ned to the testate proceedin$ should continue hearin$ the two cases&

RO3ERTS LEONIDAS (1983)

%dward 4& Grimm an -merican resident of 4anila! died at 58 in the 4akati 4edical 0enter on /ovember .5! 1955& Ee e9ecuted on Aanuar) .7! 1959 two wills in 8an >rancisco! 0alifornia& One will dispose of his Philippine estate which he described as con<u$al propert) of himself and his second wife& *he second will dispose of his estate outside the Philippines& 37 da)s after GrimmLs death! his dau$hter of the first marria$e! %thelfiled intestate proceedin" 5o. **D+1B for the settlement of his estate& 8he was named special administratri9& On 4arch 11! the second wife! 4a9ine! filed an opposition and $otion to dis$iss t&e intestate proceedin" on the $round of the pendenc) of Ftah of a proceedin$ for the probate of GrimmLs will& %thel filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition in this 0ourt! pra)in$ that the testate proceedin$ be dismissed! or& alternativel) that the two proceedin$s be consolidated and heard in ranc& 1+ and that the matter of the annulment of the Ftah compromise a$reement be heard prior to the petition for probate& Dill contained provision donatin$ properties to concubine& "ower court ruled on the intrinsic validit) of the disposition and declared the donation to the concubine void for bein$ contrar) to law&

NEPOMUCENO + CA (1985)

*he $eneral rule is that in probate proceedin$s! the courtLs area of in(uir) is limited to an e9amination and resolution of the e9trinsic validit) of the Dill& T!" -,#", !/%"+"-, .& n/' .n)#"E.9#" $nd $9&/#,'" G.+"n "E*"2'./n$# *.-*,0&'$n*"&, '!" 2-/9$'" */,-' .& n/' 2/%"-#"&& '/ d/ %!$' '!" &.',$'./n */n&'-$.n& .' '/ d/ $nd 2$&& ,2/n *"-'$.n 2-/+.&./n& /) '!" W.## *here appears to be no more dispute at this time over the e9trinsic validit) of the Dill& Goth parties are a$reed that the Dill of 4artin Au$o was e9ecuted with all the formalities re(uired b) law and that the testator had the mental capacit) to e9ecute his Dill& *he prohibition in -rticle 579 of the 0ivil 0ode is a$ainst the makin$ of a donation between persons who are livin$ in adulter) or concubina$e& #t is the donation which becomes void& *he $iver cannot $ive even assumin$ that the recipient ma) receive& *he ver) wordin$s of the Dill invalidate the le$ac) because the testator admitted he was disposin$ the properties to a person with whom he had been livin$ in concubina$e& *he donation onl) and not the entire will is void&

DELA CERNA + POTOT (19;3)

4a) 9! 1979! the spouses! Gernabe de la 8erna and Gervasia 'ebaca! e9ecuted a <oint last will and testament in the local dialect& & Gernabe dela 8erna died on -u$ust 72! 1979! and the aforesaid will was submitted to probate and was allowed& Fpon the death of Gervasia 'ebaca on October 13! 195.! another petition for the probate of the same will insofar as Gervasia was concerned was filed on /ovember ;! 195.& *he 0ourt of >irst #nstance ordered the petition heard and declared the testament null and void! for bein$ e9ecuted contrar) to the prohibition of <oint wills in the 0ivil 0ode& Gut on appeal b) the testamentar) heir! the 0ourt of -ppeals reversed! on the $round that the decree of probate in 1979 was issued b) a court of probate <urisdiction and conclusive on the due e9ecution of the testament&

*he appealed decision correctl) held that the final decree of probate! entered in 1979 b) the 0ourt of >irst #nstance of 0ebu (when the testator! Gernabe de la 0erna! died)! !$& */n*#,&.+" "))"*' $& '/ !.& #$&' %.## $nd '"&'$0"n' d"&2.'" '!" )$*' '!$' "+"n '!"n '!" C.+.# C/d" $#-"$d1 d"*-""d '!" .n+$#.d.'1 /) ;/.n' %.##&, %!"'!"- .n )$+/- /) '!" ;/.n' '"&'$'/-&, -"*.2-/*$##1, /- .n )$+/- /) $ '!.-d 2$-'1& Gut the 0ourt of -ppeals should have taken into account also! to avoid future misunderstandin$! that the probate decree in 1989 could onl) affect the share of the deceased husband! Gernabe de la 0erna& #t could not include the disposition of the share of the wife! Gervasia 'ebaca! who was then still alive! and over whose interest in the con<u$al properties the probate court ac(uired no <urisdiction! precisel) because her estate could not then be in issue& Ge it remembered that prior to the new 0ivil 0ode! a will could not be probated durin$ the testatorLs lifetime& #t follows that the validit) of the <oint will! in so far as the estate of the wife was concerned! must be! on her death! ree9amined and ad<udicated de novo! since a <oint will is considered a separate will of each testator& *hus re$arded! the holdin$ of the court of >irst #nstance of 0ebu that the <oint will is one prohibited b) law was correct as to the participation of the deceased Gervasia 'ebaca in the properties in (uestion! for the reasons e9tensivel) discussed in our decision in ilbao vs. ilbao! 85 Phil& 133! that e9plained the previous holdin$ in !acro&on vs. Saavedra! 51 Phil& .;5& *herefore! the undivided interest of Gervasia 'ebaca should pass upon her death to her heirs intestate! and not e9clusivel) to the testamentar) heir! unless some other valid will in her favor is shown to e9ist! or unless she be the onl) heir intestate of said Gervasia& #t is unnecessar) to emphasize that the fact that <oint wills should be in common usa$e could not make them valid when our 0ivil 0odes consistentl) invalidated them! because laws are onl) repealed b) other subse(uent laws! and no usa$e to the contrar) ma) prevail a$ainst their observance&

DISALLOWANCE OF WILLS On . Aanuar) 19;2! 0atalina de la 0ruz! sin$le and PASCUAL + DE without an) survivin$ descendant or ascendant! LA CRU@ died at the a$e of &89& On 13 Aanuar) 19;2! a petition for the probate of her alle$ed will was filed& (19;9) Opposin$ the petition! Pedro de la 0ruz and .; other nephews and nieces of the late 0atalina de la 0ruz contested the validit) of the will on the $rounds that the formalities re(uired b) law were not complied with? that the testatri9 was mentall) incapable of disposin$ of her properties b) will at the time of its e9ecution? that the will was procured b) undue and improper pressure and influence on the part of the petitioner? and that the si$nature of the testatri9 was obtained throu$h fraud& Oppositors6appellees claim that the lower court erred in $ivin$ credence to the testimonies of the subscribin$ witnesses and the notar) that the will was dul) e9ecuted! notwithstandin$ the e9istence of inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies! and in disre$ardin$ their evidence that the will was not si$ned b) all the witnesses in the presence of one another! in violation of the re(uirement of the law&

#n this <urisdiction! it is the observed rule that! where a will is contested! the subscribin$ with are $enerall) re$arded as the best (ualified to testif) on its due e9ecution& Eowever! it is similarl) reco$nized that for the testimon) of such witnesses to be entitled to full credit! it must be reasonable and unbiased! and not overcome b) competent evidence! direct or circumstantial& >or it must be remembered that the law does not simpl) re(uire the presence of three instrumental witnesses? it demands that the witnesses be credible& #n connection with the issue under consideration! we a$ree with the trial <ud$e that the contradictions and inconsistencies appearin$ in the testimonies of the witnesses and the notar)! pointed out b) the oppositors6appellants (such as the weather condition at the time the will was e9ecuted? the se(uence of the si$nin$ b) the witnesses? and the len$th of time it took to complete the act)! relate to unimportant details of the impressions of the witnesses about certain details which could have been affected b) the lapse of time and the treacher) of human memor)! and which inconsistencies! b) themselves! would not alter the probative value of their testimonies on the due e9ecution of the will& Gasic principles on undue pressure and influence as laid down b) the <urisprudence of this 0ourt@ that to be sufficient to avoid a will! the influence e9erted must be of a kind that so overpowers and sub<u$ates the mind of the testator as to destro) his free a$enc) and make him e9press the will of another rather than his own? that the contention that a will was obtained b) undue influence or improper pressure cannot be sustained on mere con<ecture or suspicion! as it is enou$h that there was opportunit) to e9ercise undue influence! or a possibilit) that it ma) have been e9ercised? that the e9ercise of improper pressure and undue influence must be supported b) substantial evidence that it was actuall) e9ercised? that the burden is on the person challen$in$ the will to show that such influence was e9erted at the time of its e9ecution? that mere $eneral or reasonable influence is not sufficient to invalidate a will? nor is moderate and reasonable solicitation and entreat) addressed to the testator? or

omission of relatives! not forced heirs! evidence of undue influence& FI NUGUID + NUGUID (19;;) LEGITIME A C/n*"2' 3 W!/ $-" "n'.'#"& '/ #"4.'.0"&K */02,#&/-1 !".-& 'osario /u$uid died sin$le! without descendants! le$itimate or ille$itimate& 8urvivin$ her were her le$itimate parents and ; brothers and sisters& One of the sisters ('emedios) filed a holo$raphic will alle$edl) e9ecuted b) 'osario institutin$ 'emedios as the sole! universal heir& *he parents entered their opposition to the probate of the will due to preterition&

T!.& .& $ *#"$- *$&" /) 2-"'"-.'./n Preterition consists in the omission in the testator=s will of the forced heirs or an)one of them! either because the) are not mentioned therein! or! thou$h mentioned! the) are neither instituted as heirs nor are e9pressl) disinherited& isinheritance! in turn! is a testamentar) disposition deprivin$ an) compulsor) heir of his share in the le$itime for a cause authorized b) law& *he will here does not e9plicitl) disinherit the testatri9=s parents! the forced heirs& #t simpl) omits their names alto$ether& 8aid will rather than be labeled ineffective disinheritance is clearl) one in which the said forced heirs suffer from preterition& Preterition under -rticle 853 of the 0ivil 0ode shall annul the institution of the heir& *his annulment is in toto! unless in the will there are! in addition! testamentar) dispositions in the form of devises or le$acies& #n ineffective disinheritance under -rticle 918 of the same 0ode! such disinheritance shal also annul the institution of heirs but onl) insofar as it ma) pre<udice the person disinherited& /othin$ in -rticle 853 su$$ests that the mere institution of a universal heir in a will T void because of preterition T would $ive the heir so instituted a share in the inheritance& -s to him! the will is ine9istent& *here must be! in addition to such institution! a testamentar) disposition $rantin$ him be(uests or le$acies apart and separate from the nullified institution of heir&

3ALANAY + MARTINE@ (1955)

>eli9 Ar filed a petition for the probate of his mother=s will& #n the will! the mother devised and partitioned the con<u$al lands as if the) were all owned b) her& 8he disposed of in the will her husband=s one half share of the con<u$al assets& *he trial court declared that the will was void& #t dismissed the petition for the probate and converted the testate proceedin$ into an intestate proceedin$&

T!" '-.$# */,-' $*'"d */--"*'#1 .n 2$&&.n4 ,2/n '!" %.##G& .n'-.n&.* +$#.d.'1 "+"n 9"/-" .'& )/-0$# +$#.d.'1 !$d 9""n "&'$9#.&!"d T!" 2-/9$'" /) $ %.## 0.4!' 9"*/0" $n .d#" *"-"0/n1 .) /n .'& )$*" .' $22"$-& '/ 9" .n&'-.n&.*$##1 +/.d Gut the probate court erred in declarin$ that the will was void and in convertin$ the testate proceedin$ into an intestate proceedin$& *he rule is that +the invalidit) of one of several dispositions contained in a will does not result in the invalidit) of the other dispositions! unless it is to be presumed that the testator would not have made such other dispositions if the first invalid disposition had not been made& *he statement of the testatri9 that she co6owned the +southern half of the con<u$al lands, is contrar) to law because althou$h she was a co6owner thereof! her share was inchoate and pro6indiviso& Gut that ille$al declaration does not nullif) the entire will& #t ma) be disre$arded& *he provision of the will that the properties of the testatri9 should not be divided amon$ her heirs durin$ her husband=s lifetime but should be kept intact and that the le$itimes should be paid in cash is contrar) to -rticle 1282& 8he did not assi$n the whole estate to one or more children! as envisa$ed in -rticle 1282& Eence! she had no ri$ht to re(uire that the le$itimes be paid in cash& On the other hand! her estate ma) remain undivided onl) for a period of .2 )ears& >eli9 8r& could validl) renounce his hereditar) ri$hts and his one half share of the con<u$al partnership but insofar as said renunciation partakes of a donation of his hereditar) ri$hts and his one half share in the con<u$al estate! it should be sub<ect to the limitations prescribed in -rticles 552 and 55. of the 0ivil 0ode& - portion of the estate should be ad<udicated to the widower for his support and maintenance& Or at least his le$itime should be respected& #t should be stressed that b) reason of the survivin$ husband=s conformit) to his wife=s will and his renunciation of his hereditar) ri$hts! his one half con<u$al

SOLANO + CA (1987)

Gienvenido and %meteria Garcia! claimin$ to be ille$itimate children of r& 8olano filed an action for reco$nition a$ainst him& 8olano denied paternit)& 8olano died so Honia 8olano was ordered substituted for the decedent as the onl) survivin$ heir mentioned in his "ast Dill and *estament& *he trial court declared the Garcias and Honia as the ille$itimate children of r& 8olano& #t also said that the institution of Honia as sole and universal heir of the deceased in the will is null and void and the three children shall share e(uall) the estate& Petra 'osales! the mother6in6law of #renea 'osales died& #rinea insists on $ettin$ a share of the estate in her capacit) as the survivin$ spouse of one of Petra=s children! claimin$ that she is a compulsor) heir of her mother6in6law to$ether with her son&

share became a part of his deceased=s wife=s estate& #n the instant case! the preterited heir was the survivin$ spouse& Eis preterition did not produce intestac)& 4oreover! he si$nified his conformit) to his wife=s will and renounced his hereditar) ri$hts& T!" 2-"'"-.'./n /) '!" G$-*.$G& &!/,#d $nn,# '!" .n&'.','./n /) @/n.$ $& !".- /n#1 .n&/)$- $& '!" #"4.'.0" /) '!" /0.''"d !".-& .& .02$.-"d T!" %.##, '!"-")/-", .& +$#.d &,9;"*' '/ '!$' #.0.'$'./n #t is clear that the intention of the testator was to favor Honia with certain portions of his propert)! which under the law! he had a ri$ht to dispose of b) Dill! so that the disposition in her favor should be upheld as to the one half portion of the propert) that the testator could freel) dispose of& 8ince the le$itime of ille$itimate children consists of one half of the hereditar) estate! the Garcias and Honia each have a ri$ht to participation therein in the proportion of one third each& Honia=s hereditar) share will therefore be K W(1R7 of 1R.) or 3R; of the estate! while the Garcias will respectivel) be entitled to 1R7 of K or 1R; of the value of the estate& *he usufruct in favor of *rinidad over the properties indicated in the will is valid and should be respected& I-"n"$ .& n/' $n $n !".- /) !"- 0/'!"--.n-#$% #ntestate or le$al heirs are classified into . $roups! namel)! those who inherit b) their own ri$ht! and those who inherit b) the ri$ht of representation& *here is no provision in the 0ivil 0ode which states that a widow (survivin$ spouse) is an intestate heir of her mother6in6law either b) her own ri$ht or b) the ri$ht of representation& -rticle 885 refers to the estate of the deceased spouse in which case the survivin$ spouse is a compulsor) heir& #t does not appl) to the estate of a parent6in6law& the survivin$ spouse is considered a third person as re$ards the estate of the parent6in6law& -rticle 951 e9plicitl) declares that 4acike(uero9! the son! is called to succession b) law because of his blodd relationship& Ee does not succeed his father who predeceased his $randmother but the latter whom his father would have succeeded& Petitioner cannot assert the same ri$ht of representation as she has no filiation b) blood with her mother6in6law&

ROSALES + ROSALES (1985)

ACAIN + IAC (1985)

0onstantino -cain filed a petition for the probate of the will of his brother /emesio -cain& 'espondents! le$all) adopted dau$hter and /emesio=s widow filed a motion to dismiss on the $rounds that petitioner has no le$al capacit) to institute these proceedin$s! that he is merel) a universal heir! that the widow and dau$hter have been preterited

On#1 '!" $d/2'"d d$,4!'"- !$& 9""n 2-"'"-.'"d Preterition consists in the omission in the testator=s will of the forced heirs or an)one of them either because the) are not mentioned therein! or thou$h mentioned! the) are neither instituted as heirs nor are e9pressl) disinherited& #nsofar as the widow is concerned! -rticle 853 of the 0ivil 0ode ma) not appl) as she does not ascend or descend from the testator! althou$h she is a compulsor) heir& 8tated therwise! even if the survivin$ spouse is a compulsor) heir! there is no preterition even if she is omitted from the inheritance! for she is not in the direct line& Eowever! the same thin$ cannot be said of the adopted dau$hter& -doption $ives to the adopted person the same ri$hts and duties as if he were a le$itimate child& Eence! this is a clear case of preterition of the le$all) adopted child& Preterition annuls the institution of an heir and annulment throws open to intestate succession the entire inheritance& *he onl) provisions which do not result in intestac) are the le$acies and devises made in the will for the) should stand valid and respected! e9cept insofar as the le$itimes are concerned& the universal institution of petitioner to$ether with his brothers and sisters to the entire inheritance of the testator results in totall) abro$atin$ the will because the nullification of such institution of universal heirs without an) other testamentar) disposition in the will amounts to a declaration that nothin$ at all was written& T!" d/*,0"n' "E"*,'"d 91 S"4,nd/ .& $ !/#/4-$2!.* %.## - holo$raphic will! as provided under -rticle 812 of the 0ivil 0ode! must be entirel) written! dated! and

SEANGIO + REYES

Petitioners filed a petition for the probate of the holo$raphic will of 8e$undo 8ean$io& Private respondents moved for the dismissal of the probate

(.22;)

proceedin$s primaril) on the $round that the document purportin$ to be the holo$raphic will does not contain an) disposition of the estate of the deceased and thus does not meet the definition of a will& -ccordin$ to private respondents! the will onl) shows an alle$ed act of disinheritance of the eldest son and nothin$ else? that all other compulsor) heirs were not named nor instituted as heir! devisee or le$atee! hence! there is preterition which would result to intestac)&

si$ned b) the hand of the testator himself& #t is sub<ect to no other form! and ma) be made in or out of the Philippines! and need not be witnessed& 8e$undo=s document! althou$h it ma) initiall) come across as a mere disinheritance instrument! conforms to the formalities of a holo$raphic will prescribed b) law& it written! dated and si$ned b) the hand of 8e$undo himself& -n intent to dispose $ortis causa can be clearl) deduced from the terms of the instrument! and while it does not make an affirmative disposition of the latter=s propert)! the disinheritance results in the disposition of the propert) of the testator 8e$undo in favor of those who would succeed in the absence of -lfredo *he compulsor) heirs in the direct line were not preterited in the will& #t was 8e$undo=s last e9pression to be(ueath his estate to all his compulsor) heirs! with the sole e9ception of -lfredo& -lso! 8e$undo did not institute an heir to the e9clusion of his other compulsor) heirs& *he mere mention of the name of one of the petitioners in the document did not operate to institute her as the universal heir& Eer name was onl) included plainl) as a witness to the altercation between the decedent and his son& T!" TCT .n '!" n$0" /) 2"'.'./n"- .& d"*#$-"d n,## $nd +/.d Dell6entrenched is the rule that all thin$s! even future ones! which are not outside the commerce of man ma) be the ob<ect of a contract& *he e9ception is that no contract ma) be entered into with respect to future inheritance! and the e9ception to the e9ception is the partition inter vivos referred to in -rticle 1282& - contract ma) be classified as a contract upon future inheritance! prohibited under the second para$raph of -rticle 1735! where the followin$ re(uisites occur@ 1) *hat the succession has not )et been opened .) *hat the ob<ect of the contract forms part of the inheritance 7) *hat the promissor) has! with respect to the ob<ect! am e9pectanc) of a ri$ht which is purel) hereditar) in nature -rticle 125; of the 0ivil 0ode (now -rticle 1282) authorizes a testator to partition inter vivos his propert)! and distribute them amon$ his heirs! and this partition is neither a donation nor a testament! but an instrument of a special character! sui "eneris! which is revocable at an) time b) the causante durin$ his lifetime and does not operate as a conve)ance of title until his death& #t derives its bindin$ force on the heirs from the respect due to the will of the owner of the propert)! limited onl) b) his creditors and the intan$ibilit) of the le$itime of the forced heirs& *he partition inter vivos of the properties of on Aulian is undoubtedl) valid pursuant to -rticle 1735& Eowever! considerin$ that it would become le$all) operatice onl) upon the death of on Aulian! the ri$ht of his heirs from the second marria$e to the properties ad<udicated to him under the compromise a$reement was but a mere e9pectanc)& #t was a bare hope of succession to the propert) of their father& Gein$ the prospect of a future ac(uisition! the interest b) its nature is inchoate& #t had no attribute of propert)! and the interest to which it related was at the time none9istent and mi$ht never e9ist& %videntl)! at the time of the e9ecution of the deed of assi$nment coverin$ "ot ;7 in favor of petitioner! on Aulian remained the owner fo the propert) since ownership over the sub<ect lot would onl) pass to his heirs from the second marria$e at the time of his death& *hus! as the owner of the sub<ect lot! on Aulian retained tha bsolute ri$ht to dispose of it durin$ his lifetime& Eowever! the issuance of *0* in the name of the petitioner is marred b) a $rave irre$ularit) which is also an ille$alit)& -s petitioner bases its ri$ht to the sub<ect lot on the 8upplemental eed! it should have presented it to the 'e$ister of eeds to secure the transfer of the title in its name& -pparentl)! it had not done so& *herefore! petitioner=s title was declared null and void&

:LT AGRO + 3ALANSAG (.221)

*he children of the first marria$e and the father entered into a 0ompromise a$reement which embodied the partition of all the properties of the father& One of the properties retained b) the father is "ot ;7& *he father and one of the children of the first marria$e e9ecuted a eed of -ssi$nment of -ssets with -ssumption of "iabilites in favor of petitioner which was followed b) a 8upplemental eed& *0* was issued in the name of petitioner b) virtue of these deeds& 4eanwhile! the second wife and children of the second marria$e immediatel) took possession over the sub<ect propert) and subse(uentl) sold it to respondents& Dhen respondents failed to re$ister the eed of -bsolute 8ale! the) filed a complaint seekin$ the declaration of nullit) and cancellation of title of petitioner& *he trial court dismissed the complaint but the 0reversed the trial court and held that b) virtue of the 0ompromise -$reement! the two sets of heirs ac(uired full ownership and possession of the properties respectivel) ad<udicated to them in the 0># decision (re 0ompromise -$reement) and the father could no lon$er dispose of the same! includin$ "ot ;7&

C C/n*,--"n*" /) */02,#&/-1 !".-& $nd '!".- */--"&2/nd.n4 #"4.'.0"& 3ARITUA + CA Gienvenido /acario! then drivin$ his tric)lcle! died P"'.'./n"-& $-" n/' #.$9#" '/ '!" 2-.+$'" -"&2/nd"n'& (2$-"n'&) as a result of an accident involvin$ the bus owned (1992) and operated b) petitioner& *he widow entered into *here is no den)in$ that the petitioners had paid their obli$ation arisin$ from the accident& *he widow an e9tra<udicial settlement with the insurer of the and her son with the deceased are the successors in interest referred to in law as the persons petitioner& 8he e9ecuted a +'elease of 0laim, on authorized to receive pa)ment& *he parents of the deceased succeed onl) when the latter dies without favor of petitioner and the insurer& 8ubse(uentl)! a le$itimate descendant& -s it has been established that Gienvenido was married to -licia and that the) the parents of Gienvenido filed a complaint for be$ot a child! the private respondents are not successors6in6interest of Gienvenido? the) are not dama$es a$ainst the petitioners claimin$ that the) compulsor) heirs& *he petitioners therefore acted correctl) in settlin$ their obli$ation with the widow& were the ones who paid for the funeral e9penses *his is so even if the widow had been estran$ed from Gienvenido& 4ere estran$ement is not a le$al and that Gienvenido owed them the purchase price $round for the dis(ualification of a survivin$ spouse as an heir of the deceased spouse& of the tric)cle& Dhile it ma) be true that the parents loaned the purchase price of the dama$ed tric)cle and shouldered the e9peses for his funeral! the said purchase price and e9penses are but mone) claims a$ainst the estate of their deceased son& IN RE PETITION Petitioner and first husband Primo "im were T!" 2"'.'./n )/- $d/2'./n %$& d"n."d :/.n' $d/2'./n 91 '!" !,&9$nd $nd %.)" .& -"<,.-"d FOR ADOPTION entrusted with the care of . children& *he) OF MICHELLE re$istered the children to make it appear that the) *he use of the word +shall, in 8ection 5 of '- 855. means that <oint adoption b) the husband and the LIM were the children=s parents& Primo died& Petitioner wife is mandator)& *his is in consonance with the concept of <oint parental authorit) over the child married her second husband! an -merican citizen& which is the ideal situation& (.229) Petitioner decided to adopt the . children b) availin$ of the amnest) $iven to those individuals -doption has the followin$ effects@ who simulated the birth of a child& Petitioners filed 1) 8ever all le$al ties between the biolo$ical parent(s) and the adoptee! e9cept when the the petition alone but her second husband biolo$ical parent is the spouse of the adopter? e9ecuted an -ffidavit of 0onsent for the adoption& .) eem the adoptee as a le$itimate child of the adopter? and *he children are alread) of a$e when the petition 7) Give adopter and adoptee reciprocal ri$hts and obli$ations arisin$ from the relationship of was filed& parent and child! includin$ but not limited to@ i& *he ri$ht of the adopter to choose the name the child is to be known? and ii& *he ri$ht of the adopter and adoptee to be le$al and compulsor) heirs of each other& *herefore! even if emanciation terminates parental authorit)! the adoptee is still considered a le$itimate child of the adopter with all the ri$hts of a le$itimate child such as@ 1) *o bear the surname of the father and the mother? .) *o receive support from their parents? and 7) *o be entitled to the le$itime and other successional ri$hts 0onversel)! the adoptive parents shall! with respect to the adopted child! en<o) all the benefits to which biolo$ical parents are entitled such as support and successional ri$hts& IN THE MATTER 8tephanie! a minor! is the ille$itimate child of Oes! 8tephanie should be permitted to use the surname of her natural mother as her middle name& OF THE 0atindi$ and Garcia& 0atindi$! now a widower! filed ADOPTION OF a petition to adopt 8tephanie& Ee also pra)ed that 8tephanie=s continued use of her mother=s surname as her middle name will maintain her material STEPHANIE her last name be chan$ed from +Garcia, to linea$e& 00189(7) and '- 855! -rt& :! 8ec& 18 provide that the adoptee remains the intestate heir of GARCIA +0atindi$, and that she be allowed to use her hisRher biolo$ical parent& 8tephanie can assert or claim her hereditar) ri$hts from her natural mother in biolo$ical mother=s surname as her middle name& the future& (.225) IN THE MATTER #n 1992! 0ristina! married to >ederico 8unta)! died *he attendant facts in this case necessitate! at least! a <oint administration b) %milio ### and #sabel of OF THE intestate& *heir onl) son! %milio #! died in 1959& 0ristina=s estate& INTESTATE 0ristina was survived b) her husband and 5 ESTATE OF $randchildren! includin$ %milio ### and #sabel& 'ule 58! 8ection ; of the 'O0 lists the order of preference in the appointment of an administrator of an SUNTAY estate! but this order isn=t absolute& #t depends on the attendant facts and circumstances of each case& %milio # was married and had 7 kids! one of whom

(.212)

was #sabel& Eis marria$e was later annulled! and he then had . kids! %milio ### and /enita! out of wedlock& *hese ille$itimate children were acknowled$ed b) %milio # and were raised b) >ederico and 0ristina& >ederico and 0ristina were estran$ed from their le$itimate $randchildren& #n 1997! >ederico adopted their $randchildren! %milio ### and /enita& ille$itimate

9da. de .e la Rosa v. @eirs of !arciana Rustia 9da. de .a$ian @ +PiQn the appointment of an administrator! the principal consideration is the interest in the estate of the one to be appointed& *he order of preference does not rule out the appointment of co6administrators! speciall) in cases where <ustice and e(uit) demand that opposin$ parties or factions be represented in the mana$ement of the estates&,

#n 1995! #sabel filed a petition for the issuance of letters of administration in her favor& >ederico opposed this! claimin$ he was capable of administerin$ the properties and that #sabel failed to include %milio ### and /enita as heirs in her petition& Ee later nominated %milio ### as administrator in his behalf& >ederico died in the course of the proceedin$s& D URETA URETA (.211) V R"&'-.*'./n& -"4$-d.n4 '!" #"4.'.0" -lfonso had 13 children& #n 19;9! he e9ecuted 3 eeds of 8ale in order to reduce inheritance ta9es& One of the eeds of 8ale was in favor of Policronio! coverin$ ; lots and which are the properties in dispute in this case& /o monetar) consideration was $iven for the sales! and -lfonso continued to own the lots until his death in 195.& Policronio died in 1953& Policronio=s heirs claimed the ; lots belon$ed to their late father and as such should be e9cluded from the eed of %9tra6Audicial Partition involvin$ -lfonso=s estate& *he) claimed -lfonso=s heirs cannot assail the validit) of the eed of 8ale since 0083. should appl)& D"'"-0.n$'./n /) */02,'$'./n COLLATION DI@ON-RIVERA -$ripina :aldez was survived b) 5 compulsor) V DI@ON heirs@ ; le$itimate children and one le$itimate $randdau$hter (a le$itimate dau$hter of -$ripina=s (1952) son who predeceased her)& #n her will she named as additional beneficiaries 5 other le$itimate $randkids& Fnder the will! . of her children! 4arina and *omas! received more than their le$itime while the other heirs received less& 4arina and *omas then reduced their shares in order to complete the others= le$itimes& *he devises remained untouched& 0andelaria de 'oma was survived b) her . le$all) E 0083. does not appl) to this case& 0083. refers to the freedom of disposition b) will! while this case involved a eed of 8ale& -lfonso=s heirs need not first prove that the disposition substantiall) diminished their successional ri$hts or undul) pre<udiced their le$itimes befor assailin$ the validit) of the eed of 8ale&

#n this case! collation is not re(uired since the amount of le$itime is determined and undisputed& 0092; and 925 safe$uard he ri$hts of compulsor) heirs to their le$itime& -d<udications and assi$nments in a will of specific properties to specific heirs cannot be considered devises&

DE ROMA V CA

*he eed of onation e9pressed an irrevocable donation! not an e9press prohibition to collate&

(1985)

LOCSIN V CA (199.)

VI@CONDE CA (1998)

adopted dau$hters! Guha) and 'osalinda& #n the intestate proceedin$s! Guha) was appointed administratri9 and submitted an inventor) which did not include properties earlier donated b) 0andelaria to Guha) and their fruits& 8he claimed the eed of onation contained an e9press prohibition to collate! i&e&! +sa pamama$itan n$ pa$bibi$a) na di mababawin$ muli&, 4ariano "ocsin and 0atalina Aaucian were married! and the) a$reed that after both of them died their respective properties would revert to their respective sides of the famil)& 4ariano died first& 0atalina be$an distributin$ properties to respective relatives on the "ocsin side& Dhen she died! some Aaucian relatives claimed the transfers were inofficious& 8pouses "auro and %strellita :izconde had . kids! 0armela and Aennifer& %strellita is the dau$hter of 'afael and 8alud /icolas& 8he had 3 other siblin$s! -ntonio! 'amon! *eresita! and 'icardo! an incompetent& -ntonio predeceased his parents and is survived b) his widow! Henaida! and their 3 kids& #n 1959! %strellita purchased from 'afael the :alenzuela propert)! as evidenced b) a eed of -bsolute 8ale& - *0* in %strellita=s favor was issued& #n 1992! she sold the propert) to "im and 0hiu& %strellita used the proceeds in purchasin$ a parcel of land with improvements (Parana(ue Propert))! a car! and the remainin$ amount was deposited in a bank& #n 1991! %strellita and her . dau$hters were killed (:izconde 4assacre)& *he /G# found that %strellita died ahead of her dau$hters& -ccordin$l)! "auro was left as the sole heir of his dau$hters& espite this! he entered into an %9tra6Audicial 8ettlement of the %state of %strellita /icolas6:izconde Dith Daiver of 8hares with 'afael and 8alud! who $ot 52b of the bank deposits& 'afael died intestate in 199.& 'amon claimed that the :alenzuela propert) was $iven to %strellita and pra)ed that their le$itime should come from the collation of all the properties distributed to his children b) 'afael durin$ his lifetime& "auro was considered an heir b) ri$ht of representation& -n$el Pascual died intestate in 1999! lavin$ as heirs his siblin$s@ -melia (represented b) her dau$hters -$nes and /ora)! >rancisco! and 4i$uel& >rancisco and 4i$uel claimed that a lot

8uch irrevocable donations are not e9cluded from 0012;1& Fnder this -rticle! the intent to e9empt from collation must be e9pressed plainl) and une(uivocall)&

*he properties conve)ed to the "ocsins durin$ 0atalina=s lifetime are not part of her hereditar) estate! and the Aaucians are not entitled to them& *he ri$hts to a person=s succession are transmitted from the moment of his death! and do not rest in his heirs until such time& #n an) case! the ri$ht arisin$ under certain circumstances to impu$n and compel the reductionRrevocation of a decedent=s $ifts inter vivos does not inure to the Aaucian relatives! since the) are neither the donees not the compulsor) heirs& 0ollation is not proper in this case& 0012;1 speaks of collation& *he 80 went on to define collation as +the act b) virtue of which descendants or other forced heirs who intervene in the division of the inheritance of an ascendant brin$ into the common mass! the propert) which the) received from him! so that the division ma) be made accordin$ to law and the will of the testator& 0ollation is onl) re(uired of compulsor) heirs succeedin$ with other compulsor) heirs and involves propert) or ri$hts received b) donation or $ratuitous title durin$ the lifetime of the decedent& *he purpose is to attain e(ualit) amon$ the compulsor) heirs in so far as possible for it is presumed that the intention of the testator or predecessor in interest makin$ a donation or $ratuitous transfer to a forced heir is to $ive him somethin$ in advance on account of his share in the estate! and that the predecessorLs will is to treat all his heirs e(uall)! in the absence of an) e9pression to the contrar)& 0ollation does not impose an) lien on the propert) or the sub<ect matter of collationable donation& Dhat is brou$ht to collation is not the propert) donated itself! but rather the value of such propert) at the time it was donated! the rationale bein$ that the donation is a real alienation which conve)s ownership upon its acceptance! hence an) increase in value or an) deterioration or loss thereof is for the account of the heir or donee&J *he probate court committed several errors@ 1) "auro! as 'afael=s son6in6law! is not a compulsor) heir as provided b) 00885 and should not be considered a part of the intestate estate proceedin$? .) #t went be)ond its <urisdiction when it determined the validit) of the sale between 'afael and %strellita? 7) #t prematurel) ordered the collation of the Parana(ue Propert) since the proceedin$s is still in its initiator) sta$e and there is nothin$ to indicate that the le$itimes of 'afael=s heir have been impaired? 3) %ven if collation is appropriate! the court erred in includin$ the Parana(ue Propert) since it was the :alenzuela Propert) which was transferred b) 'afael to %strellita? and 5) 'afael inherited from %strellita an amount more than the value of the :alenzuela propert)! therefore collation cannot be allowed since the value of such propert) has lon$ been returned to 'afael=s estate&

ARELLANO PASCUAL (.212)

0ollation is not proper! because it takes place when there are compulsor) heirs& #n this case! -n$el is survived onl) b) his siblin$s! who are collateral relatives and as such are not entitled to an) le$itime& *he decedent not havin$ left an) compulsor) heir who is entitled to an) le$itime! he was at libert) to donate all his properties! even if nothin$ was left for his siblin$s6collateral relatives to inherit& Eis

transferred b) -n$el to -melia via a eed of onation should be considered as an advance le$itime to the latter& *he probate court provisionall) passed upon the (uestion of the title of the donated propert) onl) for the purpose of determinin$ whether it formed part of -n$el=s estate& #t found the donation valid! but invoked 0012;1 and ruled that the donated propert) is sub<ect to collation& *he probate court didn=t partition -n$el=s estate e(uall) amon$ -melia! >rancisco! and 4i$uel& F F-""d/0 '/ d.&2/&" )-"" 2/-'./n

donation to -melia! assumin$ that it was valid! is deemed as donation made to a +stran$er!, char$eable a$ainst the free portion of the estate& *here bein$ no compulsor) heir! however! the donated propert) is not sub<ect to collation& *he estate should be partitioned e(uall) amon$ the heirs! pursuant to 001227 and 1223&

PRINCIPLES AFFECTING LEGITIME FII PRETERITION ESCUIN V *he testator e9ecuted a will before a notar) public ESCUIN in 8pain! wherein he stated that in case he had a dul) re$istered successor! his child would be his (1928) sole and universal heir! but if there was no such heir his father and his father=s wife would divide the estate between them e(uall)& A@NAR DUNCAN (19;;) V *he testator had a natural child! %milio& 0hristensen! a citizen of 0alifornia domiciled in the PE! died& *he 0># approved a pro<ect of partition dividin$ the estate between "uc) and Eelen! who was declared a natural child of the deceased& #n 0hristensen=s will "uc) was instituted as an heir! and the 0># held that since Eelen was preterited such institution was annulled& "uc) claimed that since Eelen was $iven a le$ac) under the will! this case did not involve preterition! but falls under 0092;& "uc) also claimed that since Eelen was left a le$ac) despite the fact that 0hristensen e9pressl) denied his relation to her! Eelen was defectivel) disinherited& 'osario died without descendants! le$itimate or ille$itimate& 8urvivin$ her were her le$itimate parents T >eli9 and Paz! and ; brothers and sisters& 'emedios! one of the sister filed in court a holo$raphic will alle$edl) e9ecuted b) 'osario institutin$ the former as the sole! universal heir of all her properties& 8he pra)ed that said will be admitted to probate and that letter of administration be issued to her& >eli9 and Paz opposed to the probate of the will on the $round that b) the institution of 'emedios as universal heir of the deceased! oppositors T who are compulsor) heirs in the direct ascendin$ line T were ille$all)

*he testator could validl) leave .R7 of the propert) to his father and to his father=s wife& %milio was an acknowled$ed natural child and a $eneral heir& Fnder 0083. a natural child is entitled to 1R7 of the estate& 8ince %milio was i$nored b) the testator in the latter=s will! the desi$nation of heirs therein was annulled b) force of law insofar as the le$al portion of the son was impaired& "e$acies and betterments shall be valid! insofar as the) are not ille$al& - forced heir who $ets a le$ac) worth less than his le$itime but without bein$ referred to as an heir or even as a relative cannot ask that the entire institution of heirs be annulled! but onl) that the le$itime be completed& Preterition 6 the omission of an heir in the will! either b) not namin$ him at all! or while mentionin$ him as father! son! etc&! b) not institutin$ him as heir without disinheritin$ him e9pressl)! nor assi$nin$ to him some part of the le$itime&

N,4,.d +& N,4,.d (17==)

Dhere the deceased left no descendants! le$itimate or ille$itimate! but she left forced heirs in the direct ascendin$ line T her parents! and her holo$raphic will does not e9plicitl) disinherit them but simpl) omits their names alto$ether! the case is one of preterition of the parents! not a case of ineffective disinheritance& Preterition +consists in the omission in the testator=s will of the forced heirs or an)one of them! either because the) are not mentioned therein! or! throu$h mentioned! the) are neither instituted as heirs nor are e9pressl) disinherited,& isinheritance! in turn! +is a testamentar) disposition deprivin$ an) compulsor) heir of his share in the le$itime for a cause authorized b) law,& Dhere the one sentence will institutes the petitioner as the sole! universal heir and preterits the parents of the testatri9! and it contains no specific le$acies or be(uests! such universal institution of petitioner! b) itself! is void& -nd intestate succession ensues&

preterited and that in conse(uence! the institution is void& Petitioners contention is that the present is a case of ineffective disinheritance rather than one of preterition drawin$ the conclusion that -rticle 853 does not appl) in the case at bar& R"1"& +& 3$--"'/-D$', (17=>) Dhen Gibiano Garretto died! he left his share of his properties in a will to 8alud Garretto! mother of plaintiff=s wards! and "ucia 4ila$ros Garretto and a small portion as le$acies to his two sisters 'osa Garretto and >elisa Garretto and his nephew and nieces& *he usufruct of the fishpond situated in Garrio 8an 'o(ue was reserved for his widow! 4aria Gerardo& Fpon 4aria Gerardo=s death! it was discovered that she had e9ecuted two wills! in the first of which! she instituted 8alud and 4ila$ros! both surnamed Garretto! as her heirs? and! in the second! she revoked the same and left all her properties in favor of 4ila$ros Garretto alone& *hus! the later will was allowed and the first re<ected& #n re<ectin$ the first will presented b) *irso 'e)es! as $uardian of the children of 8alud Garretto! the lower court held that 8alud was not the dau$hter of the decedent 4aria Gerardo b) her husband Gibiano Garretto& "eode$aria Aulian died& 8he was survived b) herhusband! >eli9 Galana)! 8r&! and si9 le$itimate children& >eli9 Galana)! Ar& filed a petition for the probate of his mother=s notarial will! which was written in %n$lish& #n that will! "eode$aria declared that it was her desire her properties should not be divided amon$ her heirs durin$ her husbandLs lifetime and that their le$itimes should be satisfied out of the fruits of her properties& 8he devised and partitioned the con<u$al lands as if the) were all owned b) her& 8he disposed of in the will her husbandLs one6half share of the con<u$al assets& >eli9 Galana)! 8r& and -velina G& -ntonio opposed the probate of the will& *hereafter! >eli9 Galana)! 8r& si$ned an instrument waivin$ and renouncin$ his ri$ht in "eode$aria=s estate in favor of their ; children& Gienvenido and %meteria filed an action for reco$nition a$ainst 4elita 8olano 4eliton died durin$ the pendenc) of the petition and his dau$hter substituted him while askin$ for the probate of the will of the decedent& '*0 specified the le$al issues as 1) the reco$nition of Garcias! .) #f there is a compulsor) heir in the direct line! such heir is instituted in the will! and the testamentar) disposition $iven to such heir is less than her le$itime! there is no preterition& *here is no total omission! inasmuch as the heir received somethin$ from the inheritance& *he remed) is for completion of le$itime under -rticles 92; and 925&

3$#$n$1 +& M$-'.n"6 (17>D)

T!" '-.$# */,-' $*'"d */--"*'#1 .n 2$&&.n4 ,2/n '!" %.##L& .n'-.n&.* +$#.d.'1 "+"n 9")/-" .'& )/-0$# +$#.d.'1 !$d 9""n "&'$9#.&!"d T!" 2-/9$'" /) $ %.## 0.4!' 9"*/0" $n .d#" *"-"0/n1 .) /n .'& )$*" .' $22"$-& '/ 9" .n'-.n&.*$##1 +/.d & Gut the probate court erred in declarin$ that the will was void and in convertin$ the testate proceedin$ into an intestate proceedin$& *he will is intrinsicall) valid and the partition therein ma) be $iven effect if it does not pre<udice the creditors and impair the le$itimes& *he distribution and partition would become effective upon the death of >eli9 Galana)! 8r& #n the meantime! the net income should be e(uitabl) divided amon$ the children and the survivin$ spouse& (Relate to (rticles JJA and JM+ 6 <n t&is case- t&ere is testa$entary succession because it resulted fro$ t&e desi"nation of &eirs by t&e testatrix- $ade in a will executed in t&e for$ prescribed by law. <t can be considered as a $ixed succession because t&ere is partly by will %execution of t&e will and execution of t&e waiver' and by operation of law %as to t&e s&are of t&e &usband of t&e con;u"al party of w&ic& &e eventually waived.'

S/#$n/ +& CA (1783)

*hat bein$ compulsor) heirs! the Garcias were preterited from 4eliton=s will! and as a result! 8onia=s institution as sole heir is null and void pursuant to -rt& 853 +*he preterition or omission of one! some or all of the compulsor) heirs in the direct line! whether livin$ at the time of the e9ecution of the will or born after the death of the testator! shall annul the institution of heir! but the devises and le$acies shall be valid^ *he intention of the decedent is to favor 8onia with certain portions of his propert) which the testator

correct status of Honia! 7) the hereditar) share of each of them in view of the probated will& #n decidin$! '*0 declared Garcias as ille$itimate children of late 4eliton&? the institution of 8onia as sole heir declared null and void! the 7 children shall share e(uall) the estate 0- affirmed& A*$.n +& CA (178>) 0onstantino filed a petition for the probate of the will of the late /emesio& *he will provided that all his shares from properties he earned with his wife shall be $iven to his brother 8e$undo (father of 0onstantino)& #n case 8e$undo dies! all such propert) shall be $iven to 8e$undo=s children& 8e$undo pre6deceased /emesio& *he oppositors :ir$inia! a le$all) adopted dau$hter of the deceased! and the latterLs widow 'osa filed a motion to dismiss on the followin$ $rounds@ (1) the petitioner has no le$al capacit) to institute these proceedin$s? (.) he is merel) a universal heir and (7) the widow and the adopted dau$hter have been preterited&

had the ri$ht to such so that it should be upheld as to the one6half portion of the propert) that the testator could freel) dispose of 8onia=s share is hereb) declared to be 3R; of the estate and Garcias 1R; each& *he usufruct in favor of will should not be invalidated all to$ether&

P-"'"-.'./n consists in the omission in the testatorLs will of the forced heirs or an)one of them either because the) are not mentioned therein! or! thou$h mentioned! the) are neither instituted as heirs nor are e9pressl) disinherited& #nsofar as the widow is concerned! -rticle 853 ma) not appl) as she does not ascend or descend from the testator! althou$h she is a compulsor) heir& E+"n .) '!" &,-+.+.n4 &2/,&" .& $ */02,#&/-1 !".-, '!"-" .& n/ 2-"'"-.'./n "+"n .) &!" .& /0.''"d )-/0 '!" .n!"-.'$n*", )/- &!" .& n/' .n '!" d.-"*' #.n"& *he same thin$ cannot be said of the other respondent :ir$inia! whose le$al adoption b) the testator has not been (uestioned b) petitioner& Ad/2'./n 4.+"& '/ '!" $d/2'"d 2"-&/n '!" &$0" -.4!'& $nd d,'."& $& .) !" %"-" $ #"4.'.0$'" *!.#d /) '!" $d/2'"- $nd 0$("& '!" $d/2'"d 2"-&/n $ #"4$# !".- /) '!" $d/2'"- #t cannot be denied that she was totall) omitted and preterited in the will of the testator and that both adopted child and the widow were deprived of at least their le$itime& /either can it be denied that the) were not e9pressl) disinherited& *his is a clear case of preterition of the le$all) adopted child& Preterition annuls the institution of an heir and annulment throws open to intestate succession the entire inheritance& *he onl) provisions which do not result in intestac) are the le$acies and devises made in the will for the) should stand valid and respected! e9cept insofar as the le$itimes are concerned& *he universal institution of petitioner to$ether with his brothers and sisters to the entire inheritance of the testator results in totall) abro$atin$ the will because the nullification of such institution of universal heirs 6 without an) other testamentar) disposition in the will 6 amounts to a declaration that nothin$ at all was written& #n order that a person ma) be allowed to intervene in a probate proceedin$ he must have an interest in the estate! or in the will! or in the propert) to be affected b) it& Petitioner is not the appointed e9ecutor! neither a devisee or a le$atee there bein$ no mention in the testamentar) disposition of an) $ift of an individual item of personal or real propert) he is called upon to receive& -t the outset! he appears to have an interest in the will as an heir& Eowever! intestac) havin$ resulted from the preterition of respondent adopted child and the universal institution of heirs! petitioner is in effect not an heir of the testator& Ee has no le$al standin$ to petition for the probate of the will left b) the deceased& *he hereditar) title is one without a valuable consideration P$ratuitous titleQ& Ee who ac(uires b) inheritance $ives nothin$ in return for what he receives& -rt& 811! O00 provides@ +*he ascendant who inherits from his descendant propert) which the latter ac(uired without a valuable consideration from another ascendant! or from a brother or sister! is under obli$ation to reserve what he has ac(uired b) operation of law for the relatives who are within the third de$ree and belon$ to the line whence the propert) proceeded&, 4arcelina %droso! ascendant of Pedro 8ablan! inherited from him these two parcels of land which he ac(uired without a valuable consideration T that is! b) inheritance from another ascendant! his father :ictoriano& Eavin$ ac(uired them b) operation of law! she is obli$ated to reserve them intact for the claimants! who are uncles or relatives within the third de$ree and belon$ to the line of 4ariano 8ablan and 4aria 'ita >ernandez! whence the lands proceeded& *he trial courtLs rulin$ that the) partake of the nature of propert) re(uired b) law to be reserved is therefore in accordance with the law& #f Pedro 8ablan had instituted his mother in a will as the universal heiress of his propert)! all he left at death would not be re(uired b) law to be reserved! but onl) what he would have perforce left her as the

FIII RESERVA TRONCAL Ed-/&/ +& 4arcelina %droso was married to :ictoriano 8ablan S$9#$n (1713) until his death on 8ept& ..! 188.& #n this marria$e the) had a son named Pedro! who was born on -u$ust 1! 1881! and who at his fatherLs death inherited the two said parcels& Pedro also died on Aul) 15! 192.! unmarried and without issue! and b) his decease the two parcels of land in Pa$san<an! "a$una! passed throu$h inheritance to his mother! 4arcelina %droso& Eence the hereditar) title whereupon is based the application for re$istration of her ownership& *wo le$itimate brothers of :ictoriano 8ablan Puncles $erman of PedroQ appeared in the case to oppose the re$istration! claimin$ either (1) that the

re$istration be denied O' (.) that if $ranted to her the ri$ht reserved b) law to the opponents be recorded in the re$istration of each parcel& *he 0ourt of "and 'e$istration denied the re$istration and the applicant appealed throu$h a bill of e9ceptions& 'e$istration was denied because the trial court held that the parcels of land in (uestion partake of the nature of propert) re(uired b) law to be reserved and that in such a case application could onl) be presented <ointl) in the names of the mother and the said two uncles of Pedro 8ablan& S."n"& +& E&2$-*.$ (17=1) "ot 77;8 ori$inall) belon$ed to 8aturnino Oaeso& Dith his first wife! *eresa 'uales! he had four children named -$aton! >ernando! Paulina and 0ipriana! while with his second wife! -ndrea Gutan$! he had an onl) son named >rancisco& -ccordin$ to the cadastral records of -)u(uitan! 8aturnino upon his death left "ot 77;8 (western portion) to >rancisco& -s a result of the cadastral proceedin$s! Ori$inal 0ertificate of *itle /o& 12.55 coverin$ "ot 77;8 was issued in the name of >rancisco& Gecause >rancisco was a minor at the time! his mother -ndrea Gutan$ administered the propert) for him& Dhen >rancisco died! sin$le and without an) descendant! his mother! as his solheir! e9ecuted the public instrument entitled %V*'-AF #0#-" 8%**"%4%/* -/ 8-"% whereb)! amon$ other thin$s! for and in consideration of the sum of P822&22 she sold the propert) in (uestion to appellants& Dhen thereafter said vendees demanded from Paulina Oaeso and her husband Aose %sparcia! the surrender of O0* /o& 12.55 M which was in their possession M the latter refused! thus $ivin$ rise to the filin$ of the correspondin$ motion in the cadastral record /o& 525& *he same! however! was denied& -polonio Ar&=s first marria$e to -ntonia produced nine children& -ntonia died so -polonio contracted a second marria$e with 8everina with whom he had two children 4erces and -polonio ###& Out of -polonio=s children b) -ntonia! three remained unmarried until their respective deaths& *he petitioners in this case are the survivin$ children of -polonio=s children b) -ntonia alon$ with the heirs of -polonio=s other married children who had since died&

le$al portion of a le$itimate ascendant& P-rt& 829! O00&Q #n such case onl) the half constitutin$ the le$al portion would be re(uired b) law to be reserved! because it is what b) operation of law would fall to the mother from her sonLs inheritance? the other half at free disposal would not have to be reserved& *his is all that article 811 of the 0ivil 0ode sa)s& Proof of testate succession devolves upon the heir or heiress who alle$es it& #n this case! the interested part) has not proved that either of the lots became 4arcelina=s inheritance throu$h the free disposal of her son&

-s held b) the trial court! it is clear upon the facts alread) stated! that the land in (uestion was reservable propert)& >rancisco Oaeso inherited it b) operation of law from his father 8aturnino! and upon >ranciscoLs death! unmarried and without descendants! it was inherited! in turn! b) his mother! -ndrea Gutan$& *he latter was! therefore! under obli$ation to reserve it for the benefit of relatives within the third de$ree belon$in$ to the line from which said propert) came! if an) survived her& *he record discloses in this connection that -ndrea Gutan$ died! the lone reserve survivin$ her bein$ 0ipriana Oaeso& #n connection with reservable propert)! the wei$ht of opinion is that the reserve creates two resolutor) conditions! namel)! (1) the death of the ascendant obli$ed to reserve and (.) the survival! at the time of his death! of relatives within the third de$ree belon$in$ to the line from which the propert) came& *he 0ourt has held in connection with this matter that the reservista has the le$al title and dominion to the reservable propert) but sub<ect to a resolutor) condition? that he is like a life usufructuar) of the reservable propert)? that he ma) alienate the same but sub<ect to reservation! said alienation transmittin$ onl) the revocable and conditional ownership of the reservists! the ri$hts ac(uired b) the transferee bein$ revoked or resolved b) the survival of reservatarios at the time of the death of the reservista&

F#/-"n'.n/ +& F#/-"n'.n/ (1717)

%ven if 8everina left in her will said propert)! to$ether with her own! to her onl) dau$hter and forced heiress! 4ercedes >lorentino! nevertheless this propert) had not lost its reservable nature inasmuch as it ori$inated from the common ancestor of the liti$ants! -polonio Ar& *he ri$ht of the nearest relative! called reservatario! over the propert) which the reservista (person holdin$ it sub<ect to reservation) should return to him! e9cludes that of the one more remote& *he ri$ht of representation cannot be alle$ed when the one claimin$ same as a reservatario of the reservable propert) is not amon$ the relatives within the third de$ree belon$in$ to the line from which such propert) came from&

-polonio died on >ebruar) 17! 1892! survived b) his window 8everina and his ten children& Eis second child -polonio ### b) 8everina was born after his death&On Aanuar) 15 and >ebruar) 17! 1892! -polonio #sabelo >lorentino e9ecuted a will before the notar) public of #locos 8ur! institutin$ as his universal heirs his ten childrenhis widow 8everina and his )et unborn son -polonio ###& Ee declared that his propert) should be divided e(uall) amon$ his children& -mon$ the properties received b) -polonio ### were the properties marked -! G! 0! ! % and >& -polonio ### died in 1891 and his mother succeeded to all his propert) described in the complaint& Dhen 8everina died! she left a will desi$natin$ her dau$hter 4ercedes as the universal heiress& 4ercedes took possession of her mother=s propert)! includin$ the properties marked - to > which 8everina inherited from her son& 4ercedes had been $atherin$ the fruits of the said properties for herself& Fpon the death of Genita (the reservista) on Oct 15! 195.! the heirs took possession of the reservable properties& 0># "a$una declared the children of 4anuel and 0andelaria to be the ri$htful reservees! and as such! entitled to the reservable properties (the ori$inal reservees! 0andelaria and 4anuel! havin$ predeceased the reservista)& *he Galdovino heirs filed a petition seekin$ to have the properties partitioned! such that one6half be ad<udicated to them! and the other half to the appellees! alle$edl) on the basis that the) inherited b) ri$ht of representation from their respective parents! the ori$inal reservees& Padura heirs opposed! maintainin$ that the) should all be deemed as inheritin$ in their own ri$ht! under which! the) claim! each should have an e(ual share& (#n essence! the Galdovino heirs! who are whole blood relatives of the reservista! were contendin$ that the) should $et more than their half6blood relatives! the Padura heirs& *he) anchor their claim on -rticles 122; and 1228 of the 0ivil 0ode)& #t appears that in the first marria$e of Aose >rias 0hua with Patricia 8& 4ilitar alias 8) Uuio he sired three children! namel)@ #$nacio! "orenzo and 4anuel& Dhen Patricia died! Aose >rias 0hua contracted a second marria$e with 0onsolacion de

/evertheless there is ri$ht of representation on the part of reservatarios who are within the third de$ree! mentioned b) law! as in the case of nephews of the deceased person from whom the reservable propert) came& *hese reservatarios have the ri$ht to represent their ascendants (fathers and mothers) who are the brothers of the said deceased person and relatives within the third de$ree& #n this case it is conceded without denial b) defendants! that the plaintiffs are the le$itimate children of the first marria$e of the deceased -polonio Ar& to -ntonia& *here are then seven 1reservatarios1 who are entitled to the reservable propert) left at the death of -polonio ###@ %ncarnacion! Gabriel! 4a$dalena? his three children! Aose! %spirita and Pedro who are represented b) their own twelve children respectivel)? and 4ercedes >lorentino! his dau$hter b) a second marria$e&

P$d,-$ +& 3$#d/+.n/ (17D8)

*he nephews of the whole blood should take a share twice as lar$e as that of the nephews of the half blood& *he reserva troncal is a special rule desi$ned primaril) to assure the return of the reservable propert) to the third de$ree relatives belon$in$ to the line from which the propert) ori$inall) came! and avoid its bein$ dissipated into and b) the relatives of the inheritin$ ascendant (reservista)& -rticle 891 of the 0ode provides@ (RT MA*. T&e ascendant w&o in&erits fro$ &is descendant any property w&ic& t&e latter $ay &ave ac#uired by "ratuitous title fro$ anot&er ascendant- or a brot&er or sister- is obli"ed to reserve suc& property as &e $ay &ave ac#uired by operation of law for t&e benefit of relatives w&o are wit&in t&e t&ird de"ree and w&o belon" to t&e line fro$ w&ic& said property ca$e. *he purpose of the reserva troncal is accomplished once the propert) has devolved to the specified relatives of the line of ori$in& Gut from this time on! there is no further occasion for its application& #n the relations between one reservatario and another of the same de$ree! there is no call for appl)in$ -rt 891 an) lon$er? the respective share of each in the reversionar) propert) should be $overned b) the ordinar) rules of interstate succession&

C!,$ +& CFI (17>>)

*he pertinent provision of reserva troncal provides@ -'*& 891& *he ascendant who inherits from his descendant an) propert) which the latter ma) have ac(uired b) $ratuitous title from another ascendant! or a brother or sister! is obli$ed to reserve such propert) as he ma) have ac(uired b) operation of law for the benefit of relatives who are within the

la *orre with whom he had a child b) the name of Auanita >rias 0hua& 4anuel died without leavin$ an) issue& *hen in 19.9! Aose died intestate leavin$ his widow 0onsolacion and his son Auanito of the second marria$e and sons #$nacio and "orenzo of his first marria$e& #n the #ntestate Proceedin$! the lower court issued an order ad<udicatin$! amon$ others! the one6half portion of "ot /o& 799 and the sum of P8!222&22 in favor of AoseLs widow! 0onsolacion! the other half of "ot /o& 799 in favor of Auanito? P7!222&22 in favor of "orenze? and P1!552&22 in favor of #$nacio& G) virtue of said ad<udication! a *0* was issued b) the 'e$ister of eeds in the names of 0onsolacion and Auanito& On >eb&.5! 195.! Auanito died intestate without an) issue& -fter his death! his mother 0onsolacion succeeded to his pro6indivisio share of "ot /o& 799& #n a weekLs time! 0onsolacion e9ecuted a declaration of heirship ad<udicatin$ in her favor the proindiviso share of her son Auanito as a result of which a *0* coverin$ the whole lot was issued in her name& *hen on 4arch 5! 19;;! 0onsolacion died intestate leavin$ no direct heir either in the descendin$ or ascendin$ line e9cept her brother and sisters& #n the 1#ntestate %state of 0onsolacion de la *orre1! the petitioners herein! #$nacio! of the first marria$e and ominador and 'emedios 0hua! the supposed le$itimate children of the deceased "orenzo 0hua! also of the first marria$e filed the complaint before the respondent 0># of /e$ros Occidental! pra)in$ that the one6half portion of "ot /o& 799 which formerl) belon$ed to Auanito but which passed to 0onsolacion upon the latterLs death! be declared as a reservable propert) for the reason that the lot in (uestion was sub<ect to reserval troncal pursuant to -rticle 981 of the /00& Parcels of land in Uuezon 0it)! 4anila! *a)abas and Ga$uio were passed on within the "e$arda famil) upon the death of Genito . (father) in 1977 and >ilomena . (dau$hter) ten )ears after& >ilomena 1 (mother) was sole heiress to her dau$hter=s properties includin$ those from Genito . and the elder Genito 1 ($randfather)& 8he partitioned the propert) from the $randfather with her si9 survivin$ children! and then willed the father=s properties to her $randchildren throu$h her sons& au$hter Geatriz (sister to >ilomena .) claimed

third de$ree and belon$ to the line from which said propert) came& #n order that a propert) ma) be impressed with a reservable character the followin$ re(uisites must e9ist@ (1) that the propert) was ac(uired b) a descendant from an ascendant or from a brother or sister b) $ratuitous title? (.) that said descendant died without an issue? (7) that the propert) is inherited b) another ascendant b) operation of law? and (3) that there are relatives within the third de$ree belon$in$ to the line from which said propert) came& #n this case! all of the fore$oin$ re(uisites are present& Auanito died intestate? he died without leavin$ an) issue? his pro6indiviso of 1R. share of "ot /o& 799 was ac(uired b) his mother? Auanito who died intestate had relatives within the third de$ree& *hese relatives are #$nacio and ominador and 'emidios! the supposed le$itimate children of the deceased "orenzo! who are the petitioners herein&

G/n6$#"& + CFI 1781

*he properties are reservable! and since the) do not form part of her estate! are not hers to $ive awa)& #n reserva troncal! there must be three transmissions@ 1) b) lucrative title from an ancestor! brother or sister Pori$inQ to a descendant PprepositusQ! .) b) operation of law from the descendant to another ascendant! and 7) from the reservor to relatives within the third de$ree (reservista)& *hose who finall) inherit must le$itimatel) b) blood belon$ to the line of the first ascendant& Dithin the third de$ree! the nearest relatives e9clude the more remote sub<ect to the rule of representation& Eere! the brothers and sisters are indeed the reservatarios! and as such e9clude the $ranchildren as heirs& *he law (-rticle 891) re(uires that the propert) be passed on to them! and an) testamentar) disposition! even if mutuall) a$reed upon! will be void&

that the properties were reservable properties and should thus be $iven to her and five other siblin$s& urin$ the pendenc) of the probate of >ilomena 1=s will! Geatriz filed a separate civil action a$ainst her relatives for the purpose of securin$ a declaration that the properties were reservable& -unt 'omana donated four parcels of land to *oribia& Dhen *oribia died in 1915! she left the said propert) to >austino and *rinidad! her children& Dhen her father Galbino (borther of 'omana) died in 19.8! three percels of land were ad<udicated to *oribia and since she predeceased her father! the same was $iven to $randchildren >austino and *rinidad& >austino died in 1975 and left his & pro6indiviso share in the seven lands to his father %ustacio izon! sub<ect to reserve troncal& Dhen *rinidad died in 1979! all her & pro6indiviso share were inherited b) dau$hter alisa)! sub<ect to usufruct of husband Primo *on$ko& %ustacio died in 19;5! survived b) his onl) $randdau$hter alisa)& alisa) claims the & b) virtue of the reserva troncal implied b) law upon the death of >austino& e Papa and other plaintiffs! as uncles and aunts! also claim& of the & pro6indiviso share! bein$ a third relative of >austino& *he lower court ruled that the plaintiffs and defendant are all entitled as reservatarios& /ot satisfied! alisa) asked the 80 if there will be no distinction as to de$ree of relation of the heirs& FIV 3$n$%$ + M.-$n/ 1780 RESERVA ADOPTIVA 4aria 4irano was de facto adopted b) spouses Ganawa because the) were childless& 8he was a niece treated like their own child! and as it appears! was named as bu)er of several parcels of land procured b) the spouses Ganawa& Dhen 4aria died! her sister and nephewsRnieces throu$h a brother! claimed that two parcels under her name! the #ba and 0arsuche properties! were due them via intestate succession& *he spouses Ganawa claim otherwise! sa)in$ that the) put it in the name of 4aria onl) to secure it as future inheritance& >or the 0arsuche propert) *he 4iranos onl) own the #ba propert)! and the Ganawa the 0arsuche& 4akasiar dissented! sa)in$ that the sale in favor of 4aria were simulated! and the fact that she was not le$all) adopted compared to Gliceria! meant that she was not meant to inherit much& *he #ba propert) was considered b) the lower courts as a donation intervivos& *he spouses Ganawa ma) have paid for the parcels of land! but the mone) had been donated to 4aria& %ven the conduct of the spouses durin$ the time of the sale correponds with their intent to $ive the propert) to 4aria& *hus! the document presented is what is purports to be@ a deed of sale between 4aria and the sellers& *he court brushed aside ar$uments that 1) it is a simulated sale shortcuttin$ the sale to the spouses Ganawa and then a donation to 4aria? .) there is implied trust Pthe transactions took place before the 0ivil 0ode was applicable! sorr)Q? and 7) b) ac(uisitve prescription the Ganawas were owners& *he 0arsuche propert)! meanwhile! had sufficient proof to show that it was owned b) the Ganawas&

D" P$2$ + C$0$*!/ 178=

alisa) as the closest relative in blood line! e9cludes the others! and thus is the sole reservatario& "ower court reversed& *he court discussed reserva troncal as merel) determinin$ the $roup of relatives PreservatariosQ to whom the propert) should be returned& Gut within that $roup! the individual ri$ht to the propert) should be decided b) the applicable rules of ordinar) intestate succession! since -rt& 891 does not specif) otherwise& *his condition stren$thened b) the circumstances that the reserve bein$ an e9ceptional case! its application should be limited to what is strictl) needed to accomplish the purpose of the law& Eence! reservation of the reservable propert) bein$ $overned b) the rules on intestate succession! alisa) must be held without an) ri$ht thereto because! as aunt and uncles of >austino PpropositusQ! the) are e9cluded from the succession b) his niece! the latter bein$ the nearest relative& i e9cludes that of the one more remoteQ&

however! there are two documents claimed to e9ist@ a public instrument where 4aria is the vendee! and a private instrument in the handwritin$ of the seller in favor of the spouses& /either document was presented before the court& #n the interim! spouses Ganawa died and in their stead were Gliceria -brenica! who was le$all) adopted b) the spouses! and husband& *he lower court and the 0- both ruled that the 4iranos were the lawful owners of the properties& 4aria 4ortera e9ecuted a will in 8panish where she made a statement that she was in in full use of her mental faculties! free from ille$al pressure or influence! and that she had no one entitled to le$itime& Aosefina was made sole and universal heir to remiander of the properties not disposed of& 8he $ave a le$ac) to 'ene *eotico! husband of niece Aosefine 4ortera? a buildin$ to their children? but the usufruct of her interest in such buildin$ to the parents (*eotico spouses)& -na del :al 0han! claimin$ to be an adopted child of 4aria=s sister and natural child of a brother! thus also a niece! claimed that there was duress when the will was si$ned! and the will should be inoperative a$ainst 'ene because he was the attendin$ ph)sician& *he probate court admitted the will but voided the part for 'ene& Goth parties appealed! 'ene sa)in$ -na had no personalit) and -na contestin$ the probate of the will& FV C!.n4 + R/d-.4,"6 2011 DISINHERITANCE "im 8anR-ntonio 0hin$ had several sets of ille$itimate families& 0ommon6law wife 4ercedes bore two sons& -nother wife "ucina bore 'amon! who is alle$ed to be adopted with his birth certificate merek) simulated& 'amon is prime suspect in the death of -ntonio b) stabbin$! and was at lar$e for the entire period& Gut before he was formall) ta$$ed as a suspect! 'amon had alread) tried to dispose of the properties& Ee made an inventor)! whereupon he transferred some properties! shares of stock to

*he sale to 4aria was in 1975! but it was sold a$ain to the Ganawas in 1932& espite this double sale! ac(uisitive prescription set in after 12 )ears& *his was computed 12 )ears after the re$istration of the propert) with the 'e$ister of eeds (second sale)& Gad faith (that the land had been previousl) sold to 4aria) is of no conse(uence as lon$ as the possession was open! public! continuous and under a claim of title& Other points@ onation can be perfected with actual or constructive deliver)& %9tra<udicial adoption is not within the contemplation of the rules of reversion adoptive&

T"/'.*/ + D"# V$ 17=D

-na does have no personalit) in the probate proceedin$s! and will ma) be allowed on the stren$th of the testimon) of the witnesses& *he voidin$ of the le$ac) for 'ene! meanwhile! was not done with due process& *hus all other pronouncements re$ardin$ the disposition of the estate in favor of some relative must be set aside& 'emanded for further proceedin$s& 1) -n intervenor must have interest in the estate either as heir! e9ecutor! or administrator! or has a claim to propert) affected b) the will& -lso! even if -na ma) be a relative b) blood! she is ille$itimate? if b) adoption! the relation is onl) confined between the adoptor and the adoptee& .) - probate court cannot entertain (uestions as to the instrinsic validit) or le$alit) of provisions of the will because its onl) purpose is to determine if the will has been e9ecuted in accordance with the re(uirements of the law&:alid issues are@ capacit) of testator! were formallities complied with! etc&

*he trial court had <urisdiction over this ordinar) civil action One $larin$ point is that there is no will to consider in the supposed disinheritance of 'amon& *he complaint was haphazrdl) put to$ether@ disinheritance T this would be a special proceedin$[ T declaration of nullit) of a$reement and waiver! e9tra<udicial settlement! etc& Gut it was allowed b) the court as an ordinar) civil suit because it delves mainl) on the (uestion of ownership of the properties& 8till! a settlement proceedin$ must follow thereafter! to recover the properties that 'amon had transferred to his name&

himself alread)& Ee coa9ed 4ercedes to surrender a time deposit certificate for P3 million! as well as titles to condo units&Ee also apparentl) sold some properties without authorit)& #n the interim! his wife mana$ed the properties& -ll the other heirs! includin$ 'amon=s mother "ucina! <oined forces to recover their shares& PRINCIPLES AFFECTING THE FREELY DISPOSA3LE PORTION FVI INSTITUTION OF HEIRS A In G"n"-$# 1 D").n.'./n 2 R"<,.&.'"& )/- +$#.d .n&'.','./n /) !".-& 3 E))"*' .) %.## .n&'.','"& n/ !".B F-""d/0 /) d.&2/&.'./n D M$nn"- /) d"&.4n$'.n4 $n !".= D.&2/&.'./n .n )$+/- /) $n ,n(n/%n 2"-&/n > D.&2/&.'./n .n )$+/- /) $ d").n.'" *#$&& 8 E<,$#.'1 /) !".-& 7 Ind.+.d,$#.'1 /) .n&'.','./n 10 S.0,#'$n".'1 /) .n&'.','./n 11 In&'.','./n 9$&"d /n $ )$#&" *$,&" A,&'-.$ + R"1"& Gasilia -ustria had her will probated two )ears before her death& Gulk of her estate was meant to 17>0 be passed on to five le$all) adopted children& Eer nephews and nieces intervened in the partition of the properties alle$in$ that the) were the nearest kin and that the children were not le$all) adopted and were thus stran$ers& *he lower court allowed! but restricted the intervention to properties properties not included in the testamentar) dispositions& 12 S!$-"& .n '!" .n&'.','./n 13 P-"d"*"$&" /) !".-& 3 5.nd& /) .n&'.','./n 1 S.02#" /- 2,-" 2 C/nd.'./n$# $) 5.nd& Vd$ d" 5.#$1(/ 4aria "izares died childless but with a will in the + T"n4*/ possession and custod) of niece %usta(uia "izares& *he will was dul) probated and allowed! 1772 and the court appointed %usta(uia as the adminstrator& %usta(uia moved on to the partitionin$ of the properties! unto the persons specificall) mentioned in the will& Dhen it later appeared that some properties were omitted!

*he court denied this petition for certiorari to annul lower courts= orders restrictin$ the intervention& *o annul the institution of heirs (-rticle 852)! first! the cause for institution must be stated? second! the cause must be shown to be false? and third! it must appear from the face of the will that the testator would not have made such institution if he had known the falsit) of the cause& Eere! the cause was not specificall) stated! althou$h petitioners claim that she was led to believe that she was bound b) law to $ive her adopted children as much (le$itime)& *he le$alit) of the adoption can be assialed onl) in a separate action and not sub<ect to a collateral attack&

*he petition for certiorari b) 0elsa et al is denied! with the followin$ substantial pronouncements@ *he "izares sisters were part of the partition of the propert) and are hence estopped from (uestionin$ it b) res <udicata& *he partition barred an) further li$itation on the title& *ake note that no partition is valid until after the will is probated -lso! their petition was filed out of time forappeal& -n erroneous distribution could onl) be corrected b) appeal! otherwise it becomes final and bindin$ in rem&

%usta(uia asked court permission to ad<udicated those upon her& %usta(uia thereafter died sin$le without an) descendants& 0elsa :da& e Bila)ko and two other sisters of 4aria then claimed that the testamentar) provisions in 4aria=s will was simpl) subsitution! pra)ed for the reopenin$ of the probate! and declaration of them as owners of a fraction of the properties Eaciendas 4inuluan and 4atab6an$! /e$ros Occidental& *he court denied their motion and reconsideration& 0elsa et al then filed a complaint for recover) of ownership and possessiom! and filed a notice of lis pendens with the 'e$ister of eeds& *he lis was contested and later cancelled& 9) In/2"-$'.+" */nd.'./n& *) D.&2/&.'./n *$2'$'/-.$ d) C/02#.$n*" ") E))"*' In&'.','./n %.'! $ '"-0 $) 5.nd& 9) E))"*' M/d$# .n&'.','./n

-nd even if tehre was no re <udicata! the provisions in the will do not impl) fideicommisar) substitution as alle$ed& -s is not clearl) stated! i&e& there is no obli$ation upon %usta(uia to preserve the estate in favor of 0elsa et al! it cannot be deemed to be such& *he cancellation of lis pendens ma) be done b) the court upon a proper showin$ of notice to the other part)&

3 B FVII

SU3STITUTION OF HEIRS A C/n*"2' 3 5.nd& 1 S.02#" /- */00/n 2 3-.") /- */02"nd./,& 3 R"*.2-/*$# B F.d".*/00.&$-1 R$0.-"6 + Vd$ Aose 'amirez died with onl) his widow! a >rench D" R$0.-"6 national who lives in Paris! as compulsor) heir& Ee wanted to provide also for his two $randnephews 1782 'oberto and Aor$e 'amirez! and his companion Danda de Drobleski (-ustrian who lives in 8pain)& Eis will was admitted to probate but was found to have impaired the widow=s le$itime in favor of Danda& *he administratri9 proposed a partition@ one half to the widow! the other part to Aor$e and 'oberto 'amirez! but one third of the free portion will be char$ed with the widow=s usufruct and the rest in favor of Danda& Aor$e and 'oberto opposed the substitution of Danda! and then in favor of Auan and Eoracio? the $rant of a usufruct in favor of an alien! and the order to divide ownership of a buildin$ with the widow which was meant for them alone&

*he court e9pressl) ruled the distribution will be as follows@ one half to the widow as her le$itime? one half of the free portion to 'oberto and Aor$e in naked onwership and to Danda in usufruct! with simple substitution in favor of Auan Pablo and Eorace& #n the discussion! the court first emphasized that the widow=s le$itime cannot be impaired below one half of the propert)& /evertheless! the ususfruct as willed! which meant to compensate for the smaller be(uest to 4arcelle! cannot be entertained an)more& *o $ive 4arcelle more than her le$itime would run counter to Aose=s intentions to $ive more to Danda& Danda meanwhile! appears to be entitled to the entire usufruct& -s a forei$ner! she is not allowed b) 8ection 5 of the 1975 0onstitution to own land! the onl) e9ception bein$ b) intestate succession from >ilipinos& (*estamentar) succession would allow a forei$ner to circumvent the prohibition b) pa)in$ mone) to a >ilipino landowner for a devise of a piece of land)& Fsufruct! however! does not vest title to the land even if it ma) be a real ri$ht& *he substitution in favor of Auan Pablo and Eorace are invalid! as the) are not related to Danda! the heir ori$inall) instituted (-rticle 8;7)&

C-.&/#/4/ + S.n4&/n 17=2

"eona 8in$son! owner of a house and lot in :i$an! #locos 8ur! died sin$le 8he willed the propert) to 0onsolacion >lorentino! but if she died it would pass on to brothers %varisto! 4anuel and ionisio& #f this was vul$ar substitution! upon death of "eona! 0onsolacion became the owner of undivided one half? if this was fideicommisar) substitution! she would have ac(uired nothin$ but usufruct& C T.0"-#.0.'$'./n /n .n$#."n$9.#.'1

*his is a simpleRvul$ar substitution! as there is no e9press statement of fideicommisario& >ideicommissar) susbstitution re(ures a clear statement to the effect that appellee! durin$ her lifetime! shall onl) en<o) usufructuar) ri$hts over the propert) be(ueathed to her! naked ownership thereof bein$ vested in the brothers of the testatri9& Eere! it merel) provides that upon 0onsolacion=s death! her share shall belon$ to her brothers&

FVIII LEGACIES AND DEVISES F"-n$nd"6 + Genedicta delos 'e)es died leavin$ #smaela D.0$4.9$ ima$iba as sole heir& ionisio >ernandez and several other 'e)eses opposed! claimin$ to be 17=> heirs& Grounds included for$er)! vices of consent! estoppel b) lachesm and revocation of the will b) two deeds of conve)ance of ma<or portions of the estate (althou$h these were eventuall) set aside b) the 8upreme 0ourt)& *he probate court allowed the will! but reserved <ud$ment on (uestions of estoppel and revocation& "ater! the trial court found that the estate was unaffected b) the deeds of sale& *he probate was then considered final and e9ecutor)& 3"#"n + 3PI (19;2) #n this case involvin$ the codicil to the will of the late Geni$no iaz ) Eeredia! Onesima & Gelen contends that the amount which should have appertained to her mother >ilomena iaz (who was named le$atee b) Geni$no! and who herself died later on)! should now be divided between herself and her sister 4ila$ros Gelen de Ola$uera onl)! as the survivin$ children of >ilomena! to the e9clusion of 4ila$ros= seven le$itimate children& *o support her cause Onesima invokes -rticle 959 of the 0ivil 0ode! which provides that a distribution in $eneral terms shall be understood as made in favor of those nearest in de$ree& Gonzalo :illanueva sued the spouses >roilan and "eonila Granoco for recover) of a parcel of land in 0ulaba! "e)te& :illanueva avers that he purchased the land from 0asimiro :ere in 1951! who in turn purchased it from the ori$inal owner! -lve$ia 'odri$o! in 1952& *he spouses Granoco on the other hand alle$e that the) purchased the land in 1987 from %ufracia 'odri$uez to whom 'odri$o donated the propert) in a eed of onation (which

*he 0ourt of -ppeals is affirmed in admittin$ the will to probate! and declarin$ that there was no le$al revocation b) the deeds of sale because these were made in favor of the #smaela herself& >ernandez tries to make e9cuses for failin$ to appeal on time& >irst! he claims that an order allowin$ the probate of a will is interlocutor)[ -bsolutel) no& %ven if estoppel and revocation cannot be resolved! the probate decree alread) finall) and definitivel) settles issues as to capacit) of the testator and proper e9ecution and witnessin$ of the will& >ernandez also ar$ues that the) should have waited for the 0ourt=s resolution on other $rounds for opposition! otherwise there would be multiplicit) of recourses& Gut this is not so per 8ection 1! 'ule 129 which states si9 manners of appeal of special proceedin$s& *he revocation! meanwhile! is irrelevant to this case& -lso! the revocation is merel) implied from subse(uent acts of abandonment of the ori$inal intention& Gut such would onl) revoke the particular devise or le$ac)& Onl) total and absolute revocation can preclude probate of the revoked testament& A-'.*#" 7D7 /) '!" C.+.# C/d" d/"& NOT $22#1 %!"-" '!" 9"n").*.$-."& $-" -"#$'.+"& /) $n/'!"2"-&/n (.n '!.& *$&", '!" #"4$'"" F.#/0"n$ D.$6), $nd n/' /) '!" '"&'$'/- (3"n.4n/ D.$6) *here is no lo$ical reason in this case to presume that Geni$no iaz intended to refer to the rules of intestac)! for he precisel) made a testament and provided substitutes for each le$atee? nor can it be said that his affections would prefer the nearest relatives of the le$atee to those more distant! since he envisa$es all of them in a $roup! and onl) as mere substitutes for a preferred beneficiar)& 8hould -rticle 959 (old -rt& 551) be applied b) analo$)C *here are various reasons a$ainst this& *he most important one is that under this article! as reco$nized b) the principal commentators on the 0ode of 1889! the nearest of e9clude all the farther relatives and ri$ht of representation does not operate& T!" S,2-"0" C/,-' &,&'$.n"d '!" C/,-' /) A22"$#& .n ).nd.n4 '!$' R/d-.4/ 2$&&"d n$("d '.'#" '/ R/d-.4,"6 ,nd"- $ 2"-)"*'"d d/n$'./n inter &i&os $nd n/' $ '"&'$0"n'$-1 d.&2/&.'./n mortis causa $nd -,#.n4 '!$' '!" &2/,&"& 3-$n/*/ !$d &,2"-./- '.'#" .n '!" 2-/2"-'1 #t is immediatel) apparent that 'odri$o passed naked title to 'odri$uez under a perfected donation inter vivos& 'odri$o stipulated that +if the herein onee predeceases me! the PPropert)Q will not be reverted to the onor! but will be inherited b) the heirs of 9 9 9 'odri$uez!, si$nalin$ the irrevocabilit) of the passa$e of title to 'odri$uez=s estate! waivin$ 'odri$o=s ri$ht to reclaim title& *his transfer of title was perfected the moment 'odri$o learned of 'odri$uez=s acceptance of the disposition which! bein$

V.##$n,"+$ + S2/,&"& 3-$n/*/ (.211)

was also accepted in the same instrument)! in 19;5& *he trial court ruled in favor of :illanueva! holdin$ the donation in favor of 'odri$uez as $ortis causa! and was effectivel) revoked when 'odri$o sold it to :ere in 1952& *he 0ourt of -ppeals reversed! rulin$ that it was a donation inter vivos! and not a devise& Gefore the 8upreme 0ourt! :illanueva ar$ues that the non6reversion clause contained in the eed of onation was actuall) a fideicomissar) substitution clause& A--/4$n'" + D"#.$-'" (.225) - series of misfortunes struck the eliarte famil) of aanbanta)an! 0ebu& Geethoven eliarte shouldered the costs of the hospitalization! transport and burial of his deceased brother and his parents Gernabe eliarte! 8r& and Gre$oria Placencia& Getween the time of Gre$oria=s and Gernabe=s deaths! the eliarte siblin$s a$reed to waive and conve) in favor of Geethoven all their ri$hts! interests and claims over their parents= parcel of land in aanbanta)an! 0ebu for P15!222&22& -ll his siblin$s si$ned a deed of confirmation! e9cept >e eliarte -rro$ante& "ordito -rro$ante! son of >e! installed placards on the fences built b) his uncle Geethoven! depictin$ that the latter is a land$rabber who took the lot from the former! in whose favor Gernabe 8r& had devised it& Geethoven had alle$edl) destro)ed and torn his father=s will& *he -rro$antes alle$e that Geethoven eliarte was not the owner of the entire lot because Gernabe was still alive in 1958 when Geethoven=s siblin$s conve)ed all their ri$hts and interests thereon in his favor& Goth the '*0 and the 0ourt of -ppeals ruled to (uiet title in favor Geethoven eliarte& Gefore the 8upreme 0ourt! the -rro$antes ar$ue that the 1958 sale did not contemplate the alienation of Gernabe 8r&=s share in the con<u$al partnership as he failed to si$n the private document&

reflected in the eed! took place on the da) of its e9ecution on 7 4a) 19;5& 'odri$o=s acceptance of the transfer underscores its essence as a $ift in presenti! not in futuro! as onl) donations inter vivos need acceptance b) the recipient& *he (uestion of the eed=s <uridical nature! whether it is a will or a donation! is the cru9 of the present controvers)& G) treatin$ the clause in (uestion as mandatin$ fideicommissar) substitution! a mode of testamentar) disposition b) which the first heir instituted is entrusted with the obli$ation to preserve and to transmit to a second heir the whole or part of the inheritance! :illanueva assumes that the eed is a will& T!" "E.&'"n*" /) */n&.d"-$'./n /'!"- '!$n '!" d/n/-G& d"$'!, &,*! $& '!" d/n/-G& I#/+" $nd $))"*'./nJ '/ '!" d/n" $nd I'!" &"-+.*"& '!" #$''"- -"nd"-"d,J &,22/-'& '!" ).nd.n4 '!$' .' .& $ d/n$'./n inter &i&os $nd n/' $ '"&'$0"n'$-1 d.&2/&.'./n T!" 17>8 2-.+$'" d""d /) &$#" %$& +/.d .n&/)$- $& .' d.&2/&"d /) 3"-n$9" S- G& &!$-" .n '!" */n;,4$# 2$-'n"-&!.2 2-./- '/ !.& d"$'! T!" S,2-"0" C/,-' !"#d '!$' '!.& %$& .n '!" n$',-" /) $ */n+"1$n*" /) '!" ),',-" .n!"-.'$n*" /) '!" D"#.$-'" &.9#.n4& 3,' '!" C/,-' n/n"'!"#"&& !"#d '!$' .' %$& "))"*'.+"#1 $ d/n$'./n inter &i&os .n )$+/- /) !.& *!.#d-"n >lorenda eliarte /acua! GeethovenLs sister! corroborated the testimon) of Geethoven that their father was present durin$! and was aware of! the transaction that took place amon$ his children& *he 1958 deed of sale! albeit void! evidenced the consent and ac(uiescence of each eliarte siblin$ to said transaction& *he) raised no ob<ection even after Geethoven forthwith possessed and occupied the sub<ect lot& *he fore$oin$ arran$ement! va$uel) reflected in the void deed of sale! points to a meetin$ of the minds amon$ the parties constitutive of an innominate contract! akin to both an onerous and a remunerator) donation& #n this re$ard! Gernabe=s waiver and relin(uishment of his share in the sub<ect lot is effectivel) a donation inter vivos to his children& Eowever! the $ratuitous act is coupled with an onerous cause T e(ual accountabilit) of the eliarte siblin$s for the hospitalization and death e9penses of deceased famil) members to be taken from their shares in the sub<ect lot& #n turn! the remunerative cause pertains to Geethoven=s recompense for the famil) e9penses he initiall) shouldered& urin$ his lifetime! Gernabe remained the absolute owner of his undivided interest in the sub<ect lot& -ccordin$l)! he could have validl) disposed of his interest therein& Eis consent to the disposition of the sub<ect lot in favor of Geethoven! a$reed upon amon$ his children! is evident! considerin$ his presence in! knowled$e of! and ac(uiescence to the transaction& >urther! the arran$ement was immediatel) effected b) the parties with no ob<ection from Gernabe or an) of the eliarte siblin$s! includin$ herein petitioner >e& #neluctabl)! the actual arran$ement between the parties included Gernabe! and the ob<ect thereof did not constitute future inheritance&

LEGAL OR INTESTATE SUCCESSION FIF GENERAL PROVISIONS A In G"n"-$# 1 W!"n d/"& .' '$(" 2#$*"V 2 W!/ $-" '!" .n'"&'$'" H".-& In'"&'$'" E&'$'" Petra :& 'osales of 0ebu 0it) died intestate in /) R/&$#"& + 1951& 8he was survived b) her husband >ortunato R/&$#"& *& 'osales and their two children! 4a$na -cebes and -ntonio 'osales& -nother child! 0arterio (1985) 'osales! predeceased Petra! leavin$ behind a child! 4acike(uero9 'osales and his widow #renea

I-"n"$ R/&$#"& .& NOT $ */02,#&/-1 !".- /) !"- 0/'!"--.n-#$% P"'-$ R/&$#"& *here is no provision in the 0ivil 0ode which states that a widow (survivin$ spouse) is an intestate heir of her mother6in6law& *he entire 0ode is devoid of an) provision which entitles her to inherit from her mother6in6 law either b) her own ri$ht or b) the ri$ht of representation& *he provisions of the 0ode which relate to the order of intestate succession (-rticles 958 to 1213) enumerate with meticulous

'osales& urin$ the intestate proceedin$s 4acike(uero9 was $ranted a c share in the estate of his $randmother Petra& Eowever! #renea insists on bein$ $ranted a share in the estate as the survivin$ spouse of the late 0arterio 'osales& 8he asserts that she is a compulsor) heir of her mother6 in6law Petra& 3 D" #/& S$n'/& + d" #$ C-,6 (1951) O-d"- $nd &!$-" .n '!" .n'"&'$'" &,**"&&./n *his case involves the settlement of the estate of Pela$ia de la 0ruz! which was the sub<ect of the sub<ect e9tra<udicial partition a$reement& Pela$ia died intestate in October 19;.& 4a9imo de la 0ruz is a nephew of Pela$ia! while Gertrudes de los 8antos is a $randniece of the same& e los 8antos= mother! 4arciana de la 0ruz! is a niece of Pela$ia& 4arciana predeceased Pela$ia in 8eptember 1975& *he purpose of the e9tra<udicial a$reement is to divide and distribute the estate of Pela$ia a$on" &er &eirs& Ofelia Eernando Ga$unu sou$ht intervention in the intestate proceedin$s over the estate of the late -u$usto E& Piedad pendin$ before the Pasa) 0it) '*0& 8he alle$ed that she was entitled to a share in Piedad=s estate! and assailed the award of its entiret) to Pastora Piedad on the $round of lack of notice to personal heirs like Ga$unu& *he proceedin$s have been closed& -u$usto Piedad died without an) direct descendants or ascendants& Pastora Piedad is the maternal aunt of -u$usto! makin$ her a third6de$ree relative of the latter& On the other hand! Ga$unu is a fifth6de$ree relative of -u$usto&

e9actitude the intestate heirs of a decedent! with the 8tate as the final intestate heir& *he conspicuous absence of a provision which makes a dau$hter6in6law an intestate heir of the deceased all the more confirms Our observation& #f the le$islature intended to make the survivin$ spouse an intestate heir of the parent6in6law! it would have so provided in the 0ode& A-'.*#" 88>(3) /) '!" C.+.# C/d" /n#1 $22#."& '/ '!" "&'$'" /) $ d"*"$&"d &2/,&", n/' /) $ d"*"$&"d 2$-"n'-.n-#$%

G"-'-,d"& d" #/& S$n'/& .& NOT $n !".- /) P"#$4.$, '!" )/-0"- 9".n4 $ 4-$ndn."*" /) '!" #$''"S!" */,#d '!"-")/-" n/' .n!"-.' )-/0 P"#$4.$ 91 -.4!' /) -"2-"&"n'$'./n, n/- 91 !"- /%n -.4!' ,nd"- A-'.*#" 7=2 /) '!" C.+.# C/d" #n Linart v. U"arte (1925)! the 8upreme 0ourt ruled@ +&&& P#Qn an intestate succession a $randniece of the deceased and not participate with a niece in the inheritance! because the latter bein$ a nearer relative! the more distant $randniece is e9cluded& #n the collateral line the ri$ht of representation does not obtain be)ond sons and dau$hters of the brothers and sisters! which would have been the case if Pablo "inart! the father of the plaintiff! had survived his deceased uncle&, #n the present case! the relatives 1nearest in de$ree1 to Pela$ia de la 0ruz are her nephews and nieces! one of whom is 4a9imo de la 0ruz& /ecessaril)! de los 8antos! a $randniece is e9cluded b) law from the inheritance& P$&'/-$ P."d$d, 9".n4 $ -"#$'.+" %.'!.n '!" '!.-d *.+.# d"4-"" /) '!" #$'" A,4,&'/ H P."d$d, "E*#,d"& O)"#.$ 3$4,n,, $ -"#$'.+" /) '!" ).)'! d"4-"", )-/0 &,**""d.n4 ab intestato '/ '!" "&'$'" /) '!" d"*"d"n' *he rule on pro9imit) is a concept that favors the relatives nearest in de$ree to the decedent and e9cludes the more distant ones e9cept when and to the e9tent that the ri$ht of representation can appl)& *hus! -rticle 9;. of the 0ivil 0ode provides@ +#n ever) inheritance! the relative nearest in de$ree e9cludes the more distant ones! savin$ the ri$ht of representation when it properl) takes place& 'elatives in the same de$ree shall inherit in e(ual shares! sub<ect to the provisions of article 122; with respect to relatives of the full and half blood! and of article 985! para$raph .! concernin$ division between the paternal and maternal lines&, G) ri$ht of representation! a more distant blood relative of a decedent is! b) operation of law! 1raised to the same place and de$ree1 of relationship as that of a closer blood relative of the same decedent& *he representative thereb) steps into the shoes of the person he represents and succeeds! not from the latter! but from the person to whose estate the person represented would have succeeded& E&'-$d$, $& $ '!.-d-d"4-"" -"#$'.+" /) :,&'$, .& '!" /n#1 !".- /) '!" #$''"#n this case! %strada is the son of -$atonica! the half6sister of Austa& Ee is thus a third de$ree relative of Austa& On the other hand! the heirs of Friarte are the sons and dau$hters of Austa=s cousin& *he) are thus fifth de$ree relatives of Austa& -ppl)in$ the principle that the nearest e9cludes the farthest! then plaintiff is the lawful heir of Austa& *he fact that his mother is onl) a half6sister of Austa is of no moment& /evertheless! the heirs of Friarte make much of the fact that %strada is not an -rnaldo! his mother bein$ Frsula=s dau$hter not b) Auan -rnaldo but b) Pedro -rreza& *he) claim that this bein$ the case! %strada is not an heir of Austa and thus not (ualified to share in her estate&

3$4,n, + P."d$d (.222)

H".-& /) U-.$-'" + C/,-' /) A22"$#& (1998)

Genedicto %strada is the son of -$atonica -rreza! dau$hter of Pedro -rreza and Frsula *ubil& Dhen Pedro died! Frsula married Auan -rnaldo and the) had a dau$hter! Austa -rnaldo68erin$& On the other hand! the heirs of Pascasio Friarte are descended from omin$o -rnaldo! a brother of Auan -rnaldo! father of Austa& %strada brou$ht this action for the partition of the land left b) Austa -rnaldo68erin$& *he heirs of Friarte (uestion the succession of %strada to the estate! since he is the son of -$atonica -rreza! who is onl) a half6sister of Austa -rnaldo68erin$&

*he heirs of Friarte misappreciate the relationship between Austa and private respondent& -s alread) stated! %strada is the son of Austa=s half6sister -$atonica& Ee is therefore Austa=s nephew& - nephew is considered a collateral relative who ma) inherit if no descendant! ascendant! or spouse survive the decedent& *hat %strada is onl) a half6blood relative is immaterial& *his alone does not dis(ualif) him from bein$ his aunt=s heir& 3 T"/'.*/ + d"# V$# R.4!' /) -"2-"&"n'$'./n #n a will written in 8panish! the late 4arja 4ortera vda& de -$uirre left a hu$e fortune to various heirs& One of these was a le$ac) of P.2!222 in favor of (19;5) 'ene *eotico! married to Aosefina 4ortera! niece of the testatri9& *he decedent also left the usufruct of her interest in the 0alvo buildin$ to said spouses& Aosefina was also instituted as universal heir to the remainder of her properties not otherwise specificall) disposed of in the will& -na del :al 0han! an adopted dau$hter of >rancisca 4ortera! a sister of the testatri9 and an acknowled$ed natural dau$hter of Aose 4ortera! also a brother of 4arja! opposed the probate of the will& D.$6 + *he spouses >elipe Pamuti and Petronila -suncion In'"-0"d.$'" had onl) two le$itimate children! Auliana and A22"##$'" C/,-' 8imona Pamuti& 8imona had a niece named >elisa Pamuti Aardin! dau$hter of Auliana and her (1985) husband 8imon Aardin& 8imona and her husband Pascual 8antero had an onl) le$itimate son! Pablo 8antero! who predeceased his mother 8imona& Dhen Pablo died in 1957! he was survived b) 8imona and Pablo=s minor natural children! four with -nselma iaz and two with >eli9berta Pacursa& *he trial court <ud$e declared >elisa Pamuti Aardin as the sole le$itimate heir of 8imona 8antero& Aardin sou$ht to intervene in the settlement of the estate of both Pablo and Pascual 8antero& iaz opposed& *he trial court ruled in favor of iaz! but was reversed on appeal before the #ntermediate -ppellate 0ourt& Und"- '!" '"-0& /) '!" %.##, An$ d"# V$# C!$n !$& n/ -.4!' '/ .n'"-+"n" 9"*$,&" &!" !$& n/ .n'"-"&' .n '!" "&'$'" ".'!"- $& !".-, "E"*,'/- /- $d0.n.&'-$'/-, n/- d/"& &!" !$+" $n1 *#$.0 '/ 2-/2"-'1 $))"*'"d 91 '!" %.##, 9"*$,&" .' $22"$-& n/%!"-" '!"-".n '!$' &!" !$d 9""n d"&.4n$'"d 91 M$-W$ M/-'"-$ $& !".-, #"4$'"" /- d"+.&"" /) $n1 2/-'./n /) '!" "&'$'" N".'!"- .& An$ $ #"4$# !".- ,nd"- '!" C.+.# C/d" "+"n .) '!" %.## .& d"n."d 2-/9$'" -na del :al 0han cannot also derive comfort from the fact that she is an adopted child of >rancisca 4ortera because under our law the relationship established b) adoption is limited solel) to the adopter and the adopted and does not e9tend to the relatives of the adoptin$ parents or of the adopted child e9cept onl) as e9pressl) provided for b) law& Eence! no relationship is created between the adopted and the collaterals of the adoptin$ parents& -s a conse(uence! the adopted is an heir of the adopter but not of the relatives of the adopter& T!" 0.n/- *!.#d-"n /) An&"#0$ D.$6, %!/ $-" .##"4.'.0$'" *!.#d-"n /) P$9#/ S$n'"-/, $-" d.&<,$#.)."d )-/0 .n!"-.'.n4 )-/0 S.0/n$ S$n'"-/ 91 +.-'," /) A-'.*#" 772 /) '!" C.+.# C/d" ART 772 An .##"4.'.0$'" *!.#d !$& n/ -.4!' '/ .n!"-.' ab intestato )-/0 '!" #"4.'.0$'" *!.#d-"n $nd -"#$'.+"& /) !.& )$'!"- /- 0/'!"-T n/- &!$## &,*! *!.#d-"n /- -"#$'.+"& .n!"-.' .n '!" &$0" 0$nn"- )-/0 '!" .##"4.'.0$'" *!.#d (7B3$) Pablo 8antero is a le"iti$ate c&ild! he is not an ille$itimate child& On the other hand! the oppositors iaz et al. are the ille$itimate children of Pablo 8antero& -rticle 99. of the /ew 0ivil 0ode provides a barrier or iron curtain in that it prohibits absolutel) a succession ab intestato between the ille$itimate child and the le$itimate children and relatives of the father or mother of said le$itimate child& *he) ma) have a natural tie of blood! but this is not reco$nized b) law for the purposes of -rt& 99.& Getween the le$itimate famil) and the ille$itimate famil) there is presumed to be an intervenin$ anta$onism and incompatibilit)& *he ille$itimate child is dis$racefull) looked down upon b) the le$itimate famil)? the famil) is in turn! hated b) the ille$itimate child? the latter considers the privile$ed condition of the former! and the resources of which it is thereb) deprived? the former! in turn! sees in the ille$itimate child nothin$ but the product of sin! palpable evidence of a blemish broken in life? the law does no more than reco$nize this truth! b) avoidin$ further $rounds of resentment& *hus! petitioners herein cannot represent their father Pablo 8antero in the succession of the letter to the intestate estate of his le$itimate mother 8imona Pamuti :da& de 8antero! because of the barrier provided for under -rt& 99. of the /ew 0ivil 0ode& In *$&" /) .n'"&'$*1, n"2!"%& $nd n."*"& /) '!" de cu6us "E*#,d" $## /'!"- */##$'"-$#& ($,n'& $nd ,n*#"&, ).-&' */,&.n&, "'* ) )-/0 '!" &,**"&&./n T!.& .& -"$d.#1 $22$-"n' )-/0 $-'.*#"& 1001, 100B, 100D, $nd 1007 /) '!" C.+.# C/d" Fnder the last article (1229)! the absence of brothers! sisters! nephews and nieces of the decedent is a precondition to the other collaterals (uncles! cousins! etc&) bein$ called to the succession&

In -" E&'$'" /) F"--$-.&, A9"##$n$ d" 3$*$1/ + F"--$-.&3/--/0"/

4elodja >erraris of 0ebu 0it) transferred to 4anila& 4ore than ten )ears had passed since the last time an)thin$ was heard of about her! so she was declared presumptivel) dead for the purpose of openin$ her succession& >erraris left several properties in 0ebu and no survivin$ direct descendant! ascendant or spouse& 8he was

(19;5)

CORPUS V CORPUS (1958)

survived b) her aunt >ilomena -bellana de Gaca)o! a half6sister of 4elodja=s father -nacleto! and b) her nieces and nephew! children of her onl) brother of the full6blood! -rturo >erraris! who had died ahead of her& *he trial court ruled that the nieces and nephew e9clude the aunt of 4elodja! reasonin$ that the former are nearer in de$ree than the latter since nieces and nephews succeed b) ri$ht of representation while the aunt is three de$rees distant& -t the time of *eodoro Oan$coLs death! he had no forced heirs& Ee onl) had his half6brother! half6 sister and the children of his other half6brother& *omas 0orpus filed an action to recover AuanitaLs supposed share in the Oan$coLs intestate estate& Auanita was the half6sister of *eodoro& 8he was however a le$itimate child while *eodoro was an acknowled$ed natural child&

Grothers and sisters and nephews and nieces inherited ab intestato ahead of the survivin$ spouse! while other collaterals succeeded onl) after the widower or widow& *he present 0ivil 0ode of the Philippines merel) placed the spouse on a par with the nephews and nieces and brothers and sisters of the deceased! but without alterin$ the preferred position of the latter vis a vis the other collaterals&

Auanita 0orpus! the petitionerLs mother was not a le$al heir of Oan$co because there is no reciprocal succession between le$itimate and ille$itimate relatives& -n ille$itimate child has no ri$ht to inherit ab intestate from the le$itimate children and relatives of his father or mother! nor shall such children or relatives inherit in the same manner from the le$itimate child& "e$itimate relatives of the mother cannot succeed for her ille$itimate chid& *he natural child cannot represent his natural father in the succession to the estate of the le$itimate $randparent& *he natural dau$hter cannot succeed to the estate of her deceased uncle! a le$itimate brother of her natural mother&

ORDER OF INTERSTATE SUCCESSION A D"&*"nd.n4 d.-"*' #.n" 1 E&'$'" /) #"4.'.0$'" d"*"d"n' $) I##"4.'.0$'" d"&*"nd$n'& CORPUS V supra CORPUS (1958) L"/n$-d/ V CA >rancisca 'e)es died intestate! survived b) . dau$hters! 4aria and 8ilvestra and a $randson 8otero! the son of her dau$hter Pascuala who died before her& Petitioner 0resenciano! claimin$ to be the son of the late 8otero! filed a complaint for ownership of properties and accountin$ seekin$ <ud$ment to be declared one of the lawful heirs of the late >rancisca 'e)es (alle$ed $reat6 $randmother)& >elisa filed a petition pra)in$ amon$ other thin$s that the correspondin$ letters of -dmin be issued in her favor and that she be appointed as special -dministratri9 of the properties of the deceased 8imona& >elisa is the niece of 8imona who to$ether with >elisaLs mother! Auliana! were the O/"O le$itimate children of spouses >elipa and Petronila& -nselma iaz! as $uardian of her minor children with Pablo 8antero! son of 8imona who died before his Petitioner cannot b) ri$ht of representation claim a share of the estate left b) the deceased >rancisca 'e)es considerin$ that he was born outside wedlock as shown b) the fact that when he was born! his alle$ed putative father and mother were not )et married because his fatherLs first marria$e was still subsistin$& Petitioner would be an ille$itimate child who has no ri$ht to inherit ab intestate from the le$itimate children and relatives of his father! like >rancisca& (-rticle 99. of the 0ivil 0ode&)

FF

(1987)

DIA@ + IAC (1985)

*he children of Pablo cannot inherit from their $randmother& Pablo was a le$itimate child& On the other hand! his children were all ille$itimate& -rticle 99. prohibits absolutel) a succession ab intestato between the ille$itimate child and the le$itimate children and relatives of the father or mother of said child& *he) ma) have a natural tie of blood! but this is not reco$nized b) law for the purposes of -rticle 99.& Getween the le$itimate famil) and the ille$itimate one! there is presumed to be an intervenin$ anta$onism and incompatibilit)& *he ille$itimate child is dis$racefull) looked down upon the le$itimate famil)& *hus! petitioners cannot '%P'%8%/* their father! Pablo! in the succession of the latter to the intestate estate of his le$itimate mother! 8imona&

mother! opposed& "ikewise! >eli9berta opposed as $uardian of her minor children with Pablo& /either >eli9berta nor -nselma were married to Pablo thus all the children of Pablo are ille$itimate& M$n,"# + F"--"(1995) Petitioners! the le$itimate children of sps -ntonio and Geatriz! sou$ht the declaration of nullit) of the titles of various parcels of land& -ntonio had an ille$itimate son! Auan 4anuel& Gecause the) didnLt have an) children! the) took in 4odesta and raised her as their own dau$hter& - month after the death of her 1parents1! 4odesta e9cited an -ffidavit of 8elf6-d<udication claimin$ for herself the 7 parcels of land (all in the name of Auan 4anuel)& Petitioners ar$ue that the) are the le$al heirs over one6half of AuanLs intestate estate! bein$ the half6 siblin$s of Auan 4anuel& Petitioners cannot inherit from Auan 4anuel& -rticle 99. prohibits le$itimate childrenRrelative from inheritin$ from the ille$itimate children& -rticle 99.! a basic postulate! enunciates what is so commonl) referred to in the rules on succession as the 1principle of absolute separation between the le$itimate famil) and the ille$itimate famil)&1 *he doctrine re<ects succession ab intestato in the collateral line between le$itimate relatives! on the one hand! and ille$itimate relatives! on other hand! althou$h it does not totall) disavow such succession in the direct line& 8ince the rule is predicated on the presumed will of the decedent! it has no application! however! on testamentar) dispositions& Dhere the ille$itimate child had half6brothers who were le$itimate! the latter had no ri$ht to the formerLs inheritance? that the le$itimate collateral relatives of the mother cannot succeed from her ille$itimate child? that a natural child cannot represent his natural father in the succession to the estate of the le$itimate $randparent? that the natural dau$hter cannot succeed to the estate of her deceased uncle who is a le$itimate brother of her natural father? and that an ille$itimate child has no ri$ht to inherit ab intestato from the le$itimate children and relatives of his father&

2 DIA@ + IAC D" L$ P,"-'$ + CA (.229)

E&'$'" /) $n .##"4.'.0$'" d"*"d"n' $) L"4.'.0$'" *!.#d-"n $nd d"&*"nd$n'& 9) I##"4.'.0$'" *!.#d-"n $nd d"&*"nd$n'& supra Dhen omin$a died! she had three survivin$ -ssumin$ she is indeed the dau$hter of the late :icente! as she was ille$itimate! she doesnLt have children& :icente! one of her children! filed a successional ri$hts to the estate of her $randmother! omin$a& Eer claims for support and inheritance petition to adopt 0armelita )ears after his mother should be filed in the proceedin$s for the settlement of her own fatherLs estate and cannot be died& Petition was $ranted but was appealed b) considered in the probate of omin$aLs will& 8he ma) onl) inherit from the intestate estate of her father& #sabel (his sister)& urin$ the pendenc) of the appeal! :icente died& 0armelita! filed a motion for the pa)ment of her monthl) allowance as the acknowled$ed natural child of :icente& Eowever! #sabel opposed sa)in$ that 0armelita couldnLt be have been the natural child of :icente because she was the dau$hter of a certain Auanita and Gloria& /ow! 0armelita is claimin$ successional ri$hts to the estate of omin$a! her alle$ed $randmother& >ederico 8unta) opposes #sabelLs petition for appointment as administratri9 of her $randmotherLs estate b) virtue of her ri$ht of representation& #sabel is the dau$hter of %milio and #sabel 0o<uan$co68unta) whose marria$e was then declared null and void& >ederico opposed sa)in$ he is the survivin$ spouse of the decedent and that he has been mana$in$ the con<u$al properties& #sabel is a le$itimate dau$hter of %milio and #sabel 0o<uan$co68unta) because she was born before the marria$e was annulled& (note@ marria$e was voidable)& #sabel ma) invoke her successional ri$ht of representation in the estate of her $randmother when her father predeceased her $randmother&

S,n'$1 C/;,$n4*/ (1998)

3 S$n'.##/n M.-$nd$ (1955) +

S,-+.+.n4 &2/,&" Pedro died intestate leavin$ one son! 0laro and his wife! Perfecta& urin$ his marria$e! Pedro ac(uired several parcels of land& 0laro then filed a petition for letters of administration& Eis mother opposed on the $round that the properties enumerated in the petition were all con<u$al e9cept for three which Perfecta owned& 0laro filed a motion to declare share of heirs and to resolve the conflictin$ claims of the parties with respect to their ri$hts in the estate& #nvokin$ 89.! he insisted that after deductin$ K from the con<u$al properties in the con<u$al share of Perfecta! the remainin$ K must be divided as follows@ c for her and d for him& Perfecta on the other hand claimed that besides her con<u$al half! she was entitled! under article 99;! to another K of the remainin$ half&

8ince this is an intestate proceedin$! -rticle 99; applies& 0laro canLt rel) on -rticle 89. to support his claim to d of his fatherLs estate as -rticle 98. falls under the chapter of *estamentar) 8uccession& -rticle 89. merel) fi9es the le$itime of the survivin$ spouse and -rt 888 thereof! the le$itime of children in the testate succession& Dhile it ma) indicate the intuit of the law with respect to the ideal shares that a chidl and a spouse should $et when the) concur with each other! it does not fi9 the amount of shares that such child and spouse are entitled when intestac) occurs& but if the latter happens! 99; applies& -rticle 99; provides that when the widow survives with onl) 1 le$itimate children! the) share the estate in e(ual parts (the estate of 0laro)& #n intestate succession! where there is onl) one child of the marria$e! the child $ets one6half and the widowRwidower $ets the other half&

3.*/0/n4 A#0$n6$ ()

A&*"nd.n4 d.-"*' #.n" 1 L"4.'.0$'" 2$-"n'& $nd $&*"nd$n'& 2 I##"4.'.0$'" 2$-"n'& D C/##$'"-$# #.n" + 8imeon and 8isenandra $ot married and had three children! Perpetua (who had four children)! #$media (who had 7 children) and #$nacio (who had 1 child)& Dhen 8isenandra died! 8imeon married 8ilvestra) and had . children! >elipa (who had . children) and 4aura& *he sub<ect matte is the half undivided share of 4aura Ga$sic which she inherited from 8ilvestra (her mother who died alread))& Eer nieces and nephews from the first marria$e of her father claim successional ri$hts& Eowever! her brother6in6law and her niece (>elipaLs husband and dau$hter) opposed contendin$ that since 4aura died ahead of >elipa! >elipa succeeded to 4auraLs estate! to the e9clusion of the plaintiffs& *he) said that the relatives nearest in de$ree e9cludes the more distant ones& 4elida was declared presumptivel) dead and was survived b) her aunt (half6sister of her father)! and b) her nieces and nephew (children of her onl) brother of full blood who predeceased her)& *he) claim to be the nearest intestate heirs and seek to participate in the estate of 4elodia&

#n the absence of descendants! ascendants! ille$itimate children! or survivin$ spouse! collateral relatives succeed to the entire estate of the deceased& 8ince 4aura died intestate and her husband and her ascendants died ahead of her! she is succeeded b) survivin$ collateral relatives! namel) the 1) her niece@ the dau$hter of her sister of full blood and .) her nieces and nephews@ the children of her brother and sisters of half6blood& (/ote@ all of them are le$itimate) *he nephews and nieces are entitled to inherit in their own ri$ht& /ephews and nieces alone do not inherit b) ri$ht of representation unless concurrin$ with brothers or sisters of the deceased& *he contention that 4aura should be succeeded b) >elipa to the e9clusion of the nephews and nieces is erroneous& -s it was shown! >elipa predeceased her sister 4aura&

A9"##$n$ 3/--/0"/ (19;5)

- decedentLs uncles and aunts ma) not succeed ab intestato when there are nephews and nieces of the decedent still alive and are willin$ and (ualified& -s an aunt! she is as far distant as the nephewsRnieces& Eowever! in case of intestac)! nephews and nieces e9clude all other collaterals (aunts! uncles)&

T!" S'$'"

PROVISIONS COMMON TO TESTATE AND INTESTATE SUCCESSION FFI RIGHT OF ACCRETION A C/n*"2' 3 In #"4$# &,**"&&./n C T"&'$0"n'$-1 FFII L"4$&'/ V"-6/&$ (1972) PARTITION AND DISTRI3UTION OF THE ESTATE A P$-'.'./n + 8abina -lmadin e9ecuted a will! devisin$ certain parcels of land belon$in$ to her! to her four nieces! 4aria :erzosa! Oliva :erzosa! *oribia :erzosa! and 'uperta Palma! dau$hters of her sister 0atalina -lmadin! desi$natin$ the parcels to be $iven to each& Prior to her death! 8abina -lmadin partitioned her propert) amon$ her aforesaid sister and nieces! e9ecutin$ a deed to her niece! 4aria :erzosa! assi$nin$ and makin$ over to her three parcels of her land& 4aria :erzosa and 8abina -lmadin appeared before the deput) provincial assessor and municipal secretar) of GiSan! statin$ that the land was sold b) the aunt to the niece& 8abina likewise e9ecuted several deeds assi$nin$ respective properties to the other nieces& *he assi$nees! 4aria :erzosa! *oribia :erzosa! Oliva :erzosa! and 'uperta Palma! took possession of their respective parcels thus ceded b) 8abina -lmadin! and have to this da) been cultivatin$ them as e9clusive owners thereof& :ivencio "e$asto! the special administrator of 8abina -lmadinLs estate! filed the complaint which ori$inated this case! claimin$ the deliver) of the parcels of land& *he first (uestion to decide in the instant appeal is whether the partition made b) 8abina -lmadin of her propert) amon$ her nieces! the defendants and appellants herein! was valid enforceable&

-rticle 125; of the 0ivil 0ode provides@ -'*& 125;& #f the testator should make a partition of his propert) b) an act inter vivos! or b) will! such partition shall stand in so far as it does not pre<udice the le$itime of the forced heirs& 4anresa comments on the article as follows@ - distinction must be made between the disposition of propert) and its division? and the provision of article 125; authorizin$ the testator to dispose of his propert) b) acts inter vivos or b) last will! must be understood in accordance with this distinction& *he idea is to divide the estate amon$ the heirs desi$nated b) the testator& *his desi$nation constitutes the disposition of the properties to take effect after his death! and said act must necessaril) appear in the testament because it is the e9pression of the testatorLs last will and must be surrounded b) appropriate formalities& *hen comes the second part! to wit! the division in conformit) with that disposition! and the testator ma) make this division in the same will or in another will! or b) an act inter vivos& Dith these words the law! in article 125; as well as in article 1255! which we shall hereafter e9amine! makes allusion to the forms or manner of makin$ the partition and not to the effects thereof! which means that! for the purposes of partition the formal solemnities which must accompan) ever) testament or last will are not necessar)& /either is it necessar) to observe the special formalities re(uired in case of donations! because it is not a matter of disposin$ $ratuitousl) of properties! but of dividin$ those which alread) have been le$all) disposed of& #t is thus seen that both the 8panish 8upreme 0ourt and the learned and authoritative commentator! 4anresa! are of opinion that a testator ma)! b) an act inter vivos! partition his propert)! but he must first make a will with all the formalities provided for b) law& -nd it could not be otherwise! for without a will there can be no testator? when the law! therefore! speaks of the partition inter vivos made b) a testator of his propert)! it necessaril) refers to that propert) which he has devised to his heirs& - person who disposes of his propert) $ratis inter vivos in not called a testator! but a donor& #n emplo)in$ the word 1testator!1 the law evidentl) desired to distin$uish between the one who freel) donates his propert) in life and one who disposes of it b) will to take effect his death& GF*@ -s 8abina -lmadinLs will was disallowed for the reason that it did not contain all the essential re(uisites provided b) law for its validit)! can the aforesaid partition of her estate made b) said testatri9 amon$ her nieces be deemed validC 0ertainl) not? for it is an indispensable condition precedent to a testator partitionin$ his estate inter vivos that he have made a valid will disposin$ of said estate amon$ his heirs? and if this will be declared null and void! the partition made b) the testator in pursuance of its provisions is likewise null and void! for where these provisions cease to e9ist! the partition made in conformit) therewith also becomes null and void! as the cessation of the cause implies the cessation of the effect& -nd since 8abina -lmadinLs will is null and void for lack of the le$al re(uisites! conse(uentl)! the partition which she made of her estate amon$ her nieces the defendants6appellants herein! durin$ her lifetime is likewise null and void&

F$;$-d/ F$;$-d/ (1972)

-ppellant and appellee are brother and sister! and the sole heirs of the decedent spouses& -ppellant alle$es that his father had lon$ before death divided his estate between his children! while appellee denies such partition& *he evidence shows that the appellant took possession of certain lands belon$in$ to his deceased father before the latterLs death! pa)in$ the land ta9 and appropriatin$ the fruits thereof for his own personal use& Dhile the appellee! too! now holds certain land from the same predecessor! it has not been shown that such tenure dates back to her fatherLs lifetime& -nd both she and her husband have testified that the) took possession thereof onl) after her fatherLs death& *he record! then! does not bear out the alle$ation that the late 4a$daleno >a<ardo divided his estate between his two children who are the parties herein& -t an) rate! it does not appear that if such a partition was made! it was made in accordance with law and is therefore enforceable& #n 1931 the sisters -n$ela #& *uason and /ieves *uason de Garreto and their brother -ntonio *uason Ar&! held a parcel of land in common! each ownin$ an undivided 1R7 portion& /ieves wanted and asked for a partition of the common propert)! but failin$ in this! she offered to sell her 1R7 portion& %ventuall)! the share of /ieves was sold to Gre$orio -raneta #nc&! a domestic corporation! and a new 0ertificate of *itle /o& ;15.1 was issued in lieu of the old title& *he three co6owners a$reed to have the whole parcel subdivided into small lots and then sold! the proceeds of the sale to be later divided amon$ them& *his a$reement is embodied in a document entitled 14emorandum of -$reement&1 Gefore! durin$ and after the e9ecution of this contract! -tt)& A& -ntonio -raneta was actin$ as the attorne)6in6fact and law)er of the two co6owners! -n$ela #& *uason and her brother -ntonio *uason Ar& *he contract provides that the three co6owners a$reed to develop their co6owned land into a residential subdivision&

*here are onl) two wa)s in which said partition could have been made@ G) an act inter vivos! or b) will& #n either case there were formalities which must be followed& 4anresa thus comments on articles 125; et se#& of the 0ivil 0ode@ - testator ma) therefore partition his estate either b) an act inter vivos or b) will? that is! followin$ the proper formalities of one! or the other of these acts& (0ommentaries on the 8panish 0ivil 0ode! vol :##! p& ;93! 5th edition&) #f the partition was made b) an act inter vivos! it should have been reduced in writin$ (sec& 775! /o& 5! 0ode of 0iv& Proc&) in a public instrument (article 1.82! 0ivil 0ode) because it was a conve)ance of real estate& #f b) last will and testament! the le$al re(uisites should have been observed& /either appears in the record to have been done&

T,$&/n T,$&/n (1951)

-'*& 322& /o co6owner shall be obli$ed to remain a part) to the communit)& %ach ma)! at an) time! demand the partition of the thin$ held in common& /evertheless! an a$reement to keep the thin$ undivided for a specified len$th of time! not e9ceedin$ ten )ears! shall be valid& *his period ma) be a new a$reement& De a$ree with the trial court that the provisions of -rt& 322 of the 0ivil 0ode are not applicable& *he contract (%9h&! ;) far from violatin$ the le$al provision that forbids a co6owner bein$ obli$ed to remain a part) to the communit)! precisel) has for its purpose and ob<ect the dissolution of the co6ownership and of the communit) b) sellin$ the parcel held in common and dividin$ the proceeds of the sale amon$ the co6owners& *he obli$ation imposed in the contract to preserve the co6ownership until all the lots shall have been sold! is a mere incident to the main ob<ect of dissolvin$ the co6owners& G) virtue of the document %9h& ;! the parties thereto practicall) and substantiall) entered into a contract of partnership as the best and most e9pedient means of eventuall) dissolvin$ the co6ownership! the life of said partnership to end when the ob<ect of its creation shall have been attained&

"ater! -n$ela #& *uason revoked the powers conferred on A& -ntonio -raneta& -n$ela notified -raneta! #nc& that because of alle$ed breach of the terms of the 14emorandum of -$reement1 and abuse of powers $ranted to it in the document! she had decided to rescind said contract and she asked that the propert) held in common be partitioned& -n$ela filed a complaint in the 0># askin$ the court to order the partition of the propert) in (uestion and that she be $iven 1R7 of the same includin$ rents collected durin$ the time that the same includin$ rents collected durin$ the time that -raneta #nc&! administered said propert)& *he main contention of the appellant is that the contract should be declared null and void because its terms provide that if the *uasons decide to sell their shares! the -raneta #nc shall have the ri$ht of first refusal& #f -raneta does not bu) the propert)! sale to third parties shall be sub<ect to the terms and conditions of -raneta #nc& 8uch proviso is alle$ed to be contrar) to -rt 322 of 00& *he land in (uestion is the paraphernal propert) of petitioner 4anuel Guenavista (defendant in 0ivil 0ase /o& 1973 of the 0ourt of >irst #nstance of 0amarines /orte) who had si9 (;) children! named -ntonio! 'osario! 0oncepcion! 'a(uel! Presentacion and >loserpina& Presentacion 0havez! with the conformit) of her mother! 4anuela Guenavista! e9ecuted a deed of sale pertainin$ to her 1R; undivided share of the land in (uestion to her sister! 0oncepcion 0havez& *wo )ears later! >loserpina 0havez! with the conformit) of her mother! also sold her 1R; undivided share of the same land to her sister! 0oncepcion& 'a(uel! with the conformit) of her mother! likewise sold her undivided 1R; share of the same propert) to 0oncepcion 0havez& Eavin$ ac(uired the shares of Presentacion! >loserpina and 'a(uel! 0oncepcion thereb) became the owner of a total undivided 3R; share of the land in (uestion with -ntonio and 'osario as owners of the remainin$ .R; shares& #n all documents! it is provided that@ the owner! 4anuela Guenavista! had assi$ned or distributed to her children! in e(ual pro6indiviso shares espite the transfers or assi$nments her children had e9ecuted with her conformit) ten )ears earlier!

C!$+"6 + IAC (1992)

-rticle 1282 of the /ew 0ivil 0ode allows a person to make a partition of his estate either b) an act inter vivos or b) will and such partition shall be respected insofar as it does not pre<udice the le$itimate of the compulsor) heirs& Dhile the law prohibits contracts upon future inheritance! the partition b) the parent! as provided in -rt& 1282! is a case e9pressl) authorized b) law (-rt& 1735! par& .! 0ivil 0ode of the Phil& b) Padilla! 1985 %dition! p& 533&) -rt& 1282 of the 0ivil 0ode clearl) $ives a person two options in makin$ a partition of his estate? either b) an act inter vivos or b) D#""& Dhen a person makes a partition b) will! it is imperative that such partition must be e9ecuted in accordance with the provisions of the law on wills? however! when a person makes the partition of his estate b) an act inter vivos! such partition ma) even be oral or written! and need not be in the form of a will! provided that the partition does not pre<udice the le$itime of compulsor) heirs& #n numerous cases it has been held or stated that parol partitions ma) be sustained on the $round of estoppel of the parties to assert the ri$hts of a tenant in common as to parts of land divided b) parol partition as to which possession in severalt) was taken and acts of individual ownership were e9ercised& -nd a court of e(uit) will reco$nize the a$reement and decree it to be valid and effectual for the purpose of concludin$ the ri$ht of the parties as between each other to hold their respective parts in severalt)& - parol partition ma) also be sustained on the $round that the parties thereto have ac(uiesced in and ratified the partition b) takin$ possession in severalt)! e9ercisin$ acts of ownership with respect thereto! or otherwise reco$nizin$ the e9istence of the partition& (Eernandez vs& -ndal! et al&! 58 Phil& 19;! .27&) #n the instant case! the respondent appellate court declared the eeds of 8ale e9ecuted b) Presentacion! >loserfina and 'a(uel! all surnamed 0havez (%9hs& -! G! and 0) in favor of 0oncepcion 0havez as evidence of a valid partition of the land in (uestion b) and between 4anuela Guenavista and her children as she not onl) $ave her authorit) thereto but also si$ned the sales& *he eeds of 8ale (%9hs& -! G! and 0) are not contracts entered into with respect to feature inheritance but a contract perfected and consummated durin$ the lifetime of 4anuela Guenavista who si$ned the same and $ave her consent thereto& 8uch partition inter vivos! e9ecuted b) the propert) owner herself! is valid&

4anuela Guenavista! on -u$ust .5! 19;8! si$ned a 1Gilihan$ Patulu)an n$ "upa1 of the entire propert) in favor of her dau$hter! 'a(uel 0havez! and her husband! Gerardo Aimenez& On October 5! 19;8! -ntonio! 'osario and 0oncepcion filed 0ivil 0ase /o& 1973 a$ainst their mother 4anuela and their sister 'a(uel& *hereupon! 4anuela sold the entire propert) to Pepito >errer! on >ebruar) 3! 19;9 (%9h& >) with ri$ht to repurchase& >errer was later sued as an additional defendant in 0ivil 0ase /o& 1973& -fter the trial! <ud$ment was rendered b) the trial court dismissin$ the complaint! dissolvin$ the preliminar) in<unction it had previousl) issued! and orderin$ the plaintiffs to pa) the costs& *he court did not award dama$es& 8pouses -lsua and their children entered into a dul) notarized a$reement! Escritura de Particion Extra;udicial! over the then present and e9istin$ properties of the spouses on Aesus and oSa >lorentina enumerated in a prepared inventor)& On Aanuar) 5! 1955! on Aesus and oSa >lorentina! also known as oS?a *ina) separatel) e9ecuted their respective holo$raphic wills! the provisions of which were in conformit) and in implementation of the e9tra<udicial partition of /ovember .5! 1939& *heir holo$raphic wills similarl) provided for the institution of the other to his or her share in the con<u$al properties! the other half of the con<u$al assets havin$ been partitioned to constitute their le$itime amon$ their four livin$ children in the %9tra<udicial Partition of 1939& *he spouses on Aesus and oSa *ina) filed before the 0ourt of >irst #nstance of -lba) their respective petitions for the probate of their respective holo$raphic wills& Fpon death of ona *ina)! on Aesus cancelled his holo$raphic will in the presence of his bookkeeper and secretar)! %steban P& 'amirez! whom he instructed to make a list of all his remainin$ properties with their correspondin$ descriptions& *his notarial will and testament (%9h& -) of on Aesus e9ecuted on /ovember 13! 1959 had three essential features@ (a) it e9pressl) cancelled! revoked and annulled all the provisions of on

&&&& -s the defendants freel) participated in the partition! the) are now estopped from den)in$ and repudiatin$ the conse(uences of their own voluntar) acts& #t is a $eneral principle of law that no one ma) be permitted to disavow and $o back upon his own acts! or to proceed contrar) thereto& (Aoa(uin vs& 4itsumine 73 Phil& 858&) Dhere a piece of land has been included in a partition! and there is no alle$ation that the inclusion was effected throu$h improper means or without the petitionerLs knowled$e! the partition barred an) further liti$ation on said title and operated to brin$ the propert) under the control and <urisdiction of the court for proper disposition accordin$ to the tenor of the partition&&& *he) cannot attack the partition collaterall) &&&

A#&,$- 3"''& + CA (1959)

De do not a$ree with this rulin$ of the 0ourt of -ppeals& De hold that the %9tra<udicial Partition of /ovember .5! 1939 is null and void under -rticle 125; in relation to -rticle 1.51 of the old 0ivil 0ode which are applicable hereto& *hese -rticles provide as follows@ -rt& 125;& #f the testator should make a partition of his propert) b) an act inter vivos! or b) will! such partition shall stand in so far as it does not pre<udice the le$itime of the forced heirs& &&& -rt& 1.51& -ll thin$s! even future ones! which are not e9cluded from the commerce of man! ma) be the sub<ect6matter of contracts& /evertheless! no contract ma) be entered into with respect to future inheritances! e9cept those the ob<ect of which is to make a division inter vivos of an estate! in accordance with -rticle 125;& -ll services not contrar) to law or to $ood morals ma) also be the sub<ect6 matter of contract& -rticle 125; specificall) uses the word 1testator1 from which the clear intent of the law ma) be deduced that the privile$e of partitionin$ oneLs estate b) acts inter vivos is restricted onl) to one who has made a prior will or testament& #n other words! -rticle 125; bein$ an e9ception cannot be $iven a wider scope as to include in the e9ception an) person whether he has made a will or not& De are not in conformit) with the holdin$ of the respondent court that the e9tra<udicial partition of /ovember .5! 1939 which under the old 0ivil 0ode was e9pressl) prohibited as a$ainst public polic) had been validl) ratified b) the holo$raphic will of on Aesus e9ecuted on Aanuar) 5! 1955 and his codicil of -u$ust 13! 195;& 8uch a holdin$ of the appellate court that a person who e9ecutes a will is permitted to partition his properties pursuant to the provisions of -rticle 125; of the old 0ivil 0ode even before e9ecutin$ his will as lon$ as he mentions this fact in the will! is not warranted under the rulin$ of Le"asto vs. 9er)osa! supra and the commentar) of 4anresa as (uoted above& De rule! therefore! that the respondent court erred in den)in$ probate to the will of on Aesus dated /ovember 13! 1959? it erred in holdin$ that on Aesus bein$ a part) to the e9tra<udicial partition of 1939 was contractuall) bound b) the provisions thereof and hence could not revoke his participation therein b) the simple e9pedience of makin$ a new will with contrar) provisions or dispositions& #t is an error because the so6 called e9tra<udicial partition of 1939 is void and inoperative as a partition? neither is it a valid or enforceable contract because it involved future inheritance? it ma) onl) be $iven effect as a donation inter vivos of specific properties to the heirs made b) the parents&

AesusL holo$raphic will of Aanuar) 5! 1955 and his codicil of -u$ust 13! 195;? (b) it provided for the collation of all his properties donated to his four livin$ children b) virtue of the 1%scritura de Particion %9tra& <udicial1 of 1939! and that such properties be taken into account in the partition of his estate amon$ the children? and (c) it instituted his children as le$ateesRdevisees of certain specific properties! and as to the rest of the properties and whatever ma) be subse(uentl) ac(uired in the future! before his death! were to be $iven to >rancisca and Pablo! namin$ >rancesca as e9ecutri9 to serve without a bond& On 4a) ;!19;3! on Aesus -lsua died& *he respondent court ruled that the %9tra<udicial Partition of /ovember .5! 1939 was an enforceable contract which was bindin$ on on Aesus -lsua as the survivin$ spouse! barrin$ him from violatin$ said partition a$reement! barrin$ him from revokin$ his holo$raphic will of Aanuar) 5! 1955 and his codicil of -u$ust 13! 195;! and further barrin$ him from e9ecutin$ his new will and testament of /ovember 13! 1959! now the sub<ect of the probate proceedin$s elevated to this 0ourt& D/-/0$# + CA (1955) "ot was owned b) the late Austice -ntonio Eorilleno? but before he died! he e9ecuted a last will and testament attestin$ to the fact that it was a co6ownership between himself and his brothers and sisters@ "uis! 8oledad! >e! 'osita! 0arlos and %speranza& 8hares of the siblin$s were sold to spouses oromal& Petitioner! 1R5 co6owner! want to redeem the shares sold&

0onsiderin$ that the document! the e9tra<udicial partition of /ovember .5! 1939! contained specific desi$nation of properties allotted to each child! De rule that there was substantial compliance with the rules on donations inter vivos under the old 0ivil 0ode (-rticle ;77)& On the other hand! there could have been no valid donation to the children of the other half reserved as the free portion of on Aesus and oS?a *ina) which! as stated in the deed! was to be divided e(uall) amon$ the children for the simple reason that the propert) or properties were not specificall) described in the public instrument! an essential re(uirement under -rticle ;77 which provides as follows@ -rt& ;77& #n order that a donation or real propert) be valid it must be made b) public instrument in which the propert) donated must be specificall) described and in the amount of the encumbrances to be assumed b) the donee e9pressed& *he acceptance must be made in the deed of $ift or in a separate public writin$? but it shall produce no effect if not made durin$ the lifetime of the donor& #f the acceptance is made b) separate public instrument! authentic notice thereof shall be $iven the donor! and this proceedin$ shall be noted in both instruments& *his other half! therefore! remained as the disposable free portion of the spouses which ma) be disposed of in such manner that either of the spouses would like in re$ards to his or her share in such portion! unencumbered b) the provision en<oinin$ the last survivin$ spouse to $ive e(uall) to the children what belon$s or6would pertain to him or her& *he end result! therefore! is that on Aesus and oS?a *ina)! in the eed of 1939! made to their children valid donations of onl) one6half of their combined properties which must be char$ed a$ainst their le$itime and cannot an)more be revoked unless inofficious? the other half remained entirel) at the free disposal of the spouses with re$ards to their respective shares& Petitioners do not (uestion respondentLs ri$ht to redeem! she bein$ admittedl) a 1R5 co6owner of the propert) in dispute& *he thrust of their first assi$nment of error is that for purposes of -rticle 1;.7 of the 0ivil 0ode which provides that@ -'*& 1;.7& *he ri$ht of le$al pre6emption or redemption shall not be e9ercised e9cept within thirt) da)s from the notice in writin$ b) the prospective vendor! or b) the vendor! as the case ma) be& *he deed of sale shall not be recorded in the 'e$istr) of Propert)! unless accompanied b) an affidavit of the vendor that he has $iven written notice thereof to all possible redemptioners& *he ri$ht of redemption of co6owners e9cludes that of ad<oinin$ owners& the letters sent b) 0arlos Eorilleno to respondent and dated Aanuar) 18! 19;8! %9hibit 5! and /ovember 5! 19;5! %9hibit ;! constituted the re(uired notice in writin$ from which the 726da) period fi9ed in said provision should be computed& #n the li$ht of these considerations! it cannot be said that the 0ourt of -ppeals erred in holdin$ that the letters aforementioned sufficed to compl) with the re(uirement of notice of a sale b) co6owners under -rticle 1;.7 of the 0ivil 0ode& De are of the considered opinion and so hold that for purposes of the co6 ownerLs ri$ht of redemption $ranted b) -rticle 1;.2 of the 0ivil 0ode! the notice in writin$ which -rticle 1;.7 re(uires to be made to the other co6owners and from receipt of which the 726da) period to redeem should be counted is a notice not onl) of a perfected sale but of the actual e9ecution and deliver) of the deed of sale& *his is implied from the latter portion of -rticle 1;.7 which re(uires that before a re$ister of deeds can record a sale b) a co6owner! there must be presented to him! an affidavit to the effect that the notice of the sale had been sent in writin$ to the other co6owners& - sale ma) not be presented to the re$ister of deeds for re$istration unless it be in the form of a dul) e9ecuted public

A#/n6/ + IAC (1985)

>ive brothers and sisters inherited in e(ual pro indiviso shares a parcel of land re$istered in Lthe name of their deceased parents under O0* /o& 12955 of the 'e$istr) of eeds of *arlac& #n 19;7! one of them! 0elestino Padua! transferred his undivided share of the herein petitioners for the sum of P552&22 b) wa) of absolute sale& One )ear later! on -pril ..! 19;3! %usta(uia Padua! his sister! sold her own share to the same vendees! in an instrument denominated 10on Pacto de 'etro 8ale&, G) virtue of such a$reements! the petitioners occupied! after the said sales! an area correspondin$ to two6fifths of the said lot! representin$ the portions sold to them& *he vendees subse(uentl) enclosed the same with a fence& #n 1955! with their consent! their son %duardo -lonzo and his wife built a semi6concrete house on a part of the enclosed area& On >ebruar) .5! 195;! 4ariano Padua! one of the five coheirs! sou$ht to redeem the area sold to the spouses -lonzo! but his complaint was dismissed when it appeared that he was an -merican citizen& On 4a) .5! 1955! however! *ecla Padua! another co6heir! filed her own complaint invokin$ the same ri$ht of redemption claimed b) her brother& *he trial court also dismiss this complaint! now on the $round that the ri$ht had lapsed! not havin$ been e9ercised within thirt) da)s from notice of the sales in 19;7 and 19;3& -lthou$h there was no written notice! it was held that actual knowled$e of the sales b) the co6heirs satisfied the re(uirement of the law& *he co6heirs lived on the same lot&

instrument& 4oreover! the law prefers that all the terms and conditions of the sale should be definite and in writin$& -s aptl) observed b) Austice Gatmaitan in the decision under review! -rticle 1;19 of the 0ivil 0ode bestows unto a co6owner the ri$ht to redeem and 1to be subro$ated under the same terms and conditions stipulated in the contract1! and to avoid an) controvers) as to the terms and conditions under which the ri$ht to redeem ma) be e9ercised! it is best that the period therefor should not be deemed to have commenced unless the notice of the disposition is made after the formal deed of disposal has been dul) e9ecuted& -nd it bein$ be)ond dispute that respondent herein has never been notified in writin$ of the e9ecution of the deed of sale b) which petitioners ac(uired the sub<ect propert)! it necessaril) follows that her tender to redeem the same made on Aune 12! 19;8 was well within the period prescribed b) law& #ndeed! it is immaterial when she mi$ht have actuall) come to know about said deed! it appearin$ she has never been shown a cop) thereof throu$h a written communication b) either an) of the petitioners6purchasers or an) of her co6owners6vendees -rt& 1288& 8hould an) of the heirs sell his hereditar) ri$hts to a stran$er before the partition! an) or all of the co6heirs ma) be subro$ated to the ri$hts of the purchaser b) reimbursin$ him for the price of the sale! provided the) do so within the period of one month from the time the) were notified in writin$ of the sale b) the vendor& -ccordin$ to Austice A&G&"& 'e)es! who was the ponente of the 0ourt! furnishin$ the co6heirs with a cop) of the deed of sale of the propert) sub<ect to redemption would satisf) the re(uirement for written notice& 18o lon$! therefore! as the latter (i&e&! the redemptioner) is informed in writin$ of the sale and the particulars thereof!1 he declared! 1the thirt) da)s for redemption start runnin$& 1 #n the earlier decision of utte v. UP! 1 the 0ourt! speakin$ throu$h the same learned <urist! emphasized that the written notice should be $iven b) the vendor and not the vendees! conformabl) to a similar re(uirement under -rticle 1;.7! readin$ as follows@ -rt& 1;.7& *he ri$ht of le$al pre6emption or redemption shall not be e9ercised e9cept within thirt) da)s from the notice in writin$ b) the prospective vendor! or b) the vendors! as the case ma) be& *he deed of sale shall not be recorded in the 'e$istr) of Propert)! unless accompanied b) an affidavit of the vendor that he has $iven written notice thereof to all possible redemptioners& *he ri$ht of redemption of co6owners e9cludes that of the ad<oinin$ owners& -s 1it is thus apparent that the Philippine le$islature in -rticle 1;.7 deliberatel) selected a particular method of $ivin$ notice! and that notice must be deemed e9clusive!1 the 0ourt held that notice $iven b) the vendees and not the vendor would not toll the runnin$ of the 726da) period& *he petition before us appears to be an illustration of the Eolmes dictum that 1hard cases make bad laws1 as the petitioners obviousl) cannot ar$ue a$ainst the fact that there was reall) no written notice $iven b) the vendors to their co6heirs& 8trictl) applied and interpreted! -rticle 1288 can lead to onl) one conclusion! to wit! that in view of such deficienc)! the 72 da) period for redemption had not be$un to run! much less e9pired in 1955& Gut as has also been aptl) observed! we test a law b) its results? and likewise! we ma) add! b) its purposes& #t is a cardinal rule that! in seekin$ the meanin$ of the law! the first concern of the <ud$e should be to discover in its provisions the in tent of the lawmaker& Fn(uestionabl)! the law should never be interpreted in such a wa) as to cause in<ustice as this is never within the le$islative intent& -n indispensable part of that intent! in fact! for we presume the $ood motives of the le$islature! is to render ;ustice. #n the face of the established facts! we cannot accept the private respondentsL pretense that the) were unaware of the sales made b) their brother and sister in 19;7 and 19;3& G) re(uirin$ written proof of such notice! we would be closin$ our e)es to the obvious truth in favor of their palpabl) false claim of

3$,'.&'$ + G-.n/-A<,.n/ (1988)

0an the propert) of the survivin$ husband be the sub<ect of an e9tra<udicial partition of the estate of the deceased wifeC *he land of 4anuel Gautista was sub<ect to e9tra6 <udicial partition amon$ the heirs of his late wife (4anuel=s children with his first wife)& 4anuel married a$ain and had one offsprin$& 4anuel Gautista denied participation in the %9tra<udicial Partition of Propert)&

i$norance! thus e9altin$ the letter of the law over its purpose& *he purpose is clear enou$h@ to make sure that the redemptioners are dul) notified& De are satisfied that in this case the other brothers and sisters were actuall) informed! althou$h not in writin$! of the sales made in 19;7 and 19;3! and that such notice was sufficient& *he propert) sub<ect matter of said e9tra<udicial partition does not belon$ to the estate of Auliana /o<adera& #t is the e9clusive propert) of 4anuel Gautista who inherited the same from his father 4ariano Gautista! which was re$istered in his name under *&0&*& /o& ..12& Fnder 8ection 1! 'ule 53 of the 'ules of 0ourt an e9tra<udicial settlement of the %state applies onl) to the estate left by t&e decedent who died without a will! and with no creditors! and the heirs are all of a$e or the minors are represented b) their <udicial or le$al representatives& #f the propert) does not belon$ to the estate of the decedent certainl) it cannot be the sub<ect matter of an e9tra<udicial partition& -s the sub<ect propert) does not belon$ to the estate of Auliana /o<adera! the eed of %9tra<udicial Partition! isvoid ab initio bein$ contrar) to law& *o include in an e9tra<udicial partition propert) which does not pertain to the estate of the deceased would be to deprive the lawful owner thereof of his propert) without due process of law& Onl) propert) of the estate of the decedent which is transmitted b) succession can be the lawful sub<ect matter of an e9tra<udicial partition& #n this case! the said partition obviousl) pre<udices the ri$ht of 4anuel Gautista as e9clusive owner of the propert)& *he said partition also effectivel) resulted in the preterition of the ri$ht of %van$eline Gautista as a compulsor) heir of 4anuel Gautista! dau$hter of the latter b) his second marria$e& #t is difficult to believe that 4anuel Gautista would wittin$l) overlook and i$nore the ri$ht of her dau$hter %van$eline to share in the said propert)& #t is not surprisin$ that he denied si$nin$ the said document& 4oreover! private respondents knew %van$eline Gautista who is their half6sister to be a compulsor) heir& *he court finds that her preterition was attended with bad faith hence the said partition must be rescinded& Prescription cannot be invoked in this case as the petitionersL ri$ht to sue their co6owners for partition of the propert) is imprescriptible& -nd even assumin$ that the present action ma) prescribe as ruled b) the respondent court! petitioners %miliana Gautista and %van$eline Gautista who are not parties to the said instrument asserted that the) discovered the same onl) soon before the) filed the complaint in court& 0ertainl) the action has not prescribed& *he pivotal (uestion is whether! in the premises! plaintiff6appellee is a heir of the decedent& De are convinced that she is not& Plaintiff6appellee bein$ a mere $randniece of Pela$ia de la 0ruz! she could not inherit from the latter b) ri$ht of representation& Gut what is the le$al effect of plaintiff6appelleeLs inclusion and participation in the e9tra<udicial partition a$reement insofar as her ri$ht to brin$ the present action is concernedC *he) did not confer upon her the ri$ht to institute this action& *he e9press purpose of the e9tra<udicial partition a$reement! as admitted b) the parties in the stipulation of facts! was to divide the estate amon$ the heirs of Pela$ia de la 0ruz& #ndeed! the said a$reement itself states that plaintiff6appellee was participatin$ therein in representation of her deceased mother& #t is (uite apparent that in e9ecutin$ the partition a$reement! the parties thereto were laborin$ under the erroneous belief that plaintiff6appellee was one of the le$al heirs of Pela$ia de la 0ruz& Plaintiff6appellee not bein$ such a heir! the partition is void with respect to her! pursuant to -rticle 1125 of the 0ivil 0ode! which reads@ -'*& 1125& - partition which includes a person believed to be a heir! but who is not! shall be void onl) with respect to such person&

D" #/& S$n'/& + D" #$ C-,6

Gertrudes de los 8antos filed a complaint for specific performance a$ainst 4a9imo de la 0ruz! alle$in$! amon$ others! that on -u$ust .3! 19;7! she and several co6heirs! includin$ the defendant! e9ecuted an e9tra<udicial partition a$reement (a cop) of which was attached to the complaint) over a certain portion of land& #n his answer! the defendant admitted the due e9ecution of the e9tra<udicial partition a$reement! but set up the affirmative defenses that the plaintiff had no cause of action a$ainst him because the said a$reement was void with respect to her! for the reason that the plaintiff was not an heir of Pela$ia de la 0ruz! deceased owner of the propert)! and was included in the e9tra<udicial partition a$reement b) mistake& *he owner of the estate! sub<ect matter of the

L$*9$1$n S$0/1 (.211)

e9tra<udicial partition a$reement! was Pela$ia de la 0ruz! who died intestate on October 1;! 19;.? that defendant6appellant is a nephew of the said decedent? that plaintiff6appellee is a $randniece of Pela$ia de la 0ruz! her mother! 4arciana de la 0ruz! bein$ a niece of the said Pela$ia de la 0ruz? that plaintiff6appelleeLs mother died on 8eptember ..! 1975! thus predeceasin" Pela$ia de la 0ruz? and that the purpose of the e9tra<udicial partition a$reement was to divide and distribute the estate a$on" t&e &eirs of Pela$ia de la 0ruz& Petitioner and respondent met each other throu$h a common friend sometime in 1958& espite respondent bein$ alread) married! their relationship developed until petitioner $ave birth to respondent=s son& urin$ their illicit relationship! petitioner and respondent! to$ether with three more incorporators! were able to establish a manpower services compan)& >ive parcels of land were also ac(uired durin$ the said period and were re$istered in petitioner and respondent=s names! ostensibl) as husband and wife& %ventuall)! however! their relationship turned sour and the) decided to part wa)s sometime in 1991& #n 1998! both parties a$reed to divide the said properties and terminate their business partnership b) e9ecutin$ a Partition -$reement& #nitiall)! respondent a$reed to petitioner=s proposal that the properties in 4alvar 8t& and on %nri(ue Eei$hts be assi$ned to the latter! while the ownership over the three other properties will $o to respondent& Eowever! when petitioner wanted additional demands to be included in the partition a$reement! respondent refused& >eelin$ a$$rieved! petitioner filed a complaint for <udicial partition of the said properties before the '*0 in Uuezon 0it) on 4a) 71! 1999&

Partition of propert) affected between a person entitled to inherit from the deceased owner thereof and another person who thou$ht he was an heir! when he was not reall) and lawfull) such! to the pre<udice of the ri$hts of the true heir desi$nated b) law to succeed the deceased! is null and void ( e *orres vs& e *orres! et al&! .8 Phil& 39)& - fortiori! plaintiff6appellee could hardl) derive from the a$reement the ri$ht to have its terms enforced& *he e9tra<udicial partition a$reement bein$ void with respect to plaintiff6appellee! she ma) not be heard to assert estoppel a$ainst defendant6appellant& %stoppel cannot be predicated on a void contract (15 -m& Aur& ;25)! or on acts which are prohibited b) law or are a$ainst public polic)& *he determination as to the e9istence of co6ownership is necessar) in the resolution of an action for partition& *hus@ *he first phase of a partition andRor accountin$ suit is taken up with the determination of whether or not a co6ownership in fact e9ists! and a partition is proper (i&e&! not otherwise le$all) proscribed) and ma) be made b) voluntar) a$reement of all the parties interested in the propert)& *his phase ma) end with a declaration that plaintiff is not entitled to have a partition either because a co6ownership does not e9ist! or partition is le$all) prohibited& #t ma) end! on the other hand! with an ad<ud$ment that a co6ownership does in truth e9ist! partition is proper in the premises and an accountin$ of rents and profits received b) the defendant from the real estate in (uestion is in order& 9 9 9 *he second phase commences when it appears that 1the parties are unable to a$ree upon the partition1 directed b) the court& #n that eventP!Q partition shall be done for the parties b) the PcQourt with the assistance of not more than three (7) commissioners& *his second sta$e ma) well also deal with the rendition of the accountin$ itself and its approval b) the PcQourt after the parties have been accorded opportunit) to be heard thereon! and an award for the recover) b) the part) or parties thereto entitled of their <ust share in the rents and profits of the real estate in (uestion& 9 9 9 (%mphasis supplied&) Dhile it is true that the complaint involved here is one for partition! the same is premised on the e9istence or non6e9istence of co6ownership between the parties& Petitioner insists she is a co6owner pro indiviso of the five real estate properties based on the transfer certificates of title (*0*s) coverin$ the sub<ect properties& 'espondent maintains otherwise& #ndubitabl)! therefore! until and unless this issue of co6ownership is definitel) and finall) resolved! it would be premature to effect a partition of the disputed properties& 4ore importantl)! the complaint will not even lie if the claimant! or petitioner in this case! does not even have an) ri$htful interest over the sub<ect properties& *here is no dispute that a *orrens certificate of title cannot be collaterall) attacked! but that rule is not material to the case at bar& Dhat cannot be collaterall) attacked is the certificate of title and not the title itself& *he certificate referred to is that document issued b) the 'e$ister of eeds known as the *0*& #n contrast! the title referred to b) law means ownership which is! more often than not! represented b) that document& Petitioner apparentl) confuses title with the certificate of title& *itle as a concept of ownership should not be confused with the certificate of title as evidence of such ownership althou$h both are interchan$eabl) used&

U-"'$ + U-"'$ (2011)

supra

O3LIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS PART I - O3LIGATIONS FFIII IN GENERAL $ N$',-"

PS3A VS CA (199.)

D").n.'./n S/,-*"& $) L$% 9) C/n'-$*' - stabbin$ incident on 72 -u$ust 1985 which caused the death of 0arlitos Gautista while on the second6floor premises of the Philippine 8chool of Gusiness -dministration (P8G-) prompted the parents of the deceased to file suit in the 'e$ional *rial 0ourt of 4anila (Granch 35) presided over b) Aud$e (now 0ourt of -ppeals <ustice) 'e$ina OrdoSez6Genitez! for dama$es a$ainst the said P8G- and its corporate officers& -t the time of his death! 0arlitos was enrolled in the third )ear commerce course at the P8G-& #t was established that his assailants were not members of the schoolLs academic communit) but were elements from outside the school& *he suit impleaded the P8G- and some school authorities& 8ubstantiall)! private respondents sou$ht to ad<ud$e them liable for the victimLs untimel) demise due to their alle$ed ne$li$ence! recklessness and lack of securit) precautions! means and methods before! durin$ and after the attack on the victim& Petitioners now seek to have the suit dismissed! alle$in$ that since the) are presumabl) sued under -rticle .182 of the 0ivil 0ode! the complaint states no cause of action a$ainst them! as <urisprudence on the sub<ect is to the effect that acade$ic institutions! such as the P8G-! are be)ond the ambit of the rule in the afore6stated article&

. ..

- contractual relation is a condition sine #ua nonto the schoolLs liabilit)& *he ne$li$ence of the school cannot e9ist independentl) of the contract! unless the ne$li$ence occurs under the circumstances set out in -rticle .1 of the 0ivil 0ode& -rticle .182! in con<unction with -rticle .15; of the 0ivil 0ode! establishes the rule of in loco parentis& #n all such cases! it had been stressed that the law (-rticle .182) plainl) provides that the dama$e should have been caused or inflicted b) pupils or students of he educational institution sou$ht to be held liable for the acts of its pupils or students while in its custod)& H/%"+"-, '!.& 0$'"-.$# &.',$'./n d/"& n/' "E.&' .n '!" 2-"&"n' *$&" )/-, $& "$-#."- .nd.*$'"d, '!" $&&$.#$n'& /) C$-#.'/& +ere not students of the P/7A, )/- %!/&" $*'& '!" &*!//# */,#d 9" 0$d" #.$9#" W!"n $n $*$d"0.* .n&'.','./n $**"2'& &',d"n'& )/- "n-/##0"n', '!"-" .& "&'$9#.&!"d $ contract 9"'%""n '!"0, -"&,#'.n4 .n 9.#$'"-$# /9#.4$'./n& %!.*! 9/'! 2$-'."& $-" 9/,nd '/ */02#1 %.'! F/- .'& 2$-', '!" &*!//# ,nd"-'$("& '/ 2-/+.d" '!" &',d"n' %.'! $n "d,*$'./n '!$' %/,#d 2-"&,0$9#1 &,)).*" '/ "<,.2 !.0 %.'! '!" n"*"&&$-1 '//#& $nd &(.##& '/ 2,-&," !.4!""d,*$'./n /- $ 2-/)"&&./n On '!" /'!"- !$nd, '!" &',d"n' */+"n$n'& '/ $9.d" 91 '!" &*!//#L& $*$d"0.* -"<,.-"0"n'& $nd /9&"-+" .'& -,#"& $nd -"4,#$'./n& In&'.','./n& /) #"$-n.n4 0,&' $#&/ 0""' '!" .02#.*.' /- H9,.#'-.nH /9#.4$'./n /) 2-/+.d.n4 '!".&',d"n'& %.'! $n $'0/&2!"-" '!$' 2-/0/'"& /- $&&.&'& .n $''$.n.n4 .'& 2-.0$-1 ,nd"-'$(.n4 /) .02$-'.n4 (n/%#"d4" /ecessaril)! the school must ensure that ade(uate steps are taken to maintain peace and order within the campus premises and to prevent the breakdown thereof& Gecause the circumstances of the present case evince a contractual relation between the P8G- and 0arlitos Gautista! the rules on (uasi6delict do not reall) $overn& 8 - perusal of -rticle .15; shows that obli$ations arisin$ from (uasi6delicts or tort! also known as e9tra6contractual obli$ations! arise onl) between parties not otherwise bound b) contract! whether e9press or implied& H/%"+"-, '!.& .02-"&&./n !$& n/' 2-"+"n'"d '!.& C/,-' )-/0 d"'"-0.n.n4 '!" "E.&'"n*" /) $ '/-' "+"n %!"n '!"-" /9'$.n& $ */n'-$*'& >rom the cases of (ir /rance vs& Carrascoso and Can"co vs& !anila Railroad! .' *$n 9" */n*#,d"d '!$' &!/,#d '!" $*' %!.*! 9-"$*!"& $ */n'-$*' 9" d/n" .n 9$d )$.'! $nd 9" +./#$'.+" /) A-'.*#" 21, '!"n '!"-" .& $ *$,&" '/ +."% '!" $*' $& */n&'.','.n4 $ <,$&.-d"#.*' #n the circumstances obtainin$ in the case at bar! however! there is! as )et! no findin$ that the contract between the school and Gautista had been breached thru the formerLs ne$li$ence in providin$ proper securit) measures& *his would be for the trial court to determine& -nd! even if there be a findin$ of ne$li$ence! the same could $ive rise $enerall) to a breach of contractual obli$ation onl)&

3ARREDO GARCIA (193.)

VS

*) C,$&.-C/n'-$*' d) D"#.*' ") C,$&.-D"#.*' - ta9i driven >ontanilla and owned b) petitioner collided with a carretela& >austino Garcia! a 1; )ear6old bo) who was a passen$er of the caratella! died as a result of in<uries he sustained from the collision& 'espondents are the parents of >austino who filed a criminal action a$ainst >ontanilla in the 0>#& *he latter was convicted and sentenced& 'espondents then brou$ht an action in the 0># of

A ,uasi8delict /- Hculpa a,uiliana H .& $ &"2$-$'" #"4$# .n&'.','./n ,nd"- '!" C.+.# C/d" %.'! $ &,9&'$n'.+.'1 $## .'& /%n, $nd .nd.+.d,$#.'1 '!$' .& "n'.-"#1 $2$-' $nd .nd"2"nd"n' )-/0 d"#.*' /*-.0" U2/n '!.& 2-.n*.2#" $nd /n '!" %/-d.n4 $nd &2.-.' $-'.*#" 1703 /) '!" C.+.# C/d", '!" 2-.0$-1 $nd d.-"*' -"&2/n&.9.#.'1 /) "02#/1"-& 0$1 9" &$)"#1 $n*!/-"d -rticles .2 and .1 of the Penal 0ode! after distributin$ in their own wa) the civil responsibilities amon$ those who! for different reasons! are $uilt) of felon) or misdemeanor! make such civil responsibilities applicable to enterprises and establishments for which the $uilt) parties render service! but with subsidiar) character! that is to sa)! accordin$ to the wordin$ of the Penal 0ode! in default of t&ose w&o are cri$inally responsible&

4anila a$ainst petitioner as the sole proprietor of the ta9icab& *he main theor) of the defense is that the liabilit) of >austo Garredo is $overned b) the 'evised Penal 0ode? hence! his liabilit) is onl) subsidiar)! and as there has been no civil action a$ainst Pedro >ontanilla! the person criminall) liable! Garredo cannot be held responsible in the case&

#n this re$ard! the 0ivil 0ode does not coincide because article 1927 sa)s@ 1*he obli$ation imposed b) the ne9t precedin$ article is demandable! not onl) for personal acts and omissions! but also for those of persons for whom another is responsible&1 -mon$ the persons enumerated are the subordinates and emplo)ees of establishments or enterprises! either for acts durin$ their service or on the occasion of their functions& #t is for this reason that it happens! and it is so observed in <udicial decisions! that the companies or enterprises! after takin$ part in the criminal cases because of their subsidiar) civil responsibilit) b) reason of the crime! are sued and sentenced directly and separately with re$ard to the obli"ation! before the civil courts& #n this case! the ta9i driver was found $uilt) of criminal ne$li$ence! so that if he had even sued for his civil responsibilit) arisin$ from the crime! he would have been held primaril) liable for civil dama$es! and Garredo would have been held subsidiaril) liable for the same& Gut the plaintiffs are directl) suin$ Garredo! on his primar) responsibilit) because of his own presumed ne$li$ence M which he did not overcome M under article 1927 T!,&, '!"-" %"-" '%/ #.$9.#.'."& /) 3$--"d/K ).-&', '!" &,9&.d.$-1 /n" 9"*$,&" /) '!" *.+.# #.$9.#.'1 /) '!" '$E. d-.+"- $-.&.n4 )-/0 '!" #$''"-L& *-.0.n$# n"4#.4"n*"T $nd, &"*/nd, 3$--"d/L& 2-.0$-1 #.$9.#.'1 $& $n "02#/1"- ,nd"$-'.*#" 1703 T!" 2#$.n'.))& %"-" )-"" '/ *!//&" %!.*! */,-&" '/ '$(", $nd '!"1 2-")"--"d '!" &"*/nd -"0"d1 In &/ d/.n4, '!"1 %"-" $*'.n4 %.'!.n '!".- -.4!'& *he $uarant) $iven b) the father at the time the son was $ranted a license to operate motor vehicles made the father responsible for the acts of his son& Gased on these facts! pursuant to the provisions of article 1927 of the 0ivil 0ode! the father alone and not the minor or the mother! would be liable for the dama$es caused b) the minor& Dhat is dealth with here is the civil law liabilit) of parties for obli$ations which arise from fault or ne$li$ence& #n the Fnited 8tates! it is uniforml) held that the head of a house! the owner of an automobile! who maintains it for the $eneral use of his famil) is liable for its ne$li$ent operation b) one of his children! whom he desi$nates or permits to run it! where the car is occupied and bein$ used at the time of the in<ur) for the pleasure of other members of the ownerLs famil) than the child drivin$ it& *he theor) of the law is that the runnin$ of the machine b) a child to carr) other members of the famil) is within the scope of the ownerLs business! so that he is liable for the ne$li$ence of the child because of the relationship of master and servant On the other hand! the liabilit) of 8aturnino 0ortez! the owner of the truck! and of his chauffeur -belardo :elasco rests on a different basis! namel)! that of contract&

GUTIERRE@ VS GUTIERRE@ (1971)

*his case involves the collision of a passen$er truck and an automobile owned b) the defendants& Petitioner was a passen$er of the truck whose le$ was in<ured as a result of the accident& #t is conceded that the collision was caused b) ne$li$ence pure and simple& *he difference between the parties is that! while the plaintiff blames both sets of defendants! the owner of the passen$er truck blames the automobile! and the owner of the automobile! in turn! blames the truck&

E))"*' /) O9#.4$'./n& . 5.nd& /) P-"&'$'./n& $) T/ 4.+" $) R,#"& -"4$-d.n4 .02-/+"0"n', #/&&, /- d"'"-./-$'./n 9) T/ d/ CHAVE@ VS Petitioner delivered a t)pewriter to the defendant Gonzales is liable under -rt& 11;5 and not 1195& GON@ALES for the latter to repair it& efendant was not able to efendant cannot invoke -rticle 1195 of the 0ivil 0ode for he virtuall) admitted nonperformance b) finish the <ob after some time despite repeated returnin$ the t)pewriter that he was obli$ed to repair in a non6workin$ condition! with essential parts (1952) reminders b) the petitioner& "ater! Gonzales asked missin$& *he fi9in$ of a period would thus be a mere formalit) and would serve no purpose that to 0havez for P; for the purchase of spare parts& dela)& Eowever! there was still dela) in the repair so 0havez demanded the return of the t)pewriter! *he parties had a perfected contract for cleanin$ and servicin$ a t)pewriter& *he) intended that the which was returned to him in shambles! with the defendant was to finish it at some future time! althou$h such time was not specified! and such time had interior of the cover and some parts and screws passed without the work havin$ been accomplished! for the defendant returned the missin$& Petitioner then demanded the return of t)pewriter cannibalized and unrepaired! which in itself is a breach of his obli$ation! without demandin$ these parts and the P; which defendant did return& that he should be $iven more time to finish the <ob! or compensation for the work he had alread) done& 0havez then had his t)pewriter repaired b) another *he time for compliance havin$ evidentl) e9pired! and there bein$ a breach of contract b) non6 compan)! which cost him a total of P89&95! performance! respondent is therefore liable to the petitioner for the cost of the repair&

includin$ labor and materials& Petitioner is now demandin$ from defendant the cost of the repair plus dama$es& efendant claims he is not liable since his contract with 0havez did not contain a period& -ccordin$ to the former! the petitioner should have first filed a petition for the court to fi9 a period under -rt& 1195& TANGUILIG VS CA (1995) Petitioner and respondent :icente Eerce entered into a contract for the construction of a windmill& -fter it=s construction however! respondent refused to pa) his remainin$ balance to petitioenr! claimin$ that he alread) paid such amount to 8PG4#! another compan) who constructed the deep well to which the windmill s)stem was to be connected& -ccordin$ to respondent! since the deep well formed part of the s)stem the pa)ment he tendered to 8PG4# should be credited to his account b) petitioner& Petitioner denied that the construction of a deep well was included in the a$reement to build the windmill s)stem! for the contract price of P;2!222&22 was solel) for the windmill assembl) and its installation! e9clusive of other incidental materials needed for the pro<ect& *) N/' '/ d/ I--"4,#$-.'1 .n P"-)/-0$n*" $) A''-.9,'$9#" '/ d"9'/$) F-$,d (d/#/) Petitioner and respondent entered into a contract of partnership& Fnder the contract! petitioner was to secure the 4ission 8oft rinks franchise for and in behalf of the proposed partnership in consideration for which petitioner was to receive 72b of the net profits of the business& "ater however! defendant refused to $ive Doodhouse the 72b a$reed upon! alle$in$ that defendant=s consent to the a$reement was secured b) the fraudulent representation of Doodhouse that he was the owner or was about to become the owner of an e9clusive bottlin$ franchise& ..

#t is clear that the defendant contravened the tenor of his obli$ation because he not onl) failed to repair the t)pewriter but returned it in shambles& >or such contravention! he is liable under -rt& 11;5 for the cost of e9ecutin$ the obli$ation in a proper manner&

*he preponderance of evidence supports the findin$ of the trial court that the installation of a deep well was not included in the proposals of petitioner to construct a windmill s)stem for respondent& *here were in fact two (.) proposals@ one dated 19 4a) 1985 which pe$$ed the contract price at P85!222&22& *his was re<ected b) respondent& *he other was submitted three da)s later! i&e&! on .. 4a) 1985 which contained more specifications but proposed a lower contract price of P;2!222&22&*he latter proposal was accepted b) respondent and the construction immediatel) followed& /otabl)! nowhere in either proposal is the installation of a deep well mentioned! even remotel)& /either is there an itemization or description of the materials to be used in constructin$ the deep well& *here is absolutel) no mention in the two documents that a deep well pump is a component of the proposed windmill s)stem& I' .& $ *$-d.n$# -,#" .n '!" .n'"-2-"'$'./n /) */n'-$*'& '!$' '!" .n'"n'./n /) '!" 2$-'."& &!$## 9" $**/-d"d 2-.0/-d.$# */n&.d"-$'./n $nd, .n *$&" /) d/,9', '!".- */n'"02/-$n"/,& $nd &,9&"<,"n' $*'& &!$## 9" 2-.n*.2$##1 */n&.d"-"d

WOODHOUSE VS HALILI (1957)

GERALDE@ VS

-n action for dama$es b) reason of contractual

Doodhouse fraudulentl) represented that he was an e9clusive $rantee of a franchise& Eowever! this did not amount to fraud which vitiated Ealili=s consent& -rticle 1.52 of the 8panish 0ivil 0ode distin$uishes two kinds of (civil) fraud! the causal fraud! which ma) be a $round for the annulment of a contract! and the incidental deceit! which onl) renders the part) who emplo)s it liable for dama$es& #n order that fraud ma) vitiate consent! it must be the causal (dolo causante)! not merel) the incidental (dolo causante)! inducement to the makin$ of the contract& *he defendant was led to the belief that plaintiff had the e9clusive franchise! but that the same was to be secured for or transferred to the partnership& *he plaintiff no lon$er had the e9clusive franchise! or the option thereto! at the time the contract was perfected& Gut while he had alread) lost his option thereto (when the contract was entered into)! the principal obli$ation that he assumed or undertook was to secure said franchise for the partnership! as the bottler and distributor for the 4ission r) 0orporation&T!"-")/-", .) !" %$& 4,.#'1 /) $ )$#&" -"2-"&"n'$'./n, '!.& %$& n/' '!" *$,&$# */n&.d"-$'./n, /- '!" 2-.n*.2$# .nd,*"0"n', '!$' #"d 2#$.n'.)) '/ "n'"- .n'/ '!" 2$-'n"-&!.2 $4-""0"n' Eowever! while the representation that plaintiff had the e9clusive franchise did not vitiate defendantLs consent to the contract! it was used b) plaintiff to $et from defendant a share of 72 per cent of the net profits? in other words! b) pretendin$ that he had the e9clusive franchise and promisin$ to transfer it to defendant! he obtained the consent of the latter to $ive him (plaintiff) a bi$ slice in the net profits& *his is the dolo incidentedefined in article 1.52 of the 8panish 0ivil 0ode! because it was used to $et the other part)Ls consent to a bi$ share in the profits! an incidental matter in the a$reement& Benstar committed fraudulent misrepresentations amountin$ to bad faith! to the pre<udice of petitioner

CA $nd 5ENSTAR TRAVEL CORP (1993)

breach was filed b) petitioner ")dia "& Geraldez a$ainst private respondent Benstar *ravel 0orporation& -ccordin$ to petitioner! she paid Benstar for a ..6 da) %uropean tour packa$e for her sister and herself& Petitioner claimed that! durin$ the tour! she was ver) uneas) and disappointed when it turned out that! contrar) to what was stated in the brochure! there was no %uropean tour mana$er for their $roup of tourists! the hotels in which she and the $roup were bullited were not first6class! the FG0 "eather >actor) which was specificall) added as a hi$hli$ht of the tour was not visited! and the >ilipino lad) tour $uide b) private respondent was a first timer! that is! she was performin$ her duties and responsibilities as such for the first time& 9)

and the members of the tour $roup& T!.& )-$,d /- dolo %!.*! .& 2-"&"n' /- "02#/1"d $' '!" '.0" /) 9.-'! /- 2"-)"*'./n /) $ */n'-$*' 0$1 ".'!"- 9" dolo causante /- dolo incidente T!" ).-&', /- *$,&$# )-$,d -")"--"d '/ .n A-'.*#" 1338, $-" '!/&" d"*"2'./n& /- 0.&-"2-"&"n'$'./n& /) $ &"-./,& *!$-$*'"- "02#/1"d 91 /n" 2$-'1 $nd %.'!/,' %!.*! '!" /'!"- 2$-'1 %/,#d n/' !$+" "n'"-"d .n'/ '!" */n'-$*' Dolo incidente, /.n*.d"n'$# )-$,d %!.*! .& -")"--"d '/ .n A-'.*#" 13BB, $-" '!/&" %!.*! $-" n/' &"-./,& .n *!$-$*'"$nd %.'!/,' %!.*! '!" /'!"- 2$-'1 %/,#d &'.## !$+" "n'"-"d .n'/ '!" */n'-$*' Dolo causante d"'"-0.n"& /- .& '!" "&&"n'.$# *$,&" /) '!" */n&"n', %!.#" dolo incidente -")"-& /n#1 '/ &/0" 2$-'.*,#$- /- $**.d"n' /) '!" /9#.4$'./n& T!" "))"*'& /) dolo causante $-" '!" n,##.'1 /) '!" */n'-$*' $nd '!" .nd"0n.).*$'./n /) d$0$4"&, $nd dolo incidente $#&/ /9#.4"& '!" 2"-&/n "02#/1.n4 .' '/ 2$1 d$0$4"& #n the belief that an e9perienced tour escort and a %uropean tour mana$er would accompan) them! with the concomitant reassurin$ and comfortin$ thou$ht of havin$ securit) and assistance readil) at hand! petitioner was induced to <oin the :olare 7 tourists! instead of travellin$ alone =D 8he likewise suffered serious an9iet) and distress when the $roup was unable to visit the leather factor) and when she did not receive first6class accommodations in their lod$in$s which were misrepresented as first6 class hotels& *hese! <ustif) the award of moral dama$es&

3OYSAW INTERPHIL (1985)

VS

E))"*'& /) )-$,d 1 S2"*.).* P"-)/-0$n*" 1 S2"*.).* d"'"-0.n$'" '!.n4 2 G"n"-.* '!.n4 3 P-"&"-+" B D"#.+"- $## .'& $**"&&./n& D In'"-"&' = D"#.+"- $## .'& $**"&&/-."& 2 S,9&'.','"d 2"-)/-0$n*" 3 R"&*.&&./n 4a) 1! 19;1 0ontract 8olomon Go)saw and A#'!/,4! -"&2/nd"n' +./#$'"d '!" M$1 1, 17=1 */n'-$*', .' %$& 3/1&$% %!/ ).-&' +./#$'"d '!" */n'-$*' 4.+.n4 In'"-2!.#, '!" .n;,-"d 2$-'1, '!" 2/%"- '/ -"&*.nd '!" */n'-$*' his then 4ana$er! Dillie Betchum! si$ned with the evidence established that the contract was violated b) appellant Go)saw himself when! without #nterphil Promotions! #nc& represented b) "ope the approval or consent of #nterphil! he fou$ht "ouis -vila on Aune 19! 19;1 in "as :e$as /evada& 8arreal! 8r&! a contract to en$a$e Gabriel -ppellant Oulo admitted this fact durin$ the trial 1>lash1 %lorde in a bo9in$ contest for the <unior li$htwei$ht championship of the world& Dhile the contract imposed no penalt) for such violation! this does not $rant an) of the parties the the bout would be held at the 'izal 4emorial unbridled libert) to breach it with impunit)& Our law on contracts reco$nizes the principle that actionable in<ur) inheres in ever) contractual breach& 8tadium in 4anila on 8eptember 72! 19;1 or o A11>0K *hose who in the performance of their obli$ations are $uilt) of fraud! ne$li$ence not later than thirt) P72Q da)s thereafter should a postponement be mutuall) a$reed upon! and or dela)! and those who in an) manner contravene the terms thereof! are liable for that Go)saw would not! prior to the date of the dama$es bo9in$ contest! en$a$e in an) other such o A1171K T!" 2/%"- '/ -"&*.nd /9#.4$'./n& .& .02#."d, .n -"*.2-/*$# /n"&, .n *$&" /n" contest without the written consent of #nterphil /) '!" /9#.4/-& &!/,#d n/' */02#1 %.'! %!$' .& .n*,09"n' ,2/n !.0 Promotions! #nc& *here is no doubt that the contract in (uestion $ave rise to reciprocal obli$ations& On Aune 19! 19;1! Go)saw fou$ht and o HR"*.2-/*$# /9#.4$'./n& $-" '!/&" %!.*! $-.&" )-/0 '!" &$0" *$,&", $nd .n %!.*! defeated "ouis -vila in a ten6round non6title "$*! 2$-'1 .& $ d"9'/- $nd $ *-"d.'/- /) '!" /'!"-, &,*! '!$' '!" /9#.4$'./n /) /n" .& bout held in "as :e$as! /evada! F&8&-& d"2"nd"n' ,2/n '!" /9#.4$'./n /) '!" /'!"- T!"1 $-" '/ 9" 2"-)/-0"d 4ana$ement ri$hts over Go)saw was &.0,#'$n"/,&#1, &/ '!$' '!" 2"-)/-0$n*" /) /n" .& */nd.'./n"d ,2/n '!" transferred from Betchum to -raneta to Oulo &.0,#'$n"/,& ),#).##0"n' /) '!" /'!"-H P*olentinoQ 'espondent informed the G-G that the) were o *he power to rescind is $iven to the in<ured part)& not formall) notified of the chan$e in -nother violation of the contract in (uestion was the assi$nment and transfer! first to A& -mado mana$ement -raneta! and subse(uentl)! to appellant Oulo! Ar&! of the mana$erial ri$hts over Go)saw without the *he G-G called a series of conferences of the knowled$e or consent of #nterphil&

parties concerned culminatin$ in the issuance of its decision to schedule the %lorde6Go)saw fi$ht for /ovember 3! 19;1& Oulo refused to accept the chan$e in the bo9in$ date even thou$h it was later on moved to October .8! 19;1 which was within the 726 da) period of allowable postponements Dhile an %lorde6Go)saw fi$ht was eventuall) sta$ed! the fi$ht contemplated in the 4a) 1! 19;1 bo9in$ contract never materialized& Go)saw and Oulo sued #nterphil for dama$es alle$edl) occasioned b) the refusal of #nterphil and 8arreal! aided and abetted b) /ieto! Ar&! then G-G 0hairman! to honor their commitments under the bo9in$ contract of 4a) 1!19;1&

o o o

T!"&" %"-" n/+$'./n& /) '!" /-.4.n$# */n'-$*' %!.*! -"<,.-"d '!" */n&"n' /) In'"-2!.# '/ 9" +$#.d A1273K /ovation which consists in substitutin$ a new debtor in the place of the ori$inal one! ma) be made even without the knowled$e or a$ainst the will of the latter! but not wit&out t&e consent of t&e creditor. Fnder the law when a contract is unlawfull) novated b) an applicable and unilateral substitution of the obli$or b) another! the a$$rieved creditor is not bound to deal with the substitute&

UP VS DE LOS ANGELES (1952)

Vd$ d" M.&'.($ + S2& N$4,.$' (.227)

FP and -"F40O entered into a lo$$in$ a$reement under which the latter was $ranted e9clusive authorit)! for a certain period! to cut! collect and remove timber from the "and Grant! in consideration of pa)ment to FP of ro)alties! forest fees! etc& -"F40O however! incurred an unpaid account of P.19!7;.&93! which! despite repeated demands! it had failed to pa)& *he parties then entered into a Proposed 4anner of Pa)ment which contained a rescission clause in favor of FP should -"F40O fail to compl) with its undertakin$& Dhen -"F40O a$ain incurred an unpaid account! FP informed -"F40O that it had considered as rescinded and of no further le$al effect the lo$$in$ a$reement& -"F40O and the lower court both contend that it is onl) after a final court decree declarin$ the contract rescinded for violation of its terms that FP could disre$ard -"F40O=s ri$hts under the contract and treat the a$reement as breached and of no force or effect& %ulalio! the predecessor in interest of petitioner entered into a contrac t to sell his parcel of land with respondent for P.2!222& 'espondent made a down pa)ment of P.222! and another partial pa)ment of P1222 in 1982& %ulalio died in 198;& #n 1991! Petitioner filed a complaint for rescission for failure to pa) th remainin$ balance thus formin$ a substantial brach in accordance with -rt 1191 /00& 'espondents ar$ue that the contract canot be

A& $ 4"n"-$# -,#", '!" 2$-'1 %!/ d""0& '!" */n'-$*' +./#$'"d 0$1 */n&.d"- .' -"&/#+"d /-"&*.nd"d, $nd $*' $**/-d.n4#1, %.'!/,' 2-"+./,& */,-' $*'./n H/%"+"-, .' proceeds at its o+n ris9, )/- .' .& /n#1 '!" ).n$# ;,d40"n' /) '!" */--"&2/nd.n4 */,-' '!$' %.## */n*#,&.+"#1 $nd ).n$##1 &"''#" %!"'!"- '!" $*'./n '$("n %$& /- %$& n/' */--"*' .n #$% Gut the law definitel) does not re(uire that the contractin$ part) who believes itself in<ured must first file suit and wait for a <ud$ment before takin$ e9tra<udicial steps to protect its interest&

*he contract is a contract of sale where the remed) of an unpaid seller is either specific performance or rescission Fnder -rticle 1191 of the 0ivil 0ode! the ri$ht to rescind an obli$ation is predicated on the violation of the reciprocit) between parties! brou$ht about b) a breach of faith b) one of them& *he failure to pa) in full the purchase price stipulated in a deed of sale does not ipso facto $rant the seller the ri$ht to rescind the a$reement& Fnless otherwise stipulated b) the parties! rescission is allowed onl) when the breach of the contract is substantial and fundamental to the fulfillment of the obli$ation&

rescinded since there is a stipulation that failure to pa) the balance would onl) sub<ect the remainin$ obli$ation to a 1.b interest per annum& *he) also alle$e that the) offered to pa) the balance on the wake of %ulalio but this was refused& B

#n the present case! the failure of respondents to pa) the balance of the purchase price within ten )ears from the e9ecution of the eed did not amount to a substantial breach& #n the Iasulatan- it was stipulated that pa)ment could be made even after ten )ears from the e9ecution of the 0ontract! provided the vendee paid 1. percent interest& *he stipulations of the contract constitute the law between the parties

G,'."--"6 + G,'.,"--"6

(197.)

V$&<,"6 + D" 3/-;$ (1933)

D$0$4"& 1 Un.#$'"-$# /9#.4$'./n& 2 R"*.2-/*$# /9#.4$'./n& *) N"4#.4"n*" (*,#2$) d) E))"*'& /) N"4#.4"n*" -n action was brou$ht b) plaintiff to recover -s re$ards the Gutierrez! Gonifacio was in incompetent chauffeur! that he was drivin$ at an for dama$es suffered b) him when he e9cessive rate of speed! and that! on approachin$ the brid$e and the truck! he lost his head and so fractured his ri$ht le$ when a truck where he contributed b) his ne$li$ence to the accident& *he $uarant) $iven b) the father at the time the son was a passen$er and an automobile collided& was $ranted a license to operate motor vehicles made the father responsible for the acts of his son& *he truck was owned b) 0ortez and the Pursuant to the provisions of -rt 1927 of the 0ivil 0ode! the father alone and not the minor or the automobile was owned b) the Gutierrez which mother! would be liable for the dama$es caused b) the minor& at that time was driven b) their minor son Gonifacio& *he liabilit) of 0ortez is based on contract since plaintiff was a passen$er of the truck when the accident occurred& :as(uez and Gusue$o obli$ated themselves *he fault and ne$li$ence referred to in articles 112161123 of the 0ivil 0ode are those incidental to to sell to de Gor<a 3222 cavans of pala)& *he the fulfillment or nonfullfillment of a contractual obli$ation? while the fault or ne$li$ence referred to in former received the full pa)ment but still failed article 192. is theculpa a#uiliana of the civil law! homolo$ous but not identical to tort of the common to deliver the remainin$ balance of 151. law! which $ives rise to an obli$ation independentl) of an) contract cavans of pala) which caused e Gor<a to suffer dama$es& *he fact that the corporation! actin$ thru :az(uez as its mana$er! was $uilt) of ne$li$ence in the *hus a suit was filed b) e Gor<a to recover fulfillment of the contract! did not make :az(uez principall) or even subsidiaril) liable for such from them <ointl) and severall)& ne$li$ence& 8ince it was the corporationLs contract! its nonfulfillment! whether due to ne$li$ence or fault or to an) other cause! made the corporation and not its a$ent liable& -s defense! :as(uez alle$es that e Gor<a actuall) entered into a contract with the Eowever! if independentl) of the contract :az(uez b) his fault or ne$li$ence cause dama$ed to the corporation where :as(uz was the -ctin$ plaintiff! he would be liable to the latter under article 192. of the 0ivil 0ode& Gut then the plaintiffLs 4ana$er and not with him personall) thus the cause of action should be based on culpa a#uiliana and not on the contract alle$ed in his complaint suit should not prosper& herein? and :az(uezL liabilit) would be principal and not merel) subsidiar)

SSS + M//n%$#( (1997)

") D"#$1 (0/-$) 4oonwalk obtained a loan from 888 secured b) a real estate mort$a$e& -fter completin$ the pa)ment of the loan! the mort$a$e was released& Eoweve!r later 888 found out that it made an honest mistake in releasin$ 4oonwalk from its obli$ation since the former did not include in the computation the penalties incurred b) the latter& & *hus 888 filed a complaint to collect the remainin$ balance&

Fnder the 0ivil 0ode! dela) be$ins from the time the obli$ee <udiciall) or e9tra<udiciall) demands from the obli$or the performance of the obli$ation& 1-rt& 11;9& *hose obli$ed to deliver or to do somethin$ incur in dela) from the time the obli$ee <udiciall) or e9tra<udiciall) demands from them the fulfillment of their obli$ation&1 *here are onl) three instances when demand is not necessar) to render the obli$or in default& *hese are the followin$@ (1) Dhen the obli$ation or the law e9pressl) so declares? (.) Dhen from the nature and the circumstances of the obli$ation it appears that the desi$nation of the time when the thin$ is to be delivered or the service is to be rendered was a controllin$ motive for the establishment of the contract? or (7) Dhen the demand would be useless! as when the obli$or has rendered it be)ond his power to perform&

#n the case at hand! it did not appear that 888 demanded from 4oonwalk the pa)ment of its monthl) amortizations& /either did it show that petitioner demanded the pa)ment of the stipulated penalt) upon the failure of 4oonwalk to meet its monthl) amortization& 4oonwalk was never in default because 888 never compelled performance& *hou$h it tried to foreclose the mort$a$es! 888 itself desisted from doin$ so& #f the 8tatement of -ccount could properl) be considered as demand for pa)ment! the demand was complied with on time& Eence! no dela) occurred and there was! therefore! no occasion when the penalt) became demandable and enforceable 5.nd& /) D"#$1 1 M/-$ &/#+"nd. Gonza$a entered into a special contract of lease with -bella&#t was a$reed in the contract that the ownership of the leased propert) shall be transferred to -bella durin$ the period of lease& Gonza$a failed to transfer said propert)& Gonza$a contends in his answer that the -bella=s ri$ht to compel him to make the transfer of the land in (uestion is not absolute! but conditional? that the conditions have not been complied with! but violated b) the plaintiff! who made the last pa)ment over a )ear after the obli$ation had become due! that is! on 4arch .5! 19.5! instead of 4arch 5! 19.;& S$n'/& V"n',-$ H/*/-n$ F/,nd$'./n + S$n'/& 8antos and 8:E># were plaintiff and defendants in several cases& On October .; 1992! the) reached a compromise a$reement! portions of which provide@8:E># would pa) 8antos P13&54 (1&5 immediatel) pa)able and the balance to be paid in one lump sum or in installments at the discretion of 8:E>0# within a period of not more than two )ears from date of e9ecution of the a$reement& #t was also provided that failure to compl) with the terms entitles the part) a$$rieved to a writ of e9ecution to enforce the compromise a$reement& On October .8 199.! 8antos in(uired as to when 8:E># would pa) the remainin$ balance& Eearin$ no response! 8antos applied for issuance of writ of e9ecution which was $ranted b) the '*0& #n 1983! -)ala entered into a 4emorandum of -$reement with :as(uez bu)in$ the his shares with 0onduit evelopmentMwhich constitute 52 hectares of the land in -)ala -laban$& ))

A9"##$ + G/n6$4$

(1971)

#t is ar$ued that at the time when the contract %9hibit - was entered into (-pril 15! 19.1)! the defendant was not the owner of the land in (uestion! inasmuch as he ac(uired the ownership on ecember 1;! 19..! as shown b) a deed e9ecuted on that date to him b) virtue of which certificate of title /o& 5759 was issued to him! and that he could not bind himself to transfer the ownership of the land after the period of five )ears of the alle$ed contract of lease& therefore! he cannot now be heard to sa) that he was not the owner of said land! after inducin$ the plaintiff to believe that he was& 4oreover! it was shown that -bella was able to pa) the consideration in full plus interests& *hus he ma) now compel Gonza$a to fulfill his obli$ation to e9ecute the proper deed of transfer of the full ownership of the propert) in (uestion&

(.223)

-rticle 11;9 of the /ew 0ivil 0ode provides@ *hose obli$ed to deliver or to do somethin$ incur in dela) from the time the obli$ee <udiciall) or e9tra<udiciall) demands from them the fulfillment of their obli$ation& P%mphasis suppliedQ ela) as used in this article is s)non)mous to default or mora which means dela) in the fulfillment of obli$ations& #t is the non6fulfillment of the obli$ation with respect to time& #n order for the debtor to be in default! it is necessar) that the followin$ re(uisites be present@ (1) that the obli$ation be demandable and alread) li(uidated? (.) that the debtor dela)s performance? and (7) that the creditor re(uires the performance <udiciall) or e9tra<udiciall) #n the case at bar! the obli$ation was alread) due and demandable after the lapse of the two6)ear period from the e9ecution of the contract& *he two6)ear period ended on October .;! 199.& Dhen the respondents $ave a demand letter on October .8! 199.! to the petitioner! the obli$ation was alread) due and demandable& >urthermore! the obli$ation is li(uidated because the debtor knows precisel) how much he is to pa) and when he is to pa) it& *he second re(uisite is also present& Petitioner dela)ed in the performance& #t was able to full) settle its outstandin$ balance onl) on >ebruar) 8! 1995! which is more than two )ears after the e9tra6 <udicial demand& #n reciprocal obli$ations! neither part) incurs in dela) if the other does not compl) or is not read) to compl) in a proper manner with what is incumbent upon him& >rom the moment one of the parties fulfills his obli$ation! dela) b) the other be$ins& #n order that the debtor ma) be in default it is necessar) that the followin$ re(uisites be present@ (1) that the obli$ation be demandable and alread) li(uidated? (.) that the debtor dela)s performance?

V$&<,"6 + A1$#$ C/-2/-$'./n (.223)

and (7) that the creditor re(uires the performance <udiciall) or e9tra<udiciall) Fnder the 4O-! in clause 5&5 it is provided that@ *he GFO%' hereb) commits that it will develop the L'emainin$ Propert)L into a first class residential subdivision of the same class as its /ew -laban$ 8ubdivision! and that it intends to complete the first phase under its amended development plan within three (7) )ears from the date of this -$reement& 9 9 91& #t is to be noted that the parties a$reed that the development plan referred to in para$raph 5&5 is not 0onduitLs development plan! but -)alaLs amended development plan which was still to be formulated as of the time of the 4O-& Dhile in the 0onduit plan! the 3 lots to be offered for sale to the :as(uez 8pouses were in the first phase thereof or :illa$e 1! in the -)ala plan which was formulated a )ear later! it was in the third phase! or Phase ##6c& -)ala failed to complete the pro<ects accordin$ to the alle$ed deadline as understood b) :as(uez (7 )ears from date of 4O-)& Dhen it was completed the lots were offered in their prevailin$ price in 1992& :as(uez re<ectd the offer and demanded that the) be offered the lots for their price in 1983& 8ince no amicable settlement was made! :as(uez filed for specific performance and dama$es a$ainst -)ala& P$n'$#"/n + A0"-.*$n EE2-"&& (.229) Petitioner and his famil) went on a %uropean tour in 1991& *here the) made purchases (diamond! pendant! chains) and used an -merican %9press 0redit 0ard to pa) for it& urin$ these transactions! the clearance of his card too lon$ which led to the tour of the cit) of -msterdam to be cancelled& *his caused humiliation! moral shock mental an$uish to the petitioners& *hus the) sued respondent for the dama$e caused& Fnder mora solvendi! the three re(uisites for a findin$ of default are that the obli$ation is demandable and li(uidated? the debtor dela)s performance? and the creditor <udiciall) or e9tra<udiciall) re(uires the debtor=s performance Generall)! the relationship between a credit card provider and its card holders is that of creditor6 debtor with the card compan) as the creditor e9tendin$ loans and credit to the card holder! who as debtor is obli$ed to repa) the creditor& *his relationship alread) takes e9ception to the $eneral rule that as between a bank and its depositors! the bank is deemed as the debtor while the depositor is considered as the creditor& the respondent has the ri$ht! if not the obli$ation! to verif) whether the credit it ise9tendin$ upon on a particular purchase was indeed contracted b) the cardholder!and that the cardholder is within his means to make such transaction& *he culpable failure of respondent herein is not the failure to timel) approve petitioner=s purchase! but the more elemental failure to timel) act on the same! whether favorabl) or unfavorabl)& *he dela) committed b) defendant was clearl) attended b) un<ustified ne$lect and bad faith! since it alle$es to have consumed more than one hour to simpl) $o over plaintiff=s past credit histor) with defendant! his pa)ment record and his credit and bank references! when all such data are alread) Fnder -rticle 1197 of the 0ivil 0ode! obli$ations for whose fulfillment a da) certain has been fi9ed shall be demandable onl) when that da) comes& Eowever! no such da) certain was fi9ed in the 4O-& Petitioners! therefore! cannot demand performance after the three (7) )ear period fi9ed b) the 4O- for the development of the first phase of the propert) since this is not the same period contemplated for the development of the sub<ect lots& 8ince the 4O- does not specif) a period for the development of the sub<ect lots! petitioners should have petitioned the court to fi9 the period in accordance with -rticle 119573 of the 0ivil 0ode& -s no such action was filed b) petitioners! their complaint for specific performance was premature! the obli$ation not bein$ demandable at that point&

stored and readil) available from its computer #t should be emphasized that the reason wh) petitioner is entitled to dama$es is not simpl) because respondent incurred dela)! but because the dela)! for which culpabilit) lies under -rticle 1152! led to the particular in<uries under -rticle ..15 of the 0ivil 0ode for which moral dama$es are remunerative& Vd$ d V.##$-,"# + M$n.#$ M/'/- C/-2 (1958) 2 M/-$ $**.2."nd. *his case is a petition of the <ud$ment that ordered 4anila 4otor 0o&! #nc& to pa):illaruel for the lease of their buildin$ from Aune 1! 193. to 4arch .9! 1935 as wellas for them to pa) for the destruction of the propert) 4anila 4otor 0o&! #nc& leased the buildin$ from :illaruel and entered a contract which would last for 5 )ears and wherein a rent of P752 per month should be paid& *he period of lease started om Oct 71! 1932! when 4anila 4otor 0o&! #nc& was placed in possession of the propert)& *his continued until the invasion of 1931& urin$ the invasion! it was the Aapanese militar) which occupied the premises& -t this time no pa)ment of rental was made b) 4anila 4otors& Dhen the -mericans liberated the countr) the) took possession of the said propert) and paid for the same amount of rent to :illaruel& 4anila 4otors now wants to resume the contract considerin$ that the contract provides them the option to continue such lease& :illaruel on the other hand claimed for rescission& Of the contract& urin$ the pendenc) of the case! a fire razed the premises& *hus in addition to the case! the :illaruel=s claimed reimbursement from 4anila 4otors for the razed premises basin$ their ri$ht to do so on 4anila 4otors alle$ed default in the pa)ment of post6liberation rentals& T"n4*/ + CA (1989) 0ifra is the owner of the a propert) which she leased to *en$co& *heir contract was entered verball)& D hile the contract was still subsistin$! 0ifra transf erred theownership of the propert) to Gen<amin 0ifra& 8ince then the collector of *he issue in this case is whether or not the lessor (0ifra or "ut$arda) was $uilt) of mora accipiendi& #n the circumstance of the case! the refusal to accept the proffered rentals is not without <ustification& *he ownership of the propert) had been transferred to the 0ifra and the person to whom pa)ment was offered had no authorit) to accept pa)ment& #t should be noted that the contract of lease between the petitioner and "ut$arda! the former owner of the land! was not in writin$ and! hence! unrecorded& *he 0ourt has held that a contract of lease e9ecuted b) the vendor! unless recorded! *he lessorLs insistence upon collectin$ the occupation rentals for 193.61935 was unwarranted in law& Eence! their refusal to accept the current rentals without (ualification placed them in default ($ora creditoris or accipiendi) with the result that thereafter! the) had to bear all supervenin$ risks of accidental in<ur) or destruction of the leased premises& *hat the lessee and sublessee did not consi$n or deposit in court the rentals tendered to and improperl) re<ected b) the lessors! did not render the debtor liable for default ($ora solvendi) nor answerable for fortuitous events& *he onl) effect of the failure to consi$n the rentals in court was that the obli$ation to pa) them subsisted and the lessee remained liable for the amount of the unpaid contract rent Gut the failure to consi$n did not eradicate the default ($ora) of the lessors nor the risk of loss that la) upon them&

"ut$arda no lon$er came so *en$co did not make an) pa)ment and <ust waited for the collector to return& "ater! *en$co was informed of the chan$e in ownership but she still did not $ive the pa)ment to Gen<amin 0ifra or consi$ned the amount to the court& 8he even tried to pa) the rentals to "ut$arda but this was refused& Gen<amin 0ifra! Ar& then filed an action for unlawf ul detainer to evict the *en$co! from the premises for her failure and refusal to pa) the stipulated rentals despite repeated demands& 4*0 <ud$ment was rendered a$ainst *en$co and ordered her to vacate the premises occupied b) her and to surrender possession thereof to the plaintiff&

ceases to have effect when the propert) is sold! in the absence of a contrar) a$reement& *en$co cannot claim i$norance of the transfer of ownership of the propert) because! b) her own account! -urora 'ecto and 0ifra at various times! had informed her of their respective claims to ownership of the propert) occupied b) her& *en$co should have tendered pa)ment of the rentals to the private respondent and if that was not possible! she should have consi$ned such rentals in court&

C"n'-$# 3$n( +& CA (178D)

3 C/02"n&$'./ 0/-$" #sland 8avin$s Gank approved the loan *he loan a$reement implied reciprocal obli$ations& Dhen one part) is willin$ and read) to perform! application for P82B of 8ulpicio *olentino who the other part) not read) nor willin$ incurs in dela)& Dhen *olentino e9ecuted real estate mort$a$e! e9ecuted a real estate mort$a$e over his 122 he si$nified willin$ness to pa)& *hat time! the bank=s obli$ation to furnish the P82B loan accrued& hectare land& *he loan called for a lump sum /ow! the 0entral Gank resolution made it impossible for the bank to furnish the P;7B balance& *he of P82B! repa)able in semi6annual prohibition on the bank to make new loans is irrelevant because it did not prohibit the bank from installments for 7 )rs! with 1.b annual releasin$ the balance of loans previousl) contracted& #nsolvenc) of debtor is not an e9cuse for non6 interest& #t was re(uired that *olentino shall fulfillment of obli$ation but is a use the loan solel) as additional capital to breach of contract& develop his other propert) into a subdivision& - mere P15B partial release of the loan was *he bank was in default and *olentino ma) choose between specific performance or rescission with made b) the bank and *olentino and his wife dama$es in either case& Gut considerin$ that the bank is now prohibited from doin$ business! si$ned a promissor) note for the P15B at 1.b specific performance cannot be $ranted& 'escission is the onl) remed) left! but the rescission should annual interest pa)able within 7 )rs& -n onl) be for the P;7B balance& advance interest was deducted from the partial release but this prededucted interest Eowever! *olentino=s failure to pa) the partial loan amount of P15k made him part) in default! hence! was refunded to *olentino after bein$ not entitled to rescission& *his time! it is the bank which has ri$ht to rescind the promissor) note& informed that there was no fund )et for the release of the P;7B balance& *he bank :P 8ince both *olentino and the bank are in default! both are liable for dama$es& "iabilit) ma) be offset& and *reasurer promised release of the balance& 4onetar) Goard of 0entral Gank! after findin$ that bank was sufferin$ li(uidit) problems! prohibited the bank from makin$ new loans and investments& -nd after the bank failed to restore its solvenc)! the 0entral Gank prohibited #sland 8avin$s Gank from doin$ business in the Philippines&

#sland 8avin$s Gank in view of the non6 pa)ment b) *olentino of the P15B filed an application for foreclosure of the real estate mort$a$e& *olentino filed petition for specific performance or rescission and dama$es wR preliminar) in<unction! alle$in$ that since the bank failed to deliver P;7B! he is entitled to specific performance and if not! to rescind the real estate mort$a$e& *rial court found *olentino=s petition unmeritorious& 0- affirmed dismissal of *olentino=s petition for specific performance! but it ruled that the bank can neither foreclose the real estate mort$a$e nor collect the P15B loan& N/' $''-.9,'$9#" '/ '!" d"9'/1 F/-',.'/,& "+"n' Philippine Gar -ssociation (PG-) decided to Petitioners are not e9empt from liabilit)& *he applicable law is -rt&15.7 of the /ew 0ivil 0ode which construct an office buildin$& *he buildin$ was holds the architects liable for dama$es on the buildin$ due to defects in the desi$n! and contractors completed in Aune! 19;;& #n the earl) mornin$ for dama$es due to defects in the construction& On the other hand! the $eneral rule is that no person of -u$ust .! 19;8 an unusuall) stron$ shall be responsible for events which could not be foreseen or which thou$h foreseen! were earth(uake (5&7 ma$nitude) hit 4anila and the inevitable& buildin$ in (uestion sustained ma<or dama$e& *he front columns of the buildin$ buckled! -n act of God has been defined as an accident! due directl) and e9clusivel) to natural causes causin$ the buildin$ to tilt forward without human intervention which b) no amount of foresi$ht! pains or care! reasonabl) to have been dan$erousl)& -s a temporar) remedial e9pected! could have been prevented& *o e9empt the obli$or from liabilit) under -rt&1153 of the new measure! the buildin$ was shored up b) 0ivil 0ode for a breach of obli$ation due to an act of God! the followin$ must concur@ Fnited 0onstruction at the cost of P17! a) the cause of the breach of obli$ation must be independent of the will of the debtor? ;;1&.8& b) the event must be unforeseeable or unavoidable? c) the event must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obli$ation in a PG- commenced action or the recover) of normal manner? and dama$es arisin$ from the partial collapse of d) the debtor must be free of an) participation in! or a$$ravation of the in<ur) to the creditor& the buildin$ a$ainst Fnited 0onstruction #nc& PG- claims that the collapse was due to *hus if upon the happenin$ of a fortuitous event or an act of God! there concurs a correspondin$ defects in the construction! the failure of fraud! ne$li$ence! dela) or violation or contravention in an) manner of the tenor of the obli$ation contractors to follow plans and specifications which results in loss or dama$e! the obli$or cannot escape liabilit)& *hus it has been held that when and violations b) the defendants of the terms the ne$li$ence of a person concurs with an act of God in producin$ a loss! such person is not of the contract& On the other hand! Fnited e9empt from liabilit) b) showin$ that the immediate cause of the dama$e was the act of God& *o be 0onstruction #nc& filed a third6part) complaint e9empt! he must be free from an) previous ne$li$ence or misconduct& a$ainst the architects /akpil alle$in$ that the collapse was due to the defects in the said *he ne$li$ence of the contractor and the architect was established be)ond dispute in both the trial plans and specifications& urin$ the pendenc) court and the 0-& F00# was found to have made substantial deviations from the plans and of the case! three more earth(uakes occurred specifications! and to have failed to observe the re(uisite workmanship in the construction as well as and with the PG-=s re(uest! the buildin$ was to e9ercise the re(uisite amount of supervision& /akpil on the other hand were found to have defects demolished at their e9pense& in the plans and specifications prepared b) them& -s correctl) assessed b) both courts! the defects in the construction and in the plans and specifications were the pro9imate causes that rendered the *he 0ommissioner submitted his report which PG- buildin$ unable to withstand the earth(uake& 4)

N$(2.# +& CA (178=)

stated that the dama$e sustained b) the PGbuildin$ was directl) caused b) the earth(uake and was also caused b) the defects in the plans and specifications prepared b) the architects! deviations from said plans and specifications b) the contractor and failure of the contractor to observe the re(uisite workmanship in the construction of the buildin$& *he trial court a$reed with the findin$s of the 0ommissioner& -ll parties involved appealed and the 0- affirmed the decision of the trial court but modified the decision b) $rantin$ PG- an additional P.22!222 to be paid b) the contractor and architects <ointl)& Petitioners /akpil and F00# claimed that it was an act of God that caused the failure of the buildin$ which should e9empt them from responsibilit)& O'!"- 2-/+.&./n& R"0"d."& /) *-"d.'/-& 1 L"+1 $nd "E"*,'./n 2 A**./n S,9-/4$'/-.$ 3 A**./n P$,#.$n$ *he Philippine -$ricultural *radin$ -rticle 1789 of the 0ivil 0ode simpl) provides that! +*he action to claim rescission must be 0orporation shipped on board the vessel 4R: commenced within four )ears&, 8ince this provision of law is silent as to when the prescriptive period P'#/0% %'#0! owned b) petitioner Bhe Eon$ would commence! the $eneral rule! i&e! from the moment the cause of action accrues! therefore! 0hen$! 7!322 ba$s of copra at4asbate! applies& (-rt& 1152& *he time for prescription for all kinds of actions! when there is no special 4asbate! for deliver) to ipolo$ 0it)! provision which ordains otherwise! shall be counted from the da) the) ma) be brou$ht&) Hamboan$a del /orte& *he said shipment of copra was covered b) a marine insurance #t is the le$al possibilit) of brin$in$ the action which determines the startin$ point for the computation polic) issued b) -merican Eome #nsurance of the prescriptive period for the action& 0ompan) (respondent PhilamLs assured)& -rt& 1787& -n action for rescission is subsidiar)? it cannot be instituted e9cept when the part) 4R: P'#/0% %'#0 sank resultin$ in the total sufferin$ dama$e has no other le$al means to obtain reparation for the same& loss of the shipment& Gecause of the loss! theinsurer! -merican Eome! paid the amount -n action to rescind or an accion pauliana must be of last resort! availed of onl) after all other le$al of P753!222&22 (the value of the copra) to the remedies have been e9hausted and have been proven futile& >or an accion pauliana to accrue! the consi$nee& Eavin$ been subro$ated into the followin$ re(uisites must concur@ ri$hts of the consi$nee! -merican Eome 1) *hat the plaintiff askin$ for rescission has a credit prior to the alienation! althou$h instituted a civil case to recover the mone) demandable later? paid to the consi$nee! based on breach of .) *hat the debtor has made a subse(uent contract conve)in$ a patrimonial benefit to a contract of carria$e& third person? 7) *hat the creditor has no other le$al remed) to satisf) his claim! but would benefit b) Dhile the case was still pendin$! or on rescission of the conve)ance to the third person? ecember .2! 1989! petitioner Bhe Eon$ 3) *hat the act bein$ impu$ned is fraudulent? 0hen$ e9ecuted deeds of donations of 5) *hat the third person who received the propert) conve)ed! if b) onerous title! has been parcels of land in favor of his children! herein an accomplice in the fraud& !) .)

5!" H/n4 C!"n4 +& CA (2001)

co6petitioners 8andra Ao) and 'a) 8teven& *he trial court rendered <ud$ment a$ainst petitioner& -fter the said decision became final and e9ecutor)! a writ of e9ecution was issued& espite earnest efforts! the sheriff found no propert) under the name of Gutuan 8hippin$ "ines andRor petitioner Bhe Eon$ 0hen$ to lev) or $arnish for the satisfaction of the trial courtLs decision& Dhen the sheriff! accompanied b) counsel of respondent Philam! went to Gutuan 0it) on Aanuar) 15! 1995! to enforce the alias writ of e9ecution! the) discovered that petitioner Bhe Eon$ 0hen$ no lon$er had an) propert) and that he had conve)ed the sub<ect properties to his children& 'espondent Philam filed a complaint for the rescission of the deeds of donation e9ecuted b) petitioner Bhe Eon$ 0hen$ in favor of his children and for the nullification of their titles& 'espondent Philam alle$ed! that petitioner e9ecuted the aforesaid deeds in fraud of his creditors! includin$ respondent Philam& Petitioners moved for its dismissal on the $round that the action had alread) prescribed& *he) posited that the re$istration of the deeds of donation on ecember .5! 1989 constituted constructive notice and since the complaint a (uo was filed onl) on >ebruar) .5! 1995! or more than four (3) )ears after said re$istration! the action was alread) barred b) prescription& S.4,$n +& L.0 (1777) On .5 and .; -u$ust 1992 "#4 issued two 4etrobank checks in the sums of P722B and P.31!;;8! respectivel)! pa)able to +cash,& Fpon presentment b) petitioner 8i$uan with the drawee bank! the checks were dishonored for the reason that the account was alread) +closed&, emands to make $ood the checks proved futile& - criminal case for violation of Gatas Pambansa Gl$& .. was filed a$ainst "#4& On.9 ecember 199. the '*0 convicted "#4 as char$ed& "#4 was also convicted of estafa filed b) :ictoria 8uarez& *his was affirmed b) 0-& Eowever the 8upreme 0ourt ac(uitted "#4 but found her civill) liable in the amount >or accion pauliana to prosper! the followin$ must be present@ plaintiff askin$ for rescission has a credit prior to the alienation? debtor has made a subse(uent contract conve)in$ a patrimonial benefit to a 7rd part)? creditor has no other le$al remed) to satisf) his claim? act impu$ned is fraudulent? the 7rd person who received the propert) conve)ed (if b) onerous title)! has been an accomplice in the fraud& G%/%'-" 'F"%@ rescission re(uires e9istence of creditors at the time of the alle$ed fraud! and this must be proved as one of the bases of the <udicial pronouncement settin$ aside the contract& Dithout an) prior e9istin$ debt! there can neither be no in<ur) nor fraud& *he eed of onation e9ecuted is a public document! havin$ been acknowled$ed before a notar) public& #t is evidence of the fact which $ave rise to its e9ecution and of its date (8ec& .7! 'ule 17.! 'ules of 0ourt) 0ourt is not convinced that it was antedated& -n accion pauliana thus presupposes the followin$@ 1) - <ud$ment? .) the issuance b) the trial court of a writ of e9ecution for the satisfaction of the <ud$ment! and 7) the failure of the sheriff to enforce and satisf) the <ud$ment of the court& #t re(uires that the creditor has e9hausted the propert) of the debtor& *he date of the decision of the trial court is immaterial& Dhat is important is that the credit of the plaintiff antedates that of the fraudulent alienation b) the debtor of his propert)& -fter all! the decision of the trial court a$ainst the debtor will retroact to the time when the debtor became indebted to the creditor& *o count the four )ear prescriptive period to rescind an alle$edl) fraudulent contract from the date of re$istration of the conve)ance with the 'e$ister of eeds! as alle$ed b) the petitioners! would run counter to -rticle 1787 of the 0ivil 0ode as well as settled <urisprudence& #t would likewise violate the third re(uisite to file an action for rescission of an alle$edl) fraudulent conve)ance of propert)! i&e&! the creditor has no other le$al remed) to satisf) his claim&

of P1;9B& On . Aul) 1991 a eed of onation conve)in$ parcels of land and purportedl) e9ecuted b) "#4 on 12 -u$ust 1989 in favor of her children! was re$istered with the 'e$ister of eeds of 0ebu& /ew transfer certificates of title were thereafter issued in the names of the donees& Petitioner filed an accion pauliana a$ainst "#4 and her children& Petitioner claimed therein that sometime in Aul) 1991 "#4! throu$h a eed of onation! fraudulentl) transferred all her real propert) to her children in bad faith and in fraud of creditor! includin$ her? that "#4 conspired and confederated with her children in antedatin$ the (uestioned eed& *rial court ordered the rescission of the (uestioned deed of donation? declared null and void the transfer certificates of title issued in the name of "#4=s children& .2 >ebruar) 1998 0- reversed '*0=s decision and dismissed petitioner=s accion pauliana! because two re(uisites for said action was absent@ 1& there must be a credit e9istin$ prior to the celebration of the contract? .& there must be a fraud! or the intent to commit the fraud& B ... FFIV T-$n&0.&&.9.#.'1 A**./n D.-"*'$ 0ontracts entered in fraud ma) be rescinded onl) when the creditors cannot in an) manner collect the claims due them& -ction for rescission is a subsidiar) remed) onl)& *he petitioner was not able to prove that she had e9hausted other le$al means to obtain reparation for the same& >ourth re(uisite for accion pauliana not present either& -rt& 559 of 0ivil 0ode states that donation is alwa)s presumed to be in fraud of creditors when the donor did not reserve sufficient propert) to pa) his debts prior to donation& Petitioner=s alle$ed credit e9isted onl) a )ear after the deed of donation was e9ecuted& 8he cannot be said to have been pre<udiced or defrauded b) such alienation& #n addition! when the eed was e9ecuted! "#4 had properties such as farmin$ lands! a house and lot! residential lots which were sufficient to cover the debts& #n an attempt to support the case for rescission! petitioner brou$ht up the criminal case involvin$ :ictoria 8uarez& Eowever! 8uarez! albeit a creditor prior to the alienation! is not a part) to the accion pauliana& Onl) the creditor who brou$ht the action for rescission can benefit from the rescission (-rt& 1783! 0ivil 0ode)& *he revocation is onl) to the e9tent of the plaintiff creditor=s unsatisfied credit? as to the e9cess! alienation is maintained&

5INDS OF O3LIGATIONS $ A**/-d.n4 '/ d"0$nd$9.#.'1 . P,-" /9#.4$'./n& .. C/nd.'./n$# /9#.4$'./n& G$.'" +& F/n$*."Gaite was appointed b) >onacier as attorne)6 in6fact to contract an) part) for the e9ploration (17=1) and development of minin$ claims& Gaite e9ecuted a deed of assi$nment in favor of a sin$le proprietorship owned b) him& >or some reasons! >onacier revoked the a$enc)! which was acceded to b) Gaite! sub<ect to certain conditions! one of which bein$ the transfer of ores e9tracted from the mineral claims for

*he shipment or local sale of the iron ore is not a condition precedent (or suspensive) to the pa)ment of the balance of P;5!222&22! but was onl) a suspensive period or term& Dhat characterizes a conditional obli$ation is the fact that its efficac) or obli$ator) force (as distin$uished from its demandabilit)) is subordinated to the happenin$ of a future and uncertain event? so that if the suspensive condition does not take place! the parties would stand as if the conditional obli$ation had never e9isted& - contract of sale is normall) commutative and onerous@ not onl) does each one of the parties assume a correlative obli$ation (the seller to deliver and transfer ownership of the thin$ sold and the bu)er to pa) the price)!but each part) anticipates performance b) the other from the ver) start& Dhile

G/n6$#"& +& H".-& /) T!/0$& (1777)

P55!222! of which P12!222 has alread) been paid upon si$nin$ of the a$reement and the balance to be paid from the first letter of credit for the first local sale of the iron ores& *o secure pa)ment! >onacier delivered a suret) a$reement with "arap 4ines and some of its stockholders! and another one with >ar %astern #nsurance& Dhen the second suret) a$reement e9pired with no sale bein$ made on the ores! Gaite demanded the P;5!222 balance& efendants contended that the pa)ment was sub<ect to the condition that the ores will be sold& Paula -no 0ruz! to$ether with heirs of *homas and Paula 0ruz ("essors) entered into a 0O/*'-0* O> "%-8%RPF'0E-8% with >eli9 Gonzales (sole proprietor of >el$on >armsR"essee) of a half6portion of a parcel of 0ontract contains the followin$ provisions@ P-'&1& *he terms of this contract is for a period of one )ear upon the si$nin$ thereof& -fter the period of this 0ontract! the "%88%% shall purchase the propert) on the a$reeable price of 14 pa)able wRin . )ears period with an interest of 1.b per annum&&& P-'&.& *he "%88%% shall pa) b) wa) of annual rental an amount e(uivalent to P.!522 per hectare! upon si$nin$ of contract on 1.R21R87 P-'&9& *he "%88O'8 hereb) commit themselves and shall undertake to obtain a separate and distinct *&0&*& over the herein leased portion to the "%88%% within a reasonable period of time which shall not in an) case e9ceed 3 )ears! after which a new 0ontract shall be e9ecuted b) the parties which shall be the same in all respects with this 0ontract insofar as the terms and conditions are concerned& Gonzales paid P.522 per hectare or P15!222 annual rental? he took possession of the propert) and installed 8ambrano as his caretaker& Ee did not e9ercise his option to purchase the propert) immediatel) after

in a sale the obli$ation of one part) can be lawfull) subordinated to an uncertain event! so that the other understands that he assumes the risk of receivin$ nothin$ for what he $ives (as in the case of a sale of hopes or e9pectations! e$ptio spei)! it is not in the usual course of business to do so? hence! the contin$ent character of the obli$ation must clearl) appear& /othin$ is found in the record to evidence that Gaite desired or assumed to run the risk of losin$ his ri$ht over the ore without $ettin$ paid for it! or that >onacier understood that Gaite assumed an) such risk& *his is proved b) the fact that Gaite insisted on a bond a to $uarantee pa)ment of the P;5!222&22! an not onl) upon a bond b) >onacier! the "arap 4ines N 8meltin$ 0o&! and the compan)Ls stockholders! but also on one b) a suret) compan)? and the fact that appellants did put up such bonds indicates that the) admitted the definite e9istence of their obli$ation to pa) the balance of P;5!222&22&

#n the interpretation of contracts! if some stipulation should admit of several meanin$s! it shall be understood as bearin$ that import most ade(uate to render it effectual& 0onsiderin$ the antecedents of the ownership of the disputed lot! Gonzales= interpretation that par&9 is a condition precedent to the purchase of the propert) renders it most effectual& Goth '*0 and 0- interpreted par&9 to mean that respondents obli$ed themselves to obtain a *0* in the name of petitioner& Gut petitioner maintains that respondents were obli$ated to obtain a *0* in their names& Par&9 was intended to ensure that respondents would have a valid title over the specific portion the) were sellin$ to the petitioner& -t the time the contract was e9ecuted! land was not re$istered in the names of lessors! and e9tra6<udicial proceedin$s were still on$oin$& #n a contract of sale! title to the propert) passes to the vendee upon the deliver) of the thin$ sold& (/%4O -* UFO /O/ E-G%*@ no one can $ive what one does not have) #n the 0ontract! respondents were $iven a ma9imum of 3 )ears to obtain a separate *0*& Gonzales also advanced P52* to them e9pedite transfer of *0* to their names& Par&1 was effectivel) modified b) par&9& Gonzales can onl) be compelled to perform his obli$ation under par1! after 0ruz=s have complied with par9& #n re(uirin$ the lessors to obtain first a separate and distinct *0* in their names! such undertakin$ is a condition precedent to the lessee=s obli$ation to purchase and pa) for the land& 0ondition is defined as +ever) future and uncertain event upon which an obli$ation or provision is made to depend& #t is a future and uncertain event upon which the ac(uisition or resolution of ri$hts is made to depend b) those who e9ecute the <uridical act&, Dithout the fulfillment of the condition! sale of the propert) under the 0ontract cannot be perfected! and Gonzales cannot be obli$ed to purchase the propert)& *here can be no rescission of an obli$ation as )et non6e9istent! because the suspensive condition has not happened& *he) have not caused the transfer of the *0* to their names which is a condition precedent to Gonzales= obli$ation&

e9piration of 16)r lease& Ee remained in possession of the propert) without pa)in$ the purchase price provided for in the 0ontract! and wRo pa)in$ an) further rentals& 0ruz sent out a letter to Gonzales informin$ him of the lessors= decision to rescind the 0ontract due to a breach committed b) Gonzales? letter also served as a demand for him to vacate the premises within 12 da)s from the receipt of the letter& Gonzales refused to vacate the propert)& Eeirs of 0ruz filed a complaint for recover) of the possession of the propert) alle$in$ breach of par&9 and pa)ment of onl) P52* of the P522* a$reed down pa)ment on the purchase price of P14 '*0 ruled that Par&9 is a condition and it clearl) indicates that the Eeirs of 0ruz shall obtain a *ransfer 0ertificate of *itle in the name of the lessee within 3 )ears before a new contract is to be entered into under the same terms and conditions as the ori$inal 0ontract of "easeRPurchase& *he failure of "essors to secure the *0* does not entitle them to rescind the contract& *he power to rescind is $iven to the in<ured part)& -lso! the) cannot terminate the 0ontract of "ease due to their failure to notif) the defendant in due time of such intention& emand made will come under the implied new lease of -rt& 1;8. and 1;52& 0- ruled that the transfer of title to the propert) in Gonzales= name cannot be interpreted as a condition precedent to the pa)ment of the a$reed purchase price& *erms of contract re(uire no interpretation? normal course of thin$s in sale of real properties dictate that there must first be pa)ment of a$reed purchase price before transfer of title can be made& G/n6$#"& +& H".-& /) T!/0$& C/-/n"# +& CA (177=) $) /upra. S,&2"n&.+" (*/nd.'./n 2-"*"d"n') *he parties have entered into a */nd.'./n$# */n'-$*' /) &$#" #n a conditional contract of sale! upon the fulfillment of the suspensive condition! the sale becomes absolute and this will definitel) affect the sellerLs title thereto& *he consummation of the contract is sub<ect onl) to the successful transfer

0oronel sold his propert) located in Uuezon 0it) to respondent -lcaraz& 8ince the title of the propert) was still in the name of the

deceased father of the 0oronels! the) a$reed to transfer its title to their name upon pa)ment of the down pa)ment of 52B! and thereafter an absolute deed of sale will be e9ecuted& -lcaraz=s mother paid the down pa)ment in behalf of her dau$hter and as such! 0oronel made the transfer of title to their name& /otwithstandin$ this fact! 0oronel sold the propert) to petitioner 4abana$& 0oronels canceledand rescinded the contract with -lcaraz b) depositin$ the down pa)ment in the bank in trust for -lcaraz&

of the certificate of title from the name of petitionersL father! to their names& - second bu)er of the propert) who ma) have had actual or constructive knowled$e of such defect in the sellerLs title! or at least was char$ed with the obli$ation to discover such defect! cannot be a re$istrant in $ood faith& 8uch second bu)er cannot defeat the first bu)erLs title& #n case a title is issued to the second bu)er! the first bu)er ma) seek reconve)ance of the propert) sub<ect of the sale& #f the suspensive condition is not fulfilled! the perfection of the contract of sale is completel) abated& Eowever! if the suspensive condition is fulfilled! the contract of sale is thereb) perfected! such that if there had alread) been previous deliver) of the propert) sub<ect of the sale to the bu)er! ownership thereto automaticall) transfers to the bu)er b) operation of law without an) further act havin$ to be performed b) the seller& Dhen a contract is a */n'-$*' '/ &"## where the ownership or title is retained b) the seller and is not to pass until the full pa)ment of the price! such pa)ment bein$ a positive suspensive condition and failure of which is not a breach! casual or serious! but simpl) an event that prevented the obli$ation of the vendor to conve) title from ac(uirin$ bindin$ force ('o(ue v& "apuz)&Fpon the fulfillment of the suspensive condition which is the full pa)ment of the purchase price! the prospective seller=s obli$ation to sell the sub<ect propert) b) enterin$ into a contract of sale with the prospective bu)er becomes demandable as provided in -rticle 1359 of the 0ivil 0ode (+- promise to bu) and sell a determinate thin$ for a price certain is reciprocall) demandable&,) -n accepted unilateral promise to bu) or to sell a determinate thin$ for a price certain is bindin$ upon the promissor if the promise is supported b) a consideration distinct from the price #n a contract to sell! upon the fulfillment of the suspensive condition which is the full pa)ment of the purchase price! ownership will not automaticall) transfer to the bu)er althou$h the propert) ma) have been previousl) delivered to him& *he prospective seller still has to conve) title to the prospective bu)er b) enterin$ into a contract of absolute sale&

P$-(& +& P-/+.n*" /) T$-#$* (172=)

9) R"&/#,'/-1 (*/nd.'./n &,9&"<,"n') On Oct 18! 1912! 0oncepcion 0irer and Aames Eill! the owners of parcel of land /o& .! donated it perpetuall) to the municipalit) of *arlac! Province of *arlac! under certain conditions specified in the public document in which the) made the donation& *he donation was accepted b) 4r& 8antia$o de Aesus! as municipal president! in the same document on behalf of the municipal council of *arlac& *he parcel thus donated was later re$istered in the name of the donee! the municipalit) of *arlac& Aan 15! 19.1! 0oncepcion 0irer and Aames Eill sold this parcel to petitioner Geor$e "& Parks& -u$ .3! 19.7! the municipalit) of *arlac transferred the parcel to Province of *arlac& *he Province of *arlac! b) reason of the transfer! applied for and obtained the re$istration of the land in its name! the correspondin$ certificate of title havin$ been

*he sale made b) 0irer and Eill to Parks cannot have an) effect& *he parcel havin$ been donated b) 0irer and Eill to the municipalit) of *arlac! which donation was accepted b) the latter! the title to the propert) was transferred to the municipalit) of *arlac& *he donation was not revoked when 0irer and Eill made the sale to the plaintiff& #n order to consider it revoked! it is necessar) either@ 1) that the revocation had been consented to b) the donee! the municipalit) of *arlac! or .) that it had been <udiciall) decreed& /one of these circumstances e9isted when 0irer and Eill sold the parcel to the plaintiff& 0onse(uentl)! when the sale was made! 0irer and Eill were no lon$er the owners of this parcel and could not have sold it to the plaintiff! nor could Parks have ac(uired it from them& Dith re$ard to the +condition precedent,! it is true that the condition has not been complied with& Gut the alle$ation that it is a condition precedent is erroneous& *he characteristic of a condition precedent is that the ac(uisition of the ri$ht is not effected while said condition is not complied with or is not deemed complied with& 4eanwhile nothin$ is ac(uired and there is onl) an e9pectanc) of ri$ht& 0onse(uentl)! when a condition is imposed! the compliance of which cannot be effected e9cept when the ri$ht is deemed ac(uired! such condition cannot be a condition precedent& #n the present case the condition that a public school be erected and a public park made of the donated land could not be complied with e9cept after $ivin$ effect to the donation& -lthou$h the appellant=s contention that noncompliance of the condition of the donation is sufficient $round for revocation! the period for brin$in$ an action for the revocation of the donation has prescribed& Fnder the laws in force (sec& 37! 0ode of 0iv& Proc&)! the period of prescription of this class of action is ten )ears& *he action for the revocation of the donation for this cause arose or -pril 19! 1911! that is! si9 months after the ratification of the

issued to it& Petitioner brou$ht this action a$ainst the Province of *arlac! the municipalit) of *arlac! 0oncepcion 0irer and Aames Eill and pra)ed that he be declared the absolute owner entitled to the possession of the parcel of land! that the transfer of the same b) the municipalit) of *arlac to the Province of *arlac be annulled! and the transfer certificate issued to the Province of *arlac cancelled& Ee alle$ed that a condition precedent havin$ been imposed in the donation and the same not havin$ been complied with! the donation never became effective& *his +condition precedent, accordin$ to appellant! refers to the condition imposed that one of the parcels donated was to be used absolutel) and e9clusivel) for the erection of a central school and the other for a public park! the work to commence in both cases within the period of si9 months from the date of the ratification b) the parties of the document evidencin$ the donation& C"n'-$# P!.#.22.n"& +& CA (177D) #n 1979! on 'amon "opez! 8r& who was a member of the Goard of *rustees of the 0entral Philippine 0olle$e (now 0entral Philippine Fniversit)) e9ecuted a deed of donation in favor of the latter of a parcel of land with the followin$ annotations@ 1& the land described shall be utilized b) the 0PF e9clusivel) for the establishment and use of a medical colle$e with all its buildin$s as part of the curriculum .& the said colle$e shall not sell! transfer or conve) to an) third part) nor in an) wa) encumber said land 7& the said land shall be called '-4O/ "OP%H 0-4PF8 and the said colle$e shall be under obli$ation to erect a cornerstone bearin$ that name& -n) net income from the land or an) of its parks shall be put in a fund to be known as the '-4O/ "OP%H 0-4PF8 >F/ to be used for improvements of said campus and erection of a buildin$ thereon On 4a) 71! 1989! the heirs of on 'amon "opez! 8r& filed an action for annulment of

instrument of donation of October 18! 1912& *he complaint in this action was presented Aul) 5! 19.3! more than ten )ears after this cause accrued&

on 'amon "opez! 8r& e9ecuted for a valuable consideration which is considered the e(uivalent of the donation itself& Fnder -rt& 1181 of the 0ivil 0ode! on conditional obli$ations! the ac(uisition of ri$hts! as well as the e9tin$uishment or loss of those alread) ac(uired! shall depend upon the happenin$ of the even which constitutes the condition& *he condition imposed b) the donor depended upon the e9clusive will of the donee as to when this condition shall be fulfilled& 8ince the time within which the condition should be fulfilled depended upon the e9clusive will of the petitioner! it has been held that its absolute acceptance and the acknowled$ment of its obli$ation provided in the deed of donation were sufficient to prevent the statute of limitations from barrin$ the action of private respondents upon the ori$inal contract which was the deed of donation& #n this case! the startin$ point from which the obli$ation to compl) must be counted from the e9piration of a reasonable period and opportunit) for petitioner to fulfill what has been char$ed upon it b) the donor& -rt& 1195! where the courts ma) fi9 the duration for fulfillment! cannot be applied in this case& 4ore than a reasonable period of 52 )ears has alread) been allowed petitioner to avail of the opportunit) to compl) with the condition even if it be burdensome! to make the donation in its favor forever valid! hence! there is no more need to fi9 the duration of a term of the obli$ation when such procedure would be a mere technicalit) and formalit) and would serve no purpose than to dela) or lead to an unnecessar) and e9pensive multiplication of suits&

donation! reconve)ance and dama$es a$ainst 0PF alle$in$ that@ 1& since 1979 up to the time the action was filed the latter had not complied with the conditions of the donation .& that 0PF had in fact ne$otiated with the /ational Eousin$ -uthorit) to e9chan$e the donated propert) with another land owned b) the latter 0PF! in its answer alle$ed that@ 1& the ri$ht of the private respondents to file the action had prescribed .& that it did not violate an) of the conditions in the deed of donation because it never used the donated propert) for an) other purpose than that for which it was intended 7& that it did not sell! transfer! or conve) it to an) third part) *0 held that petitioner failed to compl) with the conditions of the donation and declared it null and void& #t further directed the petitioner to e9ecute a deed of reconve)ance of the propert) in favor of the heirs of the donor! namel)! private respondents& 0- ruled that the annotations at the back of petitioner=s certificate of title were resolutor) conditions breach of which should terminate the ri$hts of the donee thus makin$ the donation revocable& #t also found that while the first condition mandated petitioner to utilize the donated propert) for the establishment of a medical school! the donor did not fi9 a period within which the condition must be fulfilled! hence! until a period was fi9ed for the fulfillment of the condition! petitioner could not be considered as havin$ failed to compl) with its part of the bar$ain! thus! it remanded the case to the court of ori$in for the determination of the time within which the petitioner should compl) with the first condition annotated in the certificate of title CUI:ADA V CA (1998) !artine)- 0. *rinidad Uui<ada and her siblin$s donated of the sub<ect propert) in favor of the 4unicipalit) of *alaco$on! with the condition that the land shall be used solel) and e9clusivel) as part of the campus of the proposed provincial hi$h school& *he resolutor) condition is the construction of the school& Dhen a person donates land to another on the condition that the latter would build upon the land a school! the condition imposed is not a condition precedent or a suspensive condition but a resolutor) one& *hus! at the time of the sales made in 19;. towards 19;8! the alle$ed seller (*rinidad) could not have sold the lots since she had earlier transferred ownership thereof b) virtue of the deed of

*rinidad remained in possession of the parcel of land and on 19;.! she sold a part of the land to respondent& #n 1985! the proposed provincial hi$h school havin$ failed to materialize! the 8an$$u Ga)an of *alaco$on enacted a 'esolution revertin$ the propert) to the donors& Petitioners! as heirs of *rinidad! filed a complaint for (uietin$ of title recover) of possession and ownership a$ainst respondents& '*0 ruled in their favor& 0reversed&

donation& 8o lon$ as the resolutor) condition subsists and is capable of fulfillment! the donation remains effective and the donee continues to be the owner sub<ect onl) to the ri$hts of the donor or his successors6in6interest under the deed of donation& 8ince no period was imposed b) the donor on when the donee must compl) with the condition! the latter remains the owner so lon$ as he has tried to compl) with the condition within a reasonable period& 8uch period! however! became irrelevant herein when the donee64unicipalit) manifested throu$h a resolution that it cannot compl) with the condition of buildin$ a school and the same was made known to the donor& Onl) then M when the non6fulfillment of the resolutor) condition was brou$ht to the donorLs knowled$e M that ownership of the donated propert) reverted to the donor as provided in the automatic reversion clause of the deed of donation& *he donor ma) have an inchoate interest in the donated propert) durin$ the time that ownership of the land has not reverted to her& 8uch inchoate interest ma) be the sub<ect of contracts includin$ a contract of sale& #n this case! however! what the donor sold was the land itself which she no lon$er owns& #t would have been different if the donor6seller sold her interests over the propert) under the deed of donation which is sub<ect to the possibilit) of reversion of ownership arisin$ from the non6 fulfillment of the resolutor) condition&

LIM V CA (1992) Re"alado- 0.

$) P/'"&'$'.+" "im and private respondent ) entered into a 0ontract of "ease for 7 )ears (195;6 1959)& -fter the e9piration of the term! ) refused to vacate the premises& "im filed an e<ectment suit! which was terminated b) a <udiciall) approved compromise a$reement12 of the parties& G) reason of said compromise! the lease continued until 1985! when "im advised ) that he would no lon$er renew the contract& Eowever! ) informed "im of his intention to renew& "im replied that he didn=t a$ree to the renewal& "im filed another e<ectment suit! which was dismissed because the lease hasn=t e9pired! it bein$ a continuin$ lease! and that the previous e<ectment suit constitutes res <udicata& '*0 affirmed& 0- affirmed& 9) C$&,$# On /ovember 1! 1955! /-*%"0O and 0-8F'%0O entered into a contract for the use b) petitioners in the operation of its telephone service the electric li$ht posts of

*he stipulation +for as lon$ as the defendant needed the premises and can meet and pa) said increases, is a purel) potestative condition because it leaves the effectivit) and en<o)ment of leasehold ri$hts to the sole and e9clusive will of the lessee& #t is likewise a suspensive condition because the renewal of the lease! which $ives rise to a new lease! depends upon said condition& *he condition is not resolutor) in nature because it is not a condition that terminates the lease contract! which is for a definite period of 7 )ears upon the e9piration of which the lease automaticall) terminates& *he continuance! effectivit) and fulfillment of a contract of lease cannot be made to depend e9clusivel) upon the free and uncontrolled choice of the lessee between continuin$ the pa)ment of the rentals or not! completel) deprivin$ the owner of an) sa) in the matter& 4utualit) does not obtain in such a contract of lease and no e(ualit) e9ists between the lessor and the lessee since the life of the contract is dictated solel) b) the lessee& "eases which ma) have been intended to be renewable in perpetuit) will nevertheless be construed as importin$ but one renewal if there is an) uncertaint) in that re$ard

NATELCO V CA (1993)
1-

-rticle 1.;5 speaks of 1service1 which has become so difficult& *akin$ into consideration the rationale behind this provision! the term 1service1 should be understood as referrin$ to the 1performance1 of the obli$ation&

7& *hat the term of the lease shall be renewed ever) three )ears retroactin$ from October 1959 to October 198.? after which the abovenamed rental shall be raised automaticall) b) .2b ever) three )ears for as lon$ as defendant needed the premises and can meet and pa) the said increases! the defendant to $ive notice of his intent to renew si9t) (;2) da)s before the e9piration of the term

5ocon- 0.

private respondent in /a$a 0it)& #n consideration therefor! petitioners a$reed to install! free of char$e! 12 telephone connections for the use b) private respondent& -fter the contract had been enforced for over 12 )ears! private respondent filed with the '*0 a$ainst petitioners for reformation of the contract with dama$es! on the $round that it is too one6sided in favor of petitioners? that it is not in conformit) with the $uidelines of the /ational %lectrification -dministration? that after 11 )ears of petitionersL use of the posts! the telephone cables strun$ b) them thereon have become much heavier with the increase in the volume of their subscribers? that a post now costs as much as P.!;72&22? so that <ustice and e(uit) demand that the contract be reformed to abolish the ine(uities thereon& Private respondent also alle$ed that startin$ with the )ear 1981! petitioners have used 719 posts outside /a$a 0it)! without an) contract with it? that at the rate of P12&22 per post! petitioners should pa) private respondent for the use thereof the total amount of P.;5!9;2&22 from 1981 up to the filin$ of its complaint? and that petitioners had refused to pa) private respondent said amount despite demands& -nd as third cause of action! private respondent complained about the poor servicin$ b) petitioners&

#n the present case! the obli$ation of private respondent consists in allowin$ petitioners to use its posts in /a$a 0it)! which is the service contemplated in said article& >urthermore! a bare readin$ of this article reveals that it is not a re(uirement thereunder that the contract be for future service with future unusual chan$e& -ccordin$ to 8enator *olentino! -rticle 1.;5 states in our law the doctrine of unforeseen events& *his is said to be based on the discredited theor) of rebus sic stantibus in public international law? under this theor)! the parties stipulate in the li$ht of certain prevailin$ conditions! and once these conditions cease to e9ist the contract also ceases to e9ist& 0onsiderin$ practical needs and the demands of e(uit) and $ood faith! the disappearance of the basis of a contract $ives rise to a ri$ht to relief in favor of the part) pre<udiced& *he alle$ations in private respondentLs complaint and the evidence it has presented sufficientl) made out a cause of action under -rticle 1.;5& *he 0ourt! therefore! release the parties from their correlative obli$ations under the contract& Eowever! the disposition of the present controvers) does not end here& *he 0ourt has to take into account the possible conse(uences of merel) releasin$ the parties therefrom@ petitioners will remove the telephone wiresRcables in the posts of private respondent! resultin$ in disruption of their essential service to the public? while private respondent! in consonance with the contract will return all the telephone units to petitioners! causin$ pre<udice to its business& *he 0ourt shall not allow such eventualit)& 'ather! the 0ourt re(uires! as ordered b) the trial court@ 1) petitioners to pa) private respondent for the use of its posts in /a$a 0it) and in the towns of 4ilaor! 0anaman! 4a$arao and Pili! 0amarines 8ur and in other places where petitioners use private respondentLs posts! the sum of ten (P12&22) pesos per post! per month! be$innin$ Aanuar)! 1989? and .)private respondent to pa) petitioner the monthl) dues of all its telephones at the same rate bein$ paid b) the public be$innin$ Aanuar)! 1989& *he peculiar circumstances of the present case! as distin$uished further from the OcceSa case! necessitates e9ercise of a e(uit) <urisdiction&

OSMENA V RAMA (1929) 0o&nson- 0.

*) M.E"d On /ov& 15! 1892! 'ama e9ecuted and delivered a contract to Osmena! which states that she owes Osmena P.22 pesos! which she will pa) in su$ar plus interest& 'ama pled$ed as a securit) all her present and future propert) and as a special securit) her house in which she lives& On Oct& .5! 1891! another contract was e9ecuted! for a further loan amountin$ to P52! wherein she loaned P52 to Penares! leavin$ her with P.2& Osmena died sometime after the e9ecution and deliver) of the said contract& -fter the settlement and division of his estate! the

#n the acknowled$ment of the indebtedness made b) the defendant! she imposed the condition that she would pa) the obli$ation if she sold her home& #f the statement found in her acknowled$ment of the indebtedness should be re$arded as a condition! it was a condition which depended upon her e9clusive will and is therefore void& *he acknowled$ment therefore was an absolute acknowled$ment of the obli$ation and was sufficient to prevent the statute of limitation from barrin$ the action upon the ori$inal contract&

contract became the propert) of 'afols! his heir& On 4arch 15! 192.! the plaintiff presented the contracts to defendant for pa)ment and she acknowled$ed her responsibilit)! thus! e9ecutin$ another contract promisin$ the plaintiff to pa)! if her house is sold& On Aune .;! 192;! the defendant failed to pa) her obli$ations! the plaintiff filed a complaint in court& *he defendant answered b) filin$ a $eneral denial and settin$ up the special defense of prescription& -fter the hearin$ of evidence! the court rendered its <ud$ment in favor of the plaintiff& Orderin$ the defendant to pa) .22 pesos plus interests and .2 pesos plus interests on both at the rate of 18 d per annum& 8mith Gell and 0o& entered into contract with 8otelo in -u$ust 1918& *wo steel tanks were to be sold to 8otelo in the amount of P.1!222&22? two e9pellers at P.5!222&22 each and two electric motors at P.!222&22 each& *he steel tanks are to be delivered within 7 or 3 months? the e9pellers to be delivered in 8eptember 1918 or as soon as possible? electric motors appro9imate deliver) within 92 da)s and is not $uaranteed& *he tanks arrived at 4anila on -pril! .5 1919@ the e9pellers on October .;! 1918? and the motors on >ebruar) .5! 1919& *he plaintiff corporation notified the defendant!& 8otelo! of the arrival of these $oods! but 8otelo refused to receive them and to pa) the prices stipulated& *he plaintiff brou$ht suit a$ainst the defendant! alle$in$! amon$ other facts! that it immediatel) notified the defendant of the arrival of the $oods! and asked instructions from him as to the deliver) thereof! and that the defendant refused to receive an) of them and to pa) their price& *he plaintiff! further! alle$ed that the e9pellers and the motors were in $ood condition& #n their answer! the defendant! 8otelo! and the intervenor! the 4anila Oil 'efinin$ and G)6Products 0o&! #nc&! denied the plaintiffLs

SMITH MATTI (19..)

3ELL

Ro$ualde)- 0.

*he e9port of the machiner) in (uestion was! as stated in the contract! contin$ent upon the sellers obtainin$ certificate of priorit) and permission of the Fnited 8tates Government! sub<ect to the rules and re$ulations! as well as to railroad embar$oes! then the deliver) was sub<ect to a condition the fulfillment of which depended not onl) upon the effort of the herein plaintiff! but upon the will of third persons who could in no wa) be compelled to fulfill the condition& #n cases like this! which are not e9pressl) provided for! but impliedl) covered! b) the 0ivil 0ode! the obli$or will be deemed to have sufficientl) performed his part of the obli$ation! if he has done all that was in his power! even if the condition has not been fulfilled in realit)& #n such cases! the decisions prior to the 0ivil 0ode have held that the obli$ee havin$ done all that was in his power! was entitled to enforce performance of the obli$ation& *his performance! which is fictitious 6 not real 6 is not e9pressl) authorized b) the 0ode! which limits itself onl) to declare valid those conditions and the obli$ation thereb) affected? but it is neither disallowed! and the 0ode bein$ thus silent! the old view can be maintained as a doctrine&

RUSTAN PULP V IAC (199.) !elo- 0.

alle$ations as to the shipment of these $oods and their arrival at 4anila! the notification to 8otelo! the latterLs refusal to receive them and pa) their price! and the $ood condition of the e9pellers and the motors! alle$in$ as special defense that 8otelo had made the contracts in (uestion as mana$er of the intervenor! the 4anila Oil 'efinin$ and G)6Products 0o&! #nc which fact was known to the plaintiff! and that 1it was onl) in 4a)! 1919! that it notified the intervenor that said tanks had arrived! the motors and the e9pellers havin$ arrived incomplete and lon$ after the date stipulated&1 -s a counterclaim or set6off! the) also alle$e that! as a conse(uence of the plaintiffLs dela) in makin$ deliver) of the $oods! which the intervenor intended to use in the manufacture of coconut oil! the intervenor suffered dama$es in the sums of P11;!587&91 for the nondeliver) of the tanks! and P.1!.52 on account of the e9pellers and the motors not havin$ arrived in due time& Petitioner established a pulp and paper mill with "luch as one of its supplier of row materials& #n the contract of sale entered in to between petitioner and "luch! it is provided that the contract to suppl) is not e9clusive because the petitioner has the option to bu) from other supplier who are (ualified to sell and *hat the GFO%' shall have the ri$ht to stop deliver) of the said raw materials b) the seller covered b) this contract when suppl) of the same shall become sufficient until such time when need for said raw materials shall have become necessaril) provided! however! that the 8%""%' is $iven sufficient notice& urin$ the test run of the pulp mill! the machiner) line thereat had ma<or defects while deliveries of the raw materials piled up! which prompted the Aapanese supplier of the machiner) to recommend the stoppa$e of the deliveries and so the suppliers were informed to stop deliveries& Private respondent tr) to clarif) whether the

-nd insofar as the e9press discretion on the part of petitioners is concerned re$ardin$ the ri$ht of stoppa$e! De feel that there is co$ent basis for private respondentLs apprehension on the illusor) resumption of deliveries inasmuch as the prero$ative su$$ests a condition solel) dependent upon the will of petitioners& Petitioners can stop deliver) of pulp wood from private respondents if the suppl) at the plant is sufficient as ascertained b) petitioners! sub<ect to re6deliver) when the need arises as determined likewise b) petitioners& - purel) potestative imposition of this character must be obliterated from the face of the contract without affectin$ the rest of the stipulations considerin$ that the condition relates to the fulfillment of an alread) e9istin$ obli$ation and not to its inception& that a condition which is both potestative (or facultative) and resolutor) ma) be valid! even thou$h the savin$ clause is left to the will of the obli$or& *here is no doubt that the contract speaks loudl) about petitionersL prero$ative but what diminishes the le$al efficac) of such ri$ht is the condition attached to it which! as aforesaid! is dependent e9clusivel) on their will for which reason! De have no alternative but to treat the controversial stipulation as inoperative (-rticle 172;! /ew 0ivil 0ode)& #t is for this same reason that De are not inclined to follow the interpretation of petitioners that the suspension of deliver) was merel) temporar) since the nature of the suspension itself is a$ain conditioned upon petitionerLs determination of the sufficienc) of supplies at the plant&

ROMERO V CA (1995) 9itu"- 0.

respondent is terminatin$ the contract but 'espondent did not answer so Private respondent filed a complaint of contractual breach but was dismissed b) the court of ori$in& Private respondent entered into a +0onditional eed of 8ale, with petitioner over a parcel of land in Parana(ue! the latter advancin$ P52!222 for the eviction of s(uatters therein& -n e<ectment suit was then filed b) the private respondent a$ainst the s(uatters& -lthou$h successful! private respondent sou$ht the return of the downpa)ment she received because +she could not $et rid of the s(uatters,&

- perfected contract of sale ma) either be absolute or conditional dependin$ on whether the a$reement is devoid of! or sub<ect to! an) condition imposed on the passin$ of title of the thin$ to be conve)ed or on the obli$ation of a part) thereto& Dhen ownership is retained until the fulfillment of a positive condition the breach of the condition will simpl) prevent the dut) to conve) title from ac(uirin$ an obli$ator) force& #f the condition is imposed on an obli$ation of a part) which is not complied with! the other part) ma) either refuse to proceed or waive said condition& Dhere! of course! the condition is imposed upon the perfection of the contract itself! the failure of such condition would prevent the <uridical relation itself from comin$ into e9istence& #n determinin$ the real character of the contract! the title $iven to it b) the parties is not as much si$nificant as its substance& >or e9ample! a deed of sale! althou$h denominated as a deed of conditional sale! ma) be treated as absolute in nature! if title to the propert) sold is not reserved in the vendor or if the vendor is not $ranted the ri$ht to unilaterall) rescind the contract predicated on the fulfillment or non6fulfillment! as the case ma) be! of the prescribed condition& *he term 1condition1 in the conte9t of a perfected contract of sale pertains! in realit)! to the compliance b) one part) of an undertakin$ the fulfillment of which would beckon! in turn! the demandabilit) of the reciprocal prestation of the other part)& *he reciprocal obli$ations referred to would normall) be! in the case of vendee! the pa)ment of the a$reed purchase price and! in the case of the vendor! the fulfillment of certain e9press warranties (which! in the case at bench is the timel) eviction of the s(uatters on the propert))& Fnder the a$reement! private respondent is obli$ated to evict the s(uatters on the propert)& Private respondentLs failure 1to remove the s(uatters from the propert)1 within the stipulated period $ives petitioner the ri$ht to either refuse to proceed with the a$reement or waive that condition in consonance with -rticle 1535 of the 0ivil 0ode& *his option clearl) belon$s to petitioner and not to private respondent& #n contracts of sale particularl)! -rticle 1535 of the 0ivil 0ode allows the obli$ee to choose between proceedin$ with the a$reement or waivin$ the performance of the condition& Eere! evidentl)! petitioner has waived the performance of the condition imposed on private respondent to free the propert) from s(uatters& *he ri$ht of resolution of a part) to an obli$ation is predicated on a breach of faith b) the other part) that violates the reciprocit) between them& #t is private respondent who has failed in her obli$ation under the contract& Petitioner did not breach the a$reement& Ee has a$reed! in fact! to shoulder the e9penses of the e9ecution of the <ud$ment in the e<ectment case and to make arran$ements with the sheriff to effect such e9ecution&

ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCH3ISHOP OF MANILA V CA (1991) Re"alado- 0.

*) P/&&.9#" d) I02/&&.9#" *he administrators of the estate of deceased spouses %usebio and 4artina e 0astro filed a complaint to nullif) the deed of donation! rescission of contract! and reconve)ance of the propert) a$ainst spouses >lorencio and 8oledad #$nao! 'oman 0atholic Gishop of #mus! and 'oman 0atholic -rchbishop of 4anila& *he

*he action has alread) prescribed& -rt& 5;3 is not applicable in this case& *he deed of donation involved e9pressl) provided for automatic reversion of the propert) donated in case of violation of the! as was correctl) reco$nized b) the 0-&- <udicial action for rescission of a contract is not necessar) where the contract provides that it ma) be revoked and cancelled for violation of an) of its terms and conditions& *his cancellation can be applied in the case at bar& -rt& 57. of the 0ivil 0ode provides that donations inter vivos shall be $overned b) the $eneral provisions on contracts and obli$ations in all that is not determined b) the law on donations& #n contracts providin$ for automatic revocation! <udicial intervention is necessar) not for purposes of obtainin$ a <udicial declaration rescindin$ a contract

administrators alle$ed that in 1972 the e 0astros e9ecuted the deed of donation over their 0avite propert) to the -rchbishop! said deed alle$edl) providin$ that the latter cannot dispose or sell the propert) within 122 )ears from e9ecution& *he administration of the said properties was transferred to the Gishop of #mus in 19;.& -nd in 1982! the Gishop of #mus sold the propert) to the spouses #$nao& *he #$naos were then able to transfer the *0* under their names& *he lower court ruled that the action had alread) prescribed and dismissed the complaint& *his was reversed b) the 0-& *he #$naos and the Gishops contend that the cause of action had alread) prescribed! rel)in$ on -rt& 5;3 which provides that G%t'&e donation s&all be revoked at t&e instance of t&e donor- w&en t&e donee fails to co$ply wit& any of t&e conditions w&ic& t&e for$er i$posed upon t&e latter-G and t&at G%t'&is action s&all prescribe after four years fro$ t&e non8 co$pliance wit& t&e condition- $ay be trans$itted to t&e &eirs of t&e donor- and $ay be exercised a"ainst t&e doneeLs &eirs&,

alread) deemed rescinded! but in order to determine whether or not the rescission was proper& *hus! the cause of action has not )et prescribed since an action to enforce a written contract prescribes in ten (12) )ears& -rticle 5;3was intended to provide a <udicial remed) in case of non6fulfillment or contravention of conditions specified in the deed of donation if and when the parties have not a$reed on the automatic revocation of such donation upon the occurrence of the contin$enc) contemplated therein& *hat is not the situation in the case at bar& /onetheless! while the action ma) not be dismissed b) reason of prescription! the same should be dismissed on the $round that the estates of the e 0astros have no cause of action a$ainst the #$naos and other petitioners& *he cause of action of the e 0astros is based on the alle$ed breach of the resolutor) condition that the propert) donated should not be sold within the prohibited period& 8aid condition! however! constitutes an undue restriction on the ri$hts arisin$ from ownership and is! therefore! contrar) to public polic) and should be declared as an ille$al or impossible condition&

") P/&.'.+" )) N"4$'.+" 4) D.+.&.9#" !) Ind.+.&.9#" .) C/n;,n*'.+" ;) A#'"-n$'.+" () EE2-"&& #) I02#."d ... O9#.4$'./n& %.'! $ '"-0 $) T12"& $) W.'! $ &,&2"n&.+" 2"-./d ("E d.") 9) W.'! $ -"&/#,'/-1 2"-./d (.n d."0) *) L"4$# d) V/#,n'$-1 ") :,d.*.$# ARANETA V PHIL 4a$dalena %state! #nc& sold to "ouis 4)rick *he contract of sale contains no provision authorizin$ the vendor! in the event of failure of the vendee SUGAR ESTATES lotsm/o& .8 and .9 of Glock 1! Parcel 9 of to continue in the pa)ment of the stipulated monthl) installments! to retain the amounts paid to him on DEVELOPMENT the 8an Auan 8ubdivision! 8an Auan! 'izal& account of the purchase price& *he claim therefore! of the petitioner that it has the ri$ht to forfeit said *heir contract of sale sums in its favor is untenable& Fnder -rticle 11.3 of the 0ivil 0ode! however! he ma) choose between (19;5) provides that the Price of P5!957 shall be demandin$ the fulfillment of the contract or its resolution& *hese remedies are alternative and not pa)able in 1.2 e(ual monthl) installments cumulative! and the petitioner in this case! havin$ elected to cancel the contract cannot avail himself of Reyes- 0. .L.- 0. of P9;&79 each on the second da) of ever) the other remed) of e9actin$ performance& -s a conse(uence of the resolution! the parties should be month be$innin$ the date of e9ecution of restored! as far as practicable! to their ori$inal situation which can be appro9imated onl) be orderin$

the

a$reement&

the return of the thin$s which were the ob<ect of the contract! with their fruits and of the price! with its interest! computed from the date of institution of the action

CENTRAL PHIL UNIVERSITY V CA (1995) ellosillo- 0.

#n pursuance of said a$reement! the vendee made several pa)ments amountin$ to P.!59;&28! the last bein$ due and unpaid was that of 4a) .! 1972& G) reason of this! the vendor! throu$h its president! notified the vendee that! in view of his inabilit) to compl) with the terms of their contract! said a$reement had been cancelled! relievin$ him of an) further obli$ation thereunder! and that all amounts paid b) him had been forfeited in favor of the vendor& *o this communication! the vendee did not repl)! and it appears likewise that the vendor thereafter did not re(uire him to make an) further disbursements on account of the purchase price& #n 1979! the late on 'amon "opez was a member of the board of trustees of 0entral Philippine Fniversit) when he e9ecuted a donation to the school! statin$ that the land must be for e9clusive use of a medical colle$e& 52 )ears later! *he heirs of 'amon "opez filed an action to annul the donation! statin$ the failure of the school to construct the medical colle$e over the land& '*0 ruled in favor of respondents! which the 0affirmed&

*he donation was an onerous one! where failure of the school to construct a medical colle$e would $ive the heirs the power to revoke the donation! revertin$ the propert) back to the heirs of the donor& #t is therefore a resolutor) condition& -lthou$h! the period was not stated! and the courts should have fi9ed a period! in this case! 52 )ears has lapsed since the donation was e9ecuted! thus fi9in$ a period would serve no purpose and the propert) must alread) be reverted back&

9)

*)

)) EE2-"&& 4) T$*.' !) O-.4.n$# .) G-$*" ;) D").n.'" () Ind").n.'" A**/-d.n4 '/ P#,-$#.'1 /) O9;"*' $) A#'"-n$'.+" O9#.4$'./n& 1 5.nd& 1 S.02#" $#'"-n$'.+" 2 F$*,#'$'.+" 2 R.4!' '/ *!//&" 1 In 4"n"-$# 2 L/&& /) -.4!' 3 L/&&NI02/&&.9.#.'1 1 L.$9.#.'1 )/- #/&& /) '!.n4N.02/&&.9.#.'1 /) 2"-)/-0$n*" 2 C-"d.'/-G& -.4!' '/ .nd"0n.'1 )/- d$0$4"& A**/-d.n4 '/ P#,-$#.'1 /) S,9;"*'& $) S.n4#" 9) :/.n'

LAFARGE CONTINENTAL CEMENT (.223) Pan"aniban- 0.

1 G"n"-$# R,#" 2 P-"&,02'./n 3 Ind.+.&.9.#.'1 *) S/#.d$-1 1 W!"n &/#.d$-1 2 5.nd& Parties e9ecuted a "etter of #ntent whereb) Obli$ations ma) be classified as either <oint or solidar)& +Aoint, or +<ointl), or +con<oint, means mancum "afar$e! on behalf of its affiliates includin$ or mancumunada or pro rata obli$ation? on the other hand! +solidar) obli$ations= ma) be used "0"0! a$reed to purchase the cement interchan$eabl) with +<oint and several, or +several&, *hus! petitioners= usa$e of the term +<oint and business of 0ontinental& *he parties solidar), is confusin$& entered into a 8ale and Purchase -$reement (8P-)& Petititoners were well *he ambi$uit) in petitionersL counterclaims notwithstandin$! respondentsL liabilit)! if proven! is solidar)& aware that 0ontinental had a case pendin$ *his characterization finds basis in -rticle 1.25 of the 0ivil 0ode! which provides that obli$ations are with 80 (-P* v 0- and 0ontinental)& #n $enerall) considered <oint! e9cept when otherwise e9pressl) stated or when the law or the nature of the anticipation of the liabilit) from there! the obli$ation re(uires solidarit)& Eowever! obli$ations arisin$ from tort are! b) their nature! alwa)s solidar)& parties alle$edl) a$reed to retain from the purchase price a portion of the contract #n a 1<oint1 obli$ation! each obli$or answers onl) for a part of the whole liabilit)? in a 1solidar)1 or 1<oint price! which was to be deposited in an and several1 obli$ation! the relationship between the active and the passive sub<ects is so close that interest6bearin$ account& each of them must compl) with or demand the fulfillment of the whole obli$ation& Eowever! petitioners alle$edl) refused to appl) the sum to -P* after a decision was rendered in its favor& 0ontinental filed a complaint pra)in$ that petitioners be directed to pa) the +-P* retained amount, Petitioner filed a compulsor) counterclaim a$ainst 0ontinental! its ma<orit) stockholder and president "im and its corporate secretar) 4ariano for dama$es& #t characterize their liabilit) as +<oint and solidar),& 0ontinental filed a 4* & #ts personalit) to file a 4* was (uestioned& d) *he fact that the liabilit) sou$ht a$ainst the 000 is for specific performance and tort! while that sou$ht a$ainst the individual respondents is based solel) on tort does not ne$ate the solidar) nature of their liabilit) for tortuous acts alle$ed in the counterclaims *he solidar) character of respondentsL alle$ed liabilit) is precisel) wh) credence cannot be $iven to petitionersL assertion& -ccordin$ to such assertion! 'espondent 000 cannot move to dismiss the counterclaims on $rounds that pertain solel) to its individual co6debtors&7. #n cases filed b) the creditor! a solidar) debtor ma) invoke defenses arisin$ from the nature of the obli$ation! from circumstances personal to it! or even from those personal to its co6debtors& *he act of 'espondent 000 as a solidar) debtor 66 that of filin$ a motion to dismiss the counterclaim on $rounds that pertain onl) to its individual co6debtors 66 is therefore allowed& Eowever! a perusal of its 4otion to ismiss the counterclaims shows that 'espondent 000 filed it on behalf of 0o6respondents "im and 4ariano? it did not pra) that the counterclaim a$ainst it be dismissed&

L$09"-' + F/E (171B)

A**/-d.n4 '/ 2"-)/-0$n*" $) D.+.&.9#"NInd.+.&.9#" /9#.4$'./n& ") A**/-d.n4 '/ &$n*'./n )/- 9-"$*! $) O9#.4$'./n& %.'! $ 2"n$# *#$,&" *he plaintiff and the defendant are the two Q&ere t&e lan"ua"e used by t&e parties is plain- t&en construction and interpretation are unnecessary lar$est stockholders in the new corporation #n the case at bar the parties e9pressl) stipulated that the contract should last one )ear& /o reason is called Aohn '& %d$ar N 0o&! #ncorporated& shown for sa)in$ that it shall last onl) nine months& Dhatever the ob<ect was in specif)in$ the )ear! it - few da)s after the incorporation was was their a$reement that the contract should last a )ear and it was their <ud$ment and conviction that completed plaintiff and defendant entered their purposes would not be subversed in an) less time& Dhat reason can $ive for refusin$ to follow the into the followin$ a$reement@ plain words of the men who made the contractC De see none& *herefore! the undersi$ned mutuall) and reciprocall) a$ree T&ere is no need to prove t&e da$a"es in fixin" t&e penalty not to sell! transfer! or otherwise #n this <urisdiction! there is no difference between a penalt) and li(uidated dama$es! so far as le$al dispose of an) part of their results are concerned& Dhatever differences e9ists between them as a matter of lan$ua$e! the) are present holdin$s of stock in said treated the same le$all)& #n either case the part) to whom pa)ment is to be made is entitled to recover

SSS + (1773)

M//n%$#(

Aohn '& %d$ar N 0o& #nc&! till after one )ear from the date hereof& %ither part) violatin$ this a$reement shall pa) to the other the sum of one thousand (P1!222) pesos as li(uidated dama$es! unless previous consent in writin$ to such sale! transfer! or other disposition be obtained& /otwithstandin$ this contract the defendant >o9 on October 19! 1911! sold his stock in the said corporation to %& 0& 4c0ullou$h of the firm of %& 0& 4c0ullou$h N 0o& of 4anila! a stron$ competitor of the said Aohn '& %d$ar N 0o&! #nc& *his sale was made b) the defendant a$ainst the protest of the plaintiff and with the warnin$ that he would be held liable under the contract hereinabove set forth and in accordance with its terms& #n fact! the defendant >oz offered to sell his shares of stock to the plaintiff for the same sum that 4c0ullou$h was pa)in$ them less P1!222! the penalt) specified in the contract& *he trial court decided the case in favor of the defendant upon the $round that the intention of the parties as it appeared from the contract in (uestion was to the effect that the a$reement should be $ood and continue onl) until the corporation reached a sound financial basis! and that that event havin$ occurred some time before the e9piration of the )ear mentioned in the contract! the purpose for which the contract was made and had been fulfilled and the defendant accordin$l) dischar$ed of his obli$ation thereunder& On >ebruar) .2! 1982! the 8ocial 8ecurit) 8)stem! 888 for brevit)! filed a complaint in the 0ourt of >irst #nstance of 'izal a$ainst 4oonwalk evelopment N Eousin$ 0orporation! 4oonwalk for short! alle$in$ that the former had committed an error in failin$ to compute the 1.b interest due on dela)ed pa)ments on the loan of 4oonwalk M resultin$ in a chain of errors in the application of pa)ments made b) 4oonwalk and! in an unpaid balance on the principal loan a$reement in the amount of P5!257&55 and! also in not reflectin$ in its statement or account an unpaid balance on

the sum stipulated without the necessit) of provin$ dama$es& #ndeed one of the primar) purposes in fi9in$ a penalt) or in li(uidatin$ dama$es! is to avoid such necessit)& T&e stipulation is not ille"al *he suspension of the power to sell has a beneficial purpose! results in the protection of the corporation as well as of the individual parties to the contract! and is reasonable as to the len$th of time of the suspension&

#ssue@ #s the penalt) demandable even after the e9tin$uishment of the principal obli$ationC /owhere in this case did it appear that 888 demanded from 4oonwalk the pa)ment of its monthl) amortizations& /either did it show that petitioner demanded the pa)ment of the stipulated penalt) upon the failure of 4oonwalk to meet its monthl) amortization& Dhat the complaint itself showed was that 888 tried to enforce the obli$ation sometime in 8eptember! 1955 b) foreclosin$ the real estate mort$a$es e9ecuted b) 4oonwalk in favor of 888& Gut this foreclosure did not push throu$h upon 4oonwalkLs re(uests and promises to pa) in full& *he ne9t demand for pa)ment happened on October 1! 1959 when 888 issued a 8tatement of -ccount to 4oonwalk& -nd in accordance with said statement! 4oonwalk paid its loan in full& Dhat is clear! therefore! is that 4oonwalk was never in default because 888 never compelled performance& *hou$h it tried to foreclose the mort$a$es! 888 itself desisted from doin$ so upon the entreaties of 4oonwalk& #f the 8tatement of -ccount could properl) be considered as demand for pa)ment! the demand was complied with on time& Eence! no dela) occurred and there was! therefore! no occasion when the penalt) became demandable and enforceable& 8ince

the said penalties for dela)ed pa)ments in the amount of P5!515!158&.1 as of October 12! 1959& *he followin$ is the stipulation of facts@ 1& Plaintiff approved the application of defendant 4oonwalk for an interim loan of P72!222!222&22 .& *he sum of P9!595!222&22 was released to defendant 4oonwalk as of /ovember .8! 1957? 7& *here was a restructurin$ of the pa)ment of the released amount of P9!595!222&22& 3& efendants substituted -ssociated 0onstruction and 8urve)s 0orporation! Philippine 4odel Eomes evelopment 0orporation! 4ariano H& :elarde and %usebio *& 'amos! as solidar) obli$ors? 5& On Aul) .7! 1953! after considerin$ additional releases in the amount of P.!;59!522&22! made to defendant 4oonwalk! defendant 4oonwalk delivered to the plaintiff a promissor) note for P1.!.53!522&22 ;& 4oonwalk made a total pa)ment of P.7!;55!921&83 to 888 for the loan principal of P1.!.53!522&22 released to it& *he last pa)ment made b) 4oonwalk in the amount of P15!223!925&53 were based on the 8tatement of -ccount! prepared b) plaintiff 888 for defendant? 5& -fter settlement of the account plaintiff issued to defendant 4oonwalk the 'elease of 4ort$a$e for 4oonwalkLs mort$a$ed properties 8& #n letters to defendant 4oonwalk! dated /ovember .8! 1959 and followed up b) another letter dated ecember 15! 1959! plaintiff alle$ed that it committed an honest mistake in releasin$ defendant& 9& #n a letter dated ecember .1! 1959! defendantLs counsel told plaintiff that it had completel) paid its obli$ations to 888? *06dismissed the complaint R/9"&-F-$n*.&*/ R"$#'1 O D"+"#/20"n' C/-2/-$'./n + CFI (17>8) #n 4a) 19;. 'obes6>rancisco 'ealt) N evelopment 0orporation! now petitioner! a$reed to sell to private respondent "olita 4illan for and in consideration of the sum of P7!8;3&22! pa)able in installments! a parcel of land containin$ an area of

there was no default in the performance of the main obli$ation M pa)ment of the loan M 888 was never entitled to recover an) penalt)! not at the time it made the 8tatement of -ccount and certainl)! not after the e9tin$uishment of the principal obli$ation because then! all the more that 888 had no reason to ask for the penalties& *hus! there could never be an) occasion for waiver or even mistake in the application for pa)ment because there was nothin$ for 888 to waive as its ri$ht to enforce the penalt) did not arise& .efinition of a penal clause8 1an accessor) obli$ation which the parties attach to a principal obli$ation for the purpose of insurin$ the performance thereof b) imposin$ on the debtor a special presentation ($enerall) consistin$ in the pa)ment of a sum of mone)) in case the obli$ation is not fulfilled or is irre$ularl) or inade(uatel) fulfilled1 5ow t&en w&en is t&e penalty de$andable C - penalt) is demandable in case of non performance or late performance of the main obli$ation& #n other words in order that the penalt) ma) arise there must be a breach of the obli$ation either b) total or partial non fulfillment or there is non fulfillment in point of time which is called mora or dela)& *he debtor therefore violates the obli$ation in point of time if there is mora or dela)& /ow! there is no mora or dela) unless there is a demand& #t is noteworth) that in the present case durin$ all the period when the principal obli$ation was still subsistin$! althou$h there were late amortizations there was no demand made b) the creditor! plaintiff6appellant for the pa)ment of the penalt)& *herefore up to the time of the letter of plaintiff6appellant there was no demand for the pa)ment of the penalt)! hence the debtor was no in mora in the pa)ment of the penalt)& "et it be emphasized that at the time of the demand made in the letters of /ovember .8! 1959 and ecember 15! 1959 as far as the penalt) is concerned! the defendant6appellee was not in default since there was no mora prior to the demand& *hat bein$ the case! therefore! the demand made after the e9tin$uishment of the principal obli$ation which carried with it the e9tin$uishment of the penal clause bein$ merel) an accessor) obli$ation! was an e9ercise in futilit)&

DO/ the clause is a penalt) clause& /O *here can be no dispute in this case under the pleadin$s and the admitted facts that petitioner corporation was $uilt) of dela)! amountin$ to nonperformance of its obli$ation! in issuin$ the transfer certificate of title to vendee 4illan who had full) paid up her installments on the lot bou$ht b) her& -rticle 152 of the 0ivil 0ode e9pressl) provides that those who in the performance of their obli$ations

appro9imatel) .5; s(uare meters! situated in Garrio 0amarin! 0aloocan 0it)! known as "ot /o& .2! Glock /o& 11 of its >ranville 8ubdivision& 4illan complied with her obli$ation under the contract and paid the installments stipulated therein! the final pa)ment havin$ been made on ecember ..! 1951& *he vendee made a total pa)ment of P5!197&;7 includin$ interests and e9penses for re$istration of title& *hereafter! "olita 4illan made repeated demands upon the corporation for the e9ecution of the final deed of sale and the issuance to her of the transfer certificate of title over the lot& On 4arch .! 1957! the parties e9ecuted a deed of absolute sale of the aforementioned parcel of land& *he deed of absolute sale contained! amon$ others! this particular provision@ *hat the :%/ O' further warrants that the transfer certificate of title of the above6described parcel of land shall be transferred in the name of the :%/ %% within the period of si9 (;) months from the date of full pa)ment and in case the :%/ O' fails to issue said transfer certificate of title! it shall bear the obli$ation to refund to the :%/ %% the total amount alread) paid for! plus an interest at the rate of 3b per annum& /otwithstandin$ the lapse of the above6 mentioned stipulated period of si9 (;) months! the corporation failed to cause the issuance of the correspondin$ transfer certificate of title over the lot sold to 4illan! hence! the latter filed on -u$ust 13! 1953 a complaint for specific performance and dama$es a$ainst 'obes6>rancisco 'ealt) N evelopment 0orporation& 9)

are $uilt) of fraud! ne$li$ence! or dela)! and t&ose w&o in any $anner contravene t&e tenor t&ereofare liable for da$a"es& Petitioner contends that the deed of absolute sale e9ecuted between the parties stipulates that should the vendor fail to issue the transfer certificate of title within si9 months from the date of full pa)ment! it shall refund to the vendee the total amount paid for with interest at the rate of 3b per annum! hence! the vendee is bound b) the terms of the provision and cannot recover more than what is a$reed upon& Presumabl)! petitioner in invokin$ -rticle 1..; of the 0ivil 0ode which provides that in obli$ations with a penal clause! the penalt) shall substitute the indemnit) for dama$es and the pa)ment of interests in case of noncompliance! if there is no stipulation to the contrar)& *he fore$oin$ ar$ument of petitioner is totall) devoid of merit& De would a$ree with petitioner if the clause in (uestion were to be considered as a penal clause& /evertheless! for ver) obvious reasons! said clause does not conve) an) penalt)! for even without it! pursuant to -rticle ..29 of the 0ivil 0ode! the vendee would be entitled to recover the amount paid b) her with le"al rate of interest w&ic& is even $ore t&an t&e B, provided for in the clause& #t is therefore inconceivable that the aforecited provision in the deed of sale is a penal clause which will preclude an award of dama$es to the vendee 4illan& #n fact the clause is so worded as to work to the advanta$e of petitioner corporation& *he nominal dama$es was reduced b) the 0ourt to Php 12!222&22

C!$-$*'"-.&'.*& /) 2"n$# *#$,&"

1 S,9&.d.$-1 /- $#'"-n$'.+" 2 EE*#,&.+" .+ EE'.n4,.&!0"n' /) /9#.4$'./n& $) P$10"n' /- 2"-)/-0$n*" $) A& '/ 2-"&'$'./n 1 Id"n'.'1 EE*"2'./n 1 D$*./n "n 2$4/ 2 N/+$'./n 2 In'"4-.'1 3 Ind.+.&.9.#.'1 9) A& '/ 2$-'."& 1 P$1/-, /9#.4/-, d"9'/2 P$1"", /9#.4"", *-"d.'/*) A& '/ '.0" $nd 2#$*" /) 2"-)/-0$n*" d) NOTEK B &2"*.$# )/-0& /) 2$10"n' 1 D$*./n "n 2$4/ F.#.n+"&' C-"d.' On October 72! 1951! the Philippine #ssue@ DO/ the return of the mort$a$ed motor vehicle to the appellee b) virtue of its voluntar) C/-2/-$'./n + -cet)lene 0o&! #nc&! defendant6appellant surrender b) the appellant totall) e9tin$uished andRor cancelled its obli$ation to the appellee? P!.#.22.n" A*"'1#"n" herein! purchased from one -le9ander "im! C/ In* (1782) as evidenced b) a eed of! a motor vehicle *he mere return of the mort$a$ed motor vehicle b) the mort$a$or! the herein appellant! to the described as 0hevorlet for P55!.35&82 with mort$a$ee! the herein appellee! does not constitute dation in pa)ment or dacion en pa"o in the a down pa)ment of P.2!222&22 and the absence! e9press or implied of the true intention of the parties& .acion en pa"o! accordin$ to 4anresa! balance of P75!.35&82 pa)able! under the is the transmission of the ownership of a thin$ b) the debtor to the creditor as an accepted e(uivalent terms and conditions of the promissor) of the performance of obli$ation& #n dacion en pa"o! as a special mode of pa)ment! the debtor offers note! at a monthl) installment of P1!27;&52 another thin$ to the creditor who accepts it as e(uivalent of pa)ment of an outstandin$ debt& *he for thirt)6four (73) months! due and pa)able undertakin$ reall) partakes in one sense of the nature of sale! that is! the creditor is reall) bu)in$ the on the first da) of each month startin$ thin$ or propert) of the debtor! pa)ment for which is to be char$ed a$ainst the debtorLs debt& -s such! ecember 1951 throu$h and inclusive the essential elements of a contract of sale! namel)! consent! ob<ect certain! and cause or 8eptember 1! 1953 with 1. b interest per consideration must be present& #n its modern concept! what actuall) takes place in dacion en pa"o is an annum on each unpaid installment! and ob<ective novation of the obli$ation where the thin$ offered as an accepted e(uivalent of the attorne)Ls fees in the amount e(uivalent to performance of an obli$ation is considered as the ob<ect of the contract of sale! while the debt is .5b of the total of the outstandin$ unpaid considered as the purchase price& #n an) case! common consent is an essential prere(uisite! be it sale amount& or innovation to have the effect of totall) e9tin$uishin$ the debt or obli$ation& -s securit) for the pa)ment of said promissor) note! the appellant e9ecuted a *he evidence on the record fails to show that the mort$a$ee! the herein appellee! consented! or at chattel mort$a$e over the same motor least intended! that the mere deliver) to! and acceptance b) him! of the mort$a$ed motor vehicle be vehicle in favor of said -le9ander "im& construed as actual pa)ment! more specificall) dation in pa)ment or dacion en pa"o. *he fact that the 8ubse(uentl)! on /ovember .! 1951& mort$a$ed motor vehicle was delivered to him does not necessaril) mean that ownership thereof! as -le9ander "im assi$ned to the >ilinvest <uridicall) contemplated b) dacion en pa$o! was transferred from appellant to appellee& #n the absence >inance 0orporation all his ri$hts! title! and of clear consent of appellee to the proferred special mode of pa)ment! there can be no transfer of interests in the promissor) note and chattel ownership of the mort$a$ed motor vehicle from appellant to appellee& #f at all! onl) transfer of mort$a$e b) virtue of a eed of possession of the mort$a$ed motor vehicle took place! for it is (uite possible that appellee! as -ssi$nment)& mort$a$ee! merel) wanted to secure possession to forestall the loss! destruction! fraudulent transfer of *hereafter! the >ilinvest >inance the vehicle to third persons! or its bein$ rendered valueless if left in the hands of the appellant& 0orporation! as a conse(uence of its mer$er with the 0redit and evelopment 0orporation assi$ned to the new corporation! the herein plaintiff6appellee >ilinvest 0redit 0orporation! all its ri$hts! title! and interests on the aforesaid promissor) note and chattel mort$a$e

which! in effect! the pa)ment of the unpaid balance owed b) defendant6appellant to -le9ander "im was financed b) plaintiff6 appellee such that "im became full) paid& -ppellant failed to compl) with the terms and conditions set forth in the promissor) note and chattel mort$a$e since it had defaulted in the pa)ment of nine successive installments& -ppellee then sent a demand letter whereb) its counsel demanded 1that )ou (appellant) remit the aforesaid amount in full in addition to stipulated interest and char$es or return the mort$a$ed propert) to m) client at its office at .177 *aft -venue! 4alate! 4anila within five (5) da)s from date of this letter durin$ office hours& 1 'epl)in$ thereto! appellant! thru its assistant $eneral6 mana$er! wrote back advisin$ appellee of its decision to 1return the mort$a$ed propert)! which return shall be in full satisfaction of its indebtedness pursuant to -rticle 1383 of the /ew 0ivil 0ode&1 -ccordin$l)! the mort$a$ed vehicle was returned to the appellee to$ether with the document 1:oluntar) 8urrender with 8pecial Power of -ttorne) *o 8ell1 e9ecuted b) appellant on 4arch 1.! 1957 and confirmed to b) appelleeLs vice6 president& On -pril 3! 1957! appellee wrote a letter to appellant informin$ the latter that appellee cannot sell the motor vehicle as there were unpaid ta9es on the said vehicle in the sum of P52!1..&22& On the last portion of the said letter! appellee re(uested the appellant to update its account b) pa)in$ the installments in arrears and accruin$ interest in the amount of P3!.7.&.1 on or before -pril 9! 1957& T$n S!,1 + S2& M$,#$%.n (2012) Petitioner *an 8hu) is en$a$ed in the business of bu)in$ copra and corn in the >ourth istrict of Uuezon Province& -ccordin$ to :icente *an (:icente)! son of petitioner! whenever the) would bu) copra or corn from crop sellers! the) would prepare and issue a pesada in their favor& - pesada is a document containin$ details of the transaction! includin$ the date of sale! the wei$ht of the crop delivered! the truckin$ cost! and the net price of the crop& #ssue@ Dhether the deliver) of copra amounted to installment pa)ments for the loan obtained b) respondents from petitioner& O%8 Petitioner is alread) estopped from (uestionin$ the due e9ecution and authenticit) of the pesadas& -s found b) the 0-! *an 8hu) 1could have easil) belied the e9istence of 9 9 9 the pesadas or receipts! and the purposes for which the) were offered in evidence b) simpl) presentin$ his dau$hter! %lena *an 8hu)! but no effort to do so was actuall) done b) the former $iven that scenario&1 *he pesadas havin$ been admitted in evidence! with petitioner failin$ to timel) ob<ect thereto! these documents are alread) deemed sufficient proof of the facts contained therein& De hereb) uphold the factual findin$s of the '*0! as affirmed b) the 0-! in that the pesadas served as proof that the net proceeds from the copra deliveries were used as installment pa)ments for the debts of respondents&

Ee then e9plained that when a pesada contained the annotation 1pd1 on the total amount of the purchase price! it meant that the crop delivered had alread) been paid for b) petitioner& Guillermo 4aulawin (Guillermo)! respondent in this case! is a farmer6 businessman en$a$ed in the bu)in$ and sellin$ of copra and corn& On 12 Aul) 1995! *an 8hu) e9tended a loan to Guillermo in the amount of P 3.2!222& #n consideration thereof! Guillermo obli$ated himself to pa) the loan and to sell lucad or copra to petitioner& Petitioner filed a complaint to collect the balance of the loan& 'espondent Guillermo countered that he had alread) paid the sub<ect loan in full& -ccordin$ to him! he continuousl) delivered and sold copra to petitioner from -pril 1998 to -pril 1999& 'espondent said the) had an oral arran$ement that the net proceeds thereof shall be applied as installment pa)ments for the loan& Ee alle$ed that his deliveries amounted to P 3.2!575&;8 worth of copra& *o bolster his claim! he presented copies of pesadas issued b) %lena and :icente& Ee pointed out that the pesadas did not contain the notation 1pd!1 which meant that actual pa)ment of the net proceeds from copra deliveries was not $iven to him! but was instead applied as loan pa)ment& R"2$-$'./n& C/00.&&./n + Un.+"-&$# D""2 S"$ F.&!.n4 (17>8)

*he defendant e9plained that for the receipts (pesadas) from -pril 1998 to -pril 1999 he onl) $ets the pa)ments for truckin$ while the total amount which represent the total purchase price for the copras that he delivered to the plaintiff were all $iven to %lena *an 8hu) as installments for the loan he owed to plaintiff& *he defendant further averred that if in the receipts or 1pesadas1 issued b) the plaintiff to those who delivered copras to them there is a notation 1pd1 on the total amount of purchase price of the copras! it means that said amount was actuall) paid or $iven b) the plaintiff or his dau$hter %lena *an 8hu) to the seller of the copras& *o prove his averments the defendant presented as evidence two (.) receipts or pesadas issued b) the plaintiff to a certain 10ariSo1 (%9hibits 111 and 1.1 T defendant) showin$ the notation 1pd1 on the total amount of the purchase price for the copras& 8uch claim of the defendant was further bolstered b) the testimon) of -polinario 0ariSo which affirmed that he also sell PsicQ copras to the plaintiff *an 8hu)& Ee also added that he incurred indebtedness to the plaintiff and whenever he delivered copras the amount of the copras sold were applied as pa)ments to his loan& *he witness also pointed out that the plaintiff did not $ive an) official receipts to those who transact business with him (plaintiff)& *hus! e(uit) dictates that the total amount of P31!585&.5 which corresponds to the pa)ment for 1mais1 (corn) delivered b) the plaintiff shall be deducted from the total amount of P3.2!575&;8 which accordin$ to the defendant based on the pesadas (%9hibits 171 to 1;31) that he presented as evidence! is the total amount of the pa)ment that he made for his loan to the plaintiff& 0learl) from the fore$oin$! since the total amount of defendant=s loan to the plaintiff is P3.2!222&22 and the evidence on record shows that the actual amount of pa)ment made b) the defendant from the proceeds of the copras he delivered to the plaintiff is P758!95.&37! the defendant is still indebted to the plaintiff in the amount of P31!235&57 (sic) (P3.2!222&226P758!95.&37)&

2 A22#.*$'./n /) 2$10"n'& #t is not disputed that the Fniversal eep6 *he suret) compan) also claims that <ud$ment! trial court erred in not appl)in$ <ud$ment! amount of 8ea >ishin$ 0orporation was awarded si9 P12!222&22! paid as down pa)ment b) F/#:%'8-" to <ud$ment! 'eparations 0ommission! to (;) trawl boats b) the 'eparations <ud$ment! $uaranteed indebtedness& -ccordin$ to <ud$ment! suret) compan)! under -rticle 1.53 of 0ommission as end6user of reparations <ud$ment! 0ivil rode! where there is no imputation of pa)ment made b) either <ud$ment! debtor or $oods& *hese fishin$ boats! christened the creditor! *he debt which is the most onerous to the debtor shall be deemed to have been satisfied! so 4R8 F/#>#8E 1! 4R8 F/#>#8E .& 4R8 that the amount of P12!222&22 paid b) F/#:%'8-" as down pa)ment on the purchase of the! 4R8 F/#>#8E 7& 4R8 F/#>#8E 3! 4R8 F/#>#8E F/#>#8E 1 and 4R8 F/#>#8E . should be applied to the $uaranteed portion of the debt! this releasin$ 5! and 4R8 F/#>#8E ; were delivered to part of the liabilit) hence the obli$ation of L*he suret) compan) shall be onl) P37!;37&22! instead of F/#:%'8-" two at a time! f&o&b& Aapanese P57!;37&22& port& *he rules contained in -rticles 1.5. to 1.53 of <ud$ment! 0ivil 0ode appl) to a person owin$ several *he 4R8 F/#>#8E 1 and 4R8 F/#>#8E .! debts of <ud$ment! same kind to a sin$le creditor& *he) cannot be made applicable to a person whose with an a$$re$ate purchase price of obli$ation as a mere suret) is both contin$ent and sin$ular! which in this case is the full and faithful P57;!3.8&33! were delivered to compliance with the terms of the contract of conditional purchase and sale of reparations $oods! *he F/#:%'8-" on /ovember .2!1958! and obli$ation included the pa)ment! not onl) of the first installment in the amount of P57!;37&22! but also the contract of 0onditional Purchase and of the ten (12) e(ual )earl) installments of P5;!595&.2 per annum& *he amount of P12!222&22 was! 8ale of 'eparations Goods! e9ecuted b) indeed! deducted from <ud$ment! amount of P57!;37&22! but then <ud$ment! first of <ud$ment! ten (12) and between the parties on >ebruar) 1.! e(ual )earl) installments had also accrued! hence! no error was committed in holdin$ <ud$ment! suret)

P$*,#d/ + R"4$#$d/

19;2! provided amon$ others! that 1the first installment representin$ 12b of the amount or >#>*O *E'%% *EOF8-/ 8#V EF/ '% >O'*O *DO P%8O8 -/ %#GE*O >OF' 0%/*-:O8 (P57!;3.&83) shall be paid within .3 months from the date of complete deliver) thereof! the balance shall be paid in the manner herein stated as shown in the 8chedule of Pa)ments *o $uarantee the faithful compliance with the obli$ations under said contract! a performance bond in the amount of P57!;37&22! with F/#:%'8-" as principal and the 4anila 8uret) N >idelit) 0o&! #nc&! as suret)! was e9ecuted in favor of the 'eparations 0ommission& - 0orrespondin$ indemnit) a$reement was e9ecuted to indemnif) the suret) compan) for an) dama$e! loss char$es! etc&! which it ma) sustain or incur as a conse(uence of havin$ become a suret) upon the performance bond& *he 4R8 F/#>#8E 7 and 4R8 F/#>#8E 3! with a total purchase price of P;85!555&5; were delivered to F/#:%'8-" on -pril .2! 1959 and the 0ontract of 0onditional Purchase and 8ale 'eparations Goods! dated /ovember .5! 1959! provided that 1the first installment representin$ 12b of the amount or 8#V*O6%#GE* *EOF8-/ 8%:%/ EF/ '% 8%:%/*O68%:%/ P%8O8 -/ 8%:%/*O68%:%/ 0%/*-:O8 shall be paid within .3 months from the date of complete deliver) thereof! the balance shall be paid in the manner herein stated as shown in the 8chedule of Pa)ments On -u$ust 12! 19;.! <ud$ment! 'eparations 0ommission instituted <ud$ment! present action a$ainst F/#:%'8-" and <ud$ment! suret) compan) to recover various amounts of mone) due under these contracts& #n answer! F/#:%'8-" claimed that <ud$ment! amounts of mone) sou$ht to be collected are not )et due and demandable& Ee alle$ed that he had paid the amount of P11!358!1.1&85 for securit) deposit and rentals on the wet market buildin$! but respondent! without his consent! applied portions of the pa)ment to his other

compan) to <ud$ment! full e9tent of its undertakin$&

#ssue@ Dould petitioner=s failure to ob<ect to the letter of Aul) 15! 1991 and its proposed application of pa)ments amount to consent to such applicationC Petitioner submits that his silence is not consent but is in fact a re<ection& *he ri$ht to specif) which amon$ his various obli$ations to the same creditor is to be satisfied first rests with the debtor!as provided b) law! to wit@

obli$ations& *he vouchers and receipts indicated that the pa)ments made were for rentals& *hus! at the time of pa)ment petitioner had declared as to which obli$ation the pa)ment must be applied&

1-rticle 1.5.& Ee who has various debts of the same kind in favor of one and the same creditor! ma) declare at the time of makin$ the pa)ment! to which of them the same must be applied& Fnless the parties so stipulate! or when the application of pa)ment is made b) the part) for whose benefit the term has been constituted! application shall not be made as to debts which are not )et due& #f the debtor accepts from the creditor a receipt in which an application of the pa)ment is made! the former cannot complain of the same! unless there is a cause for invalidatin$ the contract&1 *he statement of account prepared b) respondent was not the receipt contemplated under the law& *he receipt is the evidence of pa)ment e9ecuted at the time of pa)ment! and not the statement of account e9ecuted several da)s thereafter& *here was no clear assent b) petitioner to the chan$e in the manner of application of pa)ment& *he petitioner=s silence as re$ards the application of pa)ment b) respondent cannot mean that he consented thereto& *here was no meetin$ of the minds& *hou$h an offer ma) be made! the acceptance of such offer must be unconditional and unbounded in order that concurrence can $ive rise to a perfected contract& Eence! petitioner could not be in estoppel&

M"$' P$*(.n4 C/-2 + S$nd.4$n9$1$n

3 C"&&./n B T"nd"- /) 2$10"n' $nd */n&.4n$'./n P#4%0O was se(uestered b) P0GG& #n the case at bar! there was prior tender b) P0GG of the amount of P5!222!222&22 for pa)ment of the P0GG tendered to 4P0P two checks in rentals in arrears& 4P0P=s refusal to accept the same! on the $round merel) that its lease6purchase the amounts of P7!222!222&22 and a$reement with P#4%0O had been rescinded! was un<ustified& -s found b) the 8andi$anba)an! from P.!222!222&22! or a total of P5!222!222&22! Aanuar) .9! 198; to Aanuar) 72! 1992! P#4%0O paid! and G8#8R4P0P received! several amounts due representin$ partial pa)ment of accrued under the lease6purchase a$reement! such as annual amortizations or rentals! advances! insurance! rentals on the meat packin$ plant! which and ta9es! in total sum of P15!9.1!.25&87& 8urel)! the acceptance b) 4P0P and G8#8 of such 4P0P refused to accept on the theor) that pa)ments for rentals and amortizations ne$ates an) rescission of the lease6purchase a$reement& the lease6purchase a$reement had been Parentheticall)! the factual findin$s of the 8andi$anba)an are conclusive upon this 0ourt! sub<ect to rescinded& *hus! the P0GG filed an Fr$ent certain e9ceptions& *he aforesaid factual findin$s! moreover! have not been disputed b) petitioner& 4otion pra)in$ that the 8andi$anba)an order 4P0P to accept the tendered amount of P5!222!222&22& L/&& /) '!.n4 d," $) I02/&&.9.#.'1 /) 2"-)/-0$n*" 1 O-.4.n$# 2 S,2"-+"n.n4 *) C/nd/n$'./n /- -"0.&&./n /) '!" d"9' *he private respondent sent two demand *he answer is in the affirmative& -rt& 1.52! par& . of the 0ivil 0ode provides that e9press condonation letters to petitioners! dated 8eptember 3! must compl) with the forms of donation& -rt& 538! par& 7 provides that the donation and acceptance of a 198; and 8eptember .5! 198;! seekin$ movable! the value of which e9ceeds P5!222!22! must be made in writin$! otherwise the same shall be pa)ment of the balance of P.;;!13;&88& -s void& #n this connection! under -rt& 315! par& 1! obli$ations! actuall) referrin$ to credits! are considered petitioners did not respond! private movable propert)& #n the case at bar! it is undisputed than the alle$ed a$reement to condone respondent filed this case in the 'e$ional P.;;!19;&88 of the second #G"> loan was not reduced in writin$& *rial 0ourt of 4etro 4anila for the /onetheless! petitioners insist that the voucher coverin$ the Pilipinas Gank check for P312!853&35! collection of P.;;!13;&88 plus interests! containin$ the notation that the amount is in 1full pa)ment of #G"> loan!1 constitutes documentar) penalties! and service char$es or! in the evidence of such oral a$reement& *his contention is without merit& *he notation in 1full pa)ment of #G"> alternative! for the foreclosure of the loan1 merel) states petitionersL intention in makin$ the pa)ment! but in no wa) does it bind private mort$a$ed machineries& respondent& #t would have been a different matter if the notation appeared in a receipt issued b) #n their -nswer! petitioners claimed that respondent corporation! throu$h its receiver! because then it would be an admission a$ainst interest& the) had full) paid their obli$ation to private #ndeed! if private respondent reall) condoned the amount in (uestion! petitioners should have asked for respondent& *he) contended that some a certificate of full pa)ment from respondent corporation! as the) did in the case of their first #G"> loan time after receivin$ private respondentLs of P522!222&22& letter of Aul) .5! 198; (concernin$ the 9)

Y$0 + CA

conditional offer to reduce their penalt) char$es)! petitioner :ictor Oam and his wife! %lena Oam! met with 0arlos 8obrepeSas! president of respondent corporation! durin$ which the latter a$reed to waive the penalties and service char$es! provided petitioners paid the principal and interest! computed as of Aul) 71! 198;! less the earlier pa)ment of P52!222&22& *his is the reason wh) accordin$ to them the) onl) paid P312!853&35& Petitioners added that this fact of full pa)ment is reflected in the voucher accompan)in$ the Pilipinas Gank check the) issued! which bore the notation 1full pa)ment of #G"> loan&1 d) C/n),&./n /- 0"-4"- /) -.4!'& /) '!" *-"d.'/") C/02"n&$'./n On$ Dan 8ien$ was a tenant in certain #ssue@ *he sole issue here is whether or not there has been le$al compensation between petitioner premises owned b) Gan *ion& #n 19;1 the Gan *ion and respondent On$ Dan 8ien$& latter filed an e<ectment case a$ainst the Eeld@ Oes& #t is the liti$ant! not his counsel! who is the <ud$ment creditor and who ma) enforce the former! alle$in$ non6pa)ment of rents for <ud$ment b) e9ecution& 8uch credit! therefore! ma) properl) be the sub<ect of le$al compensation& -u$ust and 8eptember of that )ear! at P182 a month! or P7;2 alto$ether& *he defendant denied the alle$ation and said that the a$reed monthl) rental was onl) P1;2! which he had offered to but was refused b) the plaintiff& *he plaintiff obtained a favorable <ud$ment in the municipal court (of 4anila)! but upon appeal the 0ourt of >irst #nstance! on Aul) .! 19;.! reversed the <ud$ment and dismissed the complaint! and ordered the plaintiff to pa) the defendant the sum of P522 as attorne)Ls fees& *hat <ud$ment became final& On October 12! 19;7 Gan *ion served notice on On$ Dan 8ien$ that he was increasin$ the rent to P182 a month! effective /ovember 1st! and at the same time demanded the rents in arrears at the old rate in the a$$re$ate amount of P3!7.2&22! correspondin$ to a period from -u$ust 19;1 to October 19;7& #n the meantime! over Gan *ionLs opposition! On$ Dan 8ien$ was able to obtain a writ of e9ecution of the <ud$ment for attorne)Ls fees in his favor& Gan *ion went on certiorari to the 0ourt of -ppeals! where he pleaded le$al compensation!

G$n T./n + CA

claimin$ that On$ Dan 8ien$ was indebted to him in the sum of P3!7.2 for unpaid rents& *he appellate court accepted the petition but eventuall) decided for the respondent! holdin$ that althou$h 1respondent On$ is indebted to the petitioner for unpaid rentals in an amount of more than P3!222&22!1 the sum of P522 could not be the sub<ect of le$al compensation! it bein$ a 1trust fund for the benefit of the law)er! which would have to be turned over b) the client to his counsel&1 M.-$&/# +& CA (.221) *he 4irasols are su$arland owners and planters& Private respondent Philippine /ational Gank (P/G) financed the 4irasolsL su$ar production venture& *he 4irasols si$ned 0redit -$reements! a 0hattel 4ort$a$e on 8tandin$ 0rops! and a 'eal %state 4ort$a$e in favor of P/G& *he 0hattel 4ort$a$e empowered P/G as the petitionersL attorne)6in6fact to ne$otiate and to sell the latterLs su$ar in both domestic and e9port markets and to appl) the proceeds to the pa)ment of their obli$ations to it& P& &/o& 559 was issued! authorizin$ the Philippine %9chan$e 0o&! #nc& to purchase su$ar allocated for e9port& *he decree directed that whatever profit made was to be remitted to a special fund of the national $overnment& PE#"%V would be funded b) P/G& P/G continued to finance the su$ar production of the 4irasols& #t then asked petitioners to settle their due and demandable accounts! which the) did! leavin$ an unpaid overdrawn account of P1!517!735&58& espite demands! the 4irasols failed to settle said due and demandable accounts& P/G then proceeded to e9tra<udiciall) foreclose the mort$a$ed properties& *he spouses asked P/G to account for the proceeds of the sale of their su$ar! insistin$ that said proceeds could offset their obli$ations& P/G insisted that under P& & /o& 559! there was nothin$ to account 8et6off or compensation is not proper in this case& >irst! neither of the parties are mutuall) creditors and debtors of each other& Fnder P& & /o& 559! neither P/G nor PE#"%V could retain an) difference in the price of su$ar sold& #t went to the /ational Government& *here was nothin$ with which P/G was supposed to have off6set 4irasols= admitted indebtedness 8econd! compensation cannot take place where one claim is still the sub<ect of liti$ation! as the same cannot be deemed li(uidated&

since all earnin$s from the sales of su$ar went to the /ational Government&

S'$-9-.4!' S$#"& +& P!.#.22.n" R"$#'1 C/-2/-$'./n (.21.)

N/+$'./n $) S,9;"*'.+" /- 2"-&/n$# On -pril 15! 1988 'amon "icup wrote 4s$r& omin$o -& 0irilos! offerin$ to bu) three conti$uous parcels of land in ParaSa(ue that *he Eol) 8ee and Philippine 'ealt) 0orporation (P'0) owned& "icup accepted the responsibilit) for removin$ the ille$al settlers on the land and enclosed a check for P122!222&22 to 1close the transaction&1 Ee undertook to pa) the balance of the purchase price upon presentation of the title for transfer and once the propert) has been cleared of its occupants& 4s$r& 0irilos accepted the offer& - stop pa)ment order was made on the checks! "icup wrote 4s$r& 0irilos on -pril .;! 1988! re(uestin$ that the titles to the land be instead transferred to petitioner 8tarbri$ht 8ales %nterprises! #nc& (88%)& Ee enclosed a new check for the same amount& 88%=s representatives! 4r& and 4rs& 0u! did not si$n the letter& Eowever! 4s$r& 0irilos later stated that it should be 8tarbri$ht that would clear the area of its occupants& 8tarbri$ht a$reed if the purchase price were to be lowered& 4s$r& 0irilos re<ected the updated proposal& %ventuall)! the lots were sold to another corporation& 8tarbri$ht demanded rescission of the sale to another corporation! hence an action was brou$ht a$ainst the Philippine 'ealt) 0orporation& P'0 alle$es there was no perfected contract of sale between it and "icup&

))

*here was a perfected contract of sale between the "icup and P'0& Eowever! the sub<ective novation (makin$ 88%R8tarbri$ht the purchaser) was not completed& *he 0ourt believes that the -pril 15! 1988 letter between "icup and 4s$r& 0irilos! the representative of the propert)=s owners! constituted a perfected contract& Dhen 4s$r& 0irilos affi9ed his si$nature on that letter! he e9pressed his conformit) to the terms of "icup=s offer appearin$ on it& *here was meetin$ of the minds as to the ob<ect and consideration of the contract& Gut when "icup ordered a stop6pa)ment on his deposit and proposed in his -pril .;! 1988 letter to 4s$r& 0irilos that the propert) be instead transferred to 88%! a sub<ective novation took place& - sub<ective novation results throu$h substitution of the person of the debtor or throu$h subro$ation of a third person to the ri$hts of the creditor& *o accomplish a sub<ective novation throu$h chan$e in the person of the debtor! the old debtor needs to be e9pressl) released from the obli$ation and the third person or new debtor needs to assume his place in the relation& /ovation serves two functions T one is to e9tin$uish an e9istin$ obli$ation! the other to substitute a new one in its place T re(uirin$ concurrence of four re(uisites@ 1) a previous valid obli$ation? .) an a$reement of all parties concerned to a new contract? 7) the e9tin$uishment of the old obli$ation? and 3) the birth of a valid new obli$ation& /otabl)! "icup and 4s$r& 0irilos affi9ed their si$natures on the ori$inal a$reement embodied in "icup=s letter of -pril .;! 1988& /o similar letter a$reement can be found between 88% and 4s$r& 0irilos& *he proposed substitution of "icup b) 88% opened the ne$otiation sta$e for a new contract of sale as between 88% and the owners& *he succeedin$ e9chan$e of letters between 4r& 8tephen 0u! 88%=s representative! and 4s$r& 0irilos attests to an unfinished ne$otiation& 4s$r& 0irilos referred to his discussion with 88% re$ardin$ the purchase as a 1pendin$ transaction&1

4) !) .) ;) () #)

9) O9;"*'.+" /- -"$# *) M.E"d In+$#.d 2$10"n' Ann,#0"n' R"&*.&&./n F,#).##0"n' /) '!" -"&/#,'/-1 */nd.'./n P-"&*-.2'./n D"$'! .n *"-'$.n .n&'$n*"&

S$,-$ +& D3P (17>2)

0) R"n,n*.$'./n 91 '!" *-"d.'/n) C/02-/0.&" /) A--.+$# /) $ -"&/#,'/-1 '"-0 2) M,',$# d"&.&'$n*" #n Aul) 1957 the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 8aura! #nc&) applied to the 'ehabilitation >inance 0orporation ('>0)! before its conversion into GP! for an industrial loan of P522!222&22! to be used as follows@ P.52!222&22 for the construction of a factor) buildin$ (for the manufacture of <ute sacks)? P.32!922&22 to pa) the balance of the purchase price of the <ute mill machiner) and e(uipment? and P9!122&22 as additional workin$ capital& On Aanuar) 5! 1953 '>0 passed 'esolution /o& 135 approvin$ the loan application for P522!222&22! to be secured b) a first mort$a$e on the factor) buildin$ to be constructed! the land site thereof! and the machiner) and e(uipment to be installed& Goth parties sou$ht the rene$otiation of the terms of the loan! eventuall) the ne$otiations came to a standstill& 8everal )ears thereafter! 8aura filed a case a$ainst '>0 pra)in$ for dama$es due to the the loan proceeds not bein$ released& <) Un.#$'"-$# %.'!d-$%$# -) C!$n4" /) C.+.# S'$',& &) R"9,& S.* S'$n'.9,& 0ontract between /-*%"0O and 0-F8%'0O ## (entered into in 1 /ovember 1955) /-*%"0O to use the electric li$ht posts of 0-F8%'0O in /a$a 0it) for the operation of their telephone service& -s compensation! /-*%"0O to install 12 telephone connections for 0-F8%'0O=s use free of char$e& +*he term or period of this contract shall be as lon$ as the part) of the first part (/-*%"0O) has need for the electric li$ht posts of the part) of the second part (0-F8%'0O) it bein$ understood that this contract shall terminate when for an) reason whatsoever! the part) of the second part is forced to stop! abandoned its

*he loan contract is no lon$er subsistin$ Dhen '>0 turned down the re(uest in its letter of Aanuar) .5! 1955 the ne$otiations which had been $oin$ on for the implementation of the a$reement reached an impasse& 8aura! #nc& obviousl) was in no position to compl) with '>0Ls conditions& 8o instead of doin$ so and insistin$ that the loan be released as a$reed upon! 8aura! #nc& asked that the mort$a$e be cancelled! which was done on Aune 15! 1955& *he action thus taken b) both parties was in the nature cf mutual desistance M what 4anresa terms 1mutuo disenso1 M which is a mode of e9tin$uishin$ obli$ations& #t is a concept that derives from the principle that since mutual a$reement can create a contract! mutual disa$reement b) the parties can cause its e9tin$uishment& *he subse(uent conduct of 8aura! #nc& confirms this desistance& #t did not protest a$ainst an) alle$ed breach of contract b) '>0! or even point out that the latterLs stand was le$all) un<ustified& #ts re(uest for cancellation of the mort$a$e carried no reservation of whatever ri$hts it believed it mi$ht have a$ainst '>0 for the latterLs non6compliance& #n 19;. it even applied with GP for another loan to finance a rice and corn pro<ect! which application was disapproved& #t was onl) in 19;3! nine )ears after the loan a$reement had been cancelled at its own re(uest! that 8aura! #nc& brou$ht this action for dama$es& -ll these circumstances demonstrate be)ond doubt that the said a$reement had been e9tin$uished b) mutual desistance M and that on the initiative of the plaintiff6appellee itself&

N$4$ T"# C/ +& CA (177B)

DO/ the case falls under -rt& 1.;5C O%8& -ction must be found to relieve 0-F8%'0O from the continued operation of the said a$reement 0-F8%'0O did not contemplate at the outset of the contract the vast e9pansion of /-*%"0O and the impossibilit) of compliance with the terms& *he conditions have become too onerous! with the strain of the telephone lines causin$ the electrical posts to break durin$ storms&

operation as a public service and it becomes necessar) to remove the electric li$ht post&, 'e$ional *rial 0ourt (case for reformation of contract filed b) 0-F8%'0O on . Aanuar) 1989) as the) stated that the condition has become too onerous& PNCC +& CA (1993) *his petition for review on certiorari was sparked b) P/00=s refusal to pa) the rentals as stipulated in the contract of lease on an undivided portion of 72!222 s(uare meters of a parcel of land owned b) private respondents ('a)mundo famil))& *he lease was for P.32!222 per )ear for 5 )ears& On 5 Aanuar) 198;! P/00 obtained from the 4inistr) of Euman 8ettlements a *emporar) Fse Permit for the proposed rock crushin$ pro<ect& *he permit was to be valid for two )ears unless sooner revoked b) the 4inistr)& On 1; Aanuar) 198;! private respondents wrote petitioner re(uestin$ pa)ment of the first annual rental in the amount of P.32!222 which was due and pa)able upon the e9ecution of the contract& #n its repl)! P/00 ar$ued that under para$raph 1 of the lease contract! pa)ment of rental would commence on the date of the issuance of an industrial clearance b) the 4inistr) of Euman 8ettlements! and not from the date of si$nin$ of the contract& #t then e9pressed its intention to terminate the contract! as it had decided to cancel or discontinue with the rock crushin$ pro<ect 1due to financial! as well as technical! difficulties&1 . Petitions b) Osmena and several other senators plus members of the 888 assailin$ the sale of the 888=s shares of stock of %(uitable P0# Gank& G O sou$ht to ac(uire the shares& On Aul) 13! .223! 888 passed 'es& /o& 3.8 approvin$! as earlier stated! the sale of the %P0#G shares throu$h the 8wiss 0hallen$e method& - month later! the e(uall) assailed 'es& /o& 385 was also passed& On -u$ust .7! .3! and .5! .223! 888 P/00 cannot invoke rebus sic stantibus to release itself from its obli$ations& #t is a fundamental rule that contracts! once perfected! bind both contractin$ parties! and obli$ations arisin$ therefrom have the force of law between the parties and should be complied with in $ood faith& Gut the law reco$nizes e9ceptions to the principle of the obli$ator) force of contracts& One e9ception is laid down in -rticle 1.;; of the 0ivil 0ode! which reads@ GT&e debtor in obli"ations to do s&all also be released w&en t&e prestation beco$es le"ally or p&ysically i$possible wit&out t&e fault of t&e obli"or.G PNCC *$nn/', !/%"+"-, &,**"&&),##1 '$(" -"),4" .n '!" &$.d $-'.*#", &.n*" .' .& $22#.*$9#" /n#1 '/ /9#.4$'./n& H'/ d/,H $nd n/' '/ /9#.4$'./n& H'/ 4.+" H -n obli$ation 1to do1 includes all kinds of work or service? while an obli$ation 1to $ive1 is a prestation which consists in the deliver) of a movable or an immovable thin$ in order to create a real ri$ht! or for the use of the recipient! or for its simple possession! or in order to return it to its owner& T!" /9#.4$'./n '/ 2$1 -"n'$#& /d"#.+"'!" '!.n4 .n $ */n'-$*' /) #"$&" )$##& %.'!.n '!" 2-"&'$'./n H'/ 4.+"HT !"n*", .' .& n/' */+"-"d %.'!.n '!" &*/2" /) A-'.*#" 12== A' $n1 -$'", '!" ,n)/-"&""n "+"n' $nd *$,&"& 0"n'./n"d 91 2"'.'./n"- $-" n/' '!" #"4$# /2!1&.*$# .02/&&.9.#.'."& */n'"02#$'"d .n '!" &$.d $-'.*#" & Gesides! petitioner failed to state specificall) the circumstances brou$ht about b) 1the abrupt chan$e in the political climate in the countr)1 e9cept the alle$ed prevailin$ uncertainties in $overnment policies on infrastructure pro<ects& 'ebus 8ic 8tantibus also does not appl)& *he parties must be held to have assumed the abrupt chan$e in the political climate& #t is a matter of record that petitioner P/00 entered into a contract with private respondents on /ovember 18! 1985& Prior thereto! it is of <udicial notice that after the assassination of 8enator -(uino on -u$ust .1! 1987! the countr) has e9perienced political upheavals! turmoils! almost dail) mass demonstrations! unprecedented! inflation! peace and order deterioration! the -(uino trial and man) other thin$s that brou$ht about the hatred of people even a$ainst cron) corporations& On /ovember 7! 1985! Pres& 4arcos! bein$ interviewed live on F&8& television announced that there would be a snap election scheduled for >ebruar) 5! 198;& On N/+"09"- 18, 178D, n/'%.'!&'$nd.n4 '!" $9/+", petitioner P-CC entered into the contract of lease +ith pri&ate respondents +ith open e!es of the deteriorating conditions of the countr! *he petition is moot& Fnder the theor) of rebus sic stantibus- the parties stipulate in the li$ht of certain prevailin$ conditions! and once these conditions cease to e9ist! the contract also ceases to e9ist& Fpon the facts obtainin$ in this case! it is abundantl) clear that the conditions in which 888 and G O 0apital andRor G O e9ecuted the "etter6-$reement upon which the pricin$ component T at P37&52 per share T of the <nvitation to id was predicated! have ceased to e9ist& -ccordin$l)! the implementation of the "etter6 -$reement or of the challen$ed 'es& /os& 3.8 and 385 cannot plausibl) push throu$h! even if the central fi$ures in this case are so minded& "est it be overlooked! G O6%P0#! in a manner of speakin$! stands now as the issuer of what were once the sub<ect 8hares& 0onse(uentl)! should 888 opt to e9it from G O and G O 0apital! or G O 0apital! in turn! opt to pursue 888=s shareholdin$s in %P0#G! as thus converted into G O shares! the sale6purchase ou$ht to be via an #ssuer *ender Offer 66 a phrase which means a publicl) announced

O&0"n$ +& SSS (.225)

advertised an #nvitation to Gid for the block purchase of the 8hares& *he #nvitation to Gid e9pressl) provided that the 1result of the biddin$ is sub<ect to the ri$ht of G O 0apital ^ to match the hi$hest bid&1 October .2! .223 was the date set for determinin$ the winnin$ bid& *he records do not show whether or not an) interested $roupRs submitted bids& *he bottom line! however! is that even before the bid envelopes! if an)! could be opened! the herein petitioners commenced the instant special civil action for certiorari! settin$ their si$hts primaril) on the le$alit) of the 8wiss 0hallen$e an$le and a provision in the #nstruction to Gidders under which the 888 undertakes to offer the 8hares to G O should no bidder or prospective bidder (ualifies& -nd as earlier mentioned! the 0ourt! via a status (uo order! effectivel) suspended the proceedin$s on the proposed sale& Pendin$ consideration of the petition! supervenin$ events and corporate movements transpired that radicall) altered the factual comple9ion of the case& G O and %P0#G mer$ed& >ood >est "and #nc& (>ood >est) entered into a 8eptember 13! 1999 0ontract of "ease with aniel *& 8o (8o) over a commercial space in 8an -ntonio :illa$e! 4akati 0it) for a period of three )ears (19996.22.) onwhich >ood >est intended to operate a Bentuck) >ried 0hicken carr) out branch& Gefore for$in$ the lease contract! the parties entered into a preliminar) a$reement dated Aul) 1! 1999! the pertinent portion of which stated@ *he lease shall not become bindin$ upon us unless and until the $overnment a$encies concerned shall authorize! permit or license us to open and maintain our business at the proposed "ease Premises& De shall promptl) make an application for permits! licenses and authorit) for our business and shall e9ercise due dili$ence to obtain it! provided! however! that )ou

intention b) an issuer to ac(uire an) of its own class of e(uit) securities or b) an affiliate of such issuer to ac(uire such securities& #n that eventualit)! G O or G O 0apital cannot possibl) e9ercise the 1ri$ht to match1 under the Swiss C&allen"e procedure! a tender offer bein$ wholl) inconsistent with public biddin$& *he offeror or bu)er in an issue tender offer transaction proposes to bu) or ac(uire! at the stated price and $iven terms! its own shares of stocks held b) its own stockholder who in turn simpl) have to accept the tender to effect the sale& /o biddin$ is involved in the process&

S/ +& F//d)"&' (.212)

*he lease contract is valid and subsistin$! the pa)ment of the lease must be made& -s for >ood >est=s invocation of the principle of rebus sic stantibus as enunciated in -rticle 1.;5 of the 0ivil 0ode to render the lease contract functus officio- and conse(uentl) release it from responsibilit) to pa) rentals! the 0ourt is not persuaded& -rticle 1.;5 provides@ -rticle 1.;5& Dhen the service has become so difficult as to be manifestl) be)ond the contemplation of the parties! the obli$or ma) also be released therefrom! in whole or in part& *his article! which enunciates the d/*'-.n" /) ,n)/-"&""n "+"n'&! is not! however! an absolute application of the principle of rebus sic stantibus- which would endan$er the securit) of contractual relations& *he parties to the contract must be presumed to have assumed the risks of unfavorable developments& #t is! therefore! onl) in absolutel) e9ceptional chan$es of circumstances that e(uit) demands assistance for the debtor& >ood >est claims that its failure to secure the necessar) business permits and licenses rendered the impossibilit) and non6materialization of its purpose in enterin$ into the contract of lease! in support of which it cites the earlier6(uoted portion of the preliminar) a$reement dated Aul) 1! 1999 of the parties& *he cause or essential purpose in a contract of lease is the use or en<o)ment of a thin$& - part)=s motive or particular purpose in enterin$ into a contract does not affect the validit) or e9istence of the

shall assist us b) submittin$ such documents and papers and compl) with such other re(uirements as the $overnmental a$encies ma) impose& De shall $ive notice to )ou when the permits! license and authorities have been obtained& De shall also notif) )ou if an) of the re(uired permits! licenses and authorities shall not be be (sic) $iven or $ranted within fifteen da)s (15) from )our conform (sic)hereto& #n such case! the a$reement ma) be canceled and all ri$hts and obli$ations hereunder shall cease >oodfest $ot the appropriate permits the first )ear! however it failed to have them renewed the ne9t )ear& #t refused to pa) 8o on the stren$th of the above6(uoted condition of the lease& ') ,) W$n' /) In'"-"&' :,d.*.$# In&/#+"n*1

contract? an e9ception is when the realization of such motive or particular purpose has been made a condition upon which the contract is made to depend& *he e9ception does not appl) here& #t is clear that the condition set forth in the preliminar) a$reement pertains to the initial application of >ood >est for the permits! licenses and authorit) to operate& #t should not be construed to appl) to >ood >est=s subse(uent applications&

PART II A CONTRACTS A GENERAL PROVISIONS $ D").n.'./n 9 C!$-$*'"-.&'.*& . O9#.4$'/-1 )/-*" .. M,',$#.'1 ... R"#$'.+.'1 EE*"2'./n&K 1 A**./n P$,#.$n$ 2 A**./n D.-"*'$ 3 A-' 1312 B S'.2,#$'./n 2/,- $,'-,. .+ A,'/n/01 /) %.## C$2$##$ + C/0"#"* On Aul) 12! .229! the 0omelec and 8martmatic6*#4 entered into a 0ontract for (2012) the Provision of an -utomated %lection 8)stem for the 4a) 12! .212 8)nchronized /ational and "ocal %lections!(-%8 0ontract)& *he contract between the 0omelec and 8martmatic6*#4 was one of +lease of the -%8 with option to purchase (O*P) the $oods listed in the contract&, #n said contract! the 0omelec was $iven until ecember 71! .212 within which to e9ercise the option& #n 8eptember .212! the 0omelec partiall) e9ercised its O*P 9.2 units of P0O8 machines with correspondin$ canvassin$Rconsolidation

I&&,"K Dhether or not there was $rave abuse of discretion amountin$ to lack or e9cess of <urisdiction on the part of the 0omelec in issuin$ the assailed 'esolutions and in e9ecutin$ the assailed %9tension -$reement and eed& H"#dK /o& #t is a basic rule in the interpretation of contracts that an instrument must be construed so as to $ive effect to all the provisions of the contract& #n essence! the contract must be read and taken as a whole& Dhile the contract indeed specificall) re(uired the 0omelec to notif) 8martmatic6*#4 of its O*P the sub<ect $oods until ecember 71! .212! a readin$ of the other provisions of the -%8 contract would show that the parties are $iven the ri$ht to amend the contract which ma) include the period within which to e9ercise the option& *here is! likewise! no prohibition on the e9tension of the period! provided that the contract is still effective& - readin$ of the other provisions of the -%8 contract would show that the parties are $iven the ri$ht to amend the contract which ma) include the period within which to e9ercise the option& *here is! likewise!

s)stem (008) for the special elections in certain areas in the provinces of Gasilan! "anao del 8ur and Gulacan& #n a letter dated ecember 18! .212! 8martmatic6 *#4! throu$h its 0hairman >lores! proposed a temporar) e9tension of the option period on the remainin$ P0O8 machines until 4arch 71! .211! waivin$ the stora$e costs and coverin$ the maintenance costs& *he 0omelec did not e9ercise the option within the e9tended period& 8everal e9tensions were $iven for the 0omelec to e9ercise the O*P until its final e9tension on 4arch 71! .21.& On 4arch .9! .21.! the 0omelec issued a 'esolution resolvin$ to accept 8martmatic6 *#4=s offer to e9tend the period to e9ercise the O*P until 4arch 71! .21. and to authorize 0hairman Grillantes to si$n for and on behalf of the 0omelec the -$reement on the %9tension of the O*P Fnder the -%8 0ontract (%9tension -$reement)& 0omelec a$ain issued a 'esolution resolvin$ to approve the eed of 8ale between the 0omelec and 8martmatic6*#4 to purchase the latter=s P0O8 machines to be used in the upcomin$ 4a) .217 elections and to authorize 0hairman Grillantes to si$n the eed of 8ale for and on behalf of the 0omelec& *he eed of 8ale was forthwith e9ecuted& Petitioners assail the constitutionalit) of the 0omelec 'esolutions on the $rounds that the option period provided for in the -%8 contract had alread) lapsed? that the e9tension of the option period and the e9ercise of the option without competitive public biddin$ contravene the provisions of '- 9183? and that the 0omelec purchased the machines in contravention of the standards laid down in '- 97;9& On the other hand! respondents ar$ue on the validit) of the sub<ect transaction based on the $rounds that there is no prohibition either in the contract or provision of law for it to e9tend the option period? that the O*P is not an independent contract in itself! but is a provision contained in the valid and e9istin$ -%8 contract that had alread) satisfied the public biddin$ re(uirements of

no prohibition on the e9tension of the period! provided that the contract is still effective& *he 0omelec still retains P524 of the amount due 8martmatic6*#4 as performance securit)! which indicates that the -%8 contract is still effective and not )et terminated& 0onse(uentl)! pursuant to -rticle 19 of the contract! the provisions thereof ma) still be amended b) mutual a$reement of the parties provided said amendment is in writin$ and si$ned b) the parties& 0onsiderin$! however! that the -%8 contract is not an ordinar) contract as it involves procurement b) a $overnment a$enc)! the ri$hts and obli$ations of the parties are $overned not onl) b) the 0ivil 0ode but also b) '- 9183& - winnin$ bidder is not precluded from modif)in$ or amendin$ certain provisions of the contract bidded upon& Eowever! such chan$es must not constitute substantial or material amendments that would alter the basic parameters of the contract and would constitute a denial to the other bidders of the opportunit) to bid on the same terms& *he conclusions held b) the 0ourt in Power 8ector -ssets and "iabilities 4ana$ement 0orporation (P8-"4) v& Pozzolanic Philippines #ncorporated and -$an! Ar& v& Philippine #nternational -ir *erminals 0o&! #nc&! (P#-*0O) cannot be applied in the present case& >irst! 8martmatic6*#4 was not $ranted additional ri$ht that was not previousl) available to the other bidders& *he bidders were apprised that aside from the lease of $oods and purchase of services! their proposals should include an O*P the sub<ect $oods& 8econd! the amendment of the -%8 contract is not substantial& *he approved bud$et for the contract was P11!..7!;18!322&22 char$ed a$ainst the supplemental appropriations for election modernization& Gids were! therefore! accepted provided that the) did not e9ceed said amount& *he competitive public biddin$ conducted for the -%8 contract was sufficient& - new public biddin$ would be a superfluit)& "astl)! the amendment of the -%8 contract is more advanta$eous to the 0omelec and the public because the P5!191!383!579&38 rentals paid for the lease of $oods and purchase of services under the -%8 contract was considered part of the purchase price& >or the 0omelec to own the sub<ect $oods! it was re(uired to pa) onl) P.!172!;75!238&15& #f the 0omelec did not e9ercise the option! the rentals alread) paid would <ust be one of the $overnment e9penses for the past election and would be of no use to future elections&

'- 9183? and that e9ercisin$ the option was the most advanta$eous option of the 0omelec& E#"0"n'& /) $ C/n'-$*' . E&&"n'.$# 1 C/n&"n' /) '!" */n'-$*'.n4 2$-'."& 2 O))"3 A**"2'$n*" R/&"n&'/*( + 3,-(" efendant %dwin Gurke owned a motor I&&,"K Dhether or not there was a valid contract of sale which is bindin$ a$ainst plaintiff as used in the )acht! known as Gronzewin$! which he letter of offer which was accepted b) the defendant& (172B) ac(uired in -ustralia in 19.2& Ee wanted to sell the )acht and after several H"#dK *he 8upreme 0ourt held that it was not a valid contract of sale& *he words used b) plaintiff could months plaintiff E& D& %lser! at the not be interpreted as a definite offer to purchase the )acht! but simpl) a position to deliberate whether be$innin$ of the )ear 19..! be$an or not he would purchase the )acht& #t was but a mere invitation to a proposal bein$ made to him! which ne$otiations with the defendantfor the mi$ht be accepted b) him or not& Ee used such words as! +# am in positionand am willin$ to entertain purchase of it& *he plan of the plaintiff was the purchase of the )acht&, not +# want to bu) the )acht&, >urthermore! the plaintiff wanted to or$anize a to or$anize a )acht club and sell it )acht club and the onl) thin$ he wanted from defendant was he sells it so that he could profit from it if afterwards the )acht for P1.2!222! of which he re6sells it& *he letter of the plaintiff not containin$ a definite offer but a mere invitation to an offer P.2!222 was to be retained b) him as bein$ made to him& Plaintiff is bound to pa) the amount of the repairs of the )acht in e9chan$e for the commission and the remainin$ P122!222 to use thereof& be paid to the defendant& *o be able to sell the )acht! he wanted to make a vo)a$e on board the )acht with business men so that he could make a sale to them& Gut the )acht needed some repairs which in turn! plaintiff paid for because defendant had no bud$et for that& #t has been stipulated that the plaintiff was not to pa) an)thin$ for the use of the )acht& Gecause of the said repairs!plaintiff loaned mone) from the -sia Gankin$ 0orporation& 8ince it amounted to its ma9imum amount alread)! the bank could no lon$er $ive loans to plaintiff& efendant now $ave plaintiff the option of sale to plaintiff amountin$ to P82!222? P5!222 each month durin$ the first si9 months and P12!222 thereafter until full pa)ment of the price&Plaintiff in turn a$reed b) letter& efendant demanded the plaintiff for performance after he accepted the offer of plaintiff for the purchase of the )acht& Eowever! plaintiff now brin$s action to recover the sum of mone) he used for repairs of the )acht& S$n*!"6 + R.4/& #n an instrument entitled 1Option to Das there a contract to bu) and sell between the parties or onl) a unilateral promise to sellC Purchase!1 e9ecuted on -pril 7! 19;1! (17>2) defendant6appellant 8everina 'i$os *he 8upreme 0ourt affirmed the lower court=s decision& *he instrument e9ecuted in 19;1 is not a 1a$reed! promised and committed &&& to 1contract to bu) and sell!1 but merel) $ranted plaintiff an 1option1 to bu)! as indicated b) its own title sell1 to plaintiff6appellee /icolas 8anchez 1Option to Purchase&1 *he option did not impose upon plaintiff 8anchez the obli$ation to purchase *

for the sum of P1!512&22 within two (.) )ears from said date! a parcel of land situated in the barrios of -bar and 8ibot! 8an Aose! /ueva %ci<a& #t was a$reed that said option shall be deemed 1terminated and elapsed!1 if +8anchez shall fail to e9ercise his ri$ht to bu) the propert)1 within the stipulated period& On 4arch 1.! 19;7! 8anchez deposited the sum of Pl!512&22 with the 0># of /ueva %ci<a and filed an action for specific performance and dama$es a$ainst 'i$os for the latter=s refusal to accept several tenders of pa)ment that 8anchez made to purchase the sub<ect land& efendant 'i$os contended that the contract between them was onl) +a unilateral promise to sell! and the same bein$ unsupported b) an) valuable consideration! b) force of the /ew 0ivil 0ode! is null and void&1 Plaintiff 8anchez! on the other hand! alle$ed in his compliant that! b) virtue of the option under consideration! 1defendant a$reed and committed to sell1 and 1the plaintiff a$reed and committed to bu)1 the land described in the option& *he lower court rendered <ud$ment in favor of 8anchez and ordered 'i$os to accept the sum 8anchez <udiciall) consi$ned! and to e9ecute in his favor the re(uisite deed of conve)ance& *he 0ourt of -ppeals certified the case at bar to the 8upreme 0ourt for it involves a (uestion purel) of law& *he petitioner 8alvador 4albarosa was the president and $eneral mana$er of Philtectic 0orporation and an officer of other corporations belon$in$ to the 8%- 0$roup of companies& 8%- 0 assi$ned to him a 198. model 4itsubishi Gallant 8uper8aloon car and was also issued membership certificates in the -rchitectural 0enter!#nc&6 On Aanuar) 8! 1992! 4alabarosa tendered his resi$nation from all his positions inthe 8%- 0 $roup of companies and reiteratin$ his re(uest for the pa)ment of hisincentive compensation for 1989 which is appro9imatel) P795!222&22 accordin$ tohim&6 8%- 0! throu$h its President "ouis a 0osta! accepted

defendant 'i$osL propert)& 'i$os 1a$reed! promised and committed1 herself to sell the land to 8anchez for P1!512&22! but there is nothin$ in the contract to indicate that her aforementioned a$reement! promise and undertakin$ is supported b) a consideration 1distinct from the price1 stipulated for the sale of the land& *he lower court relied upon -rticle 1753 of the 0ivil 0ode when it presumed the e9istence of said consideration! but the said -rticle onl) applies to contracts in $eneral& Eowever! it is not -rticle 1753 but the -rticle 1359 of the same 0ode which is controllin$ in the case at bar because the latter=s .nd para$raph refers to 1sales1 in particular! and! more specificall)! to 1an accepted unilateral promise to bu) or to sell&1 8ince there ma) be no valid contract without a cause or consideration! the promisor is not bound b) his promise and ma)! accordin$l)! withdraw it& Pendin$ notice of its withdrawal! his accepted promise partakes! however! of the nature of an offer to sell which! if accepted! results in a perfected contract of sale& Fpon mature deliberation! the 0ourt reiterates the doctrine laid down in the -tkins case and deemed abandoned or modified the view adhered to in the 8outhwestern 0ompan) case&

M$#9$-/&$ + CA (2003)

ISSUES 1& D O/ there was a valid acceptance on 4albarosaLs part of the 4arch 13! 1992 "etter6 offer of the respondent .& DO/ there was an effective withdrawal b) the respondent of said "etter6offer HELD 1& /O&6 -rticle 1718 of 00 sa)s that +*here is no contract unless the followin$ re(uisitesconcur@(1) consent of the contractin$ parties?(.) ob<ect certain which is the sub<ect matter of the contract(7) cause of the obli$ation which is established#n this case! there is no contract as 4albarosa failed to meet the re(uirements of avalid acceptance to wit@(a) ma) be e9press or implied(b) must be absolute! unconditional and without variance of an) sort from the offerk must be made known to the offeror(d) must be made in the manner prescribed b) the offeror R"$&/n.n4 4alabarosa communicated his acceptance onl) after the knowled$e of revocation or withdrawal of his offer& Ee should have transmitted his conformit)while the offer was subsistin$& *he time $iven to him was lon$ enou$h&.& O%86 #mplicit in the authorit) $iven to Philtectic 0orporation to demand for and

his resi$nation andentitled him to an incentive amountin$ to P.51!255&;5! which was lower than4albarosaLs e9pectation& #t is to be satisfied b) transferrin$ to him the car assi$nedto him! which estimated fair market value is P..2!222&22 and the membershipshare of 8%- 0 subsidiar)! *radestar #nternational #nc& in the -rchitectural 0enter!#nc& amountin$ to P;2!222&22&6 *he respondent prepared the letter6offer dated march 13! 1992 and re(uired4albarosa to affi9 his conformit) on the space provided therefor and the datethereof on the ri$ht bottom position of the letter&6 On 4arch 1;! 1992! a 0osta met with the petitioner and handed to him theori$inal cop) of the letter6offer for his consideration but he refused to si$n it!instead said that he will review the offer first& 4ore than two weeks have passedand a 0osta never heard feedback from 4albarosa& *hus he decided to finall)withdraw his offer on -pril 7! 199;& Eowever! 4albarosa transmitted the cop) of the si$ned "etter6offer to respondent on -pril 5! 199; and he alle$ed that he hasaffi9ed his si$nature on it since 4arch .8! 199; but failed to communicate hisacceptance immediatel)& P-/*"d,-" 6 ue to petitionerLs refusal to return the vehicle after -pril 7! 199;! the respondentfiled a complaint for recover) of personal propert) with replevin! with dama$es andatt)Ls fee&6 '*0 T issued a writ of replevin6 0- T affirmed '*0Ls decision B O9;"*' 8imeon Glas married twice& Eis first marria$e was with 4arta 0ruz& *he) had 7children onl) one of whom! %ulalia left children namel) 4aria! 4arta and "azaro& "azaro laft 7 le$itimate children& 4aria and "azaro=s children are plaintiffs herein&

recoverfrom the petitioner the sub<ect car and to institute the appropriate action a$ainsthim to recover possession of the car is the authorit) to withdraw the respondentLs"etter6offer& D.&2/&.'./n ecision of the 0- is ->>#'4% &

3#$& + S$n'/& (17=1)

ISSUE D O/ plaintiffs can make a claim for half of the properties received b) 4a9ima 8antos after the death of 8imeon Glas HELD O%8 *he principal basis for the plaintiffsL action in the case at bar is the document%9hibit 1 -1 & Plaintiffs6

8imeon Glas contracted another marria$e with 4a9ima 8antos when 4arta 0ruzdied& *i should be noted that when 4arta 0ruz died! there was no li(uidation of thecouple=s propert)& week before the death of 8imeon Glas! he e9ecuted a will w h i c h s t a t e d that half of their propert) (with 4a9ima) is the share o f h i s wife&another document (e9ibit -) was e9ecuted b) 4a9ima 8antos which states thatone6half of her share of the properties left to her b) her husband! she would $ive tothe heirs and le$atees or the beneficiaries (plaintiffs) named in the will of herhusband&6 *his action was instituted b) plaintiffs a$ainst the administratri9 of the estate of 4a9ima 8antos! to secure a <udicial declaration that one6half of the properties leftb) said 4a9ima 8antos :da& de Glas and re(uestin$ that the said properties sopromised be ad<udicated to the plaintiffs&6 *rial court held that said %9hibit 1-1 has not created an) ri$ht in favor of plaintiffswhich can serve as a basis of the complaint? that neither can it be considered as avalid and enforceable contract for lack of consideration and because it deals with future inheritance & *he court also declared that %9hibit 1-1 is not a will because itdoes not compl) with the re(uisites for the e9ecution of a will? nor could it be considered as a donation&6 Goth the court below in its decision and the appellees in their brief before us!ar$ue vehementl) that the heirs of 8imeon Glas and his wife 4arta 0ruz can nolon$er make an) claim for the unli(uidated con<u$al properties ac(uired durin$ saidfirst marria$e! because the same were alread) included in the mass of propertiesconstitutin$ the estate of the deceased 8imeon Glas and in the ad<udications madeb) virtue of his will! and that the action to recover the same has prescribed& T$n"d/ + CA October .2! 19;. 6 "azardo *aSedo e9ecuted a notarized deed of absolute sale

appellants ar$ue before the 0ourt that %9hibit 1-1 is both atrust a$reement and a contract in the nature of a compromise to avoid liti$ation& efendants6appellees! in answer! claim that it is neither a trust a$reement nor acom promise a$reement& *he 0ourt finds that the preparation and e9ecution of %9hibit 1-1 was ordered b) 8im eon Glas evidentl) to prevent his heirs b) his firstmarria$e from contestin$ his will and dem andin$ li(uidation of the con<u$al properties ac(uired durin$ his 6first marria$e! and an accountin$ of the fruits andproceeds thereof from the time of the death of his first wife&%9hibit 1-1! therefore! appears to be the compromise defined in -rticle 1829 of the0ivil 0ode of 8pain! in force at the tim e of the e9ecution of %9hibit 1 -1 ! which provides as follows@10ompromise is a contract b) which each of the parties in interest! b) $ivin$! promisin$! or retainin$ somethin$ avoids the provocation of a suit or terminates onewhich has alread) been instituted&1 *he a$reement or promise that 4a9ima 8antos makes in %9hibit 1-1 is to hold one6half of her said share in the con<u$al assets in trust for the heirs and le$atees of herhusband in his will! with the obli$ation of conve)in$! the same to such of his heirs orle$atees as she ma) choose in her last will and testament& Fnder %9hibit 1 -1 ! therefore! 4a9ima 8antos contracted the obli$ation and promised to $ive one6half of the above indicated properties to the heirs and le$atees of 8imeon Glas Ythis case is under future inheritance so this ne9t para$raph is important 6 *he 0ourt also re<ects the defendant=s contention that %9ibit - is a contract onfuture inheritance& #t is an obli$ation or prom ise made b) the maker to transm it one6 half of her share in the con<u$al properties ac(uired with her husband! whichp r o p e r t i e s a r e s t a t e d o r d e c l a r e d t o b e c o n < u $ a l p r o p e r t i e s i n t h e w i l l o f t h e husband& *he con<u$al properties were in e9istence at the time of the e9ecution of %9hibit 1-1 on ecember .;! 197;& *he properties mentioned were even includedb) 4a9im a in the inventor) of her husband=s propert)& *he docum ent refers to e9istin$ properties which she will receive b) operation of law on the death of herhusband! because it is her share in the con<u$al assets&6 #t will be noted that what is prohibited to be the sub<ect matter of a contract under-rticle 1.51 of the 0ivil 0ode is 1future inheritance&1 *o us future inheritance is an)propert) or ri$ht not in e9istence or capable of determ ination at the tim e of thecontract! that a person ma) in the future ac(uire b) succession& *he properties sub<ect of the contract %9hibit 1-1 are well6defined properties! e9istin$ at the timeof the a$reement! which 8imeon Glas declares in his testament as belon$in$ to hiswife as her share in the con<u$al partnership&6 #t is also claimed that the case at bar are concluded b) the <ud$ment rendered inthe proceedin$s for the settlement of the estate of 8imeon Glas for the reason thatthe properties left b) him be lon$ed to himself and his wife 4a9ima 8antos? that thepro<ect of partition in the said case& Gut the main $round upon which plaintiffs basetheir present action is the document %9hibit 1-1! alread) full) considered above& -sthis private document contains the e9press prom ise made b) 4a9ima 8antos to conve) in her testament! upon her death! one6 half of the con<u$al properties shewould receive as her share in the con<u$al properties! the action to enforce the saidpromise did not arise until and after her death when it was found that she did notc o m p l ) w i t h h e r a b o v e 6 m e n t i o n e d p r o m i s e & # t m a ) b e a d d e d t h a t p l a i n t i f f s 6 appellants did not (uestion the validit) of the pro<ect of partition precisel) becauseof the promise made b) 4a9ima 8antos in the compromise %9hibit 1-1& D.&2/&.'./n *he defendant6appellee! administratri9 of the estate of 4a9ima8antos! is ordered to conve) and deliver one6half of the properties ad<udicated to4a9ima 8antos as her share in the con<u$al properties to the heirs and the le$ateesof her husband 8imeon Glas&

ISSUES 1& DO/ sale of a future inheritance is valid.& DO/ the subse(uent e9ecution on Aanuar) 17! 1981

(177=)

infavor of his eldest brother! 'icardo *aSedo! and the latter=s wife! *eresita Garera(private respondents) whereb) in considerati on of P1!522&22! +one hectare of whatever share # shall have over "ot /o& 191 of the cadastral surve) of Gerona! Province of *arlac^ the said propert) bein$ his future inheritance from his parents, 6 >ebruar) .8! 1982 6 "azaro e9ecuted an +-ffidavit of 0onformit), upon death of his father 4atias to +re6affirm! respect& acknowled$e and validate the sale # madein 19;.&,6 Aanuar) 17! 1981 6 "azaro e9ecuted another notarized deed of sale in favor of private respondents coverin$ his +undivided O/% *D%":% (1R1.) of a parcel of landknown as "ot 191, where he acknowled$ed receipt of P 12!222&22 as consideration6 >ebruar) 1981 6 'icardo learned that "azaro sold the same propert) to his children(petitioners) throu$h a deed of sale dated ecember .9! 1982 conve)in$ to his tenchildren his allotted portion under the e9tra<udicial partition e9ecuted b) the heirsof 4atias6 Aune 5! 198. T 8ps 'icardo *anedo recorded the eed of 8ale in their favor in the'e$istr) of eeds6 Aul) 1;! 198. T "azaro=s children filed a complaint for rescission (plus dama$es) of the deeds of sale e9ecuted b) "azaro in favor of 8ps 'icardo "azao coverin$ thepropert) inherited b) "azaro from his father&6 Petitioners also presented in evidence(1) a private writin$ purportedl) prepared and si$ned b) 4atias dated ecember.8! 1958! statin$ that it was his desire that whatever inheritance "azaro would receive from him should be $iven to his ("azaro=s) children(.) a t)pewritten document dated 4arch 12! 1959 si$ned b) "azaro in the presenceof two witnesses! wherein he confirmed that he would voluntaril) abide b) thewishes of his father! 4atias! to $ive to his ("azaro=s) children all the propert) hewould inherit from the latter(7) a letter dated Aanuar) 1! 1982 of "azaro to his dau$hter! 0armela! statin$ thathis share in the e9tra<udicial settlement of the

(and re$istration with the'e$istr) of Propert)) of a deed of sale coverin$ the same propert) to the samebu)ers is valid7& DO/ this 0ourt ma) review the findin$s of the respondent 0ourt ina& holdin$ that the bu)ers acted in $ood faith in re$isterin$ the said subse(uentdeed of sale andb& failin$ to consider petitioners= evidencec& its conclusions +bein$ illo$ical and off6tan$ent, HELDS +errors, which are reviewable b) this 0ourt in this petition for review on certiorariare onl) those alle$edl) committed b) the respondent 0ourt of -ppeals and not directl) those of the trial court! which is not a part) here& S *he +assi$nm ent of errors, in the petition (uoted above is theref ore totall)misplaced! and for that reason! the petition should be dismissed& Gut in order to$ive the parties substantial <ustice we have decided to delve into the issues as above re6stated&1& /O&6 -1735 00 no contract ma) be entered into upon a future inheritance e9cept i n c a s e s e9pressl) authorized b) law& *> contract made in 19;. is not valid and cannot be the source of an) ri$ht nor thecreator of an) obli$ation between the parties and also! +affidavit of conformit), dated >ebruar) .8! 1982! that validates or ratifies the 19;. sale! is also useless.& O%8#n land! an immovable propert)! ownership shall belon$ to the bu)er who in $oodfaith re$isters it first in the re$istr) of propert) the documents that are critical to the resolution of this case are@(a) the deed of sale of Aanuar) 17! 1981 in favor of private respondents coverin$ "azaro=s undivided inheritance of one6twelfth (1R1.) share in "ot /o& 191! which wassubse(uentl) re$istered on Aune 5! 198.(b) the deed of sale dated ecember .9! 1982 in favor of petitioners coverin$ thesame propert)&6 *hese two documents were e9ecuted after the death of 4atias (and his spouse)and after a deed of e9tra<udicial settlement of his (4atias=) estate was e9ecuted!t h u s v e s t i n $ i n " a z a r o a c t u a l t i t l e o v e r s a i d p r o p e r t ) & # n o t h e r w o r d s ! t h e s e dispositions! thou$h conflictin$! were no lon$er infected with the infirmities of the19;. sale&6 0ritical in determinin$ which of these two deeds should be $iven effect is the re$istration of the sale in favor of private respondents with the re$ister of deeds on Aune 5! 198.&6 -1533 00 $overns the preferential ri$hts of vendees in cases of multiple sales! asfollows@ #f the same thin$ should have been sold to different vendees! the ownership shallbe transferred to the person who ma) have first taken possession thereof in $ood faith! if it should be movable propert)&8 h o u l d i t b e i m m o v a b l e p r o p e r t ) ! t h e o w n e r s h i p s h a l l b e l o n $ t o t h e p e r s o n ac(uirin$ it who in $ood faith first recorded it in the 'e$istr) of Propert)&8hould there be no inscription! the ownership shall pertain to the person who in $ood faith was first in the possession? and! in the absence thereof! to the personwho presents the oldest title! provided there is $ood faith& 6 -lso! between two purchasers! the one who re$istered the sale in his favor has apreferred ri$ht over the other who has not re$istered his title! even if the latter is inactual possession of the immovable propert)7& /O&6 0-! reviewin$ *0=s findin$s! refused to overturn the latter=s assessment of thetestimonial evidence! as follows@ +De are not prepared to set aside the findin$ of the lower court upholdin$ 'icardo*anedo=s testimon)! as it involves a matter of credibilit) of witnesses which the trial <ud$e! who presided at the hearin$! was in a better position to resolve&, 6 all the above contentions involve (uestions of fact! appreciation of evidence andcredibilit) of witnesses! which are not proper in this review& #t is well6settled that the8upreme 0ourt is not a trier of facts&6 #n petitions for review under 'ule 35 of the 'evised 'ules of 0ourt! onl) (uestionsof law ma) be raised and passed upon& -bsent an) whimsical or capricious e9erciseof <ud$ment! and unless the lack of an) basis for the conclusions made b) the lowercourts be ampl) demonstrated! the 8upreme 0ourt will not disturb their findin$s&D e a r e f a r f r o m c o n v i n c e d t h a t b o t h c o u r t s $ r a v e l ) a b u s e d t h e i r r e s p e

estate of his father was intended forhis children6 8ps 'icardo *anedo presented + eed of 'evocation of a eed of 8ale, dated 4arch 1.! 1981 where "azaro revoked the sale in favor of his children for the reasonthat it was +simulated or fictitious 6 without an) consideration whatsoever&,6 after the case was filed! "azaro e9ecuted a sworn statement which virtuall)repudiated the contents of the eed of 'evocation of a eed of 8ale and the eedof 8ale in favor of the 8ps 'icardo *anedo& Eowever! "azaro testified that he soldthe propert) to 'icardo! and that it was a law)er who induced him to e9ecute adeed of sale in favor of his children after $ivin$ him five pesos (P5&22) to bu) a +drink,6 *0@ decided in favor of 8ps 'icardo *anedo and that "azaro=s children failed +toadduce a preponderance of evidence to support (their) claim&,6 0-@ affirmed the decision of the trial court! rulin$ that the eed of 8ale dated Aanuar) 17! 1981 was valid and that its re$istration in $ood faith P"'.'./n"-& C#$.0 *0 committed errors in1& concludin$ that the 0ontract of 8ale of October .2! 19;. is merel) voidable orannulable and not void ab initio pursuant to -1735 par. 00 involvin$ `future inheritance=.& holdin$s 8ps 'icardo *anedo acted in $ood faith in re$isterin$ the deed of sale of Aanuar) 17! 1981 with the 'e$ister of eeds of *arlac and therefore ownership of the land passed on to them7& i$norin$ and failin$ to consider the testimonial and documentar) evidence of "azaro=s children which clearl) established b) preponderance of evidence that the)are indeed the le$itimate and lawful owners of the propert) in (uestion 3& that the decision is contrar) to law and the facts of the case and the conclusionsdrawn from the established facts are illo$ical and off6tan$ent - A##"4$'./n& 0$d" 91 2"'.'./n"-& .n '!".- 9$&.*

c t i v e authorities and <udicial prero$atives& D.&2/&.'./n Petition is DENIED a n d t h e e c i s i o n o f t h e 0 o u r t o f - p p e a l s i s AFFIRMED

2"'.'./n $nd .n '!".- 0"0/-$nd,0 1& *0 alle$edl) i$nored the claimed fact that 'icardo +b) fraud and deceit and withforeknowled$e, that the propert) in (uestion had alread) been sold to petitioners!made "azaro e9ecute the deed of Aanuar) 17! 1981.& *here is alle$edl) ade(uate evidence to show that onl) 1R. of the purchase priceof P12!222&22 was paid at the time of the e9ecution of the deed of sale! contrar) tothe written acknowled$ment! thus showin$ bad faith7& *here is alle$edl) sufficient evidence showin$ that the deed of revocation of thesale in favor of petitioners +was tainted with fraud or deceit&,3& *here is alle$edl) enou$h evidence to show that private respondents +took undue advanta$e over the weakness and unschooled and pitiful situation of "azaro *anedo & & &, and that respondent 'icardo *aSedo +e9ercised moral ascendanc) over his )oun$er brother he bein$ the eldest brother and who reached fourth )earcolle$e of law and at one time a former :ice6Governor of *arlac! while his )oun$erbrother onl) attained first )ear hi$h school,5& *0 erred in not $ivin$ credence to petitioners= evidence! especiall) "azaro *aSedo=s 8inumpaan$ 8ala)sa) dated Aul) .5! 198. statin$ that 'icardo *aSedodeceived the former in e9ecutin$ the deed of sale in favor of private respondents L.4,"6 + CA (17D>) D C$,&" 0onchita "#GF%H filed a complaint a$ainst the widow and heirs of the late 8alvador"OP%H so as to recover a parcel of 51&83 hectares of land! situated in barrio Go$ac6"inot! in 4ati! avao& 8he claimed to be its le$al owner! pursuant to a deed of donation of said land! e9ecuted in her favor b) the owner! 8alvador "opez! on 184a) 1937&6 *he defense interposed was that the donation was null and void for havin$ an illicitcausa or consideration! which was the plaintiffLs enterin$ into marital relations with8alvador 1& DO/ donation was predicated upon an illicit causa .& DO/ the +in pare delicto, rule is applicable to the case 7& DO/ heirs of "opez can plead ille$alit) of deed of donation 3& DO/ "i$uez is entitled to the land donated b) "opez HELD 1& O%8 R$'./ *he motive ma) be re$arded as causa when it predetermines the purpose of the contract& *he cohabitation was an implied condition to the donation! and bein$unlawful! it necessaril) tainted the donation itself&

"opez! a married man& -lso! the propert) had alread) been ad<udicated tothe appellees as heirs of "opez&l >indin$s of the 0ourt of -ppeals@6 *he deed of donation was prepared b) the Austice of the Peace of 4ati! avao!before whom it was si$ned and ratified on the said date& -t that time! "i$uez was aminor and onl) 1; )ears of a$e& Dhen the donation was made! "opez had beenlivin$ with the parents of "i$uez for barel) a month& *he donation was made in viewof the desire of "opez to have se9ual relations with "i$uez& "opez had confessed tohis love for appellant to the instrumental witnesses! with the remark that herparents would not allow "opez to live with her unless he first donated the land in(uestion& -fter the donation! 0onchita "i$uez and 8alvador "opez lived to$ether inthe house that was built upon the latterLs orders! until "opez was killed on Aul) 1!1937&6 *he donated land ori$inall) belon$ed to the con<u$al partnership of 8alvador"opez and his wife! 4aria /$o& *he widow and children of "opez were in possessionof the land and made improvements& *he deed of donation was never recorded&0ourt of -ppeal=s 'ulin$6 *he deed of donation was inoperative! and null and void (1) because the husband!"opez! had no ri$ht to donate con<u$al propert) to the plaintiff appellant? and (.)because the donation was tainted with ille$al cause or consideration! of which donorand donee were participants&6 0- re<ected appellantLs claim on the basis of 1in pari delicto non oritur actio1 ruleas embodied in -rt&131. of the /ew 0ivil 0ode& P"'.'./n"-&L C#$.0 6 0># and 0- erred in holdin$ the donation void for havin$ an illicit cause orconsideration& Fnder -rt 1.53 of the 0ivil 0ode of 1889! 1in contracts of purebeneficence the consideration is the liberalit) of the donor 1! and that liberalit) cannever be ille$al! since it is neither a$ainst law or morals or public polic)

R"$&/n.n4 -rt 1.53 is not applicable because liberalit) of the donor therein is deemed causa i n t h o s e c o n t r a c t s t h a t a r e o f 1 pure1 beneficence& *hese are contracts desi$ned solel) and e9clusivel) to procure the welfare of the beneficiar)!without an) intent of producin$ an) satisfaction for the donor& -rt 1.53 alsoprovides that in remunerator) contract the consideration is the service or benefitfor which the remuneration is $iven? causa is not liberalit) in these cases becausethe contract or conve)ance is not made out of pure beneficence! but 1 solvendi animo&16 #n makin$ the donation! the late "opez was not moved e9clusivel) b) the desire tobenefit 0onchita "i$uez! but also to secure her cohabitin$ with him! so that he could$ratif) his se9ual impulses& *his is clear from the conf ession of "opez to thewitnesses 'odri$uez and 'a$a)! that he was in love with appellant! but her parentswould not a$ree unless he donated the land in (uestion to her& *herefore! thedonation was but one part of an onerous transaction (at least with appellantLs parents) that must be viewed in its totalit)&6 -ppellant sou$ht to differentiate between the alle$ed liberalit) of "opez! as causafor the donation in her favor! and his desire for cohabitin$ with appellant! as motives that impelled him to make the donation& 8he (uoted from 4anresa and the <urisprudence of this 0ourt on the distinction that must be maintained between causa and motives& Eowever! 4anresa himself e9pressl) e9empted from the rulethose contracts that are conditioned upon the attainment of the motives of eitherpart)& .& /O R"$&/n.n4 #t cannot be said that both parties had e(ual $uilt when we considerthat as a$ainst "opez! who was a man advanced in )ears and mature e9perience!the appellant was a mere minor! 1; )ears of a$e! when the donation was made& *here is no findin$ made b) the 0ourt of -ppeals that she was full) aware of the terms of the bar$ain entered into b) and "opez and her parents& Eer acceptance inthe deed of donation did not necessaril) impl) knowled$e of conditions and termsnot set forth therein& *he facts are of the case are actuall) more su$$estive of seduction than of immoral bar$ainin$ on the part of appellant& 64emo auditor propriam turpitudinem alle$ans& *he rule that parties to an ille$alcontract! if e(uall) $uilt)! will not be aided b) the law but will both be left where itfinds them! has been interpreted b) this 0ourt as barrin$ the part) from pleadin$the ille$alit) of the bar$ain either as a cause of action or as a defense& 7& /O R"$&/n.n4 *he deed of donation is re$ular on its face! and to defeat its effect! theappellees must plead and prove that it is ille$al& Gut such plea on the part of the "opez heirs is not receivable! since "opez! himself! if livin$! would be barred fromsettin$ up that plea? and his heirs can have no better ri$hts than "opez himself& 3& O%8 R$'./ *he prima facie donation inter vivos and its acceptance b) the donees havin$been proved b) means of a public instrument! and the donor havin$ been dul)notified of said acceptance! the contract is perfect and obli$ator)!unless ane9ception is proved which is based on some le$al reason opportunel) alle$ed b) thedonor or his heirs& ("opez v& Olbes) 6 *he donation made b) the husband in contravention of law is not void in itsentiret)! but onl) in so far as it pre<udices the interest of the wife! because saidpropert) was

con<u$al in character a n d t h e r i $ h t o f t h e h u s b a n d t o d o n a t e communit) propert) is strictl) limited b) law (0ivil 0ode of 1889! -rts& 1329! 1315!1317) R"$&/n.n4 Onl) the court of ori$in that settled the estate of the late 8alvador"opez& has the re(uisite data to determine whether the donation is inofficious ornot& *o determine the pre<udice to the widow! it must be shown that the value of her share in the propert) donated can not be paid out of the husbandLs share of thecommunit) profits&6 *he situation of the children and forced heirs of "opez appro9imates that of thewidow& -s privies of their parent! the) are barred from invokin$ the ille$alit) of thedonation& Gut their ri$ht to a le$itime out of his estate is not thereb) affected! sincethe le$itime is $ranted them b) the law itself& *he forced heirs are then entitled tohave the donation set aside in so far as in officious@ i&e &! in e9cess of the portion of free disposal & #n computin$ the le$itimes! the value of the propert) to "i$uez! should be considered part of the donorLs estate& 6 Dith re$ard to the improvements in the land in (uestion! the same should be $overned b) the rules of accession and possession in "ood fait& it bein$ undisputed that the widow and heirs of "opez wereunaware of the donation in favor of the appellant when the improvements were made& D.&2/&.'./n e c i s i o n s a p p e a l e d f r o m a r e r e v e r s e d a n d s e t a s i d e ! a n d t h e appellant 0onchita "#GF%H declared entitled to so much of the donated propert) asma) be found! upon proper li(uidation! not to pre<udice the share of the widow 4aria /$o in the con<u$al partnership with 8alvador P& "opez or the le$itimes of theforced heirs of the latter& *he records are ordered remanded to the court of ori$in C$-$n'"& + CA (17>>) 6 4ateo 0arantes was the ori$inal owner of "ot /o& 33 situated at "oakan! Ga$uio0it)& #n 1917 he died and was survived b) his widow O$asia and si9 children!namel)! Gilad "auro! 0rispino! 4a9imino! -pun$ and 8ianan$! all surnamed 0rantes&6 #n 1972! construction of the "oakan airport was commenced b) the Government&Gecause a portion of "ot /o& 33 was needed for the landin$ field! the Governmentinstituted proceedin$s for its e9propriation& >or this purpose! "ot /o& 33 wassubdivided into "ot /os& 336-! 336G! 3360! 336 and 336 %& *he Government e9propriated "ot /o& 336-&6 #n 1977! special proceedin$s were filed to settle the estate of 4ateo 0arantesw h e r e h i s s o n ! h e r e i n p e titioner 4a9imino 0arantes was a p p o i n t e d < u d i c i a l administrator& On Aune .2! 1979! 4a9imino! as administrator! filed a pro<ect of partition wherein he ISSUE DO/ respondent court is correct in reversin$ the '*0=s decision HELD R$'./ *otal absence of consideration is what renders a contract absolutel) void andine9istent& R"$&/n.n4 *he 0- points out that the deed of assi$nment is void ab initio and ine9istent on the $rounds that real consent was wantin$ and the consideration of P1&22 is so shockin$ to the conscience that there was in fact no consideration! hence the action for declaration of its ine9istence does not prescribe&GF* the sum of P1&22 is clear evidence that there was no absence of consideration&#n addition! the document recites that the decedent 4ateo 0arantes had! durin$ hislifetime! e9pressed to the si$natories to the contract that the propert) sub<ect6 matter thereof ri$htl) and e9clusivel) belon$ed to petitioner 4a9imino 0arantes& * h i s a c k n o w l e d $ m e n t b ) t h e s i $ n a t o r i e s d e f i n i t e l ) c o n s t i t u t e s v a l u a b l e consideration for the contract&-s for fraud and the prescription of action! the 0ourt a$rees with the '*0& D.&2/&.'./n -00O' #/G"O! the <ud$ment of the 0ourt of -ppeals appealed from isset aside! and another entered dismissin$ the complaint in 0ivil 0ase /o& 823 of the0ourt of >irst #nstance of Ga$uio& /o costs& V/'.n4 4akasiar! 4unoz Palma and 4artin! AA&! concur& *eehankee! A&! concur on the $round that respondents= action based on constructivetrust prescribed after ten )ears&

listed himself! and his brothers and sisters! or the latter=s survivin$ children as the heirs of 4ateo 0arantes& -t that time! ne$otiations wereunder wa) for the Government=s purchase of "ot /os& 336G and 3360! so 4a9iminoonl) listed "ot /os& 336 and 336% as the properties to be divided&6 On October .7! 1979 a deed denominated +-ssi$nment of 'i$ht to #nheritance,was e9ecuted b) four of 4ateo 0arantes= children! namel)! Gilad! 8ianan$! "auroand 0rispino! and the heirs of -pun$ 0arantes! /amel)! Pita$! Gill! -lson! %duardoand Auan! assi$nin$ to 4a9imino 0arantes their ri$hts to inheritance in "ot /o& 33& *he stated monetar) consideratoQion for the assi$nment was P1&22& Eowever! thedocument contains a recital to the effect that the said lots! +b) a$reement of all thed i r e c t h e i r s a n d heirs b) representation of the d e c e a s e d 4 a t e o 0 a r n t e s a s e9pres sed and conve)ed verball) b) him durin$ his lifetime! ri$htl) and e9clusivel)belon$ to the particul ar heir! 4a9imino 0arantes! now and in the past in thee9clusive! continuous! peaceful and notorious possession of the same for more thanten )ears&, On the same date 4a9imino sold to the Government "ot /os& 336G and3360 and divided the proceeds of the sale amon$ himself and the other heirs of 4ateo&6 On >ebruar) ;! 1932! the heirs of 4ateo petitioned for the cancellation of theOri$inal 0ertificate of *itle of "ot /o&33 and had it replaced with *ransfer 0ertificateo f * i t l e . 5 7 7 d e c l a r i n $ the five children of 4ateo and t h e c h i l d r e n o f - p u n $ 0arantes (representin$ their deceased father) as co6 owners of "ot /o& 33&6 On 4arch 1;! 1932! 4a9imino re$istered the deed of +-ssi$nment of 'i$ht to #nheritance, and accordin$l)! *0* .577 was cancelled and was replaced with *0*.532 in the name of 4a9imino 0arantes&6 On >ebruar) .1! 1935! pursuant to the deed of sale e9ecuted b) 4a9imino in favorof the Government! *0* .532 was cancelled and replaced with *0* *698 (coverin$"ot /os&

S2/,&"& 3,"n$+"n',-$ + CA

336-! 336G and 3360) in the Government=s name and *0* *6 99 (coverin$"ot /os& 336 and 336%) in 4a9imino=s name! who has up to the present remainedthe re$istered owner of said lots&6 On 8eptember 3! 1958 a complaint was filed b) Gilad! "auro and 0rispino andsome of the heirs of -pun$ and of 8ianan$ a$ainst 4a9imino& *he) alle$ed that the) onl) e9ecuted the deed of +-ssi$nment of 'i$ht to #nheritance, because the)were made to believe that it merel) authorized 4a9imino to conve) portions of "ot/o& 33 to the Government in their behalf to minimize e9penses and facilita te thetransaction? and that it was onl) on >ebruar) 18! 1958! when the plaintiffs secureda cop) of the deed! that the) came to know that the same assi$ned in favor of 4a9imino their ri$hts to inheritance from 4ateo 0arantes&6 On 8eptember 12! 1958 the defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the $rounds 1)that plaintiffs= cause of action was barred b) the statute of limitation because thedeed of assi$nment was recorded in the 'e$istr) of Propert) at the latest on >ebruar) .1! 1935! hence cause of action accrued from said date! and pursuant to-rt& 1133 of the /ew 0ivil 0ode! it must be brou$ht within ten )ears so plaintiffs=ri$ht to file the complaint had alread) prescribed on 8eptember 3! 1958? and .) thecomplaint states no cause of action because ownership of the propert) becamevested in 4a9imino b) ac(uisitive prescription ten )ears from its re$istration in hisname on >ebruar) .1! 1935&6 On Aanuar) .8! 19;5! the '*0 decided that since an action on fraud prescribesafter 3 )ears from discover)! the discover) deemed to have been on 4arch 1;!1932 when 4a9imino re$istered the deed of assi$nment! the plaintiffs= cause of action had prescribed& *he plaintiffs= motion for reconsideration was denied& -nd sothe) appealed in the 0- and it reversed the '*0=s rulin$& FACTS 6 'espondent spouses "eonardo Aoa(uin

ISSUES 1& DO/ the eeds of 8ale are void for lack of consideration

(2003)

and >eliciana "andrito are the parents of petitioners 0onsolacion! /ora! %mma and /atividad as well as of respondents >idel! *omas! -rtemio! 0larita! >elicitas! >e! and Gavino! all surnamed Aoa(uin& *hemarried Aoa(uin children are <oined in this action b) their respective spouses&6 8ou$ht to be declared null and void ab initio are si9 deeds of sale of real propert)e9ecuted b) respondent parents in favor of their respondent children and the correspondin$ certificates of title issued in their names& #n seekin$ the declarationof nullit) of the said deeds of sale and certificates of t it le! petitioners! in t heir complaint! aver that the deeds of sale are simulated as the) are! are null and void ab initio because (1) there was no actual valid consideration for the deeds of sale 99 9 over t he properties in litis? (.) assum in$ that there was considerat ion in thesums ref lected in the (uest ioned deeds! the properties are more than three6 f old times more valuable than the measl) sums appearin$ therein? (7) the deeds of saledo not reflect and e9press the true intent of the parties (vendors and vendees)? and(3) the purported sale of t he propert ies in lit iswas the result of a deliberate conspirac) desi$ned to un<ustl) deprive the rest of the compulsor) heirs (petitionerchildren) of their le$itime&6 'espondents aver that (1) petitioner siblin$s do not have a cause of action a$ainstt hem as well as the re(uisite st andin$ and interest to assail their titles over t he properties in lit#s?(.) the sales were with suf f icient considerat ions and made b)respondent parent s voluntaril)! in $ood f ait h! and wit h f ull knowled$e of t he conse(uences of their deeds of sale? and (7) the certificates of title were issued withsufficient factual and le$al basis&6 *he trial court ruled in favor of the respondents and dismissed the complaint& *he0ourt of -ppeals affirmed the decision of the trial court& Eence! this

.& DO/ the eeds of 8ale are void for $ross inade(uac) of price HELD 1& /O6 #t is not the pa)ment of price that determines the validit) of a contract of sale&Pa)ment of the price has nothin$ to do with the perfection of the contract& Pa)mentof the price $oes into the perfection of the contract& >ailure to pa) the considerationis different from lack of consideration& *he former results in a ri$ht to demand thefulfillment or cancellation of the obli$ation under an e9istin$ valid contract while thelatter prevents the e9istence of a valid contract&6 Petitioners failed to show that the prices in the eeds of 8ale were absolutel)simulated& *o prove simulation! petitioners presented %mma Aoa(uin :aldoz=stestimon) statin$ that their father! respondent "eonardo Aoa(uin! told her that hewould transfer a lot to her throu$h a deed of sale without need for her pa)ment of the purchase price& *he trial court did not find the alle$ation of absolute simulationof price credible& Petitioners= failure to prove absolute simulation of price isma$nified b) their lack of knowled$e of their respondent siblin$s= financial capacit)to bu) the (uestioned lots& On the other hand! the eeds of 8ale which petitionerspresented as evidence plainl) showed the cost of each lot sold& /ot onl) did respondents= minds meet as to the purchase price! but the real price also stated inthe eeds of 8ale& -s of the filin$ of the complaint! respondent siblin$s have alsofull) paid the price to their respondent father& .& /O6 -rt& 1755 of the 0ivil 0ode states@ +%9cept in cases specified b) law! lesion or inade(uac) of cause shall not invalidatea contract! unless there has been fraud! mistake! or undue influence& (%mphasis supplied)6 -rt& 1352 of the 0ivil 0ode further provides@ +Gross inade(uac) of price does not affect a contract of sale! e9cept as ma)indicate a defect in the consent! or that the parties reall) intended a donation orsome other act or contract&, (%mphasis supplied)6 Petitioners failed to prove an) of the instances mentioned in art& 1755 and 1352 of the 0ivil 0ode which would invalidate! or even affect! the eeds of 8ale& #ndeed!there is no re(uirement that the price be e(ual to e9act value of the sub<ect matterof the sale& -ll the respondents believed that the) received the commutative valueof what the) $ave& +4en ma) do foolish thin$s! make ridiculous contracts! use miserable <ud$ment! and lose mone) b) themMindeed! all the) have in the world?but not for that alone can the law intervene and restore& *here must be! in addition!a violation of the law! the commission of what the law knows as an -ctionable wron$! before the courts are authorized to la) hold of the situation and remed) it(:ales : :illa)&, 6 4oreover! the factual findin$s of the appellate court are conclusive on the partiesand carr) $reater wei$ht when the) coincide with the factual findin$s of the trialcourt& #n the instant case! the trial court found that the lots were sold for a validconsideration! and that the defendant children actuall) paid the purchase price stipulated in their respective eeds of 8ale& -ctual pa)ment of the purchase priceb) the bu)er to the seller is a factual findin$ that is now conclusive upon us&

petition&P et it ioners assert that their respondent siblin$s did not actuall) pa) the pricesstated in the eeds of sale t o t heir respondent father& *hus! petitioners ask t hecourt to declare t he eeds of 8 ale void& Petitioners also ask that assumin$ that there is consideration! the same is $rossl) inade(uate as to invalidate the eeds of 8ale NOTEK N$','$# "#"0"n'& 1 R.4!' '/ -"&/#+" 2 W$--$n'."& .n &$#"& */n'-$*'& d S'$4"& /) $ C/n'-$*' " C#$&&.).*$'./n /) C/n'-$*'& . A**/-d.n4 '/ d"4-"" /) d"2"nd"n*" 1 P-"2$-$'/-1 2 P-.n*.2$# 3 A**"&&/-1 .. A**/-).n4 '/ 2"-)"*'./n 1 C/n&"n&,$# 2 R"$# ... A**/-d.n4 '/ '!".- )/-0 1 C/00/n /- .n)/-0$# 2 S2"*.$# /- )/-0$# .+ A**/-d.n4 '/ 2,-2/&" 1 T-$n&)"- /) /%n"-&!.2 2 C/n+"1$n*" /) ,&" 3 R"nd.'./n /) &"-+.*" + A**/-d.n4 '/ &,9;"*' 0$''"1 T!.n4& 2 S"-+.*"& +. A**/-d.n4 '/ '!" n$',-" /) '!" /9#.4$'./n 1 3.#$'"-$# 2 Un.#$'"-$# +.. A**/-d.n4 '/ *$,&" 1 On"-/,& 2 G-$,.'/,& +... A**/-d.n4 '/ R.&( 1 C/00,'$'.+" 2 A#"$'/-1 .E A**/-d.n4 '/ n$0" 1 N/0.n$'" 2 In/0.n$'" D.6/n + G$9/--/ Aose izon owned three parcels of land totalin$ 172&58 hectares which (17>8) weremort$a$ed to GP as securit) for a loan amountin$ to P78!222 with a second mort$a$e lien in favor of P/G to ..

DO/ the ori$inal a$reement ma) be properl) reformed HELD O%86 * h e eed of 8ale with -ssumption cannot be considered as a r e a l a n d unconditional sale of the parcels of land on the $rounds that there was no mone)consideration! it bein$ admitted that the consideration mentioned in the a$reementwas not actuall) paid& Gesides! the propert in (uestion at the time of the e9ecutionof the said instrument was

secure another indebtedness amo u n t i n $ t o P97!871&91& izon failed to pa) the amortizations to GP causin$ the latter toforeclose on the mort$a$e& *he said lots were sold subse(uentl) to GP throu$h anauction conducted b) the sheriff& izon e9ecuted a deed of sale in favor of GPthrou$h an auction& izon himself e9ecuted a deed of sale in favor of GP on/ovember 1.! 1959 which deed was recorded in the office of the 'e$ister of eedson October ;! 19;2&6 -lfredo Garborro! who was initiall) interested in leasin$ the properties as the) were then idle! met with izon sometime prior to October ;! 1959& -s the mort$a$ewas alread) foreclosed b) GP! the leasin$ pro<ect was abandoned& #nstead! the)entered into a deed of sale with assumption of mort$a$e conve)ed ownership of theproperties to Gaborro& #n addition! the parties e9ecuted anoher a$reement which$ranted izon the option to repurchase the properties at the price of P171!871&91which represented the total principal amounts due to both the GP and P/G& #t should likewise be mentioned that the consideration for the sale is also the sameamount as the loans outstandin$ to both GP and P/G&6 Fpon e9ecution of the documents! Gaborro took possession f the properties andwrote a letter to GP advisin$ them of his purchase of the propert) of izon andofferin$ to pa) the obli$ations under the same terms and conditions within ten)ears& *he Gank a$reed provided onl) that the initial pa)ment be .2b of the loanamount&& -ccordin$l)! GP and Gaborro e9ecuted a eed of 0onditional sale overthe propertied for P17;!292&95! pa)ble .2b downpa)ment and the balance over ten)ears& #n addition! izon also e9ecuted an assi$nment of his ri$ht of redemption andassumption of obli$ation in favor of Gaborro&6 On Aul) 5! 19;1! izon! throu$h his law)er! wrote a letter to Gaborro offerin$ toreimburse him of what he paid to the bnks contendin$ the the transaction enteredbetween them was one of

alread) sold b) auction to GP& *he onl) le$al effect iswith re$ard the option eed which $ranted Petitioner the ri$ht to recover theproperties upon reimbursin$ Gaborro the sums of mone) the he ma) have paid toboth the GP and P/G as amortization on the mort$a$e&6 *he findin$s of the trial court and the 0ourt of -ppeals that the true intention of the parties is that Gaborro will assume and pa) the indebtness of izon and in return Gaborro shall en<o) possession! en<o)ment and the use of the properties until izon full) reimbursed him of the amounts paid to the said financial institutions& -s noted b) the 80! the a$reement is one of those innominate contracts under -rticle1725 of the 0ivil 0ode ehereb) the petitioner and respondent a$ree +to $ive and todo, certain ri$hts and obli$ations respectin$ the lands and the mort$a$e debts of the petitioner which would be acceptable to the bank but partakin$ of the nature of the antichresis&6 4istake is a $round for the reformation of an instrument when! there havin$ beena meetin$ of the minds of the parties to a contract! their true intention is not e9pressed in the instrument purportin$ to embod) the a$reement& #t was a mistakefor the parties to e9ecute the deed of sale with assumption of mort$a$e N theoption to purchase real estate& Eence these must be reformed in accordance withthe intention and le$al ri$hs and obli$ations of the parties

antichresis&Dhen Gaborro did not a$ree! izon filed suita l l e $ i n $ t h a t t h e d o c u m e n t s 9 e cuted did not e9press the true int e n t i o n a n d a$reement between the parties and as the real a$reement was not for an absolutedeed of sale but for an e(uitable mort$a$e or conve)ance b) wa) of securit) for thereimbursement or refund b) izon to Gaborro of an) and all sums which the latterma) have paid on account of the debts from both GP and P/G F/-0& /) C/n'-$*'& $ F/- +$#.d.'1 9 F/- "n)/-*"$9.#.'1 * F/- -"4.&'-$9.#.'1 C R")/-0$'./n /) In&'-,0"n' G$-*.$ + 3.&$1$ On 4a) .2! 195.! plaintiff filed a complaint a$ainst the defendants in the 0ourt of >irst (17DD) #nstance of Oriental 4indoro! alle$in$ that@ On /ovember 1.! 1978! defendantse9ecuted in favor of plaintiff a deed of sale coverin$ a parcel of land thereindescribed&6 *hat the said land 1was erroneousl) desi$nated b) the parties in the deed of saleas an unre$istered land (not re$istered under -ct 39;! nor under the 8panish4ort$a$e "aw) when in truth and in fact said land is a portion of a bi$ mass of landre$istered under Ori$inal 0ertificate of *itle /o& ;559 in the Office of the 'e$ister of eeds of Oriental 4indoro16 *hat despite persistent demand from plaintiff to have the error corrected!defendants have refused to do so& Plaintiff! therefore! pra)ed for <ud$ment orderin$defendants to make the aforesaid correction in the deed of sale& 6 efendants denied havin$ e9ecuted the alle$ed deed of sale a n d p l e a d e d prescription as a defense6 Dithout trial on the merits and merel) upon motion! the lower court dismissed thecase on the $round that plaintiffLs action had alread) prescribed& >rom this orderplaintiff has appealed directl) to the 80 3"n'.- + L"$nd$ 4a)15! 199.6"e)te Gulf *raders! #nc& filed a complaint (2000) f o r r e f o r m a t i o n o f instrument! specific 3

ISSUES 1& DO/ the action for reformation of instruments has alread) prescribed.& DO/ the action for reformation of instruments ma) prosper HELD 1& /O6 Goth appellant and appellees apparentl) re$ard the present action as one for thereformation of an instrument under 0hapter 3! *itle ##! Gook #: of the new 0ivil 0ode&8pecificall)! the ob<ect sou$ht is the correction of an alle$ed mistake in a deed of sale coverin$ a piece of land& *he action& bein$ upon a written contract! it shouldp r e s c r i b e i n t e n ) e a r s c o u n t e d f r o m t h e d a ) i t c o u l d h a v e b e e n i n s t i t u t e d & Obviousl)! appellant could not have instituted his action to correct an error in a deed until that error was discovered& *here bein$ nothin$ in the pleadin$s to showthat the error was discovered more than ten )ears before the present action wasfiled on 4a) .2! 195.! while! on the other hand! there is alle$ation that the errorwas discovered 1onl) recentl)1! we think the action should not have been dismissedas havin$ alread) prescribed before the factual basis for prescription had been established and clarified b) evidence&.& /O6 -ppellantLs complaint states no cause of action! for it fails to alle$e that the instrument to the reformed does not e9press the real a$reement or intention of the parties& 8uch alle$ation is essential since the ob<ect sou$ht in an action f o r reformation is to make an instrument conform to the real a$reement or intention of the parties& Gut the complaint does not even alle$e what the real a$reement or intention was& 4oreover! courts do not reform instruments merel) for the sake of reformin$ them! but onl) to enable some part) to asserts ri$ht under them as reformed& D.&2/&.'./n Order of dismissal is affirmed not because of prescription but becauseof failure to state the cause of action

ISSUE D O/ the complaint for reformation has prescribed and has not! D O/ "G* #nc is entitled to the remed) of reformation sou$ht

performance! annulment of conditional sale and dama$es withpra)er for writ of in<unction a$ainst Oolanda 'osello6Gentir and the spouses 8amueland 0harito Pormida&6 "G* #nc alle$ed that it entered into a contract of lease of a parcel of land with Gentir for a period of .2 )ears startin$ 4a) 5! 19;8 "G* #nc said the lease was e9tended for another 3)ears or until 4a) 71! 199.&6 4a) 5! 19896 Gentir sold the leased premises to spouses 8amuel and 0haritoPormada&6 "G* #nc (uestioned the sale alle$in$ that it had a ri$ht of first refusal& #t sou$ht ther e f o r m a t i o n o f t h e e9pired contract of lease on the $ r o u n d t h a t i t s l a w ) e r inadvertentl) omitted to incorporate in the contract of lease e9ecuted in 19;8! theverbal a$reement or understandin$ between the parties that in the event Gentirleases or sells the lot after the e9piration of the lease! "G* #nc has the ri$ht to e(ualthe hi$hest offer&6 #n due time! petitioners filed their answer alle$in$ that the inadvertence of the law)er who prepared the lease contract is not a $round for reformation&6 *he) further contended that respondent corporation is $uilt) of laches for notbrin$in$ the case for reformation of the lease contract within the prescriptive periodof 12 )ears from its e9ecution&6 "G* #nc then filed its repl) and on /ovember 18! 199.! filed a motion to admitamended complaint& 8aid motion was $ranted b) the lower court&6 *hereafter! Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss reiteratin$ that the complaintshould be dismissed on the $round of prescription&6 ec& 15! 19956 *0 throu$h Aud$e Pedro 8& %spina issued an order dismissin$ thecomplaint premised on its findin$ that the action for reformation had alread)prescribed&6 ec& .9! 19956 "G* #nc filed a 4' of the order dismissin$ the complaint&6 Aan 11! 199;! "G* #nc filed an ur$ent e96parte motion for issuance of an order directin$ the petitioners! or their representatives or a$ents to refrain from takin$possession of the land in (uestion&6 4arch .8! 199; 6

HELD O%8! it has prescribed& "G* #nc is no lon$er entitled to the reformation sou$ht& R"$&/n.n4 *he remed) of reformation of an instrument is $rounded on theprinciple of e(uit) where! in order to e9press the true intention of the contractin$parties! an instrument alread) e9ecuted is allowed b) law to be reformed&6 *he ri$ht of reformation is necessaril) an invasion or limitation of the parolevidence rule since! when a writin$ is reformed! the result is that an oral a$reementis b) court decree made le$all) effective&6 0onse(uentl)! the courts! as the a$encies authorized b) law to e9ercise the powerto reform an instrument! must necessaril) e9ercise that power sparin$l) and with$reat caution and zealous care& 4oreover! the remed)! bein$ an e9traordinar) one!m u s t b e s u b < e c t t o l i m i t a t i o n s a s m a ) b e p r o v i d e d b ) l a w & O u r l a w a n d <urisprudence set such limitations! amon$ which is laches & - suit for reformation of an instrument ma) be barred b) lapse of time&6 * h e p r e s c r i p t i v e p e r i o d f o r a c t i o n s b a s e d u p o n a w r i t t e n c o n t r a c t a n d f o r reformation of an instrument is ten (12) )ears under -rticle 1133 of the 0ivil 0ode&6 Prescription is intended to suppress stale and fraudulent claims arisin$ from transactions like the one at bar which facts had become so obscure from the lapseof time or defective memor)& 6 #n the case at bar! respondent corporation had 12 )ears from 19;8! the time whenthe contract of lease was e9ecuted! to file an action for reformation& 8adl)! it did soonl) on 4a) 15! 199. or twent)6 four (.3) )ears after the cause of action accrued!hence! its cause of action has become stale! hence! time6barred& 6 #f! accordin$ to "G* #nc&! there was an a$reement between the parties to e9tendthe lease contract for 3 )ears after the ori$inal contract e9pired in 1988! then -rt&1;52 would not appl) as this provision speaks of an implied new lease ( tacitareconduccion ) where at the end of the contract! the lessee continues to en<o) the thin$ leased 1with the ac(uiescence of the lessor1! so that the duration of the leaseis 1not for the period of the ori$inal contract! but for the time established in -rticle1;8. and 1;85&1 #n other words! if the e9tended period of lease was e9pressl)a$reed upon b) the parties! then the term should be e9actl) what the parties stipulated! not more! not less&6 %ven if the supposed 36 )ear e9tended lease be considered as an implied newlease under -rt& 1;52! 1the other terms of the ori$inal contract1 contemplated in said provision are onl) those terms which are $ermane to the lesseeLs ri$ht of continued en<o)ment of the propert) leased & *he prescriptive period of 12 )ears provided for in -rt& 1133 applies b) operation of law! not b) the will of the parties& *herefore! the ri$ht of action for reformation accrued from the date of e9ecution of the contract of lease in 19;8& 6 %ven if we were to assume for the sake of ar$ument that the instant action forreformation is not time6barred! "G* #ncLs action will still not prosper because under8ec 1! 'ule ;3 of the /ew 'ules of 0ourt! an action for the reformation of an instrument is instituted as a special civil action for declarator) relief&6 Purpose of an action for declarator) relief6 to secure an authoritative statement of the ri$hts and obli$ations of the parties for their $uidance in the enforcement or compliance and not to settle issues arisin$ from an alle$ed breach thereof&6 Eere! "G* #nc& brou$ht the present action for reformation after an alle$ed breachor violation of the contract was alread) committed b) Gentir& 0onse(uentl)! the remed) of reformation no lon$er lies& D.&2/&.'./n Petition is G'-/*%

SARMING + DY (.22.)

the case was re6raffled and assi$ned to '*0! *acloban 0it)! presided b) herein respondent <ud$e 4ateo 4& "eanda&6 4a) 12! 199; T "eanda reversed the order of dismissal on the $rounds that theaction for reformation had not )et prescribed and the dismissal was1premature and precipitate1! den)in$ "G* #nc of its ri$ht to procedural due process&6 Aune 12! 199;6 "eanda issued an order for status (uo ante! en<oinin$ petitioners todesist from occup)in$ the propert)&6 Aan& 15! 19956 0- affirmed the assailed decision of "eanda? denied 4' Petitioners are the successors6in6interest of ori$inal defendant >lores! while respondents are the successors6in6interest of the ori$inal plaintiff elfino! the bu)er of one of the lots& *here are . parcels of land& "ot 1 is co6 owned b) 8ilveria and her . brothers& "ot .! which is solel) re$istered under the name of 8ilveria! was subdivided between her and her brother! Aose& *he $randchildren of Aose! who now owns K of the lot .! entered into a contract with elfino for the sale of their share in lot . after offerin$ the same to 8ilveria who declined for lack of mone)& #n the preparation of the document of sale! 8ilveria delivered to elfino=s law)er the O0* of "ot 1 instead of "ot .& -s a result the O0* for "ot 1 was cancelled and a new one was issued& elfino occupied K of "ot . instead of the "ot 1 as desi$nated in the deed& elfino discovered the mistake& elfino and the vendors filed a complaint a$ainst 8ilveria for reformation of the deed of sale with dama$es before the '*0&

& A& "eanda=s decision is reversed and set aside& A&%spina=s decision dismissin$ the reformation is reinstated

'eformation of the sub<ect deed is proper b) reason of mistake in desi$natin$ the correct lot number 'eformation is that remed) in e(uit) b) means of which a written instrument is made or construed so as to e9press or conform to the real intention of the parties& -n action for reformation of instrument under this provision of law ma) prosper onl) upon the concurrence of the followin$ re(uisites@ (1) there must have been a meetin$ of the minds of the parties to the contract? (.) the instrument does not e9press the true intention of the parties? and (7) the failure of the instrument to e9press the true intention of the parties is due to mistake! fraud! ine(uitable conduct or accident& -ll of these re(uisites! in our view! are present in this case& *here was a meetin$ of the minds between the parties to the contract but the deed did not e9press the true intention of the parties due to mistake in the desi$nation of the lot sub<ect of the deed& *here is no dispute as to the intention of the parties to sell the land to elfino but there was a mistake as to the desi$nation of the lot intended to be sold as stated in the 8ettlement of %state and 8ale&

In'"-2-"'$'./n /) C/n'-$*'& D")"*'.+" C/n'-$*'& $ R"&*.&&.9#" C/n'-$*'& ORIA + MCMIC5ING Eermanos filed separatel) . actions a$ainst action Oria Eermanos N 0o& for the (191.) recover) of sums of mone)& *hereafter! the members of the compan) of Oria Eermanos N 0o&! on account of the e9piration of the time stated in their a$reement of co6partnership! dissolved their relations and entered into li(uidation& *omas Oria! as mana$in$ partner in li(uidation! actin$ for himself and on behalf

D E

*he sale is fraudulent as to Eermanos in so far as was necessar) to permit the collection of its <ud$ment& #n determinin$ whether or not a certain conve)ance is fraudulent the (uestion in ever) case is whether the conve)ance was a bona fide transaction or a trick and contrivance to defeat creditors! or whether it conserves to the debtor a special ri$ht& #t is not sufficient that it is founded on $ood consideration or is made with bona fide intent@ it must have both elements& #f defective in either of these particulars! althou$h $ood between the parties! it is voidable as to creditors& *he test as to whether or not a conve)ance is fraudulent is! does it pre<udice the ri$hts of creditorsC *he followin$ are some of the circumstances attendin$ sales which have been dominated b) the courts

of his other co6owners! entered into a contract with 4anuel Oria! which said contract was for the purpose of sellin$ and transferrin$ to 4anuel in this action all of the propert) of which the said Oria Eermanos N 0o& was owner& -mon$ the $oods transferred b) this instrument was the steamship 8erantes& 0># ruled in favour of Eermanos and writ of e9ecution was issued& *he sheriff demanded that *omas Oria make pa)ment of the said <ud$ment! to which he replied that there were no funds with which to pa) the same& *hereupon the sheriff levied upon the said steamer 8erantes! took possession of the same! and announced it for sale at public auction& 7 da)s before the sale! 4anuel presented to the sheriff a written statement claimin$ to be the owner of the said steamship& 4anuel filed an action for the issuance of a preliminar) in<unction to prevent the sale of the steamship and for the declaration that he is the owner of said steamship and is entitled to the possession of the same& Eermanos put up a bond to allow the sheriff to proceed to the sale& -t the sale Eermanos became the purchaser& SIGUAN +& LIM (1999) #n -u$& 1992! "#4 issued two 4etrobank checks pa)able to +cash&, Fpon presentment b) 8i$uan with the drawee bank! the checks were dishonored for the reason +account closed&, - criminal case for violation of GP .. was filed and '*0 convicted "#4& *he case is pendin$ before 80& #n Aul) 1992 "#4 was convicted of estafa filed b) a certain :ictoria 8uarez which was affirmed b) 0-& 80 ac(uitted "#4 but held her civill) liable& #n Aul) 1991! a eed of onation conve)in$ the 3 parcels of land and purportedl) e9ecuted b) "#4 on 12 -u$ust 1989 in favor of her children was re$istered with the Office of the 'e$ister of eeds of 0ebu 0it)& /ew *0*s were thereafter issued in the names of the donees& .7 Aune 1997! 8i$uan filed an accion pauliana a$ainst "#4 and her children to rescind the (uestioned eed of onation and to declare as null and void the new

bad$es of fraud@ 1& *he fact that the consideration of the conve)ance is fictitious or is inade(uate& .& - transfer made b) a debtor after suit has been be$un and while it is pendin$ a$ainst him& 7& - sale upon credit b) an insolvent debtor& 3& %vidence of lar$e indebtedness or complete insolvenc)& 5& *he transfer of all or nearl) all of his propert) b) a debtor! especiall) when he is insolvent or $reatl) embarrassed financiall)& ;& *he fact that the transfer is made between father and son! when there are present other of the above circumstances& 5& *he failure of the vendee to take e9clusive possession of all the propert)& *he case at bar presents ever) one of the bad$es of fraud above enumerated& *he sale in the form in which it was made leaves the creditors substantiall) without recourse& *he propert) of the compan) is $one! its income is $one! the business itself is likel) to fail! the propert) is bein$ dissipated! and is depreciatin$ in value& *he court below was correct in findin$ the sale fraudulent and void as to Gutierrez Eermanos in so far as was necessar) to permit the collection of its <ud$ment& -s a corollar)! the court below found that the evidence failed to show that the plaintiff was the owner or entitled to the possession of the steamer in (uestion at the time of the lev) and sale complained of! or that he was dama$ed thereb)& efendant had the ri$ht to make the lev) and test the validit) of the sale in that wa)! without first resortin$ to a direct action to annul the sale& *he creditor ma) attack the sale b) i$norin$ it and seizin$ under his e9ecution the propert)! or an) necessar) portion thereof! which is the sub<ect of the sale&

*he deed of donation was not entered into in fraud of the creditors& *he action to rescind contracts in fraud of creditors is known as accion pauliana& >or this action to prosper! the followin$ re(uisites must be present@ (1) the plaintiff askin$ for rescission has a credit prior to the alienation! althou$h demandable later? (.) the debtor has made a subse(uent contract conve)in$ a patrimonial benefit to a third person? (7) the creditor has no other le$al remed) to satisf) his claim? (3) the act bein$ impu$ned is fraudulent? (5) the third person who received the propert) conve)ed! if it is b) onerous title! has been an accomplice in the fraud& 8i$uan=s claim a$ainst "#4 was constituted onl) in -u$ust 1992! or a )ear after the (uestioned alienation& *hus! the first two re(uisites for the rescission of contracts are absent& %ven assumin$ ar$uendo that petitioner became a creditor of "#4 prior to the celebration of the contract of donation! still her action for rescission would not fare well because the third re(uisite was not met& #t is essential that the part) askin$ for rescission prove that he has e9hausted all other le$al means to obtain satisfaction of his claim& Petitioner neither alle$ed nor proved that she did so& *he fourth re(uisite for an accion pauliana to prosper is not present either& -s earlier discussed! petitioner=s alle$ed credit e9isted onl) a )ear after the deed of donation was e9ecuted& 8he cannot! therefore! be said to have been pre<udiced or defrauded b) such alienation& Gesides! the evidence disclose that as of 12 -u$ust 1989! when the deed of donation was e9ecuted! "#4 had other properties& >urthermore! petitioner failed to dischar$e the burden of an) other circumstance from which fraud can be inferred& #t should be noted that the complainant in the estafa case! :ictoria 8uarez! albeit a creditor prior to the (uestioned alienation! is not a part) to this accion pauliana& -rticle 1783 of the 0ivil 0ode provides that rescission shall onl) be to the e9tent necessar) to cover the dama$es caused& Fnder this -rticle! onl)

VELARDE + CA (.221)

transfer certificates of title issued for the lots covered b) the (uestioned eed& avid is the owner a parcel of land! to$ether with the house and other improvements thereon& - eed of 8ale with -ssumption of 4ort$a$e was e9ecuted b) avid! as vendor! in favor of -velina :elarde! as vendee& Pendin$ GP#=s approval of the application for assumption of mort$a$e! 8ps& :elarde were to continue pa)in$ the monthl) interests of the loan secured b) a real estate mort$a$e& 8ps& :elarde were advised that the -pplication for -ssumption of 4ort$a$e with GP# was not approved& *his prompted them not to make an) further pa)ment& avid informed 8ps& :elarde that their non6 pa)ment to the mort$a$e bank constituted non6performance of their obli$ation& 8ps& :elarde replied that the) are willin$ to pa) the balance of the purchase provided that avid deliver actual possession of the propert) and avid should cause the release of title and mort$a$e from the Gank of P&#& and make the title available and free from an) liens and encumbrances and to e9ecute an absolute deed of sale in her favor free from an) liens or encumbrances& avid sent a notarial notice of cancellationRrescission of the intended sale of the sub<ect propert) alle$edl) due to the latter=s failure to compl) with the terms and conditions of the eed of 8ale with -ssumption of 4ort$a$e and the Fndertakin$& 8ps& :elarde filed a complaint for specific performance! nullit) of cancellation! writ of possession and dama$es&

the creditor who brou$ht the action for rescission can benefit from the rescission? those who are stran$ers to the action cannot benefit from its effects& *he rescission is valid& - substantial breach of a reciprocal obli$ation! like failure to pa) the price in the manner prescribed b) the contract! entitles the in<ured part) to rescind the obli$ation& 'escission abro$ates the contract from its inception and re(uires a mutual restitution of benefits received& 8ps& :elarde did not merel) stop pa)in$ the mort$a$e obli$ations? the) also failed to pa) the balance of the purchase price& -s admitted b) both parties! their a$reement mandated that 8ps& :elarde should pa) the purchase price balance of P1&84 in case the re(uest to assume the mort$a$e would be disapproved& #nstead of doin$ so! petitioners sent a letter to private respondents offerin$ to make such pa)ment onl) upon the fulfilment of certain conditions not ori$inall) a$reed upon in the contract of sale& *he breach committed b) petitioners was not so much their nonpa)ment of the mort$a$e obli$ations! as their nonperformance of their reciprocal obli$ation to pa) the purchase price under the contract of sale& Private respondents= ri$ht to rescind the contract finds basis in -rticle 1191 of the 0ivil 0ode& *he in<ured part) ma) choose between fulfilment and the rescission of the obli$ation! with the pa)ment of dama$es in either case& Ee ma) also seek rescission even after he has chosen fulfilment! if the latter should become impossible& *he ri$ht of rescission of a part) to an obli$ation under -rticle 1191 of the 0ivil 0ode is predicated on a breach of faith b) the other part) who violates the reciprocit) between them& *he breach contemplated in the said provision is the obli$or=s failure to compl) with an e9istin$ obli$ation& Dhen the obli$or cannot compl) with what is incumbent upon it! the obli$ee ma) seek rescission and! in the absence of an) <ust cause for the court to determine the period of compliance! the court shall decree the rescission& 0onsiderin$ that the rescission of the contract is based on -rticle 1191 of the 0ivil 0ode! mutual restitution is re(uired to brin$ back the parties to their ori$inal situation prior to the inception of the contract& 'escission creates the obli$ation to return the ob<ect of the contract& #t can be carried out onl) when the one who demands rescission can return whatever he ma) be obli$ed to restore& *o rescind is to declare a contract void at its inception and to put an end to it as thou$h it never was& #t is not merel) to terminate it and release the parties from further obli$ations to each other! but to abro$ate it from the be$innin$ and restore the parties to their relative positions as if no contract has been made&

9 V/.d$9#" C/n'-$*'& CADWALLADER + Pacific %9port "umber 0o& shipped upon SMITH, 3ELL the steamer :uito 581 piles to Eenr) D& Peabod) N 0o&! at 4anila! on the sale of (1925) which before stora$e the consi$nees were to receive a commission of K of whatever sum was obtained over ]15 for each pile and 5b of the price of the piles sold after stora$e& -fter the arrival of the steamer! Peabod) N 0o& wrote the a$ent of the Pacific 0ompan) that for lack of a demand the piles would have to be sold at

*he contract of sale should be annulled& #t is clear that at the time when the a$ents were bu)in$ from their principal these piles at ]1. a piece on the stren$th of their representation that no better price was obtainable! the) had alread) sold a substantial part of them at ]19& #t is plain that in concealin$ from their principal the ne$otiations with the Government! resultin$ in a sale of the piles at 19 a piece and in misrepresentin$ the condition of the market! the a$ents committed a breach of dut) from which the) should benefit& *he contract of sale to themselves thereb) induced was founded on their fraud and was sub<ect to annulment b) the a$$rieved part)& (0ivil 0ode! articles 1.;5 and 1.;9&) Fpon annulment the parties should be restored to their ori$inal position b) mutual restitution& (-rticle 1727 and 172;&) *herefore the defendants are not entitled to retain their commission realized upon the piles included under the contract so annulled& #n

SINGSONG + ISA3ELA SAWMILL (1959)

considerabl) less than ]15 a piece? whereupon the compan)=s a$ent directed them to make the best possible offer for the piles! in response to which the) tele$raphed him an offer of ]1. a piece& #t was accepted b) him& #t afterwards appeared that Peabod) N 0o& had entered into ne$otiations with the #nsular Purchasin$ -$ent for the sale for the piles at ].2 a piece! resultin$ in the sale to the Government of .17 piles at ]19 each& 4ore of them were afterwards sold to the Government at the same fi$ure and the remainder to other parties& #n these transactions the 8mith! Gell N 0ompan) were associated with Eenr) D& Peabod) N 0ompan)! who conducted the ne$otiations! and are conse(uentl) accountable with them& 0adwallader! as assi$nee of the Pacific %9port "umber 0o&! sues for the difference between the amount turned over to the compan) on account of a car$o of cedar piles consi$ned to the defendants as its a$ents and afterwards bou$ht b) them! and the amount actuall) received b) them on the subse(uent sale thereof& Gariba)! 8alde<eno! and *ubun$banua entered into a 0ontract of Partnership under the firm name #sabela 8awmill& Plaintiffs are creditors of the partnership& 8ps& 8alda<eno filed a complaint a$ainst #sabela 8awmill! Gariba)! and *ubun$banua& Gariba)! and *ubun$banua e9ecuted a document entitled -ssi$nment of 'i$hts with 0hattel 4ort$a$e in favour of 8alda<eno& Gariba) and *ubun$banua did not divide the assets and properties of the 1#sabela 8awmill1 between them! but the) continued the business of said partnership under the same firm name 1#sabela 8awmill1& *he Provincial 8heriff published two . notices that he would sell at public auction certain trucks! tractors! machiner)! office e(uipment and other thin$s in the case filed b) 8ps& 8alda<eno& Plaintiffs filed a complaint a$ainst defendants wherein the) pra)ed that the sale at public auction be restrained! the partnership pa) them and the 0hattel 4ort$a$e be declared null and void bein$ in fraud of creditors of the partnership and without valuable

respect of the .17 piles! which the) had alread) sold under the ori$inal a$enc)! their commission should be allowed&

Plaintiffs have a ri$ht to file the action to nullif) the chattel mort$a$e in (uestion& -s a rule! a contract cannot be assailed b) one who is not a part) thereto& Eowever! when a contract pre<udices the ri$hts of a third person! he ma) file an action to annul the contract& *his 0ourt has held that a person! who is not a part) obli$ed principall) or subsidiaril) under a contract! ma) e9ercise an action for nullit) of the contract if he is pre<udiced in his ri$hts with respect to one of the contractin$ parties! and can show detriment which would positivel) result to him from the contract in which he has no intervention& *he plaintiffs were pre<udiced in their ri$hts b) the e9ecution of the chattel mort$a$e over the properties of the partnership 1#sabela 8awmill1 in favor of 8alda<eno b) the remainin$ partners&

consideration insofar as the said defendant is concerned& - certificate of sale was issued in favor of the 8alda<eno& 8alda<eno e9ecuted a deed of sale in favor of the Pan Oriental "umber 0ompan) transferrin$ to the latter the trucks! tractors! machiner)! and other thin$s that she had purchased at a public auction& R$'.).*$'./n *his is a dispute between one of 8antia$o=s le$itimate child! >rancisca and his ille$itimate child! F) 8oo "im& G) the terms of his will! 8antia$o attempted to dispose of the $reater part of his estate in favor of F) 8oo "im& F) 8oo "im e9ecuted a deed b) which he relin$uished and sold to >rancisca all his ri$ht! title! and interest in the estate of the deceased 8antia$o& *he document was presented to the court which issued an order b) which >rancisca was declared the sole owner of the propert) left b) the deceased 8antia$o& F) 8oo "im commenced the present action for the purpose of vacatin$ the orders of the lower court and to rescind and annul the contract b) which he had sold and transferred to >rancisca his interest in the estate of 8antia$o& Dhile in the F8! >ernando purchased for himself and his wife! "ourdes! . round trip airline tickets from 8an ie$o! 0alifornia to /ewark! /ew Aerse) on board 0ontinental -irlines& >ernando purchased the tickets from a travel a$enc) called +Eolida) *ravel, and was attended to b) a certain 4a$er& >ernando a$reed to bu) the said tickets after 4a$er informed them that there were no available seats at -mtrak! an intercit) passen$er train service provider& >ernando re(uested 4a$er to reschedule their fli$ht& 4a$er informed him that fli$hts to /ewark via 0ontinental -irlines were alread) full) booked and offered the alternative of a round trip fli$ht via >rontier -ir& 8ince fl)in$ with >rontier -ir called for a hi$her fare and would mean travellin$ b) ni$ht! >ernando opted to re(uest for a refund& 4a$er denied his re(uest as the sub<ect tickets are non6

UY SOO LIM + UNCHUAN (1918)

F) 8oo "im cannot rescind the contract& Bnowin$ his le$al ri$hts! plaintiff should have been prompt to disaffirm his contract upon reachin$ ma<orit)& *his was not done& #nstead! he deliberatel) permitted defendants to continue makin$ pa)ments thereunder! and then! on 4a) .5! 1913! when the last cent upon such contract was collected! sou$ht to avail himself of this $round of rescission& *his was almost ei$ht months after he had attained his ma<orit)& Positive statutor) law! no less than uniform court decisions! re(uire! as a condition precedent to rescission of a contract on account of minorit) that the consideration received be refunded& /ot onl) should plaintiff have refunded all mone)s in his possession upon filin$ his action to rescind! but! b) insistin$ upon receivin$ and spendin$ such consideration after reachin$ ma<orit)! knowin$ the ri$hts conferred upon him b) law! he must be held to have forfeited an) ri$ht to brin$ such action&

VILORIA + CONTINENTAL AIRLINES (.21.)

8ps& :iloria ratified the contract& 8pouses :iloria=s cause of action on the basis of 4a$er=s alle$ed fraudulent misrepresentation is clearl) one of tort or (uasi6delict! there bein$ no pre6e9istin$ contractual relationship between them& *herefore! it was incumbent upon 8pouses :iloria to prove that 0-# was e(uall) at fault& Eowever! the records are devoid of an) evidence b) which 0-#=s alle$ed liabilit) can be substantiated& -part from their claim that 0-# must be held liable for 4a$er=s supposed fraud because Eolida) *ravel is 0-#=s a$ent! 8ps& :iloria did not present evidence that 0-# was a part) or had contributed to 4a$er=s complained act either b) instructin$ or authorizin$ Eolida) *ravel and 4a$er to issue the said misrepresentation& %ven assumin$ that 4a$er=s representation is causal fraud! the sub<ect contracts have been impliedl) ratified when 8pouses :iloria decided to e9ercise their ri$ht to use the sub<ect tickets for the purchase of new ones& Fnder -rticle 179. of the 0ivil 0ode! +ratification e9tin$uishes the action to annul a voidable contract&,'atification of a voidable contract is defined under -rticle 1797 of the 0ivil 0ode& #mplied ratification ma) take diverse forms! such as b) silence or ac(uiescence? b) acts showin$ approval or adoption of the contract? or b) acceptance and retention of benefits flowin$ therefrom& 8imultaneous with their demand for a refund on the $round of >ernando=s vitiated consent! 8pouses :iloria likewise asked for a refund based on 0-#=s supposed bad faith in rene$in$ on its undertakin$ to replace the sub<ect tickets with a round trip ticket from 4anila to "os -n$eles& #n doin$ so! 8pouses :iloria are actuall) askin$ for a rescission of the sub<ect contracts based on contractual breach&

refundable and the onl) option that 0ontinental -irlines can offer is the re6 issuance of new tickets within 1 )ear from the date the sub<ect tickets were issued& >ernando decided to reserve . seats with >rontier -ir& >ernando discovered that seats are available and he can travel on -mtrak an)time and an) da) he pleased& >ernando then purchased . tickets for Dashin$ton! &0& Fpon returnin$ to the Philippines! >ernando sent a letter to 0-#! demandin$ a refund and alle$in$ that 4a$er had deluded them into purchasin$ the sub<ect tickets& 0ontinental 4icronesia denied >ernando=s re(uest for a refund and advised him that he ma) take the sub<ect tickets to an) 0ontinental ticketin$ location for the re6 issuance of new tickets within . )ears from the date the) were issued& 0ontinental 4icronesia informed >ernando that the sub<ect tickets ma) be used as a form of pa)ment for the purchase of another 0ontinental ticket! albeit with a re6issuance fee& >ernando went to 0ontinental=s ticketin$ office 4akati 0it) to have the sub<ect tickets replaced b) a sin$le round trip ticket to "os -n$eles! 0alifornia under his name& *herein! >ernando was informed that "ourdes= ticket was non6transferable! thus! cannot be used for the purchase of a ticket in his favor& >ernando demanded for the refund of the sub<ect tickets as he no lon$er wished to have them replaced& 8ps& :iloria filed a complaint a$ainst 0-#! pra)in$ that 0-# be ordered to refund the mone) the) used in the purchase of the sub<ect tickets with le$al interest and to pa) dama$es& . .. ... .+ + +. +.. ROMAN CATHOLIC In*$2$9#" /) 4.+.n4 */n&"n' In&$n.'1 M.&'$(" W./#"n*" In'.0.d$'./n Und," In)#,"n*" F-$,d *he 0hurch owned a lot& *he 0hurch

'esolution! the action referred to in -rticle 1191! is based on the defendant=s breach of faith! a violation of the reciprocit) between the parties and in Solar @arvest- <nc. v. .avao Corru"ated Carton Corporation! this 0ourt ruled that a claim for a reimbursement in view of the other part)=s failure to compl) with his obli$ations under the contract is one for rescission or resolution& Eowever! annulment under -rticle 1792 of the 0ivil 0ode and rescission under -rticle 1191 are . inconsistent remedies& #n resolution! all the elements to make the contract valid are present? in annulment! one of the essential elements to a formation of a contract! which is consent! is absent& #n resolution! the defect is in the consummation sta$e of the contract when the parties are in the process of performin$ their respective obli$ations? in annulment! the defect is alread) present at the time of the ne$otiation and perfection sta$es of the contract& -ccordin$l)! b) pursuin$ the remed) of rescission under -rticle 1191! the :ilorias had impliedl) admitted the validit) of the sub<ect contracts! forfeitin$ their ri$ht to demand their annulment& - part) cannot rel) on the contract and claim ri$hts or obli$ations under it and at the same time impu$n its e9istence or validit)& #ndeed! liti$ants are en<oined from takin$ inconsistent positions&

/o misrepresentation e9isted vitiatin$ the seller=s consent and invalidatin$ the contract

CHURCH + PANTE (.21.)

contracted with Pante for the sale of the lot on the belief that the latter was an actual occupant of the lot& *he contract between them fi9ed the purchase price at P11!.22! with the initial P1!1.2 pa)able as down pa)ment! and the remainin$ balance pa)able in three )ears& *hereafter! the 0hurch sold in favor of the 8ps& 'ubi a lot that included the lot previousl) sold to Pante& *he spouses 'ubi asserted their ownership b) erectin$ a concrete fence over the lot sold to Pante! effectivel) blockin$ Pante and his famil)=s access from their famil) home to the municipal road& Pante instituted an action to annul the sale between the 0hurch and the spouses 'ubi! insofar as it included the lot previousl) sold to him&

0onsent is an essential re(uisite of contracts as it pertains to the meetin$ of the offer and the acceptance upon the thin$ and the cause which constitute the contract& *o create a valid contract! the meetin$ of the minds must be free! voluntar)! willful and with a reasonable understandin$ of the various obli$ations the parties assumed for themselves& Dhere consent! however! is $iven throu$h mistake! violence! intimidation! undue influence! or fraud! the contract is deemed voidable& Eowever! not ever) mistake renders a contract voidable& >or mistake as to the (ualification of one of the parties to vitiate consent! two re(uisites must concur@ 1& the mistake must be either with re$ard to the identit) or with re$ard to the (ualification of one of the contractin$ parties? and .& the identit) or (ualification must have been the principal consideration for the celebration of the contract& 0ontrar) to the 0hurch=s contention! the actual occupanc) or residenc) of a bu)er over the land does not appear to be a necessar) (ualification that the 0hurch re(uires before it could sell its land& Ead this been indeed its polic)! then neither Pante nor the spouses 'ubi would (ualif) as bu)ers of the 7.6 s(uare meter lot! as none of them actuall) occupied or resided on the lot& Given the size of the lot! it could serve no other purpose than as a mere passa$ewa)? it is unthinkable to consider that a .91;6meter strip of land could be mistaken as an)one=s residence& #n fact! the spouses 'ubi were in possession of the ad<acent lot! but the) never asserted possession over the .91;6meter lot when the 1993 sale was made in their favor? it was onl) then that the) constructed the concrete fence blockin$ the passa$ewa)& De find it unlikel) that Pante could successfull) misrepresent himself as the actual occupant of the lot? this was a fact that the 0hurch (which has a parish chapel in the same baran$a) where the lot was located) could easil) verif) had it conducted an ocular inspection of its own propert)& *he surroundin$ circumstances actuall) indicate that the 0hurch was aware that Pante was usin$ the lot merel) as a passa$ewa)& *he sale of the lot to Pante and later to the spouses 'ubi resulted in a double sale that called for the application of the rules in -rticle 1533 of the 0ivil 0ode& -s neither Pante nor the spouses 'ubi re$istered the sale in their favor! the (uestion now is who! between the two! was first in possession of the propert) in $ood faith& Pante ac(uired prior possession of the lot&

* Un"n)/-*"$9#" C/n'-$*'& CAR3ONEL + CA Poncio was the owner of the parcel of land with improvements and sub<ect to (195;) mort$a$e in favor of the 'epublic 8avin$s Gank& 0arbonell! a cousin and ad<acent nei$hbor of Poncio lived in the ad<oinin$ lot& Goth 0arbonell and #nfante offered to bu) the said lot from Poncio& Poncio! unable to keep up with the instalments due on the mort$a$e! approached 0arbonell one da) and offered to sell to the latter the said lot! e9cludin$ the house& 0arbonell accepted the offer& *hen the) went to the 'epublic 8avin$s Gank and secured the consent of the President thereof for her to pa) the arrears on the mort$a$e and to continue the pa)ment of the instalments as the) fall due& 0arbonel and Poncio e9ecuted a document

0arbonell has the superior ri$ht over the propert)& -s stressed b) Austice Gatmaitan in his first decision of /ovember .! 19;5! which he reiterated in his dissent from the resolution of the ma<orit) of the 8pecial ivision& of >ive on October 72! 19;8! %9hibit -! the private document in the Gatanes dialect! is a valid contract of sale between the parties! since sale is a consensual contract and is perfected b) mere consent (0outo vs& 0ortes! 8 Phil& 359)& %ven an oral contract of realt) is all between the parties and accords to the vendee the ri$ht to compel the vendor to e9ecute the proper public document -s a matter of fact! %9hibit -! while merel) a private document! can be full) or partiall) performed! to it from the operation of the statute of frauds& Gein$ a all consensual contract! %9hibit - effectivel) transferred the possession of the lot to the vendee 0arbonell b) constitutu$ possessoriu$ (-rticle 1522! /ew 0ivil 0ode)? because thereunder the vendor Poncio continued to retain ph)sical possession of the lot as tenant of the vendee and no lon$er as knew thereof& 4ore than <ust the si$nin$ of %9hibit - b) Poncio and 0arbonell with 0onstancio 4eonada as witness to fact the contract of sale! the transition was further confirmed when Poncio a$reed to the actual pa)ment b) 0arbonell of his mort$a$e arreara$es to the bank on Aanuar) .5! 1955 and b) his conse(uent deliver) of his own mort$a$e passbook to 0arbonell& #f he remained owner and mort$a$or! Poncio would not have surrendered his mort$a$e passbook toL 0arbonell&

evidencin$ their a$reement& Poncio informed 0arbonell he could not proceed an) more with the sale! because he had alread) $iven the lot to #nfante& Poncio e9ecuted the formal deed of sale in favor of #nfante and the latter paid 'epublic 8avin$s Gank the mort$a$e indebtedness& *he mort$a$e on the lot was eventuall) dischar$ed& 0arbonell with the 'e$ister of eeds her adverse claim as first bu)er& 0arbonell filed a complaint pra)in$ that she be declared the lawful owner of the (uestioned parcel of land? that the subse(uent sale to #nfante be declared null and void! and that Poncio be ordered to e9ecute the correspondin$ deed of conve)ance of said land in her favour& LIM5ET5AI SONS MILLING INC , 2"'.'./n"-, +& COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL , -"&2/nd"n'& 4arch .9! 199; FACTSK GP# was the owner of the sub<ect parcel of land& #n order to sell the land! it emplo)ed the services of an a$ent& *he a$ent told GP# that "imketkai was willin$ to bu) the propert)& "imketkai sent a letter to GP# proposin$ to bu) the propert) at 1B per s(& m& GP#! throu$h a letter! re<ected the offer& "imketkai! throu$h another letter reiterated its offer to bu) the sub<ect propert) at P1!222Rs(& m& but now on cash basis& GP#Ls! throu$h another letter! re<ected petitionerLs offer& "astl)! "imketkai sent a letter to respondent GP# claimin$ the e9istence of a perfected contract of sale of the sub<ect propert) between them& #n sum! here are the documents that were e9chan$ed@ 1& "etter of the a$ent informin$ GP# of the prospective bu)er ("imketkai) .& 1st letter of "imketkai to GP# offerin$ to bu) the propert) 7& 1st re<ection letter issued b) GP# 3& .nd letter of "imketai to GP# offerin$ to bu) the propert) 5& .nd re<ection letter ;& "etter of "#mketkai to respondent GP# claimin$ the e9istence of a perfected contract of sale of the sub<ect propert) between them& ISSUEK #s there compliance with the 8tatute of >raudsC HELDK /O& -rt& 1327& M *he followin$ contracts are unenforceable! unless the) are ratified@ 999 999 999 (.) *hose that do not compl) with the 8tatute of >rauds as set forth in this number& #n the followin$ cases an a$reement thereafter made shall be unenforceable b) action! unless the same! or some note or memorandum! thereof! be in writin$! and subscribed b) the part) char$ed! or b) his a$ent? 999 999 999 (e) -n a$reement VVV for the sale of real propert) or of an interest therein& #n this case there is a patent absence of an) deed of sale cate$oricall) conve)in$ the sub<ect propert) from respondent GP# to petitioner& *he documents stated above which petitioner claims as proof of perfected contract of sale between it and respondent GP# were not &,9&*-.9"d 91 '!" 2$-'1 *!$-4"d! i&e&! GP# and d.d n/' */n&'.','" '!" 0"0/-$nd$ /- n/'"& '!$' '!" #$% &2"$(& /)& 17 *o consider them sufficient compliance with the 8tatute of >rauds is to betra) the avowed purpose of the law to prevent fraud and per<ur) in the enforcement of obli$ations& T&e re#uire$ent t&at the notes or memoranda be subscribed b! 7P" or its a"ents- as t&e party c&ar"ed- is very vital for t&e strict co$pliance wit& t&e avowed purpose of t&e Statute of /rauds w&ic& is to prevent fraud and per;ury in t&e enforce$ent of obli"ations dependin" for t&eir evidence on t&e unassisted $e$ory of witnesses by re#uirin" certain enu$erated contracts and transactions to be evidenced by a writin" si"ned by t&e party to be c&ar"ed %(sia Production Co&- <nc& vs& Pano- 1+2 SCR( B2M'& <t cannot be "ainsaid t&at a s&rewd person could easily concoct a story in &is letters addressed to t&e ot&er party and present t&e letters to t&e court as notes to prove t&e existence of a perfected oral contract of sale w&en in trut& t&ere is none& >urthermore! %ven if the documents were considered! the same are insufficient to to conclude that a contract of sale has been perfected& <n ad&erence to t&e provisions of t&e Statute of /rauds- t&e exa$ination and evaluation of t&e notes or $e$oranda adduced by t&e appellee was confined and limited to +ithin the four corners of the documents& To "o beyond w&at appears on t&e face of t&e docu$ents constitutin" t&e notes or $e$oranda- stretc&in" t&eir i$port beyond w&at is written in black and w&ite- would certainly be uncalled for- if not violative of t&e Statute of /rauds and openin" t&e doors to fraud- t&e very evil sou"&t to be avoided by t&e statute& <n fine- considerin" t&at t&e docu$ents adduced by t&e appellee do not e$body t&e essentials of t&e contract of sale aside fro$ not &avin" been subscribed by t&e party c&ar"ed or its a"ent- t&e transaction involved definitely falls wit&in t&e

a$bit of t&e Statute of /rauds& S%"d.&! M$'*! +& CA $nd L.'/n;,$ October .2! .223 FACTSK 8wedish 4atch owned the sub<ect Phimco shares& #t wanted to raise mone) so it offered the shares for sale& "iton<ua responded b) offerin$ to bu) the shares at P7;4& 8wedish 4atch replied! in a letter dated Aune 11! 1992! b) sa)in$ that "iton<ua should first undertake a d," d.#.4"n*" 2-/*"&& or 2-"-$*<,.&.'./n $,d.', then make another offer b) Aune 72! 1992& "iton<ua replied that it cannot make another offer at Aune 72 since the d," d.#.4"n*" 2-/*"&& or 2-"-$*<,.&.'./n $,d.' would take lon$er& "iton<ua said that the offer would be read) b) Aul) 15& 8wedish 4atch sent notice to "iton<ua that the) would be constrained to entertain bids from other parties in view of "iton<ua=s failure to make a firm commitment for the shares of 8wedish 4atch in Phimco b) 72 Aune 1992& #n a letter dated 7 Aul) 1992! 'ossi informed "iton<ua that on . Aul) 1992! '!"1 &.4n"d $ */nd.'./n$# */n'-$*' %.'! $ #/*$# 4-/,2 )/- '!" d.&2/&$# /) P!.0*/ Eowever! this sale did not push throu$h so 8wedish went back to "iton<ua and made an offer& "iton<ua sent a letter e9pressin$ his ob<ections to the totall) new set of terms and conditions for the sale of the Phimco shares& Ee emphasized that the new offer constituted an attempt to reopen the alread) perfected contract of sale of the shares in his favor& Ee intimated that he could not accept the new terms and conditions contained therein& "iton<ua filed a case of specific performance ar$uin$ that the the letter dated 11 Aune 1992 constituted a perfected contract& 8wedish countered that if there was a contract of sale! such is unenforceable for failure to compl) with the 8tatute of >rauds& ISSUEK Das there compliance with the 8tatute of >raudsC HELDK /o& *he 8tatute of >rauds embodied in -rticle 1327! para$raph (.)! of the 0ivil 0ode.. re(uires certain contracts enumerated therein to be evidenced b) some note or memorandum in order to be enforceable& F/- $ n/'" /- 0"0/-$nd,0 '/ &$'.&)1 '!" S'$','", .' 0,&' 9" */02#"'" .n .'&"#) $nd *$nn/' -"&' 2$-'#1 .n %-.'.n4 $nd 2$-'#1 .n 2$-/#& *he note or memorandum must contain the names of the parties! the terms and conditions of the contract! and a description of the propert) sufficient to render it capable of identification&.8 8uch note or memorandum must contain the essential elements of the contract e9pressed with certaint) that ma) be ascertained from the note or memorandum itself! or some other writin$ to which it refers or within which it is connected! without resortin$ to parol evidence&.9 0ontrar) to the 0ourt of -ppeals= conclusion! the e9chan$e of correspondence between the parties hardl) constitutes the note or memorandum within the conte9t of -rticle 1327 of the 0ivil 0ode& 'ossi=s letter dated 11 Aune 1992! heavil) relied upon b) respondents! is not complete in itself& >irst! it does not indicate at what price the shares were bein$ sold& #n para$raph (5) of the letter! respondents were supposed to submit their final offer in F&8& dollar terms! at that after the completion of the due dili$ence process& *he para$raph undoubtedl) proves that '!"-" %$& $& 1"' n/ d").n.'" $4-""0"n' $& '/ '!" 2-.*" 8econd! '!" #"''"- d/"& n/' &'$'" '!" MODE /) 2$10"n' /) '!" 2-.*" & #n fact! "iton<ua was supposed to indicate in his final offer how and where pa)ment for the shares was planned to be made&72 F,-'!"-0/-", the 8tatute of >rauds is applicable onl) to contracts which are e9ecutor) and not to those which have been consummated either totall) or partiall)&51 #f a contract has been totall) or partiall) performed! the e9clusion of parol evidence would promote fraud or bad faith! for it would enable the defendant to keep the benefits alread) derived b) him from the transaction in liti$ation! and at the same time! evade the obli$ations! responsibilities or liabilities assumed or contracted b) him thereb)&5. *his rule! however! is predicated on the fact of ratification of the contract within the meanin$ of -rticle 1325 of the 0ivil 0ode either (1) b) failure to ob<ect to the presentation of oral evidence to prove the same! or (.) b) the acceptance of benefits under them& In '!" .n&'$n' *$&", -"&2/nd"n'& )$.#"d '/ 2-/+" '!$' '!"-" %$& 2$-'.$# 2"-)/-0$n*" /) '!" */n'-$*' %.'!.n '!" 2,-+."% /) '!" S'$','"

d V/.d C/n'-$*'& HEIRS OF FACTSK POLICRONIO M -lfonso Freta %(lfonso' be$ot 13 children! URETA, SR +& one of whom was Policronio& *he children HEIRS OF ALFONSO of Policronio %@eirs of Policronio'! are URETA opposed to the rest of -lfonso=s children

ISSUE1K #s the sale voidC HELDK O%8&

S"2'"09"- 1B, 2011

and their descendants %@eirs of (lfonso'. 8ometime in October 19;9! -lfonso and four of his children! namel)! Policronio! "iberato! Prudencia! and >rancisco! met& #n order to reduce the inheritance ta9es! their father should made it appear that he had sold some of his lands to his children& -ccordin$l)! -lfonso e9ecuted a eed of 8ale coverin$ si9 parcels of land in favor of Policronio& *hese lands are the properties that are in dispute here& 8ince the sales were onl) made for ta9ation purposes and no monetar) consideration was $iven! -lfonso continued to own! possess and en<o) the lands and their produce& *he ta9 declarations were! however! in the name of Policronio& -lfonso died& *he administrator of his estate included the sub<ect parcels of land as part of -lfonso=s estate& *he heirs of Policronio ob<ected ar$uin$ that the sub<ect parcels of land should be e9cluded from the estate since these were alread) sold to Policronio& *he other heirs of -lfonso ar$ued that the sale was void for bein$ fictitious and for lackin$ consideration& *he heirs of Policronio ar$ue further that the sale cannot be assailed for bein$ barred under -rticle 13.1 of the 0ivil 0ode which provides that the defense of ille$alit) of a contract is not available to third persons whose interests are n/' d.-"*'#1 $))"*'"d *he Eeirs of Policronio contended also that even assumin$ that the contract was &.0,#$'"d! the Eeirs of -lfonso would still be barred from recoverin$ the properties b) reason of -rticle 131. of the 0ivil 0ode! which provides that if the act in which the unlawful or forbidden cause does not constitute a criminal offense! and the fault is both on the contractin$ parties! neither ma) recover what he has $iven b) virtue of the contract or demand the performance of the other=s undertakin$& -s the Eeirs of -lfonso alle$ed that '!" 2,-2/&" /) '!" &$#" %$& '/ $+/.d '!" 2$10"n' /) .n!"-.'$n*" '$E"&! the) cannot take from the Eeirs of Policronio what had been $iven to their father&

REASON1K F/- 9".n4 ).*'.'./,& T!" 2-.0$-1 */n&.d"-$'./n .n d"'"-0.n.n4 '!" '-," n$',-" /) $ */n'-$*' .& '!" .n'"n'./n /) '!" 2$-'."& #f the words of a contract appear to contravene the evident intention of the parties! the latter shall prevail& 8uch intention is determined not onl) from the e9press terms of their a$reement! but also from the contemporaneous and subse(uent acts of the parties&1; *he true intention of the parties in this case was sufficientl) proven b) the Eeirs of -lfonso& *he Eeirs of -lfonso established b) a preponderance of evidence15 that the eed of 8ale was one of the four (3) absolutel) simulated eeds of 8ale which involved n/ $*',$# 0/n"'$-1 */n&.d"-$'./n, e9ecuted b) -lfonso in favor of his children! Policronio! "iberato! and Prudencia! and his second wife! :aleriana! )/- '$E$'./n 2,-2/&"&& O'!"- .nd.*$'./n& '!$' '!" &$#" %$& ).*'.'./,& 1& -lfonso continued to en<o) the propert) even after the alle$ed sale .& Policronio or his heirs did not e9ercise possession over the propert) after the alle$ed sale& 7& *he) did not even take possession even after -lfonso died 3& Policronio never collected rentals on the propert) 5& #t is further tellin$ that P/#.*-/n./ n"+"- d.&*#/&"d '!" "E.&'"n*" /) '!" D""d /) S$#" '/ !.& *!.#d-"n REASON2K F/- #$*( /) */n&.d"-$'./n #t is well6settled in a lon$ line of cases that %!"-" $ d""d /) &$#" &'$'"& '!$' '!" 2,-*!$&" 2-.*" !$& 9""n 2$.d 9,' .n )$*' !$& n"+"- 9""n 2$.d, '!" d""d /) &$#" .& n,## $nd +/.d )/- #$*( /) */n&.d"-$'./n&.8 *hus! althou$h the contract states that the purchase price of .!222&22 was paid b) Policronio to -lfonso for the sub<ect properties! it has been proven that &,*! %$& n"+"- .n )$*' 2$.d as there was no mone) involved& #t must! therefore! follow that the eed of 8ale is void for lack of consideration& ISSUE2K -re the heirs of -lfonso barred from assailin$ the validit) of the contractC HELDK /o& -rt& 13.1& *he defense of ille$alit) of contracts is not available to third persons whose interests are not directl) affected& *he ri$ht to set up the nullit) of a void or non6e9istent contract is not limited to the parties! as in the case of annullable or voidable contracts? it is e9tended to third persons who are directl) affected b) the contract& *hus! where a contract is absolutel) simulated! even third persons who ma) be pre<udiced thereb) ma) set up its ine9istence&31 *he Eeirs of -lfonso are the children of -lfonso! with his deceased children represented b) their children (-lfonso=s $randchildren)& *he Eeirs of -lfonso are clearl) his heirs and successors6in6interest and! as such! their interests are directl) affected! thereb) $ivin$ them the ri$ht to (uestion the le$alit) of the eed of 8ale& ISSUE3K -re the heirs of -lfonso barred from claimin$ the properties because of 131.C HELDK /o& -rticle 131. is not applicable to fictitious or simulated contracts! because the) refer to contracts with an ille$al cause or sub<ect6matter&3. T!.& $-'.*#" 2-"&,22/&"& '!" "E.&'"n*" /) $ *$,&"! it cannot refer to fictitious or simulated contracts which are in realit) non6e9istent&37 -s it has been determined that the eed of 8ale is a simulated contract! the provision cannot appl) to it& Grantin$ that the eed of 8ale was not simulated! the provision would still not appl)& 8ince the sub<ect properties were included as properties of -lfonso in the eed of %9tra6Audicial Partition! the) are covered b) correspondin$ inheritance and estate ta9es& *herefore! ta9 evasion! if at all present! would

not arise! and -rticle 131. would a$ain be inapplicable& On '!" .&&," /) 2-"&*-.2'./nK -s the eed of 8ale is a void contract! the action for the declaration of its nullit)! even if filed .1 )ears after its e9ecution! cannot be barred b) prescription for it is imprescriptible& >urthermore! the ri$ht to set up the defense of ine9istence or absolute nullit) cannot be waived or renounced&35 *herefore! the Eeirs of -lfonso cannot be precluded from settin$ up the defense of its ine9istence& O3ITERK A9&/#,'"#1 &.0,#$'"d +& -"#$'.+"#1 &.0,#$'"d #n absolute simulation! there is a colorable contract but it has no substance as the parties have no intention to be bound b) it& T!" 0$.n *!$-$*'"-.&'.* /) $n $9&/#,'" &.0,#$'./n .& '!$' '!" $22$-"n' */n'-$*' .& n/' -"$##1 d"&.-"d /- .n'"nd"d '/ 2-/d,*" #"4$# "))"*' /- .n $n1 %$1 $#'"- '!" ;,-.d.*$# &.',$'./n /) '!" 2$-'."&& -s a result! an absolutel) simulated or fictitious contract is void! and the parties ma) recover from each other what the) ma) have $iven under the contract& Eowever! if the parties state a false cause in the contract to conceal their real a$reement! the contract is relativel) simulated and the parties are still bound b) their -"$# $4-""0"n'& Eence! where the essential re(uisites of a contract are present and the simulation refers onl) to the content or terms of the contract! the a$reement is absolutel) bindin$ and enforceable between the parties and their successors in interest& CONCHITA LIGUE@, 2"'.'./n"-, +& THE HONORA3LE COURT OF APPEALS, MARIA NGO VDA DE LOPE@, ET AL , -"&2/nd"n'& D"*"09"- 18, 17D> FACTSK 1& 8alvador "opez! married and a man of mature )ears! wanted to have se9ual relations with appellant 0onchita "i$uez& .& 0onchita=s parents would not accede unless the sub<ect land be donated to them first& 7& *he land! althou$h con<u$al propert)! was donated without the consent of 4aria /$o! the wife of 8alvador 3& 0onchita now seeks to claim the propert) based on the eed of onation e9ecuted b) 8alvador in favor of 0onchita 5& *he widow! 4aria /$o ar$ues that a& *he conve)ance was void for havin$ an ille$al cause b& *he parties are in pari delicto therefore! the courts should leave them where the) are& ;& 0onchita ar$ues that H.n */n'-$*'& /) 2,-" 9"n").*"n*" '!" */n&.d"-$'./n .& '!" #.9"-$#.'1 /) '!" d/n/-H, and that liberalit) per se can never be ille$al! since it is neither a$ainst law or morals or public polic)& -ppellant seeks to differentiate ISSUE1K #lle$al causeC HELDK Oes& R1K I' %$& n/' $ */n'-$*' /) 2,-" 9"n").*"n*" W!$' .& $ */n'-$*' /) 2,-" 9"n").*"n*"V contracts desi$ned &/#"#1 $nd "E*#,&.+"#1 to procure the welfare of the beneficiar)! %.'!/,' $n1 .n'"n' /) 2-/d,*.n4 $n1 &$'.&)$*'./n )/- '!" d/n/-T contracts! in other words! in which the idea of &"#)-.n'"-"&' .& '/'$##1 $9&"n' on the part of the transferor& Eere the facts as found b) the 0ourt of -ppeals (and which we can not var)) demonstrate that in makin$ the donation in (uestion! the late 8alvador P& "opez was not moved e9clusivel) b) the desire to benefit appellant 0onchita "i$uez! but also to secure her cohabitin$ with him! so that he could $ratif) his se9ual impulses& REASON2K I) '!" 0/'.+" 2-"d"'"-0.n"& '!" */n'-$*', '!"n 0/'.+" */n&'.','"& '!" *$,&$ GRK M/'.+" $nd *$,&$ $-" d.))"-"n' */n*"2'& EFCK W!"n 0/'.+" 2-"d"'"-0.n"& '!" */n'-$*', 0/'.+" X *$,&" *he distinction must be maintained between causa and motives& #t is well to note! however that 4anresa himself (:ol& 8! pp& ;316;3.)! while maintainin$ the distinction and upholdin$ the inoperativeness of the motives of the parties to determine the validit) of the contract! e9pressl) e9cepts from the rule '!/&" */n'-$*'& '!$' $-" */nd.'./n"d ,2/n '!" $''$.n0"n' /) '!" 0/'.+"& /) ".'!"2$-'1 T!" 0/'.+" 0$1 9" -"4$-d"d $& *$,&$ %!"n .' predetermines '!" 2,-2/&" /) '!" */n'-$*'& #n the present case! it is scarcel) disputable that "opez would not have conve)ed the propert) in (uestion had he known that appellant would refuse to cohabit with him? so that the */!$9.'$'./n %$& $n .02#."d */nd.'./n '/ '!" d/n$'./n! and bein$ unlawful! necessaril) tainted the donation itself& ISSUE2K -re the parties in pari delictoC HELDK /o& -'*& 131.& #f the act in which the unlawful or forbidden cause consists does not constitute a criminal offense! the followin$ rules shall be observed@

between the alle$ed liberalit) of "opez! as causa for the donation in her favor! and his desire for cohabitin$ with appellant! as 0/'.+"& that impelled him to make the donation

VVV (.) Dhen onl) one of the contractin$ parties is at fault! he cannot recover! what he has $iven b) reason of the contract! or ask for fulfillment of what has been promised him& *he other! who is not at fault! ma) demand the return of what he has $iven without an) obli$ation to compl) with his promise& #n our opinion! the 0ourt of -ppeals erred in appl)in$ to the present case the pari delicto rule& >irst! because it can n/' be said that both parties here had e(ual $uilt when we consider that as a$ainst the deceased 8alvador P& "opez! who was a man advanced in )ears and mature e9perience! the appellant was a mere minor! 1; )ears of a$e! when the donation was made? '!$' '!"-" .& n/ ).nd.n4 0$d" 91 '!" C/,-' /) A22"$#& '!$' &!" %$& ),##1 $%$-" /) '!" '"-0& /) '!" 9$-4$.n "n'"-"d .n'/ 91 $nd L/2"6 $nd !"- 2$-"n'&? that! her acceptance in the deed of donation (which was authorized b) -rticle ;.; of the Old 0ivil 0ode) did not necessaril) impl) knowled$e of conditions and terms not set forth therein? and that the substance of the testimon) of the instrumental witnesses is that .' %$& '!" $22"##$n'L& 2$-"n'& %!/ .n&.&'"d /n '!" d/n$'./n 9")/-" $##/%.n4 !"- '/ #.+" %.'! L/2"6 *hese facts are more su$$estive of seduction than of immoral bar$ainin$ on the part of appellant& #t must not be for$otten that ille$alit) is not presumed! but must be dul) and ade(uatel) proved& C/n*#,&./nK *o defeat its effect! the appellees must plead and prove that the same is ille$al& Gut such plea on the part of the "opez heirs is not receivable! since "opez! himself! if livin$! would be barred from settin$ up that plea? and his heirs! as his privies and successors in interest! can have no better ri$hts than "opez himself& 3$&.&K 1B12 (2) A22"##""&, $& &,**"&&/-& /) '!" #$'" d/n/-, 9".n4 '!,& 2-"*#,d"d )-/0 2#"$d.n4 '!" d")"n&" /) .00/-$#.'1 /- .##"4$# causa /) '!" d/n$'./n, '!" '/'$# /- 2$-'.$# .n"))"*'.+"n"&& /) '!" &$0" 0,&' 9" d"*.d"d 91 d.))"-"n' #"4$# 2-.n*.2#"&& #n this re$ard! the 0ourt of -ppeals correctl) held that L/2"6 */,#d n/' d/n$'" '!" "n'.-"'1 /) '!" 2-/2"-'1 .n #.'.4$'./n, '/ '!" 2-";,d.*" /) !.& %.)" M$-.$ N4/, 9"*$,&" &$.d 2-/2"-'1 %$& */n;,4$# .n *!$-$*'"- $nd '!" -.4!' /) '!" !,&9$nd '/ d/n$'" */00,n.'1 2-/2"-'1 .& &'-.*'#1 #.0.'"d 91 #$% 0onchita "i$uez is declared entitled to so much of the donated propert) as ma) be found! upon proper li(uidation! not to pre<udice the share of the widow 4aria /$o in the con<u$al partnership with 8alvador P& "opez or the le$itimes of the forced heirs of the latter& ISSUE1K DR/ the contract is invalid& HELDK #nvalid under the 0onstitution 8aid 0onstitution! in its article :###! section 5! provides that 1no private a$ricultural land shall be transferred or assi$ned e9cept to individuals! corporations! or associations (ualified to ac(uire or hold lands of the public domain in the Philippines1! which provisions are similar to those contained in our present 0onstitution& Fnder the 0onstitution aliens ma) not ac(uire private or public a$ricultural lands! includin$ residential lands&1 ISSUE2K 0an 'ellosa $et back the propert)C HELDK /o& #n Pari elicto *he) are now prevented from doin$ so if their purpose is to recover the lands that the) have voluntaril) parted with! because of their 4,.#'1 (n/%#"d4" '!$' %!$' '!"1 %"-" d/.n4 %$& .n +./#$'./n /) '!" C/n&'.','./n& *he) cannot escape this conclusion because '!"1 $-" 2-"&,0"d '/ (n/% '!" #$%& -s this court well said@ L- part) to an ille$al contract cannot come into a court of law and ask to have his ille$al ob<ects carried out& *he law will not aid either part) to an ille$al a$reement? .' #"$+"& '!" 2$-'."& %!"-" .' ).nd& '!"0 L Eowever! this does not mean that the 0hinese national is permitted to retain the propert) because that

DIONISIO RELLOSA, P"'.'./n"-, +& GAW CHEE HUN, R"&2/nd"n' S"2'"09"- 27, 17D3

FACTSK 1& .& 7& 3&

ionisio 'elloso owned a house and lot Ee sold it to Gaw 0hee Eun! a 0hinese *he vendor remained in possession of the propert) under a contract of lease& ionisio now wants to declare the contract null and void a& the vendee! bein$ a 0hinese citizen! should obtain the approval of the Aapanese 4ilitar) -dministration in accordance with (seirei) /o& ; but said approval has not been obtained! and b& that! even if said re(uirement were met! the sale would at all

c&

events be void under article V###! section 5! of our 0onstitution once the sale and the lease are declared null and void! the vendee be ordered to return to vendor the duplicate of the title coverin$ the propert)!

would be a circumvention of the 0onstitution& *here are at present two wa)s b) which this situation ma) be remedied! to wit! (1) action for reversion! and (.) escheat to the state& R"+"-&./n *he person concerned shall be obli$ed to alienate said lands or improvements to others so capacitated within the precise period of five )ears? otherwise! such propert) shall revert to the Government&1 E&*!"$' $ )$##.n4 /) '!" "&'$'" .n'/ '!" 4"n"-$# 2-/2"-'1 /) '!" &'$'" 9"*$,&" '!" '"n$n' .& $n $#."n .' %/,#d 0/-" 2-/2"-#1 9" '"-0"d $ L)/-)".',-"L $' */00/n #$% H ISSUEK 0an he recoverC HELDK /o& 8ection 13! -rticle V#: of the 1957 0onstitution provides! as follows@ V99 -liens! whether individuals or corporations! have been dis(ualified from ac(uirin$ lands of the public domain& Eence! the) have also been dis(ualified from ac(uirin$ private lands& - contract that violates the 0onstitution and the law! is null and void and vests no ri$hts and creates no obli$ations& #t produces no le$al effect at all& *he petitioner! bein$ a part) to an ille$al contract! cannot come into a court of law and ask to have his ille$al ob<ective carried out& One who loses his mone) or propert) b) knowin$l) en$a$in$ in a contract or transaction which involves his own moral turpitude ma) not maintain an action for his losses& *o him who moves in deliberation and premeditation! the law is un)ieldin$& T!" #$% %.## n/' $.d ".'!"- 2$-'1 '/ $n .##"4$# */n'-$*' /- $4-""0"n'T .' #"$+"& '!" 2$-'."& %!"-" .' ).nd& '!"0 RE A-'.*#" 1B12K Fnder A-'.*#" 1B12 of the /ew 0ivil 0ode! the petitioner cannot have the sub<ect properties deeded to him or allow him to recover the mone) he had spent for the purchase thereof& %(uit) as a rule will follow the law and will not permit that to be done indirectl) which! because of public polic)! cannot be done directl)& Dhere the wron$ of one part) e(uals that of the other! the defendant is in the stron$er position &&& it si$nifies that in such a situation! neither a court of e(uit) nor a court of law will administer a remed)& *he petitioner is char$ed with knowled$e of the constitutional prohibition& -s can be $leaned from the decision of the trial court! the petitioner was ),##1 $%$-" that he was dis(ualified from ac(uirin$ and ownin$ lands under Philippine law even before he purchased the properties in (uestion? and! to skirt the constitutional prohibition! the petitioner had the deed of sale placed under the respondent=s name as the sole vendee thereof@ 8uch bein$ the case! the plaintiff is sub<ect to the constitutional restrictions $overnin$ the ac(uisition of real properties in the Philippines b) aliens& T!" 2"'.'./n"- *$nn/' ).nd &/#$*" .n A-'.*#" 1B1= /) '!" N"% C.+.# C/d" %!.*! -"$d&K -rt& 131;& Dhen the a$reement is not ille$al per se but is merel) prohibited! and the prohibition b) the law is desi$ned for the protection of the plaintiff! he ma)! if public polic) is thereb) enhanced! recover what he has paid or delivered& T!" 2-/+.&./n $22#."& /n#1 '/ '!/&" */n'-$*'& %!.*! $-" 0"-"#1 2-/!.9.'"d, .n /-d"- '/ 9"n").' 2-.+$'" .n'"-"&'& I' d/"& n/' $22#1 '/ */n'-$*'& +/.d ab initio. *he sales of three parcels of land in favor of the petitioner who is a forei$ner is ille$al per se. *he transactions are void ab initio because the) were entered into in violation of the 0onstitution& *hus! to allow the petitioner to recover the properties or the mone) used in the purchase of the parcels of land would be subversive of public polic)&

ALFRED FRIT@ FREN@EL, 2"'.'./n"-, +& EDERLINA P CATITO, -"&2/nd"n' Aul) 11! .227

FACTSK 1& >renzel was a married man& %derlina is a married woman .& >renzel is rich& Ee works as a pilot& %derlina works at Bin$s 0ross in 8)dne) 7& *he) met and the) fell in love& 3& *he) went back to the Philippines and %derlina put up a beaut) salon usin$ >renzel=s mone)& 5& Ee bou$ht her a house and lot& Gecause he knew that the land cannot be re$istered under his name because he was an alien! he re$istered the same under %derlina=s name& ;& Ee bou$ht her other parcels of land and re$istered all of them under %derlina=s name& 5& Dhen >renzel found out about %derlina=s marria$e! the) started partin$ wa)s& 8& >renzel wanted %derlina to divorce her ori$inal husband! Blaus 9& Dhen the le$it husband of %derlina did not consent to the divorce unless he be $iven half the properties of %derlina! >renzel filed this case to recover all the properties he bou$ht that are currentl) re$istered under %derlina=s name& a& Ee demanded the return of all the amounts that %derlina and her famil) had +stolen, and turn over all the properties ac(uired b) him and

%derlina durin$ their coverture& b& *hese properties were bou$ht usin$ solel) >renzel=s own efforts and resources ac(uired in the Philippines real and personal properties valued more or less at P5.3!222&22 c& under A-'.*#" 1B1= and A-'.*#" 1B12 of the /ew 0ivil 0ode! he is entitled to recover the mone) used for the purchase of the properties& %derlina ar$ued that based on documentar) evidence! the purchaser of the three parcels of land sub<ect of the complaint was %derlina& %ven if >renzel was the bu)er of the properties! he had no cause of action a$ainst %derlina for the recover) of the same because $& $n $#."n, !" %$& d.&<,$#.)."d )-/0 $*<,.-.n4 $nd /%n.n4 #$nd& .n '!" P!.#.22.n"&& *he sale of the three parcels of land to the petitioner was null and void ab initio& -ppl)in$ the pari delicto doctrine! the petitioner was precluded from recoverin$ the properties from the respondent& C/n'-$*'& /) Ad!"&./n PILIPINO FACTSK TELEPHONE On various dates in 199;! elfino 0& CORPORATION, *ecson applied for si9 (;) cellular phone 2"'.'./n"-, subscriptions with petitioner Pilipino +& *elephone 0orporation (P#"*%")! a DELFINO TECSON, compan) en$a$ed in the -"&2/nd"n' telecommunications business! which 4a) 5! .223 applications were each approved and covered! respectivel)! b) si9 mobiline service a$reements& On 25 -pril .221! respondent filed with the '*0! a complaint a$ainst petitioner for a 18um of 4one) and ama$es&1 Petitioner moved for the dismissal of the complaint on the $round of improper venue! citin$ a common provision in the mobiline service a$reements to the effect that 6 1:enue of all suits arisin$ from this -$reement or an) other suit directl) or indirectl) arisin$ from ISSUEK DR/ the venue stipulation binds the parties HELDK Oes& *he stipulation is bindin$ #ndeed! the contract herein involved is a contract of adhesion& Gut such an a$reement is not per se inefficacious& *he rule instead is that! should there be ambi$uities in a contract of adhesion! such ambi$uities are to be construed a$ainst the part) that prepared it& I), !/%"+"-, '!" &'.2,#$'./n& $-" n/' /9&*,-", 9,' $-" *#"$- $nd #"$+" n/ d/,9' /n '!" .n'"n'./n /) '!" 2$-'."&, '!" #.'"-$# 0"$n.n4 /) .'& &'.2,#$'./n& 0,&' 9" !"#d */n'-/##.n4 3 A */n'-$*' /) $d!"&./n .& ;,&' $& 9.nd.n4 $& /-d.n$-1 */n'-$*'& #t is true that this 0ourt has! on occasion! struck down such contracts as bein$ assailable when the %"$("- 2$-'1 .& #")' %.'! n/ *!/.*" 91 '!" d/0.n$n' 9$-4$.n.n4 2$-'1 $nd .& '!,& */02#"'"#1 d"2-.+"d /) $n /22/-',n.'1 '/ 9$-4$.n "))"*'.+"#1 #n the case at bar! respondent secured si9 (;) subscription contracts for cellular phones on various dates& #t would be difficult to assume that! durin$ each of those times! respondent had no sufficient opportunit) to read and $o over the terms and conditions embodied in the a$reements& 'espondent continued! in fact! to ac(uire in the pursuit of his business subse(uent subscriptions and remained a subscriber of petitioner for (uite sometime& - contract dul) e9ecuted is the law between the parties! and the) are obli$ed to compl) full) and not

the relationship between P#"*%" and subscriber shall be in the proper courts of 4akati! 4etro 4anila& 8ubscriber hereb) e9pressl) waives an) other venues&11 *ecson ar$ued that the subscription a$reement! bein$ a mere contract of adhesion! does not bind respondent on the venue stipulation& TRUSTS 9 EE2-"&& T-,&'& VICTORIA :ULIO, FACTSK 2#$.n'.))-$22"##$n', 1& :ictoriana alandan (mother of +& plaintiff :ictoria Aulio) owned a EMILIANO four6hectare piece of 'iceland& DALANDAN $nd .& *his 'iceland was used b) MARIA DALANDAN, 0lemente alandan (father of d")"nd$n'&defendants) as securit) for an $22"##""& obli$ation O*'/9"- 30, 17=> 7& *his 'iceland was foreclosed 3& Gecause of this foreclosure! 0lemente e9ecuted a document& *he relevant portions of which are@ a& *hat because of this foreclosure! # accordin$l) held m)self liable to :ictoria Aulio VVV! and # promised her that # would replace her aforesaid land which was foreclosed because of m) obli$ation %.'! $n/'!"- )$-0 /) 0/-" '!$n )/,- (B) !"*'$-"&, that is! one planted to four cavanes of seedlin$s! more or less?Q b& *hat m) children (%4#"#-/O -/ 4-'#-"-/ -/) ma) not be forced to $ive up the harvest of the farm herein above mentioned? c& *hat neither ma) the land M which was e9chan$ed for the farm with four cavanes of seedlin$s M be demanded immediatel)?

selectivel) with its terms& - contract of adhesion is no e9ception&5

ISSUE1K DR/ the defendants ma) be compelled to deliver the land HELDK Oes& *here was a trust constituted for the benefit of :ictoria& Gut when the deliver) should be effected should still be threshed out in the courts below& '%4-/ % T-$n&)"- /) 2-/2"-'1 *he a$reement conve)s the idea that the n$("d /%n"-&!.2 of the land in substitution was! indeed! transferred to :ictoria Aulio& %lse there would have been no sense in the proviso that the fruits as well as the ph)sical possession of the land could not immediatel) be demanded b) :ictoria Aulio from 0lementeLs children! the herein defendants& >or the ri$ht to demand fruits and ph)sical possession of propert) has been known to be attributes of ownership& W!$' %"-" '-$n&)"--"d '/ d")"nd$n'&V T!"1 $-" ,&,)-,*',$-."& )/- $n ,nd"'"-0.n"d #"n4'! /) '.0" >or so lon$ as that period has not been fi9ed and has not elapsed! the) hold the propert)& T!".-& .& '/ "n;/1 '!" )-,.'& /) '!" #$nd $nd '/ !/#d '!" &$0" $& '-,&'""& /) V.*'/-.$ :,#./& -nd this because! b) the deed! 0lemente alandan divested himself of the ownership M (ualified solel) b) withholdin$ en<o)ment of the fruits and ph)sical possession& #n conse(uence! 0lemente alandan cannot transmit to his heirs! the present defendants! such ownership&7 5e$o dat #uod non &abet& -nd then! the document is a declaration b) 0lemente alandan! now deceased! a$ainst his own proprietar) interests& 8uch document is bindin$ upon his heirs&3 W!1 %$& '!"-" $ '-,&' $4-""0"n'V Gut! defendants aver that reco$nition of the trust ma) not be proved b) evidence aliunde& *he) ar$ue that b) the e9press terms of -rticle 1337 of the 0ivil 0ode! 1PnQo e9press trusts concernin$ an immovable or an) interest therein ma) be proved b) parol evidence&1 *his ar$ument overlooks the fact that n/ /-$# "+.d"n*" .& n"*"&&$-1& *he e9press trust imposed upon defendants b) their predecessor appears in the document itself& >or! while it is true that said deed did not in definitive words institute defendants as trustees! a dut) is therein imposed upon them M when the proper time comes M to turn over both the fruits and the possession of the propert) to :ictoria Aulio& /ot that this view is without statutor) support& -rticle 1333 of the 0ivil 0ode states that@ 1/o particular words are re(uired for the creation of an e9press trust! it bein$ sufficient that a trust is clearl) intended&1 #n realit)! the development of the trust as a method of disposition of propert)! so <urisprudence teaches! 1seems in lar$e part due to its freedom from formal re(uirements&15 *his principle perhaps accounts for the provisions in -rticle 1333 <ust (uoted& >or! 1technical or particular forms of words or phrases are not essential to the manifestation of intention to create a trust or to the establishment thereof&1; N/- %/,#d '!" ,&" /) &/0" &,*! %/-d& $& H'-,&'H /- H'-,&'""H "&&"n'.$# '/ '!" */n&'.','./n /) $ '-,&' as we have held in Loren)o vs. Posadas! ;3 Phil& 757! 7;8& 0onversel)! the mere fact that the word 1trust1 or 1trustee1 was emplo)ed would not necessaril) prove an intention to create a trust& Dhat is important is whether the trustor manifested an intention to create the kind of relationship which in law is known as a trust& #t is unimportant that the trustor should know that the relationship 1which he intends to create is

5&

;&

Plaintiff :ictoria now files the instant case pra)in$ that she be a& (a) ad<ud$ed as owner of the said farm? b& (b) >i9in$ a time within which defendants should deliver the said parcels of land to the herein plaintiff as well as the fruits thereof? efendants ar$ue that a& the farm passed to them b) virtue of inheritance b& the action has prescribed because the 126)ear period from the date of the document had elapsed&

called a trust! and whether or not he knows the precise characteristics of the relationship which is called a trust&15 Eere! that trust is effective as a$ainst defendants and in favor of the beneficiar) thereof! plaintiff :ictoria Aulio! who accepted it in the document itself&8 On 2-"&*-.2'./nK #n the sense in which we understand the complaint to be! it cannot be said that plaintiffLs action to recover the propert) thus held in trust has prescribed& G.+"n '!" ).d,*.$-1 -"#$'./n %!.*! $**/-d.n4 '/ '!" */02#$.n' .& -"*/4n.6"d 91 d")"nd$n'&, '!" #$''"- 0$1 n/' .n+/(" '!" &'$','" /) #.0.'$'./n& $& $ 9$- '/ 2#$.n'.))L& $*'./n

ESTATE OF MARGARITA D CA3ACUNGAN, -"2-"&"n'"d 91 LU@ LAIGO-ALI, P"'.'./n"-, +& MARILOU LAIGO, PEDRO ROY LAIGO, STELLA 3ALAGOT $nd SPOUSES MARIO 3 CAMPOS AND :ULIA S CAMPOS, R"&2/nd"n'& A,4,&' 1D, 2011

FACTSK 4ar$arita 0abacun$an is the owner of the sub<ect parcels of land (unre$istered)& 4ar$arita=s son! 'oberto "ai$o! Ar& ('oberto)! applied for a non6immi$rant visa to the Fnited 8tates! and to support his application! he alle$edl) asked 4ar$arita to transfer the ta9 declarations of the properties in his name&; >or said purpose! 4ar$arita! unknown to her other children! e9ecuted an -ffidavit of *ransfer of 'eal Propert) whereb) the sub<ect properties were transferred b) donation to 'oberto& -fter he obtained the properties in his name and after $ettin$ his :#8-! he sold the properties to 7rd persons& 4ar$arita found out about the transfers and filed the instant case for the annulment of said sales and for the -"*/+"-1 /) /%n"-&!.2 $nd 2/&&"&&./n of the sub<ect properties as well as for the cancellation of 'icardo=s ta9 declarations&

ISSUEK 8hould the properties be returned to 4ar$aritaC HELDK Oes& An .02#."d '-,&' %$& *-"$'"d Petitioner before the trial court! had actuall) adduced evidence to prove the intention of 4ar$arita to transfer to 'oberto onl) the le$al title to the properties in (uestion! with attendant e9pectation that 'oberto would return the same to her on accomplishment of that specific purpose for which the transaction was entered into& *he evidence of course is not documentar)! but rather testimonial Ptestimonies of the "uz (dau$hter of 4ar$arita and Eilaria (niece of 4ar$arita) who witnessed the e9ecution of the transfer documentsQ De recall that the complaint before the trial court alle$ed that the 19;8 -ffidavit of *ransfer was e9ecuted merel) to accommodate 'oberto=s re(uest to have the properties in his name and thereb) produce proof of ownership of certain real properties in the Philippines to support his F&8& visa application& *he a$reement! the complaint further stated! was for 4ar$arita to transfer the ta9 declarations of the sub<ect properties to 'oberto for the said purpose and %.'!/,' '!" .n'"n'./n '/ d.+"&' !"- /) '!" -.4!'& /) /%n"-&!.2 $nd d/0.n./n& #t is deducible from the fore$oin$ that '!" .n&*-.2'./n /) R/9"-'/G& n$0" .n '!" A)).d$+.' /) T-$n&)"$& M$-4$-.'$G& '-$n&)"-"" .& n/' )/- '!" 2,-2/&" /) '-$n&)"--.n4 /%n"-&!.2 '/ !.0 9,' /n#1 '/ "n$9#" !.0 '/ !/#d '!" 2-/2"-'1 .n '-,&' )/- M$-4$-.'$ -s a trustee of a resultin$ trust! therefore! 'oberto! like the trustee of an e9press passive trust! is merel) a d"2/&.'$-1 of le$al title havin$ no duties as to the mana$ement! control or disposition of the propert) e9cept to make a conve)ance when called upon b) the cestui (ue trust& EFFECTK R"',-n /) '!" 2-/2"-'1 '/ '!" 9"n").*.$-1 1trust pursuit rule!1 a constructive or resultin$ trust affi9es itself to the sub<ect propert) A '-,&' %.## )/##/% '!" 2-/2"-'1 T throu$h all chan$es in its state and form as lon$ as such propert)! its products or its proceeds! are capable of identification! even into the hands of a transferee other than a bona fide purchaser for value! or restitution will be enforced at the election of the beneficiar) throu$h recourse a$ainst the trustee or the transferee personall)& -ccordin$l)! the person to whom is made a transfer of trust propert) constitutin$ a wron$ful conversion of the trust propert) and a breach of the trust! %!"n n/' 2-/'"*'"d $& $ bona fide 2,-*!$&"- )/- +$#,"! is himself liable and accountable as a constructive trustee& T!" #.$9.#.'1 $''$*!"& $' '!" 0/0"n' /) '!" '-$n&)"- /) '-,&' 2-/2"-'1 $nd

*/n'.n,"& ,n'.# '!"-" .& ),## -"&'/-$'./n '/ '!" 9"n").*.$-1 *hus! the transferee is char$ed with! and can be held to the performance of the trust! e(uall) with the ori$inal trustee! and he can be compelled to e9ecute a reconve)ance& 3,1"-& .n 4//d )$.'!V '!" .&&," /) %!"'!"- '!" 9,1"- /) -"$#'1 .& .n 4//d /- 9$d )$.'! .& -"#"+$n' /n#1 %!"-" '!" &,9;"*' /) '!" &$#" .& -"4.&'"-"d #$nd and the purchase was made from the re$istered owner whose title to the land is clean! in which case the purchaser who relies on the clean title of the re$istered owner is protected if he is a purchaser in $ood faith and for value&;3 8ince the properties in (uestion are unre$istered lands! respondents purchased the same at their own peril& *heir claim of havin$ bou$ht the properties in $ood faith! i&e&! without notice that there is some other person with a ri$ht to or interest therein! would not protect them should it turn out! as it in fact did in this case! that their seller! 'oberto! had no ri$ht to sell them& On 2-"&*-.2'./nK the prescriptive period to recover propert) obtained b) fraud or mistake! $ivin$ rise to an implied trust under -rt& 135; of the 0ivil 0ode! is 12 )ears pursuant to -rt& 1133& *his ten6)ear prescriptive period be$ins to run from the date the adverse part) repudiates the implied trust! which repudiation takes place when the adverse part) re$isters the land& >rom the fore$oin$! it is clear that an action for reconve)ance under a constructive implied trust in accordance with -rticle 135; does not prescribe unless and until the land is re$istered or the instrument affectin$ the same is inscribed in accordance with law! inasmuch as it is what binds the land and operates constructive notice to the world& #n the present case! however! the lands involved are concededl) unre$istered lands? hence! there is no wa) b) which 4ar$arita! durin$ her lifetime! could be notified of the furtive and fraudulent sales made in 199. b) 'oberto in favor of respondents! e9cept b) actual notice from Pedro himself in -u$ust 1995& Eence! it is from that date that prescription be$an to toll& *he filin$ of the complaint in >ebruar) 199; is well within the prescriptive period& * R"&,#'.n4 /- I02#."d T-,&' TEODORA MATIAS FACTSK DE 3UENCAMINO, 1& Eilaria izon 4atias was the ET AL , 2"'.'./n"-&, owner of the sub<ect propert) +& .& 8he had a son named "uis MARIA DI@ON DE 7& "uis had one le$itimate famil) and MATIAS, ET AL , one ille$itimate famil) -"&2/nd"n'& 3& "uis was closer to his ille$itimate A2-.# 30, 17== famil) 5& Eilaria was concerned that after "uis inherited the propert)! he would dispose the same in favor of his ille$itimate children& ;& 1978@ Eilaria! with her spouse! then d"*.d"d '/ '-$n&)"- '!".2-/2"-'."& .n '!" n$0" /) /n" /) '!".- #"4.'.0$'" 4-$nd*!.#d-"n, petitioner *eodora! )/- '!" #$''"'/ !/#d '!" &$0" .n '-,&' )/- '!" /'!"- 9-/'!"-& $nd &.&'"-&& 5& Eowver! upon the death of her $randparents and parents! *eodora took material possession of the same from her mother and has! since then! administered them to the e9clusion of her other brothers and sisters& ISSUEK Eas the action prescribedC HELDK /O *he e9ecution of the deed! %9hibit -! and the conse(uent re$istration of the properties in the names of petitioner spouses! created an implied trust in favor of *eodoraLs le$itimate brothers and sisters& -nd while implied or constructive trust prescribes in 12 )ears!1 the rule does not appl) where a fiduciar) relation e9ists and the trustee reco$nizes the trust&. 0ontinuous reco$nition of a resultin$ trust precludes an) defense of laches in a suit to declare and enforce the trust&7 A& .' d/"& n/' $22"$%!"n T"/d/-$ -"2,d.$'"d '!" "E.&'"n*" /) ).d,*.$-1 -"#$'./n& 9"'%""n !"- $nd 9-/'!"-& $nd &.&'"-&, '!" &$0" &!$## 9" '$("n '/ !$+" 9""n 0$d" /n#1 ,2/n '!" ).#.n4 /) !"- $n&%"- '/ '!" */02#$.n' *he action brou$ht b) the plaintiffs to enforce such trust! therefore! has not )et prescribed&

8& 9&

1955@ *he brothers and sisters then instituted this action to recover the same from *eodara *eodora ar$ued that their action has prescribed a& the action for reconve)ance! which was brou$ht 15 )ears after the e9ecution of the disputed document! was barred b) prescription ISSUEK DR/ an implied trust e9isted HELDK Oes& R.*$-d/G& .n*/0" +& D/#/-"&G& .n*/0" #t was proved that 'icordo=s income as an emplo)ee in a te9tile mill was not enou$h for him to be able to purchase the propert) while olores has successfull) proven capacit) to purchase& olores provided the mone) for the purchase of "ot .2 but the correspondin$ deed of sale and transfer certificate of title were placed in the name of 'icardo Euan$ because she was advised that the subdivision owner prohibited the ac(uisition of two (.) lots b) a sin$le individual& Guided b) the fore$oin$ definitions11! we are in conformit) with the common findin$ of the trial court and respondent court that a -"&,#'.n4 '-,&' %$& *-"$'"d& 'icardo became the trustee of "ot .2 and its improvements for the benefit of olores as owner& *he pertinent law is -rt& 1338 of the /ew 0ivil 0ode which provides that there is an implied trust when propert) is sold and the le$al estate is $ranted to one part) but the price is paid b) another for the purpose of havin$ the beneficial interest of the propert)& - resultin$ trust arises because of the presumption that he who pa)s for a thin$ intends a beneficial interest therein for himself& ISSUE2K PrescribedC HELDK /o Petitioners raise the issue of prescription& Gut the action to compel the trustee to conve) the propert) re$istered in his name for the benefit of the cestui (ue trust does not prescribe& .8 #f at all! .' .& /n#1 %!"n '!" '-,&'"" -"2,d.$'"& '!" '-,&' '!$' '!" 2"-./d /) 2-"&*-.2'./n */00"n*"& '/ -,n & .9 *he prescriptive period is ten (12) )ears from the repudiation of the trust& -rt& 1133 of the /ew 0ivil 0ode! which is the law applicable! provides@ 1*he followin$ actions must be brou$ht within ten )ears from the time the ri$ht of action accrues@ (a) Fpon a written contract? (b) Fpon an obli$ation created b) law? (c) Fpon a <ud$ment&1

SPOUSES RICARDO AND MILAGROS HUANG, 2"'.'./n"-&, +& COURT OF APPEALS, :UDGE PEDRO N LAGGUI, P-"&.d.n4 :,d4", RTC, M$($'., 3- =0, $nd SPOUSES DOLORES AND ANICETO SANDOVAL, -"&2/nd"n'& 177B S"2 13

FACTSK 'espondent olores 8andoval wanted to bu) two (.) lots in asmariSas :illa$e! 4akati! but was prevented from doin$ so because of the polic) of the subdivision forbiddin$ the ac(uisition of two (.) lots b) a sin$le individual& 8o he bou$ht "ot .1 in her name and "ot .2 in the name of petitioners& *he petitioners! at first! consulted with olores when the former would enter into transactions involvin$ the propert) (i&e& buildin$ of a house and mort$a$in$ of the propert) to the 888)& Gecause of the mort$a$e entered into between the 88 and the petitioners! the title was surrendered to the 888& -fter sometime! the lessees started prohibitin$ the 8andoval famil) from usin$ the swimmin$ pool and the Euan$s then be$an challen$in$ the 8andovalsL ownership of the propert)& 8he filed the instant case to compel the 888 to release in her favor of the ownerLs duplicate certificate of title in its possession so that the deed could be dul) annotated on the title andRor a new certificate of title issued in her name& 8he ar$ues that there is an implied trust created in her favor because she was the one who reall) bou$ht the propert) includin$ its improvements& *he Euan$s ar$ued that $rantin$ ar$uendo that a resultin$ or implied trust e9ists between the parties! its enforcement is alread) barred b) prescription& Petitioners ar$ue that when the suit in the trial court was filed b) olores on 19 >ebruar) 1981 more than ten (12) )ears had alread) lapsed since

11

a resultin$ trust arises where a person makes or causes to be made a disposition of propert) under circumstances which raise an inference that he does not intend that the person takin$ or holdin$ the propert) should have the beneficial interest in the propert)

*0* /o& .23587 (title in favor of petitioner) was issued on 11 October 19;5&

*hus! the reckonin$ point is repudiation of the trust b) the trustee because from that moment his possession becomes adverse! which in the present case $ave rise to a cause of action b) olores a$ainst the Euan$ spouses& Eowever! before the period of prescription ma) start! it must be shown that@ (a) the trustee has performed une(uivocal acts of repudiation amountin$ to an ouster of the cestui (ue trust? (b) such positive acts of repudiation have been made known to the cestui (ue trust? and! (c) the evidence thereon is clear and conclusive& #n "a$una v& "evantino and :aldez v& Olor$a! we held that acts which ma) be adverse to stran$ers ma) not be sufficientl) adverse to the cestui (ue trust& A 0"-" &.#"n' 2/&&"&&./n /) '!" '-,&'"" ,n$**/02$n."d 91 $*'& $0/,n'.n4 '/ $n /,&'"- /) '!" *"&',. <," '-,&' *$nn/' 9" */n&'-,"d $& $n $d+"-&" 2/&&"&&./n 4ere perception of rents and profits b) the trustee! and erectin$ fences and buildin$s adapted for the cultivation of the land held in trust! are not e(uivalent to une(uivocal acts of ouster of the cestui (ue trust& De a$ree with the trial court that the action filed b) olores has not prescribed& >irstl)! R.*$-d/ !$& n/' 2"-)/-0"d $n1 ,n"<,.+/*$# $*' /) -"2,d.$'./n $0/,n'.n4 '/ $n /,&'"- /) D/#/-"& & *he onl) acts which ma) be considered as indicative of his intention not to respect the trust an)more were his leasin$ the house without the prior knowled$e of olores? his refusal to carr) out the demand of olores that he must ask the lessees to vacate the house? and! his refusal to $ive the necessar) papers to olores to enable her to $et the title from the 888& 8econdl)! '!" )/-"4/.n4 $*'& $-" n/' 2/&.'.+" $*'& /) -"2,d.$'./n? and! thirdl)! the evidence on such acts is unclear and inconclusive& Gut even if the fore$oin$ acts were manifest acts of repudiation made known to olores! the fact remains that the) were done at the earliest onl) on 15 4arch 1982 when 'icardo leased "ot .2 and its improvements to eltron& oloresL complaint before the trial court was filed on 19 >ebruar) 1981! or within the 126)ear prescriptive period&

C$9$*,n4$n + L$.4/ 2011

4ar$arita 0abacun$an owned a parcel of land& 8ometime in 19;8! her son! 'oberrto! applied for visa to F8 and to support the application! he asked 4ar$arita to transfer the ta9 declarations in his name& Eence! unknown to the other children! 4ar$arita e9ecuted an -ffidavit of *ransfer of 'eal Propert) whereb) the sub<ect properties were transferred b) donation to her son! 'oberto& 'oberto adopted respondents ("ai$o)& -t 'oberto=s wake! 4ar$arita found out that the land was sold& Eence! she instituted a complaint for annulment of sales and for recover) of ownership and possession& 4ar$arita admitted havin$ accommodated 'oberto=s re(uest for the transfer of the properties to his name! but pointed out that the arran$ement was onl) for the specific purpose of supportin$ his F&8& visa application& 8he emphasized that she never intended to divest herself of ownership over the sub<ect lands and!

'oberto is /O* the owner but onl) a trustee of a +resultin$ trust,& -s a trustee of a resultin$ trust! therefore! 'oberto! like the trustee of an e9press passive trust! is merel) a depositar) of le$al title havin$ no duties as to the mana$ement! control or disposition of the propert) e9cept to make a conve)ance when called upon b) the cestui (ue trust& Eence! the sales he entered into with respondents are a wron$ful conversion of the trust propert) and a breach of the trust& *estimonial evidence was presented& #t was narrated that 'oberto had wanted to travel to the F&8 and to show the embass) proof of his financial capacit)! he asked to +borrow, from 4ar$arita the properties involved but upon the condition that he would $ive them back to her upon his arrival from the Fnited 8tates& Eence! it is deducible that inscription of 'oberto=s name in the -ffidavit of *ransfer as 4ar$arita=s transferee is not for the purpose of transferrin$ ownership to him but onl) to enable him to hold the propert) in trust for 4ar$arita& #ndeed! in the face of the credible and strai$htforward testimon) of the two witnesses! "uz and Eilaria! the probative value of the ownership record forms in the names of respondents! to$ether with the testimon) of their witness from the municipal assessor=s office who authenticated said forms! are utterl) minimal to show 'oberto=s ownership& #mplied trusts are further classified into constructive trusts and resultin$ trusts& 0onstructive trusts! on the one hand! come about in the main b) operation of law and not b) a$reement or intention& *he) arise not b) an) word or phrase! either e9pressl) or impliedl)! evincin$ a direct intention to create a trust! but one which arises in order to satisf) the demands of <ustice& -lso known as trusts e9 maleficio! trusts e9 delicto and trusts de son tort! the) are construed a$ainst one who b) actual or constructive fraud! duress! abuse of confidence! commission of a wron$ or an) form of unconscionable conduct! artifice! concealment of (uestionable means! or who in an) wa) a$ainst e(uit) and $ood conscience has obtained or holds the le$al ri$ht to propert) which he ou$ht not! in e(uit) and $ood conscience!

hence! 'oberto had no ri$ht to sell them to respondents and the 8pouses 0ampos

hold and en<o)& *he) are aptl) characterized as +fraud6rectif)in$ trust!, imposed b) e(uit) to satisf) the demands of <ustice and to defeat or prevent the wron$ful act of one of the parties& 0onstructive trusts are illustrated in -rticles 1352! 1353! 1355 and 135;& -rticles 1338 to 135; of the 0ivil 0ode enumerate cases of implied trust! but the list accordin$ to -rticle 1335 is not e9clusive of others which ma) be established b) the $eneral law on trusts so lon$ as the limitations laid down in -rticle 133. are observed! that is! that the) be not in conflict with the /ew 0ivil 0ode! the 0ode of 0ommerce! the 'ules of 0ourt and special laws& Dhile resultin$ trusts $enerall) arise on failure of an e9press trust or of the purpose thereof! or on a conve)ance to one person upon a consideration from another (sometimes referred to as a +purchase6 mone) resultin$ trust,)! the) ma) also be imposed in other circumstances such that the court! shapin$ <ud$ment in its most efficient form and preventin$ a failure of <ustice! must decree the e9istence of such a trust& - resultin$ trust! for instance! arises where! there bein$ no fraud or violation of the trust! the circumstances indicate intent of the parties that le$al title in one be held for the benefit of another& #t also arises in some instances where the underl)in$ transaction is without consideration! such as that contemplated in -rticle 1339 of the 0ivil 0ode& Dhere propert)! for e9ample! is $ratuitousl) conve)ed for a particular purpose and that purpose is either fulfilled or frustrated! the court ma) affirm the resultin$ trust in favor of the $rantor or transferor! where the beneficial interest in propert) was not intended to vest in the $rantee&

:,$n + Y$2 2011

0aneda spouses mort$a$ed the . parcels of land to Petitioner Auan! emplo)ee and nephew of 'espondent Oap& Petitioner sou$ht the e9tra<udicial foreclosure of the mort$a$e& Goth Petitioner and respondent participated in the auction sale but the properties were still sold to petitioner for tenderin$ the hi$hest bid& /o certificate of sale was issued for failure to pa) the sale=s commission& 0aneda spouses then e9ecuted a 4Owherein the) acknowled$e that the real mort$a$ee6creditor is 'espondent while Petitioner is merel) a trustee& #n the said 4O-! it is stated that 'espondent allows the spouses to redeem the propert)&

Petitioner presented the mort$a$e contract while 'espondent presented parol evidence& 0ourt favored the 'espondent and ruled that petitioner holds title over the mort$a$ed properties onl) because respondent allowed him to do so& #n the first place! the 0aSeda spouses acknowled$ed respondent as the lender from whom the) borrowed the funds secured b) the 0ontract& *he) did so in the 4O-& 8econdl)! 8olon! the notar) public who drew up and notarized the 0ontract! testified that he placed petitioner=s name in the 0ontract as the mort$a$or upon the instruction of respondent& 'espondent himself e9plained that he found this arran$ement convenient because at the time of the 0ontract=s e9ecution! he was mostl) abroad and could not personall) attend to his businesses in the countr)& "astl)! it was respondent! not petitioner! who shouldered the pa)ment of the foreclosure e9penses& -n implied trust arisin$ from mort$a$e contracts is not amon$ the trust relationships the 0ivil 0ode enumerates& *he 0ode itself provides! however! that such listin$ 1does not e9clude others established b) the $eneral law on trust 9 9 9&1 Fnder the $eneral principles on trust! e(uit) converts the holder of propert) ri$ht as trustee for the benefit of another if the circumstances of its ac(uisition makes the holder ineli$ible 1in 9 9 9 $ood conscience PtoQ hold and en<o) PitQ&1 -s implied trusts are remedies a$ainst un<ust enrichment! the 1onl) problem of $reat importance in the field of constructive trusts is whether in the numerous and var)in$ factual situations presented 9 9 9 there is a wron$ful holdin$ of propert) and hence! a threatened un<ust enrichment of the defendant&1 -ppl)in$ these principles! this 0ourt reco$nized unconventional implied trusts in contracts involvin$ the purchase of housin$ units b) officers of tenants= associations in breach of their obli$ations! the partitionin$ of realt) contrar) to the terms of a compromise a$reement!19 and the e9ecution of a sales contract indicatin$ a bu)er distinct from the provider of the purchase mone)& #n all these cases! the formal holders of title were deemed trustees obli$ed to transfer title to the beneficiaries in whose favor the trusts were deemed created& De see no reason to bar the reco$nition of the same obli$ation in a mort$a$e contract meetin$ the standards for the creation of an implied trust&

d C/n&'-,*'.+" T-,&'& D.$6 + G/--.*!/ - parcel of land was ori$inall) owned b) 8pouses iaz& 8ometime in 1975! Gorricho 17D8 filed an action a$ainst the widow! 4aria& writ of attachment was issued upon the shares of 4aria in the parcel of land& *hereafter! the parcels of land were sold at public auction and purchased b) Gorricho& #n the final deed! however! the sheriff conve)ed the entire parcel of land instead of 4aria=s share onl)& Dhen 4aria died! her children filed an action for reconve)ance of their father=s share in the land& *he principal contention of appellants is that their fatherLs half of the disputed propert) was ac(uired b) 0armen A& Gorricho throu$h an error of the provincial sheriff? that havin$ been ac(uired throu$h error! it was sub<ect to an implied trust! as provided b) -rticle 135; of the new 0ivil 0ode? and therefore! since the trust is continuin$ and subsistin$! the appellants ma) compel reconve)ance of the propert) despite the lapse of time! speciall)! because prescription does not run a$ainst titles re$istered under -ct 39;& Pin$$o) /akpil and 0harlie :aldes were best of friends& 0harlie became Pin$$o)=s law)er! accountant! auditor and on some occasions! a business and financial consultant& Dhile vacationin$ at a beach house! Pin$$o) drowned and died& Petitioner! wife of /akpil! instituted an action for reconve)ance for breach of trust a$ainst 0harlie& 8he alle$ed that her husband Aose 1Pin$$o)1 /akpil prior to his death had re(uested :aldes to purchase Pulon$ 4aulap and thereafter re$ister the sale and hold the title thereto in trust for him (Pin$$o) /akpil)! which respondent :aldes did& Gut after her husbandLs death! :aldes concealed and suppressed all information re$ardin$ the trust a$reement? instead! he transferred Pulon$ 4aulap in the name of respondent 0aval 'ealt) 0orporation! which is 99&5b owned b) him! in e9chan$e for 1!522 shares of stock& 'espondent :aldes! on the other hand!

-ction is alread) barred b) laches& 0ause of action to attack the sheriffLs deed and cancel the transfer certificates of title issued accrued from the )ear of issuance and recordin$! 1975! and appellants have! allowed fifteen (15) )ears to elapse before takin$ remedial action in 195. *he -merican law on trusts has alwa)s maintained a distinction between e9press trusts created b) intention of the parties! and the implied or constructive trusts that are e9clusivel) created b) law! the latter not bein$ trusts in their technical sense& *he e9press trusts disable the trustee from ac(uirin$ for his own benefit the propert) committed to his mana$ement or custod)! at least while he does not openl) repudiate the trust! and makes such repudiation known to the beneficiar) or cestui (ue trust& >or this reason! the old 0ode of 0ivil Procedure (-ct 192) declared that the rules on adverse possession do not appl) to 1continuin$ and subsistin$1 (i&e&! unrepudiated) trusts& Gut in constructive trusts! the rule is that laches constitutes a bar to actions to enforce the trust! and repudiation is not re(uired! unless there is concealment of the facts $ivin$ rise to the trust& *he reason for the difference in treatment is obvious& #n e9press trusts! the dela) of the beneficiar) is directl) attributable to the trustee who undertakes to hold the propert) for the former! or who linked to the beneficiar) b) confidential or fiduciar) relations& *he trusteeLs possession is! therefore! not adverse to the beneficiar)! until and unless the latter is made aware that the trust has been repudiated& Gut in constructive trusts (that are imposed b) law)! there is neither promise nor fiduciar) relation? the so6 called trustee does not reco$nize an) trust and has no intent to hold for the beneficiar)? therefore! the latter is not <ustified in dela)in$ action to recover his propert)& #t is his fault if he dela)s? hence! he ma) be estopped b) his own laches&

N$(2.# + IAC 1773

0onstructive trust under -rt& 1352 e9isted between the parties& Eowever! petitioner cannot as )et redeem and compel conve)ance of the propert)& >or! :aldes must still be reimbursed for the advances he made on the disputed propert)! such reimbursement bein$ a conditio sine (ua non for compellin$ conve)ance under -rt& 1352& >rom the evidence adduced! it ma) be concluded that respondent :aldes! usin$ his own funds! purchased Pulon$ 4aulap in behalf of the late /akpil& *his is based on the letters to petitioner of :aldes where he cate$oricall) admitted that 1PbQoth of these loans! while in m) (respondent :aldes) name! were obtained b) Pin$$o) (the late /akpil) for his person! 12 and that the 1P55!222&22 initiall) advanced for the 4oran propert) still remains unpaid& *he letter of :aldes to the 0it) *reasurer of Ga$uio made while remittin$ pa)ment of real estate ta9es is also enli$htenin$& #t provided therein that the pa)ment bein$ tendered was 1PoQn behalf1 of the /akpilLs! which is an e9press reco$nition of the implied trust& #mplied trusts! which ma) either be resultin$ or constructive! are those which! without bein$ e9press! are deducible from the nature of the transaction as matters of intent! or which are superinduced on the transaction b) operation of law as matter of e(uit)! independentl) of the particular intention of the parties& -rticle 1352 presupposes a situation where a person! usin$ his own funds! purchases a certain piece of land in behalf of another who! in the meantime! ma) not have sufficient funds to purchase the land& *he propert) is then transferred in the name of the trustee! the person who paid for the land! until he is reimbursed b) the beneficiar)! the person for whom the land is purchased& #t is onl) after the beneficiar) reimburses the trustee of the purchase price that the former can compel conve)ance of the

denied the e9istence of an) trust a$reement over Pulon$ 4aulap& Ee averred that he bou$ht the summer residence for himself with his own funds and without an) participation of the late /akpil? neither was it bou$ht in trust for the latter& :aldes claims that he onl) informed Pin$$o) /akpil of the ac(uisition of Pulon$ 4aulap! and Pin$$o) merel) showed interest in bu)in$ the propert) if he could have the mone)& 4eanwhile! considerin$ their avowed friendship! he (:aldes) offered the usufruct of the propert) to the /akpils who in turn a$reed to shoulder its maintenance e9penses! real estate ta9es! fire insurance premiums and servicin$ of interest on the mort$a$e obli$ation constituted on the propert)& >rom the records it appears that the :aldeses bou$ht Pulon$ 4aulap for P152!222&22 with respondent :aldes $ivin$ a downpa)ment of P52!222&22 and assumin$ the vendorsL mort$a$e obli$ation of P122!222&22 with the Philippine /ational Gank (P/G)! which he reduced to P55!222&22 b) pa)in$ P.5!222&22& On 1. Aul) 19;5! a deed of sale was e9ecuted and *ransfer 0ertificate of *itle /o& 12.35 was thereafter issued in the name of :aldes& -s a$reed! in the earl) part of 4a) 19;5! even before the e9ecution of the deed of sale in favor of the :aldeses! the /akpils moved in and sta)ed a Pulon$ 4aulap even until after Pin$$o)Ls death& Auliana owns parcels of land& 8he e9ecuted a notarial will whereb) she e9pressed that she wished to constitute a trust fund for her paraphernal properties to be administered b) her husband& #f her husband were to die or renounce the obli$ation! her nephew! %nri(ue "opez! was to become administrator and e9ecutor& .R7 of the income from rentals over these properties were to answer for the education of deservin$ but need) honor students! while 1R7 was to shoulder the e9penses and fees of the administrator& -s to her con<u$al properties! Auliana be(ueathed the portion that she could le$all) dispose to her husband! and after his death! said

purchased propert) from the latter& *he period within which to compel conve)ance of Pulon$ 4aulap is not imprescriptible& *he rule is well6 settled that an action for reconve)ance based on an implied or constructive trust prescibes in ten (12) )ears& Gut! in the case before us! petitioner could still compel conve)ance of the disputed propert) from respondent provided the former reimburses the latter for all his e9penses& -fter all! :aldes never repudiated the constructive trust durin$ the lifetime of the late Aose /akpil& On the contrar)! he e9pressl) reco$nized it& *he prescriptive period therefore did not be$in to run until after he repudiated the trust&

L/2"6 + CA

*here is constructive trust& On the premise that the disputed properties were the paraphernal properties of Auliana which should have been included in the >ideicomiso! their re$istration in the name of Aose would be erroneous and Aose=s possession would be that of a trustee in an implied trust& #mplied trusts are those which! without bein$ e9pressed! are deducible from the nature of the transaction as matters of intent or which are superinduced on the transaction b) operation of law as matters of e(uit)! independentl) of the particular intention of the parties& - resultin$ trust is presumed to have been contemplated b) the parties! the intention as to which is to be found in the nature of their transaction but not e9pressed in the deed itself& #t is based on the e(uitable doctrine that valuable consideration and not le$al title determines the e(uitable title or interest and are presumed alwa)s to have been contemplated b) the parties& *he) arise from the nature of circumstances of the consideration involved in a transaction whereb) one person thereb) becomes invested with le$al title but is obli$ated in e(uit) to hold his le$al title for the benefit of another& (-rt& 1338! 1339! 1351! 135.! and 1357)

properties were to pass to her $reat $randchildren& Auliana initiated the probate of her will five (5) da)s after its e9ecution! but she died on 1. -u$ust 19;8! before the petition for probate could be heard& Aose then proceeded to offer a pro<ect of partition which was approved& *he properties which Aose had alle$ed as re$istered in his and Auliana=s names! includin$ the disputed lots! were ad<udicated to Aose as heir! sub<ect to the condition that Aose would settle the obli$ations char$ed on these properties& Aose died on .. Aul) 1982! leavin$ a holo$raphic will disposin$ of the disputed properties to respondents& -n action for reconve)ance was filed alle$in$ that Aose was able to re$ister in his name the disputed properties! which were the paraphernal properties of Auliana! either durin$ their con<u$al union or in the course of the performance of his duties as e9ecutor of the testate estate of Auliana and that upon the death of Aose! the disputed properties were included in the inventor) as if the) formed part of Aose=s estate when in fact Aose was holdin$ them onl) in trust for the trust estate of Auliana&

On the other hand! constructive trusts are created b) the construction of e(uit) in order to satisf) the demands of <ustice and prevent un<ust enrichment& *he) arise contrar) to intention a$ainst one who! b) fraud! duress or abuse of confidence! obtains or holds the le$al ri$ht to propert) which he ou$ht not! in e(uit) and $ood conscience! to hold& - constructive trust is created! not b) an) word evincin$ a direct intention to create a trust! but b) operation of law in order to satisf) the demands of <ustice and to prevent un<ust enrichment& #t is raised b) e(uit) in respect of propert)! which has been ac(uired b) fraud! or where althou$h ac(uired ori$inall) without fraud! it is a$ainst e(uit) that it should be retained b) the person holdin$ it& (-rt& 1352! 1353! 1355! and 135;) T!" -"4.&'-$'./n /) '!" d.&2,'"d 2-/2"-'."& .n '!" n$0" /) :/&" %$& $*',$##1 2,-&,$n' '/ $ */,-' /-d"- T!" $22$-"n' 0.&'$(" .n '!" $d;,d.*$'./n /) '!" d.&2,'"d 2-/2"-'."& '/ :/&" *-"$'"d $ 0"-" .02#."d '-,&' /) '!" */n&'-,*'.+" +$-."'1 .n )$+/- /) '!" 9"n").*.$-."& /) '!" F.d".*/0.&/ *he ri$ht to seek reconve)ance based on an implied or constructive trust is not absolute& #t is sub<ect to e9tinctive prescription& -n action for reconve)ance based on implied or constructive trust prescribes in 12 )ears& *his period is reckoned from the date of the issuance of the ori$inal certificate of title or transfer certificate of title& 8ince such issuance operates as a constructive notice to the whole world! the discover) of the fraud is deemed to have taken place at that time& #n the instant case! the ten6)ear prescriptive period to recover the disputed propert) must be counted from its re$istration in the name of Aose on 15 8eptember 19;9! when petitioner was char$ed with constructive notice that Aose ad<udicated the disputed properties to himself as the sole heir of Auana and not as trustee of the >ideicomiso& #t should be pointed out also that Aose had alread) indicated at the outset that the disputed properties did not form part of the >ideicomiso contrar) to petitioner=s claim that no overt acts of repudiation ma) be attributed to Aose& #t ma) not be amiss to state that in the pro<ect of partition submitted to the probate court! Aose had indicated that the disputed properties were con<u$al in nature and! thus! e9cluded from Auliana=s >ideicomiso& *his act is clearl) tantamount to repudiatin$ the trust! at which point the period for prescription is reckoned& #n an) case! the rule that a trustee cannot ac(uire b) prescription ownership over propert) entrusted to him until and unless he repudiates the trust applies onl) to e9press trusts and resultin$ implied trusts& H/%"+"-, .n */n&'-,*'.+" .02#."d '-,&'&, 2-"&*-.2'./n 0$1 &,2"-+"n" "+"n .) '!" '-,&'"" d/"& n/' -"2,d.$'" '!" -"#$'./n&!.2 N"*"&&$-.#1, -"2,d.$'./n /) &$.d '-,&' .& n/' $ */nd.'./n 2-"*"d"n' '/ '!" -,nn.n4 /) '!" 2-"&*-.2'.+" 2"-./d 'espondents ma) be compelled to reconve) the propert)& /irst! fundamental is the rule in land re$istration law that the issue of whether the bu)er of realt) is in $ood or bad faith is relevant onl) where the sub<ect of the sale is re$istered land and the purchase was made from the re$istered owner whose title to the land is clean! in which case the purchaser who relies on the clean title of the re$istered owner is protected if he is a purchaser in $ood faith and for value& 8ince the properties in (uestion are unre$istered lands! respondents purchased the same at their own peril& Second! the invocation of the rules on limitation of actions relative to a resultin$ trust is not on point because the resultin$ trust relation between 4ar$arita and 'oberto had been e9tin$uished b) the latter=s death& - trust! it is said! terminates upon the death of the trustee! particularl) where the trust is personal to him& T&ird! there is a fundamental principle in a$enc) that where certain propert) entrusted to an a$ent and impressed b) law with a trust in favor of the principal is wron$full) diverted! such trust follows the

C$9$*,n4$n + L$.4/

4ar$arita 0abacun$an owned a parcel of land& 8ometime in 19;8! her son! 'oberrto! applied for visa to F8 and to support the application! he asked 4ar$arita to transfer the ta9 declarations in his name& Eence! unknown to the other children! 4ar$arita e9ecuted an -ffidavit of *ransfer of 'eal Propert) whereb) the sub<ect properties were transferred b) donation to her son! 'oberto& 'oberto adopted respondents ("ai$o)& -t 'oberto=s wake! 4ar$arita found out that the land was sold& Eence! she instituted a complaint for annulment of sales and for recover) of ownership and possession&

'espondents posit that petitioner=s claim ma) never be enforced a$ainst them as the) had purchased the properties from 'oberto for value and in $ood faith& *he) also claim that! at an) rate! petitioner=s cause of action has accrued wa) back in 19;8 upon the e9ecution of the -ffidavit of *ransfer and! hence! with the .8 lon$ )ears that since passed! petitioner=s claim had lon$ become stale not onl) on account of laches! but also under the rules on e9tinctive prescription $overnin$ a resultin$ trust&

propert) in the hands of a third person and the principal is ordinaril) entitled to pursue and recover it so lon$ as the propert) can be traced and identified! and no superior e(uities have intervened& *his principle is actuall) one of trusts! since the wron$ful conversion $ives rise to a */n&'-,*'.+" '-,&' which pursues the propert)! its product or proceeds! and permits the beneficiar) to recover the propert) or obtain dama$es for the wron$ful conversion of the propert)& -ptl) called the +trust pursuit rule!, it applies when a constructive or resultin$ trust has once affi9ed itself to propert) in a certain state or form& Eence! a trust will follow the propert) T throu$h all chan$es in its state and form as lon$ as such propert)! its products or its proceeds! are capable of identification! even into the hands of a transferee other than a bona fide purchaser for value! or restitution will be enforced at the election of the beneficiar) throu$h recourse a$ainst the trustee or the transferee personall)& -ccordin$l)! the person to whom is made a transfer of trust propert) constitutin$ a wron$ful conversion of the trust propert) and a breach of the trust! when not protected as a bona fide purchaser for value! is himself liable and accountable as a constructive trustee& *he liabilit) attaches at the moment of the transfer of trust propert) and continues until there is full restoration to the beneficiar)& *hus! the transferee is char$ed with! and can be held to the performance of the trust! e(uall) with the ori$inal trustee! and he can be compelled to e9ecute a reconve)ance& *his scenario is characteristic of a constructive trust imposed b) -rticle 135; of the 0ivil 0ode! which impresses upon a person obtainin$ propert) throu$h mistake or fraud the status of an implied trustee for the benefit of the person from whom the propert) comes& Petitioner! in la)in$ claim a$ainst respondents who are concededl) transferees who professed havin$ validl) derived their ownership from 'oberto! is in effect enforcin$ a$ainst respondents a constructive trust relation that arose b) virtue of the wron$ful and fraudulent transfer to them of the sub<ect properties b) 'oberto& #t is settled that an action for reconve)ance based on a constructive implied trust prescribes in 12 )ears likewise in accordance with -rticle 1133 of the 0ivil 0ode& Oet not like in the case of a resultin$ implied trust and an e9press trust! prescription supervenes in a constructive implied trust even if the trustee does not repudiate the relationship& #n other words! repudiation of said trust is not a condition precedent to the runnin$ of the prescriptive period& an action for reconve)ance under a constructive implied trust in accordance with -rticle 135; does not prescribe unless and until the land is re$istered or the instrument affectin$ the same is inscribed in accordance with law! inasmuch as it is what binds the land and operates constructive notice to the world& #n the present case! however! the lands involved are concededl) unre$istered lands? hence! there is no wa) b) which 4ar$arita! durin$ her lifetime! could be notified of the furtive and fraudulent sales made in 199. b) 'oberto in favor of respondents! e9cept b) actual notice from Pedro himself in -u$ust 1995& Eence! it is from that date that prescription be$an to toll& *he filin$ of the complaint in >ebruar) 199; is well within the prescriptive period& Petitioner presented the mort$a$e contract while 'espondent presented parol evidence& 0ourt favored the 'espondent and ruled that petitioner holds title over the mort$a$ed properties onl) because respondent allowed him to do so& #n the first place! the 0aSeda spouses acknowled$ed respondent as the lender from whom the) borrowed the funds secured b) the 0ontract& *he) did so in the 4O-& 8econdl)! 8olon! the notar) public who drew up and notarized the 0ontract! testified that he placed petitioner=s name in the 0ontract as the mort$a$or upon the instruction of respondent& 'espondent himself e9plained that he found this arran$ement convenient because at the time of the 0ontract=s e9ecution! he was mostl) abroad and could not personall) attend to his businesses in the countr)& "astl)! it was respondent! not petitioner! who shouldered the pa)ment of the foreclosure e9penses&

:,$n + Y$2 2011

0aneda spouses mort$a$ed the . parcels of land to Petitioner Auan! emplo)ee and nephew of 'espondent Oap& Petitioner sou$ht the e9tra<udicial foreclosure of the mort$a$e& Goth Petitioner and respondent participated in the auction sale but the properties were still sold to petitioner for tenderin$ the hi$hest bid& /o certificate of sale was issued for failure to pa) the sale=s commission&

0aneda spouses then e9ecuted a 4Owherein the) acknowled$e that the real mort$a$ee6creditor is 'espondent while Petitioner is merel) a trustee& #n the said 4O-! it is stated that 'espondent allows the spouses to redeem the propert)&

-n implied trust arisin$ from mort$a$e contracts is not amon$ the trust relationships the 0ivil 0ode enumerates& *he 0ode itself provides! however! that such listin$ 1does not e9clude others established b) the $eneral law on trust 9 9 9&1 Fnder the $eneral principles on trust! e(uit) converts the holder of propert) ri$ht as trustee for the benefit of another if the circumstances of its ac(uisition makes the holder ineli$ible 1in 9 9 9 $ood conscience PtoQ hold and en<o) PitQ&1 -s implied trusts are remedies a$ainst un<ust enrichment! the 1onl) problem of $reat importance in the field of constructive trusts is whether in the numerous and var)in$ factual situations presented 9 9 9 there is a wron$ful holdin$ of propert) and hence! a threatened un<ust enrichment of the defendant&1 -ppl)in$ these principles! this 0ourt reco$nized unconventional implied trusts in contracts involvin$ the purchase of housin$ units b) officers of tenants= associations in breach of their obli$ations! the partitionin$ of realt) contrar) to the terms of a compromise a$reement!19 and the e9ecution of a sales contract indicatin$ a bu)er distinct from the provider of the purchase mone)& #n all these cases! the formal holders of title were deemed trustees obli$ed to transfer title to the beneficiaries in whose favor the trusts were deemed created& De see no reason to bar the reco$nition of the same obli$ation in a mort$a$e contract meetin$ the standards for the creation of an implied trust&

SPECIAL CONTRACTS SALES 1 E&&"n'.$# R"<,.&.'"& S$n*!"6 + M$2$#$d 4apalad 'ealt) 0orporation was re$istered R"$#'1 owner of parcels of land alon$ 'o9as Goulevard& 8hortl) after the % 8200> 'evolution! 0ampos held 4'0 in trust for former President 4arcos& 0ampos then turned over all the assets pertainin$ to 4'0 to President -(uino& P0GG issued writs of se(uestration for 4'0 and all its properties& Dhen an inventor) of assets was made! it was found that 3 *0*8 were missin$& Fpon investi$ation! it was discovered that General 4ana$er 4analili took it& *he 'e$ister of eeds was notified but the titles were alread) transferred to /ordelak b) virtue of a deed of sale& *he deed was si$ned b) 4a$sa)sa) (previous owner of 4apalad who sold all his shares to /ovo Properties) as president and chairman of the board& 4a$sa)sa) denied si$nin$ the deeds& -n action for annulment of deed of sale and reconve)ance was filed&

*here is lack of consent and consideration& G) the contract of sale! one of the contractin$ parties obli$ates himself to transfer ownership of and to deliver a determinate thin$ and the other part) to pa) therefor a price certain in mone) or its e(uivalent& *he essential re(uisites of a valid contract of sale are@ (1) 0onsent of the contractin$ parties b) virtue of which the vendor obli$ates himself to transfer ownership of and to deliver a determinate thin$! and the vendee obli$ates himself to pa) therefor a price certain in mone) or its e(uivalent& (.) Ob<ect certain which is the sub<ect matter of the contract& *he ob<ect must be licit and at the same time determinate or! at least! capable of bein$ made determinate without the necessit) of a new or further a$reement between the parties& (7) 0ause of the obli$ation which is established& *he cause as far as the vendor is concerned is the ac(uisition of the price certain in mone) or its e(uivalent! which the cause as far as the vendee is concerned is the ac(uisition of the thin$ which is the ob<ect of the contract& A& '/ CONSENTK lack of consent makes the contract annullable 0ontracts of sale are perfected b) mere consent! which is manifested b) the meetin$ of the offer and the acceptance upon the thin$ and the cause which are to constitute the contract&.8 0onsent ma) be $iven onl) b) a person with the le$al capacit) to $ive consent& #n the case of <uridical persons such as corporations like 4apalad! consent ma) onl) be $ranted throu$h its officers who have been dul) authorized b) its board of directors& #n the present case! consent was purportedl) $iven b) 4i$uel 4a$sa)sa)! the person who si$ned for and in behalf of 4apalad in the deed of absolute sale dated /ovember .! 1989& Eowever! as he cate$oricall) stated on the witness stand durin$ trial! he was no lon$er connected with 4apalad on the said date because he alread) divested all his interests in said corporation as earl) as 198.& %ven assumin$! for the sake of ar$ument! that the si$natures purportin$ to be his were $enuine! it would still

be voidable for lack of authorit) resultin$ in his incapacit) to $ive consent for and in behalf of the corporation& -s to 0O/8# %'-*#O/@ "ack of consideration makes the contract void ab initio *here was no pa)ment effected b) /ordelak for this transaction& Aosef testified that no funds were infused into 4apalad=s coffers on account of this transaction& *his testimon) remained uncontroverted& #n fact! the 0- further noted that /ordelak could have easil) produced the cancelled check before the trial court! if there was an)& -$ain! /ordelak did not& A& '/ '!" &.4n$',-"K >irml) settled is the <urisprudential rule that for$er) cannot be presumed from a mere alle$ation but rather must be proved b) clear! positive and convincin$ evidence b) the part) alle$in$ the same& *he burden to prove the alle$ation of for$er) in this case has not been conclusivel) dischar$ed b) petitioners& F.-&'! nothin$ in the records supports the alle$ation e9cept onl) perhaps emetrio=s e9plicit self6servin$ disavowal of his si$nature in open court& S"*/nd! while in fact emetrio at the trial of the case had committed to have the sub<ect si$nature e9amined b) an e9pert! nevertheless! the trial had terminated without the results of the e9amination bein$ submitted in evidence& T!.-d! the claim of for$er)! unsubstantiated as it is! becomes even more unremarkable in li$ht of the fact that the -0 involved in this case is a notarized deed $uaranteed b) public attestation in accordance with law! such that the e9ecution thereof en<o)s the le$al presumption of re$ularit) in the absence of compellin$ proof to the contrar)& A& '/ '!" A,'!/-.'1K Para$raph 5 of the 4O-@ 5& *E-*! the :%/ O' at the re(uest of the :%/ %% shall a$ree to conve) the parcels of land to an) bank or financial institution b) wa) of mort$a$e or to a *rustee b) wa) of a *rust -$reement at an) time from the date of this instrument! P'O:# % ! EOD%:%'! that the :%/ O' is not liable for an) mort$a$e or loans or obli$ations that will be incurred b) wa) of mort$a$e of *rust -$reement that the :%/ %% mi$ht enter into? 8P-@ 1& *o sell andRor mort$a$e in favor of an) person! corporation! partnership! private bankin$ or financial institution! $overnment or semi6$overnment bankin$ or financial institution for such price or amount and under such terms and conditions as our aforesaid attorne)6in6fact ma) deem <ust and proper! parcels of land more particularl) described as follows@ 999 .& *o carr) out the authorit) aforestated! to si$n! e9ecute and deliver such deeds! instruments and other papers that ma) be re(uired or necessar)? 7& *o further attain the authorit) herein $iven! to do and perform such acts and thin$s that ma) be necessar) or incidental to full) carr) out the authorit) herein $ranted& Dhat petitioners miss! however! is that the power conferred on emetrio to sell +for such price or amount, is broad enou$h to cover the e9chan$e contemplated in the -0 between the properties and the correspondin$ corporate shares in P4' 0! with the latter replacin$ the cash e(uivalent of the option mone) initiall) a$reed to be paid b) P4' 0 under the 4O-& *hus! it becomes clear that emetrio=s special power of attorne) to sell is sufficient to enable him to make a bindin$ commitment under the -0 in behalf of 0arolina and 4ar$arita& #n particular! it does include the authorit) to e9tin$uish P4' 0=s obli$ation under the 4O- to deliver option mone) and a$ree to a more fle9ible term b) a$reein$ instead to receive shares of stock in lieu thereof and in

H"-n$nd"6-N."+"-$ + H"-n$nd"6 2011

P4' 0 entered! throu$h its President (:illamor)! into various a$reements with E#G0 and "andbank in connection with a housin$ pro<ect! #sabel homes& #n its -sset Pool >ormation -$reement! P4' 0 conve)ed to E#G0 the constituent assets of the . pro<ects whereas "andbank a$reed to act as trustee of the resultin$ -sset Pool& P4' 0 entered into 4O- where it was $iven the option to bu) parcels of land& One of the owners! emetrio Eernandez! under authorit) of a 8P- to sell or mort$a$e! si$ned the 4O- in behalf of the other sellers& "ater on! P4' 0 needed additional properties to conve) to au$ment the value of the -sset Pool& Eence! it a$ain entered with "andbank and emetrio who was purportedl) actin$ under the same 8P- as in the 4O-! into a eed of -ssi$nment and 0onve)ance ( -0) Petitioners demanded the return of the properties and alle$e that emetrio could not have entered into the said a$reement as his power of attorne) was limited onl) to sellin$ or mort$a$in$ the properties and not conve)in$ the same to the -sset Pool& Petitioners also stand a$ainst the validit) of the -0 on the $round that the si$nature of emetrio therein was spurious&

consideration of the assi$nment and conve)ance of the properties to the -sset Pool& #ndeed! the terms of his special power of attorne) allow much leewa) to accommodate not onl) the terms of the 4O- but also those of the subse(uent a$reement in the -0 which! in this case! necessaril) and conse(uentl) has resulted in a novation of P4' 0=s inte$ral obli$ations& 2 V/.d$9#" T.'#" 3 D/,9#" S$#"& D" L"/n + On4 2011

e "eon sold 7 parcels of land to On$& -s the properties were mort$a$ed to 'eal 8avin$s and "oan -ssociation #ncorporated ('8"-#)! e "eon and On$ e9ecuted a notarized deed of absolute sale with assumption of mort$a$e& Pursuant to this deed! respondent $ave petitioner P315!522 as partial pa)ment& Petitioner! on the other hand! handed the ke)s to the properties and wrote a letter informin$ '8"-# of the sale and authorizin$ it to accept pa)ment from respondent and release the certificates of title& Eowever! e "eon a$ain sold the properties to :iloria& On$ thus proceeded to '8"-# but was informed that e "eon alread) paid the amount due and had taken back the certificates of title& On$ filed a complaint for specific performance! declaration of nullit) of the .nd sale and dama$es a$ains e "eon and :iloria&

*his case involves double sale& Petitioner sold the same properties to two bu)ers! first to respondent and then to :iloria on two separate occasions& Eowever! the second sale was not void for the sole reason that petitioner had previousl) sold the same properties to respondent& -rticle 1533 of the 0ivil 0ode provides@ -rticle 1533& #f the same thin$ should have been sold to different vendees! the ownership shall be transferred to the person who ma) have first taken possession thereof in $ood faith! if it should be movable propert)& S!/,#d .' 9" .00/+$9#" 2-/2"-'1, '!" /%n"-&!.2 &!$## 9"#/n4 '/ '!" 2"-&/n $*<,.-.n4 .' %!/ .n 4//d )$.'! ).-&' -"*/-d"d .' .n '!" R"4.&'-1 /) P-/2"-'1 S!/,#d '!"-" 9" n/ .n&*-.2'./n, '!" /%n"-&!.2 &!$## 2"-'$.n '/ '!" 2"-&/n %!/ .n 4//d )$.'! %$& ).-&' .n '!" 2/&&"&&./nT $nd, .n '!" $9&"n*" '!"-"/), '/ '!" 2"-&/n %!/ 2-"&"n'& '!" /#d"&' '.'#", 2-/+.d"d '!"-" .& 4//d )$.'! ("02!$&.& &,22#."d) *his provision clearl) states that the rules on double or multiple sales appl) onl) to purchasers in $ood faith& /eedless to sa)! it dis(ualifies an) purchaser in bad faith& - purchaser in $ood faith is one who bu)s the propert) of another without notice that some other person has a ri$ht to! or an interest in! such propert) and pa)s a full and fair price for the same at the time of such purchase! or before he has notice of some other person=s claim or interest in the propert)& *he law re(uires! on the part of the bu)er! lack of notice of a defect in the title of the seller and pa)ment in full of the fair price at the time of the sale or prior to havin$ notice of an) defect in the seller=s title& #n this case! On$ is a purchaser in $ood faith& 'espondent purchased the properties! knowin$ the) were encumbered onl) b) the mort$a$e to '8"-#& -ccordin$ to her a$reement with petitioner! respondent had the obli$ation to assume the balance of petitioner=s outstandin$ obli$ation to '8"-#& 0onse(uentl)! respondent informed '8"-# of the sale and of her assumption of petitioner=s obli$ation& Eowever! because petitioner surreptitiousl) paid his outstandin$ obli$ation and took back her certificates of title! petitioner himself rendered respondent=s obli$ation to assume petitioner=s indebtedness to '8"-# impossible to perform& 'espondent was not aware of an) interest in or a claim on the properties other than the mort$a$e to '8"-# which she undertook to assume& 4oreover! :iloria bou$ht the properties from petitioner after the latter sold them to respondent& 'espondent was therefore a purchaser in $ood faith& Eence! the rules on double sale are applicable& T!" &$#" /) '!" #/' '/ P$n'" $nd #$'"- '/ '!" &2/,&"& R,9. -"&,#'"d .n $ d/,9#" &$#" '!$' *$##"d )/'!" $22#.*$'./n /) '!" -,#"& .n A-'.*#" 1DBB /) '!" C.+.# C/d" -s neither Pante nor the spouses 'ubi re$istered the sale in their favor! the (uestion now is who! between the two! was first in possession of the propert) in $ood faith& Aurisprudence has interpreted possession in -rticle 1533 of the 0ivil 0ode to mean both actual p&ysical delivery and constructive delivery& Fnder either mode of deliver)! the facts show that Pante was the first to ac(uire possession of the lot& -ctual deliver) of a thin$ sold occurs when it is placed

R/0$n C$'!/#.* C!,-*! + P$n'"

*he 0hurch! represented b) the -rchbishop of 0aceres! owned a 7.6s(uare meter lot that measured .91; meters located in 0amarines 8ur! over which it entered into a contract of 8ale with Pante! believin$ it was the actual occupant of the lot& Dhen the 0hurch subse(uentl) sold

the lot to spouses 'ubi includin$ the lot sold to Pante! Pante sou$ht to annul the sale& *he 0hurch asserted that its consent to the sale to Pante was obtained b) fraud when the latter misrepresented that the lot was occupied b) him when in fact he was merel) usin$ it as a passa$ewa)& *he '*0 found for the 0hurch! holdin$ that Pante=s dela) in pa)ment was fatal to his cause (he consi$ned the pa)ment three )ears later! after the sale to 'ubi)& *he 0- reversed! holdin$ that the contract between Pante and the 0hurch was a sale because it was made without an) reservation of ownership until full pa)ment of the price&

under the control and possession of the vendee& Pante=s use of the lot as a passa$ewa) after the 199. sale in his favor was a clear assertion of his ri$ht of ownership that preceded the spouses 'ubi=s claim of ownership& Fnder 00 1398 on constructive deliver)! the sale in favor of Pante would have to be upheld since the contract e9ecuted between the 0hurch and Pante was dul) notarized! convertin$ the deed into a public instrument& D,'1 /) 9,1"- +P-Q bu)er of real propert) in the possession of persons other than the seller must be war) and should investi$ate the ri$hts of those in possession& Dithout such in(uir)! the bu)er can hardl) be re$arded as a bu)er in $ood faith and cannot have an) ri$ht over the propert)&1 *he 'ubis should have seen that there were pipes and electric connections made b) Pante& N/ 0.&-"2-"&"n'$'./n Given the size of the lot! it could serve no other purpose than as a mere passa$ewa)? it is unthinkable to consider that a .91;6meter strip of land could be mistaken as an)one=s residence& (rticle *2BB. <f t&e sa$e t&in" s&ould &ave been sold to different vendees- t&e owners&ip s&all be transferred to t&e person w&o $ay &ave first taken possession t&ereof in "ood fait&- if it s&ould be $ovable property. S&ould it be i$$ovable property- t&e owners&ip s&all belon" to t&e person ac#uirin" it w&o in "ood fait& first recorded it in t&e Re"istry of Property. /hould there be no inscription, the o+nership shall pertain to the person +ho in good faith +as first in the possession: and- in t&e absence t&ereof- to t&e person w&o presents t&e oldest titleprovided t&ere is "ood fait&.& P"'.'./n d"n."d A-' 1B8B $22#."& .n '!.& 2-"&"n' *$&" *he court held that all the 7 remedies stated in the provision are available as a remed) for 8outhern 4otors& #n -rt& 1383 it was provided that! #n a contract of sale of personal propert) the price of which is pa)able in installments! the vendor ma) e9ercise of the followin$ remedies@ (1) %9act fulfillment of the obli$ation! should the vendee fail to pa)? (.) 0ancel the sale! should the vendeeLs failure to pa) cover two or more installments? (7) >oreclose the chattel mort$a$e on the thin$ sold! if one has been constituted! should the vendeeLs failure to pa) cover two or more installments& #n this case! he shall have no further action a$ainst the purchaser to recover an) unpaid balance of the price& -n) a$reement to the contrar) shall be void& 8outhern 4otors opted to avail of the e9act fulfillment of the obli$ation to pa)! as it filed an action to recover the amount stipulated in the promissor) note! thus it is therefore not limited to the proceeds of the sale on the e9ecution of the mort$a$ed $ood& On their second ar$ument that the machines were dul) returned b) them! and accepted b) 8outhern 4otors! therefore the conditional sale is ipso facto cancelled& *his is ar$ument has no merit& *he sheriff ar$ues on this matter that such $oods were deposited in its shop when the sheriff attached them in pursuance to the e9ecution of <ud$ment& #t would also run counter to the decision of the court in the earlier civil case! which would sa) that the *a<anlan$it did not owe an)thin$ from the 8outhern 4otors! which is not the case& *he court dismissed the case! in favor of the 8outhern 4otors 0orporation& T!" 0"-" -"',-n /) '!" 0/-'4$4"d 0/'/- +"!.*#" 91 '!" 0/-'4$4/- d/"& n/' */n&'.','" d$'./n .n 2$10"n' .n '!" $9&"n*", "E2-"&& /- .02#."d /) '!" '-," .n'"n'./n /) '!" 2$-'."& acion en pa$o is the transmission of the

B S$#" /) M/+$9#"& T$n;$n4#$n4.' + -mador *a<anlan$it and his wife -n$eles bou$ht two tractors S/,'!"-n M/'/-& and a thresher from 8outhern 4otors #nc& *he) then e9ecuted a promissor) note! in favor of such debt (.3!555&55php)& *he note provides that failure to pa) interest of an) installment! the debt shall be demandable& Dhen the) failed to pa) such debt! an action to recover the amount of the promissor) note was filed a$ainst them b) 8outhern 4otors! wherein the) were defaulted! so the court entered <ud$ment in favor of 8outhern 4otors& *he sheriff levied the machineries and sold them in public auction which the 8outhern 4otors itself was the hi$hest bidder! for 12!222php& Dhen an alias writ of e9ecution was filed b) 8outhern 4otors! the sheriff levied other properties belon$in$ to the *a<anlan$its& #n lieu of this! the *a<anlan$its instituted an action to annul the alias writ of e9ecution on the view that! the) have returned such machines to 8outhern 4otors! therefore the) have accepted their offer for settlement of their accounts! and that the repossession of the machines purchased b) installment relieves them from liabilit)& Dhether or not the 8outhern 4otors is prohibited to attach and sell the attached real properties of the ta<anlan$its because the return of the machines purchased and the sale of which e9tin$uish their liabilit)

F.#.n+"&' + P!.# A*"'1#"n"

Philippine -cet)lene 0o& purchased from -le9ander "im a motor vehicle described as 0hevorlet 19;9 model for P55B to be paid in instalments& -s securit) for the pa)ment of said promissor)

D" L$ C-,6 + A&.$n C/n&,0"-

note! the appellant e9ecuted a chattel mort$a$e over the same motor vehicle in favor of said -le9ander "im& *hen! "im assi$ned to the >ilinvest all his ri$hts! title! and interests in the promissor) note and chattel mort$a$e b) virtue of a eed of -ssi$nment& Phil -cet)lene defaulted in the pa)ment of nine successive installments& >ilinvest sent a demand letter& 'epl)in$ thereto! Phil -cet)lene wrote back of its desire to return the mort$a$ed propert)! which return shall be in full satisfaction of its indebtedness& 8o the vehicle was returned to the >ilinvest to$ether with the document +:oluntar) 8urrender with 8pecial Power of -ttorne) *o 8ell&, >ilinvest offered to deliver back the motor vehicle to the appellant but the latter refused to accept it! so appellee instituted an action for collection of a sum of mone) with dama$es& DO/ there was dation in pa)ment that e9tin$uished Phil -cet)lene=s obli$ationC /O& *he spouses 'omulo and elia de la 0ruz and one aniel >a<ardo bou$ht on installment a Eino truck from Genter 4otor 8ales 0orporation! to secure which the) e9ecuted a promissor) note and chattel mort$a$e over the truck in favor of Genter& Genter then assi$ned its ri$hts to the promissor) note and the chattel mort$a$e to -sian 0onsumer and #ndustrial >inance 0orporation& *he de la 0ruzes and >a<ardo failed to pa) more than . installments and still failed to settle the obli$ation despite a demand letter from -sian 0onsumer& -sian 0onsumer caused the e9tra<udicial foreclosure of the chattel mort$a$e! but the sheriff failed to possess the truck because of the refusal of 'olando! son of the spouses de la 0ruz! to surrender the same& 'omulo de la 0ruz brou$ht the truck to -sian 0onsumer where it was inventoried and inspected& I& A&.$n C/n&,0"- $#-"$d1 9$--"d )-/0 "E"-*.&.n4 /'!"-"0"d."& ,nd"- A-'.*#" 1B8B /) '!" C.+.# C/d" $)'"- .' !$& .n.'.$'"d "E'-$;,d.*.$# )/-"*#/&,-"V NO

ownership of a thin$ b) the debtor to the creditor as an accepted e(uivalent of the performance of obli$ation& #n dacion! the debtor offers another thin$ to the creditor who accepts it as e(uivalent of pa)ment of an outstandin$ debt& *he undertakin$ reall) partakes in one sense of the nature of sale! that is! the creditor is reall) bu)in$ the thin$ or propert) of the debtor! pa)ment for which is to be char$ed a$ainst the debtor=s debt& -s such! the essential elements of a contract of sale! namel)! consent! ob<ect certain! and cause or consideration must be present& #n its modern concept! what actuall) takes place in dacion en pa$o is an ob<ective novation of the obli$ation where the thin$ offered as an accepted e(uivalent of the performance of an obli$ation is considered as the ob<ect of the contract of sale! while the debt is considered as the purchase price& #n an) case! common consent is an essential prere(uisite! be it sale or innovation to have the effect of totall) e9tin$uishin$ the debt or obli$ation&

In '!.& *$&" n/ $*',$# )/-"*#/&,-" /**,--"d .n +."% /) R/#$nd/ d" #$ C-,6G& -"),&$# '/ &,--"nd"- '!" 2/&&"&&./n /) '!" '-,*( '/ A&.$n C/n&,0"- *he records show that on 13 8eptember 1983 -8#-/ initiated a petition for e9tra<udicial foreclosure of the chattel mort$a$e& Gut the sheriff failed to recover the motor vehicle from the spouses de la 0ruz due to the refusal of their son to surrender it& #t was not until 12 October 1983! or almost a month later that the de la 0ruzes delivered the unit to -sian 0onsumer& *he action to recover the balance of the purchase price was instituted on .5 /ovember 1983& #t is thus clear that while -sian 0onsumer eventuall) succeeded in takin$ possession of the mort$a$ed vehicle! it did not pursue the foreclosure of the mort$a$e as shown b) the fact that no auction sale of the vehicle was ever conducted& 0onse(uentl)! there bein$ no actual foreclosure of the mort$a$ed propert)! -sian 0onsumer is correct in resortin$ to an ordinar) action for collection of the unpaid balance of the purchase price&

D O2'./n '/ 3,1NS"## S$n*!"6 + R.4/& -n option to Purchase a$reement was entered into b) 'i$os and 8anchez& 'i$os a$reed! promised and committed to sell to 8anchez for 1!512 a parcel of land in /ueva %ci<a within .)ears from the date of the a$reement (failure to compl) with the conditions will automaticall) terminate the offer)& 8anchez was able to make several pa)ments amountin$ to 1!512 within the . )ear period but 'i$os refused to e9ecute the contract '*0@ 'i$os was ordered to enforce the contract 'i$os@ there is no valid contract of sale for there is no valuable consideration but onl) a unilateral promise to sell -rticle 1359 and not 17.3 is the controllin$ doctrine since the case is about sale1359 states that a promise must be supported b) a consideration distinct from price 8anchez was never able to establish the

Y"& I) $n /2'./n .& 4.+"n %.'!/,' $ */n&.d"-$'./n, .' .& $ 0"-" /))"- /) $ */n'-$*' /) &$#" %!.*! .& n/' 9.nd.n4 ,n'.# $**"2'"d #f however! acceptance is made before a withdrawal! it constitutes a bindin$ contract of sale even thou$h the option was not supported b) a sufficient consideration& the concurrence of the offer and the acceptance $enerates a contract of sale Provision of the same law must be reconciles& -rticle 17.3 6 $eneral principles on contract 6 is modified b) -rticle 1359 6 on sales 6 which makes the latter the e9ception to the former& -ccordin$ to statutor) construction! e9ceptions are not favored unless the intention to the contrar) is clear& (1) -rticle 1753 applies to contracts in $eneral! whereas the second para$raph of -rticle 1359 refers to sales in particular! and! more specificall)! to an accepted unilateral promise to bu) or to sell& #n other words! -rticle 1359 is controllin$ in the case at bar& (.) #n order that said unilateral promise ma) be bindin$ upon the promissor! -rticle 1359 re(uires the concurrence of a condition! namel)! that the promise be supported b) a consideration distinct from the price&

e9istence of a valuable consideration& DR/ there is a valid contract of sale E,#/4./ + A2"#"& *he spouses -peles leased the propert)! a house and lot situated in Uuezon 0it)! to %nrico %ulo$io after his fatherLs death and he succeeded as lessor of the said propert)& %ulo$io and the spouses -peles later entered into a 0ontract of "ease with Option to Purchase which afforded %ulo$io the option of purchasin$ the propert) for a price not e9ceedin$ P1&5 million! on or before the e9piration of the 7 )ear lease period& Gefore the e9piration of the lease %ulo$io tried to purchase the propert) b) communicatin$ with -peles but the spouses i$nored him& %u$olio then filed an action which is founded on the contract allowin$ him to ac(uire ownership of the propert) after pa)in$ the a$reed amount& ISSUEK Dhether or not %u$olio has the ri$ht to ac(uire ownership of the propert)& Respondent was the owner of a parcel of land& Petitioner and "ourdes e9ecuted a 0ontract of "ease over the abovementioned parcel of land for a period of three )ears& urin$ the effectivit) of the lease! "ourdes sent a letter to 'oberto where she offered to sell to the latter sub<ect parcel of land& 8he pe$$ed the price and $ave him two )ears to decide on the said offer& >our months after the e9piration of the 0ontract of "ease! "ourdes sold sub<ect parcel of land to her onl) child! 0atalina 8uarez6 e "eon! her son6in6law Dilfredo e "eon! and her two $randsons! 4i$uel "uis 8& e "eon and 'ommel 8& e "eon (the e "eons)! for a total consideration of onl) P.!552!222&22 as evidenced b) a eed of -bsolute 8ale e9ecuted b) the parties& *0* /o& 15598;8 was then issued b) the 'e$istr) of eeds of Uuezon 0it) in the name of the e "eons& *he new owners throu$h their attorne)6in6fact! Guillerma 8& 8ilva! notified 'oberto to vacate the premises& 'oberto refused hence! the e "eons filed a complaint for Fnlawful etainer before the 4e*0 of Uuezon 0it) a$ainst him& *he 4e*0 rendered a ecision orderin$ 'oberto to vacate the propert) for non6pa)ment of rentals and e9piration of the contract&

T,$6/n + d"# R/&$-./-S,$-"6

-ccordin$l)! the promisee cannot compel the promissor to compl) with the promise! unless the former establishes the e9istence of said distinct consideration& #n other words! the promisee has the burden of provin$ such consideration& Plaintiff herein has not even alle$ed the e9istence thereof in his complaint& /o& A**/-d.n4 '/ '!" */n'-$*' '!" /2'./n .& n/' /) .'&"#) $ 2,-*!$&" 9,' 0"-"#1 &"*,-"& $ 2-.+.#"4" '/ 9,1 -ccordin$ to article 1359 of the 0ivil 0ode! Lan accepted unilateral promise to bu) or to sell a determinate thin$ for a price certain is bindin$ upon the promissor if the promise is supported b) a consideration from the priceL& #n the case of %ulo$io! no consideration was $iven b) him to the spouses for the option of the contract& An /2'./n .& $ */n'-$*' 91 %!.*! '!" /%n"- /) '!" 2-/2"-'1 $4-""& %.'! $n/'!"2"-&/n '!$' '!" #$''"- &!$## !$+" '!" -.4!' '/ 9,1 '!" )/-0"-L& 2-/2"-'1 $' $ ).E"d 2-.*" %.'!.n $ *"-'$.n '.0" #t is a condition offered or contract b) which the owner stipulates with another that the latter shall have the ri$ht to bu) the propert) at a fi9ed price within a certain time! or under! or in compliance with certain terms and conditions? or which $ives to the owner of the propert) the ri$ht to sell or demand a sale& -n option is not of itself a purchase! but merel) secures the privile$e to bu)& #t is not a sale of propert) but a sale of the ri$ht to purchase& #t is simpl) a contract b) which the owner of the propert) a$rees with another person that he shall have the ri$ht to bu) his propert) at a fi9ed price within a certain time& Ee does not sell his land? he does not then a$ree to sell it? but he does sell somethin$! i.e.- the ri$ht or privile$e to bu) at the election or option of the other part)& #ts distin$uishin$ characteristic is that it imposes no bindin$ obli$ation on the person holdin$ the option! aside from the consideration for the offer& T!.& *$&" .n+/#+"& $n /2'./n */n'-$*' $nd n/' $ */n'-$*' /) $ -.4!' /) ).-&' -"),&$# #n this case! 'oberto did not accept the terms stated in the letter of "ourdes as he ne$otiated for a much lower price& *herefore not an acceptance of the offer of "ourdes& 'oberto! thus! does not have an) ri$ht to demand that the propert) be sold to him at the price for which it was sold to the e "eons neither does he have the ri$ht to demand that said sale to the e "eons be annulled& #t is clear that the letter embodies an option contract as it $rants 'oberto a fi9ed period of onl) two )ears to bu) the sub<ect propert) at a price certain of P75!531!222&22& #t bein$ an option contract! the rules applicable are found in -rticles 17.3 and 1359 of the 0ivil 0ode& O2'./n */n'-$*' `-n a$reement in writin$ to $ive a person the `option= to purchase lands within a $iven time at a named price is neither a sale nor an a$reement to sell& I' .& &.02#1 $ */n'-$*' 91 %!.*! '!" /%n"- /) 2-/2"-'1 $4-""& %.'! $n/'!"- 2"-&/n '!$' !" &!$## !$+" '!" -.4!' '/ 9,1 !.& 2-/2"-'1 $' $ ).E"d 2-.*" %.'!.n $ *"-'$.n '.0" Ee does not sell his land? he does not then a$ree to sell it? but he does sell somethin$? that is! the ri$ht or privile$e to bu) at the election or option of the other part)& *he second part) $ets in praesenti! not lands! nor an a$reement that he shall have lands! but he does $et somethin$ of value? that is! the ri$ht to call for and receive lands if he elects& *he owner parts with his ri$ht to sell his lands! e9cept to the second part)! for a limited period& *he second part) receives this ri$ht! or rather! from his point of view! he receives the ri$ht to elect to bu)& R.4!' /) ).-&' -"),&$# On the other hand! in (n" Pu (suncion v. C(- an elucidation on the 1ri$ht of first refusal1 was made thus@ #n the law on sales! the so6called `ri$ht of first refusal= is an innovative <uridical relation& #it cannot be deemed a perfected contract of sale under -rticle 1358 of the 0ivil 0ode& /either can the ri$ht of first refusal! understood in its normal concept! per se be brou$ht within the purview of an option under the second para$raph of -rticle 1359! afore(uoted! or possibl) of an offer under -rticle 1719 of the same 0ode& -n option or an offer would re(uire! amon$ other thin$s! a clear certaint) on both the ob<ect and the cause or consideration of the envisioned contract& In $ -.4!' /) ).-&' -"),&$#, %!.#" '!" /9;"*' 0.4!' 9" 0$d" d"'"-0.n$'", '!" "E"-*.&" /) '!" -.4!', !/%"+"-,

PUP + G/#d"n H/-.6/n (.212)

A-*!9.&!/2 C$2$##$ + COMELEC (.21.)

#n the seventies! / 0 had entered tinto two contracts of lease with a compan) called Golden Eorizon 'ealt) 0orporation (GE'0)& *hese each had a term of 12 )ears! renewable for another 12 upon the consent of the parties& #n addition GE'0 was $ranted an +option, to purchase the leased propert)& Gefore the e9piration of the second lease contract! GE'0 sou$ht to e9ercise its option to renew the lease and re(uested priorit) to ne$otiate for the propert)=s purchase should / 0 opt to sell& / 0 did not respond to this re(uest but even after the e9pir) of the term kept on acceptin$ the rentals& GE'0 learned that / 0 had decided to secretl) dispose of the land which prompted GE' to take le$al action& 4eanwhile! then President -(uino issued a memorandum order orderin$ the transfer to the /ational $overnment of that / 0 propert)& *he /ational Government in turn transferred the propert) to PFP& *he issue is whether the transfer of the propert) violated the +option, that had been $ranted to GE'0& Pursuant to its authorit) to use an -utomated %lection 8)stem and in accordance with '- /o& 9183! otherwise known as the =overn$ent Procure$ent Refor$ (ct! 0omelec posted and published an invitation to appl) for eli$ibilit) and to bid for the .212 Poll -utomation Pro<ect& #t issued 'esolution /o& 8;28 awardin$ the contract for the Pro<ect to respondent 8martmatic6*#4& *he contract between the 0omelec and 8martmatic6 *#4 was one of +lease of the -%8 with option to purchase (O*P) the $oods listed in the contract&, (%ssentiall)! 8martmatic leased to 0O4%"%0 the P0O8 machines that were used in the elections! but if

%/,#d 9" d"2"nd"n' n/' /n#1 /n '!" 4-$n'/-L& "+"n',$# .n'"n'./n '/ "n'"- .n'/ $ 9.nd.n4 ;,-.d.*$# -"#$'./n %.'! $n/'!"- 9,' $#&/ /n '"-0&, .n*#,d.n4 '!" 2-.*", '!$' /9+./,&#1 $-" 1"' '/ 9" #$'"- ).-0"d ,2 Prior thereto! it can at best be so described as merel) belon$in$ to a class of preparator) <uridical relations $overned not b) contracts (since the essential elements to establish the vinculu$ ;uris would still be indefinite and inconclusive) but b)! amon$ other laws of $eneral application! the pertinent scattered provisions of the 0ivil 0ode on human conduct& %ven on the premise that such ri$ht of first refusal has been decreed under a final <ud$ment! like here! its breach cannot <ustif) correspondin$l) an issuance of a writ of e9ecution under a <ud$ment that merel) reco$nizes its e9istence! nor would it sanction an action for specific performance without thereb) ne$atin$ the indispensable element of consensualit) in the perfection of contracts& #t is not to sa) that the ri$ht of first refusal would be inconse(uential for! such as alread) intimated above! an un<ustified disre$ard thereof! $iven! for instance! the circumstances e9pressed in -rticle 19 of the 0ivil 0ode! can warrant a recover) for dama$es& F-/0 '!" )/-"4/.n4, .' .& '!,& *#"$- '!$' $n /2'./n */n'-$*' .& "n'.-"#1 d.))"-"n' $nd d.&'.n*' )-/0 $ -.4!' /) ).-&' -"),&$# .n '!$' .n '!" )/-0"-, '!" /2'./n 4-$n'"d '/ '!" /))"-"" .& )/- $ ).E"d 2"-./d $nd $' $ d"'"-0.n"d 2-.*" L$*(.n4 '!"&" '%/ "&&"n'.$# -"<,.&.'"&, %!$' .& .n+/#+"d .& /n#1 $ -.4!' /) ).-&' -"),&$# -n option is a contract b) which the owner of a propert) a$rees with another that the latter shall have the ri$ht to bu) the former=s propert) at a fi9ed price within a certain time& #t binds the part) who has $iven the option! not to enter into a contract with an) other person durin$ the period desi$nated! and within that period! to enter into such a contract with the one to whom the option was $ranted! if the latter decides to use the option& On the other hand! a ri$ht of first refusal is a contractual $rant! not of a sale of a propert)! but of first priorit) to bu) the propert) in the event the owner sells the same& -s distin$uished from an option contract! in a ri$ht of first refusal! while the ob<ect mi$ht be made determinate! the e9ercise of the ri$ht of first refusal would eb dependent not onl) on the owner=s eventual intention to enter into a transaction with another! but also on terms! includin$ the price! that are )et to be firmed up& T!" I/2'./nJ 4.+"n '/ GHRC .& /9+./,&#1 $ 0"-" -.4!' /) ).-&' -"),&$# $nd '!.& .& n/' d.&2,'"d 91 '!" 2$-'."& Dhat PFP and / 0 assail is the conclusion that such ri$ht of first refusal subsisted even after the e9piration of the ori$inal lease period when GE'0 was allowed to continue sta)in$ in the leased premises under an implied renewal of lease& *he) ar$ue that the ri$ht of first refusal provision was not carried over to such month6to6month lease& *he court found this position untenable& E+.d"n*" &!/%& '!$' $' '!" '.0" NDC 9"4$n n"4/'.$'.n4 )/- '!" '-$n&)"- /) '!" #$nd '/ PUP, '!" -.4!' /) ).-&' -"),&$# %$& &,9&.&'.n4 H"n*", %!"'!"- /- n/' '!" -.4!' /) ).-&' -"),&$# %$& *$--."d /+"- '/ '!" .02#."d #"$&", .& .--"#"+$n' W!"'!"- /- n/' '!" C/00.&&./n /n E#"*'./n& 0$1 +$#.d#1 $**"2' '!" "E'"n&./n /) '.0" ,n.#$'"-$##1 4.+"n 91 S0$-'0$'.*-TIM C/-2/-$'./n %.'!.n %!.*! '/ "E"-*.&" '!" /2'./n '/ 2,-*!$&" ,nd"- A-'.*#" B /) '!" C/n'-$*' )/- '!" P-/+.&./n /) $n A,'/0$'"d E#"*'./n S1&'"0 )/- '!" M$1 2010 S1n*!-/n.6"d N$'./n$# $nd L/*$# E#"*'./n& O%8& #n interpretin$ contracts! an instrument must be construed so as to $ive effect to all the provisions of the contract& *he contract must be read and taken as a whole& Dhile the contract indeed specificall) re(uired the 0omelec to notif) 8martmatic6 *#4 of its O*P the sub<ect $oods until ecember 71! .212! a readin$ of the other provisions of the -%8 contract would show that the parties are $iven the ri$ht to amend the contract which ma) include the period within which to e9ercise the option& *here is! likewise! no prohibition on the e9tension of the period! provided that the contract is still effective&

0O4%"%0 chooses to bu) the said machines! the rental fee will be considered part of the purchase price)& 0omelec partiall) e9ercised its O*P 9.2 units of P0O8 machines with correspondin$ canvassin$Rconsolidation s)stem (008) for the special elections in certain areas in 4indanao& *he period for the O*P was e9tended and 0omelec issued 'esolution /o& 9758 resolvin$ to approve the eed of 8ale between the 0omelec and 8martmatic6*#4 to purchase the latter=s P0O8 machines (hardware and software) to be used in the upcomin$ 4a) .217 elections and to authorize 0hairman Grillantes to si$n the eed of 8ale for and on behalf of the 0omelec& *he eed of 8ale was e9ecuted& Petitioners assail the validit) and constitutionalit) of the 0omelec 'esolutions for the purchase of the sub<ect P0O8 machines as well as the %9tension -$reement and the eed of 8ale coverin$ said $oods mainl) on three $rounds@ (1) the option period provided for in the -%8 contract between the 0omelec and 8martmatic6 *#4 had alread) lapsed and! thus! could no lon$er be e9tended! such e9tension bein$ prohibited b) the contract? (.) the e9tension of the option period and the e9ercise of the option without competitive public biddin$ contravene the provisions of '- 9183? and! (7) despite the palpable infirmities and defects of the P0O8 machines! the 0omelec purchased the same in contravention of the standards laid down in '- 97;9& = R.4!' /) F.-&' R"),&$# E<,$'/-.$# + M$1)$.0armelo entered into a lease contract with 4a)fair (/ovember over its properties for a period of .2 )ears& Goth 199;) contracts of lease provide identicall) worded par& 8! which reads@ +*hat if the "%88O' should desire to sell the leased premises! the "%88%% shall be $iven 726da)s e9clusive option to purchase the same&, 0armelo wrote 4a)fair of its intention to sell the premises to a certain Aose -raneta for ]1!.22!222 and 4a)fair is willin$ to bu) for ; or 54& 4a)fair wrote back and said that the) will let 0armelo know of their decision& One month later! 4a)fair sent another latter statin$ that the) intend to bu) not onl) the leased premises! but the entire buildin$ for 11&74& >our )ears later! 0armelo sold its land and buildin$ to %(uatorial& 4a)fair instituted an action for specific performance and annulment of the sale& 0armelo=s defense was the option contract was ineffective for lack of consideration& *he lower court dismissed the case! findin$ that the said option contract lacked

P,9#.* C/n'-$*'& - winnin$ bidder is not precluded from modif)in$ or amendin$ certain provisions of the contract bidded upon& Eowever! such chan$es must not constitute substantial or material amendments that would alter the basic parameters of the contract and would constitute a denial to the other bidders of the opportunit) to bid on the same terms& T!" $0"nd0"n' /) '!" AES */n'-$*' (/n '!" 2"-./d %.'!.n %!.*! COMELEC *$n "E"-*.&" '!" /2'./n) .& n/' &,9&'$n'.$# An /2'./n .& /n#1 $ 2-"2$-$'/-1 */n'-$*' $nd $ */n'.n,.n4 /))"- '/ "n'"- .n'/ $ 2-.n*.2$# */n'-$*' Fnder the set6up! the owner of the propert)! which is 8martmatic6*#4! $ives the optionee! which is the 0omelec! the ri$ht to accept the former=s offer to purchase the $oods listed in the contract for a specified amount! and within a specified period& *hus! the 0omelec is $iven the ri$ht to decide whether or not it wants to purchase the sub<ect $oods& W!"'!"- /- n/' '!" $**"2'$n*" /) '!" "E'"n&./n $nd '!" .&&,$n*" /) C/0"#"* En 3$n* R"&/#,'./n N/ 73>= +./#$'" R"2,9#.* A*' N/ 718B /- '!" G/+"-n0"n' P-/*,-"0"n' R")/-0 A*' $nd .'& I02#"0"n'.n4 R,#"&, $nd R"2,9#.* A*' N/ 73=7 /'!" A,'/0$'"d E#"*'./n S1&'"0& A*' /O& *he purpose of public biddin$ which is to find the most advanta$eous terms in favor of the $overnment is accomplished b) the e9tension of the period for 0O4%"%0 to e9ercise the O*P& P"'.'./n& d.&0.&&"d -s the 0omelec is confronted with time and bud$et constraints! and in view of the 0omelec=s mandate to ensure free! honest! and credible elections! the acceptance of the e9tension of the option period! the e9ercise of the option! and the e9ecution of the eed of 8ale! are the more prudent choices available to the 0omelec for a successful .217 automated elections& Petitioners could not even $ive a plausible alternative to ensure the conduct of a successful .217 automated elections! in the event that the 0ourt nullifies the eed of 8ale&

T!" */n'-$*',$# &'.2,#$'./n 2-/+.d"& )/- $ -.4!' /) ).-&' -"),&$# .n )$+/- /) M$1)$.- "t is not an option clause or an option contract I' .& $ */n'-$*' /) $ -.4!' /) ).-&' -"),&$# -s earl) as 191;! in the case of eau$ont vs& Prieto! une(uivocal was our characterization of an option contract as one necessaril) involvin$ the choice $ranted to another for a distinct and separate consideration as to whether or not to purchase a determinate thin$ at a predetermined fi9ed price& *he rule so earl) established in this <urisdiction is that the deed of option or the option clause in a contract! in order to be valid and enforceable! must! amon$ other thin$s! indicate the definite price at which the person $rantin$ the option! is willin$ to sell& P"'.'./n d"n."d eed of -bsolute 8ale between %(uatorial and 0armelo rescinded& 0armelo ordered to allow 4a)fair to bu) the lots at 11&74& Austice :itu$ dissent@ - ri$ht of first refusal cannot have the effect of a contract because b) its ver) essence certain basic terms would have )et to be determined and fi9edMthe offer must be certain and acceptance absolute&

PARANACUE 5INGS ENTERPRISES V CA, SANTOS, RAYMUNDO (1995)

consideration and ordered 4a)fair to vacate& *he 0- differentiated between 00 17.3 and 00 1359! anal)zed their application to the facts of this case! and concluded that since par& 8 of the lease contracts does not state a fi9ed price for the purchase of the leased premises! which is an essential element for a contract of sale to be perfected! what para$raph 8 is! must be a ri$ht of first refusal and not an option contract& 0atalina 8antos owned 8 parcels of land leased to 0hua! who assi$ned its ri$hts thereto to "ee 0hin$ Gin$! who! in turn! assi$ned said ri$hts to Parana(ue Bin$s %nterprises! which introduced si$nificant improvements on the premises& Para$raph 9 of the lease a$reement provides@ +9& *hat in case the properties sub<ect of the lease a$reement are sold or encumbered! "essors shall impose as a condition that the bu)er or mort$a$ee thereof shall reco$nize and be bound b) all the terms and conditions of this lease a$reement and shall respect this 0ontract of "ease as if the) are the "%88O'8 thereof and in case of sale! "%88%% shall have the ).-&' /2'./n /- 2-./-.'1 '/ 9,1 the properties sub<ect of the lease?, 0atalina! in violation of the said stipulation! sold the lot to 'a)mundo for P54& Parana(ue Bin$s notified her of the said breach! and she immediatel) had the lots reconve)ed& 8he then offered the lot to Parana(ue Bin$s for P154? but the latter refused claimin$ that the offer was +ridiculous&,0atalina thereafter sold it a$ain to 'a)mundo for P94&

Dhether or not the ri$ht of first refusal is a valid cause of action O%8& - careful e9amination of the complaint reveals that it sufficientl) alle$es an actionable contractual breach on the part of private respondents& Fnder para$raph 9 of the contract of lease between respondent 8antos and petitioner! the latter was $ranted the +first option or priorit), to purchase the leased properties in case 8antos decided to sell& #f 8antos never decided to sell at all! there can never be a breach! much less an enforcement of such +ri$ht&, Gut on 8eptember .1! 1988! 8antos sold said properties to 'espondent 'a)mundo without first offerin$ these to petitioner& 8antos indeed realized her error! since she repurchased the properties after petitioner complained& *hereafter! she offered to sell the properties to petitioner for P15 million! which petitioner! however! re<ected because of the +ridiculous, price& Gut 8antos a$ain appeared to have violated the same provision of the lease contract when she finall) resold the properties to respondent 'a)mundo for onl) P9 million without first offerin$ them to petitioner at such price& Dhether there was actual breach which entitled petitioner to dama$es andRor other <ust or e(uitable relief! is a (uestion which can better be resolved after trial on the merits where each part) can present evidence to prove their respective alle$ations and defenses& *he basis of the ri$ht of the first refusal must be the current offer to sell of the seller or offer to purchase of an) prospective bu)er& Onl) after the $rantee fails to e9ercise its ri$ht of first priorit) under the same terms and within the period contemplated! could the owner validl) offer to sell the propert) to a third person! a$ain! under the same terms as offered to the $rantee&

> E$-n"&' M/n"1 SPOUSES CIFRA V Petitioner spouses! thru their attorne)6in6 CA, CHUA fact 0atalan! entered into an a$reement denominated +%arnest 4one), with (1991) respondent 0hua& - readin$ of the sub<ect contract which the parties labeled as 1%arnest mone)1 shows that it is an a$reement to sell the real propert) described therein for the amount of P1&1 4 with assumption of the P32!222&22 mort$a$e! b) which P5!222&22 was paid upon si$nin$ of the a$reement b) private respondent to petitioner as earnest mone)! which is part of the consideration& *he balance of the consideration shall be paid upon the removal of the tenant or occupant from the premises and upon the e9ecution of the deed of absolute sale& #n the addendum to the a$reement it is

*he provisions of -rticles 1752 to 1755 of the 0ivil 0ode on the interpretation of contracts are s(uarel) applicable to this case& *he a$reement presents the literal and clear a$reement of the parties& >rom their contemporaneous and subse(uent acts it also appears that the proceeds of the sale of the propert) b) petitioners were intended to appl) to a proposed business venture of petitioners abroad& -s said proposed business did not prosper and the tenantsRoccupants of the premises have not )et vacated the premises! petitioners decided to rescind the contract of sale in accordance with the a$reement& Fnder the addendum to the same a$reement! both parties are $iven the freedom to back out of the transaction provided that! in the case of the seller! he must return the earnest mone) in addition to bein$ liable to the bu)er for P.2!222&22! plus attorne)Ls fees and other costs in case of liti$ation? and in case of the bu)er! the earnest mone) is forfeited! and he is liable to pa) the seller P.2!222&22 in dama$es plus attorne)s fees and other costs in case of liti$ation to the seller& *his ri$ht which is afforded to both parties ma) be availed of b) them! irrespective of whether or not the occupant of the premises had vacated the same& *his stipulation is the law between the parties& 0onse(uentl)! the action for specific performance must fail& >or the rescission of the contract! petitioners must return the P5!222&22 earnest mone) and pa) P.2!222&22 to the private respondent& Eowever! the) are not liable for attorne)s fees! for it was private respondent who brou$ht the case to court as a result of which petitioners unnecessaril) incurred e9penses of liti$ation&

SPOUSES SERRANO V CAGUIAT (.225)

stipulated that in case the bu)er fails to purchase the propert) after the seller formall) notified him of the surrender of the premises b) the tenant or occupant! in addition to the forfeiture of the earnest mone)! the bu)er must pa) the seller P.2!222&22 plus attorne)Ls fees and other costs in case of liti$ation& On the other hand! if the seller does not make $ood his promise to sell the propert) even after the present tenant shall have surrendered the premises! the seller binds himself to return the earnest mone) and in addition pa) the bu)er P.2!222&22 plus the attorne)Ls fees and other costs in case of liti$ation& Petitioner spouses are the re$istered owners of a lot located in "as PiSas& 'espondent 0a$uiat offered to bu) the lot& *he spouses a$reed to sell it at P1!522&22 per s(uare meter& 0a$uiat then $ave the spouses P122!222&22 as partial pa)ment& #n turn! the spouses $ave 0a$uiat a receipt statin$ that 0a$uiat promised to pa) the balance of the purchase price on or before 4arch .7! 1992& 8ubse(uentl)! the spouses sent a letter to 0a$uiat statin$ that the) are cancelin$ the transaction and that 0a$uiat can recover the earnest mone) of P122!222&22 an)time& *hereafter! the spouses wrote 0a$uiat statin$ that the) delivered to his counsel a check in the amount of P122!222 pa)able to him& #n view of the cancellation of the contract! 0a$uiat filed with the '*0 4akati a complaint a$ainst the spouses for specific performance and dama$es& *he '*0 ruled that there was a perfected contract of sale between the parties and ordered the spouses to e9ecute a final deed of sale& #ssue@ Dhether the document entitled 1'eceipt for Partial Pa)ment1 si$ned b) both parties is a contract to sell or a contract of sale&

*he 80 held that the parties entered into a contract to sell! not a contract of sale& #n holdin$ that there is a perfected */n'-$*' /) &$#"! both the '*0 and the 0- mainl) relied on the earnest mone) $iven b) respondent to petitioners& *he) invoked -rticle 138. of the 0ivil 0ode which provides that 1Dhenever earnest mone) is $iven in a contract of sale! it shall be considered as part of the price and as proof of the perfection of the contract&1 San !i"uel Properties P&ilippines- <nc. v. Spouses @uan" @ 8ta$es of a contract of sale@ (1) ne"otiation! coverin$ the period from the time the prospective contractin$ parties indicate interest in the contract to the time the contract is perfected? (.) perfection! which takes place upon the concurrence of the essential elements of the sale! which is the meetin$ of the minds of the parties as to the ob<ect of the contract and upon the price? and (7) consu$$ation! which be$ins when the parties perform their respective undertakin$s under the contract of sale! culminatin$ in the e9tin$uishment thereof& - contract to sell is akin to a conditional sale where the efficac) or obli$ator) force of the vendorLs obli$ation to transfer title is subordinated to the happenin$ of a future and uncertain event! so that if the suspensive condition does not take place! the parties would stand as if the conditional obli$ation had never e9isted& T!" &,&2"n&.+" */nd.'./n .& */00/n#1 ),## 2$10"n' /) '!" 2,-*!$&" 2-.*" & #n other words! in a contract to sell! ownership is retained b) the seller and is not to pass to the bu)er until full pa)ment of the price& #n this case! the 1'eceipt for Partial Pa)ment1 shows that the true a$reement between the parties is a */n'-$*' '/ &"##& /irst! ownership over the propert) was retained b) petitioners and was not to pass to respondent until full pa)ment of the purchase price& *hus! petitioners need not push throu$h with the sale should respondent fail to remit the balance of the purchase price before the deadline on 4arch .7! 1992& #n effect! petitioners have the ri$ht to rescind unilaterall) the contract the moment respondent fails to pa) within the fi9ed period& Second! the a$reement between the parties was not embodied in a deed of sale& *he absence of a formal deed of conve)ance is a stron$ indication that the parties did not intend immediate transfer of ownership! but onl) a transfer after full pa)ment of the purchase price& T&ird! petitioners retained possession of the certificate of title of the lot& *his is an additional indication that the a$reement did not transfer to respondent! either b) actual or constructive deliver)! ownership of the propert)&

#t is true that -rticle 138. of the 0ivil 0ode provides that 1Dhenever earnest mone) is $iven in a contract of sale! it shall be considered as part of the price and proof of the perfection of the contract&1 Eowever! this article speaks of "$-n"&' 0/n"1 $iven in a contract of sale& #n this case! the "$-n"&' 0/n"1 %$& 4.+"n .n $ */n'-$*' '/ &"##& *he earnest mone) forms part of the consideration onl) if the sale is consummated upon full pa)ment of the purchase price& /ow! since the earnest mone) was $iven in a contract to sell! -rticle 138.! which speaks of a contract of sale! does not appl)& 8 E<,.'$9#" M/-'4$4" HEIRS OF ARCHES :da de iaz e9ecuted in favor of the late V VDA DE DIA@ Aose -rches a deed of sale with pacto de retro over a parcel of land in consideration (1957) of P1.!522& urin$ his lifetime! -rches filed a petition with the 0># of 0apiz to consolidate ownership over the lot& :da de iaz opposed the petition alle$in$ amon$ other thin$s that the said deed of sale with pacto de retro did not e9press the true intention of the parties! which was merel) to constitute a mort$a$e on the proper securit) for a loan& -fter hearin$ the case on the merits! the trial court denied the petition holdin$ in effect that the contract was an e(uitable mort$a$e& -rches filed a petition for certiorari but such was dismissed& #n addition to the sum of P1.!522&22! -rches spent P1!537&52 in connection with the reconstitution of the title to "ot /o& .52; in the name of the vendor and in pa)in$ the real estate ta9es on said lot for the )ears 1951 to 19;2& Dhen -rches died! his heirs demanded from the defendant the pa)ment of the P1.!522 and the reimbursement of the P1!537&52& 7 C$2$*.'1 '/ C/n'-$*' D.-"*'/- /) L$nd& + 4a9imo en$a$ed the services of law)er A9$9$ -tt)& >ernandez in a case involvin$ the recover) of land& -dverse decision was rendered& 4a9imo appealed the case and e9ecuted a document whereb) he will $ive (1959) half of the land he will recover b) wa) of appeal to -tt)& >ernandez& 4a9imo won the case and refused to $ive to -tt)& >ernandez his share of the land& *he decision of the cadastral court! holdin$ in effect that the sale with pacto de retro was an e(uitable mort$a$e and conse(uentl) dismissin$ the petition to consolidate ownership! did not constitute an ad<udication of the ri$ht to foreclose the mort$a$e or to collect the indebtedness& #n the case of Correa vs. !ateo and <casiano! wherein an unrecorded pacto de retro sale was construed as an e(uitable mort$a$e! it was ruled that the plaintiff had the ri$ht 1within si9t) da)s after final <ud$ment! for a failure to pa) the amount due and owin$ him! to foreclose his mort$a$e in a proper proceedin$ and sell all or an) part of the ten parcels of land to satisf) his debt&1 #n effect this 0ourt reco$nized the ri$ht of the plaintiff to enforce his lien in a separate proceedin$ notwithstandin$ the fact that he had failed to obtain <ud$ment declarin$ him the sole and absolute owner of the parcels of land in (uestion& *he law abhors in<ustice& #t would be un<ust in this case to allow the defendant to escape pa)ment of his debt and! worse still! to rationalize such a result b) his ver) claim that he is a debtor and not! as the plaintiff sa)s! a vendor of propert) in favor of the latter& 8trictl) speakin$! where the petition of the vendee in a pacto de retro sale is for a <udicial order pursuant to -rticle 1;25 of the 0ivil 0ode! so that consolidation of ownership b) virtue of the failure of the vendor to redeem ma) be recorded in the 'e$istr) of Propert)! the ri$ht of action to foreclose the mort$a$e or to collect the indebtedness arises from the <ud$ment of the court declarin$ the contract as e(uitable mort$a$e& -lthou$h an alternative pra)er to this effect ma) be made in the petition! the same cannot but be conditional! that is! onl) in the event such a declaration made! contrar) to the plaintiffLs claim and the principal relief he seeks& Eis failure to make that alternative pra)er! and the failure of the court to $rant it in the <ud$ment dismissin$ the petition! should not be considered as a bar to collectin$ the indebtedness in a proper action for that purpose&

*he pivotal issue to be resolved in the instant case is the validit) or nullit) of the re$istration of the adverse claim of -tt)& >ernandez! resolution of which in turn hin$es on the (uestion of whether or not the contract for a contin$ent fee! basis of the interest of -tt)& >ernandez! is prohibited b) the -rticle 1391 of the /ew 0ivil 0ode& >or the prohibition in -rticle 1391 to operate! the sale or transfer of the propert) must take place durin" t&e pendency of the liti$ation involvin$ the propert) - contract for a contin$ent fee is not covered b) -rticle 1391 because the tranfer or assi$nment of the propert) in liti$ation takes effect onl) after the finalit) of a favorable <ud$ment& #n the instant case! the attorne)Ls fees of -tt)& >ernandez! consistin$ of one6half (1R.) of whatever 4a9imo -bar(uez mi$ht recover from his share in the lots in (uestion! is contin$ent upon the success of the appeal& Eence! the pa)ment of the attorne)Ls fees! that is! the transfer or assi$nment of one6half (1R.) of the propert) in liti$ation will take place onl) if the appeal prospers& *herefore! the tranfer actuall) takes effect after the finalit) of a favorable <ud$ment rendered on appeal and not durin$ the pendenc) of the liti$ation involvin$ the propert) in (uestion& 0onse(uentl)! the contract for a contin$ent fee is not covered b) -rticle 1391&

L$.4 + C/,-' /) A22"$#& (1958)

*his is a motion for reconsideration whereb) 0armen contests the decision of the 0ourt that there was a double sale& 0armen claims that there was no double sale because the first sale was void ab initio for bein$ in violation of -rt! 1391 par&5& #n said sale! the propert) was sold to -tt)& "ai$ who was the law)er in the case involvin$ said propert)& Aose 'amirez was co6owner of 1R; of a propert) in 4anila with 4arie and 3 others& Aose 'amirez died& Ee be(ueathed his propert) to his children and the free portion to -n$ela& 4arie sold her undivided share of the propert) in 4anila to 4anuel& -n$ela sou$ht to redeem said undivided share& Paz and %nri(ue were co6owners pro indiviso of a lot and buildin$ in 0ebu 0it)& %nri(ue sold his interest in the propert) to the 'affinan spouses& On -u$ust 19! Paz found out when %nri(ue showed him the deed of sale! he tried to redeem %nri(ue=s share b) offerin$ P.9B then P73B& *his was refused leadin$ to the instant case filed on October 3& *he lower court declared that Paz redeemed be)ond the 72 da) period& Paz claims that no written notice was $iven b) the 'affinan spouses and that even if there was no tender! which would preserve the period! there was demand which served the same purpose&

Dhen the propert) in (uestion was sold to -tt)& "ai$! the decision in 0ivil 0ase /o& 1;36'613 was alread) final and therefore the propert) in (uestion was no lon$er sub<ect of liti$ation& Eence -tt)& "ai$ was no lon$er prohibited from bu)in$ the propert) in (uestion because 1attorne)s are onl) prohibited from bu)in$ their clientsL propert) w&ic& is t&e sub;ect of liti"ation.G 0onse(uentl)! the sale havin$ taken place after the finalit) of the favorable <ud$ment in the said civil case and not durin$ the pendenc) of the liti$ation! there was no violation of -rticle 1391! para$raph 5& Eence! the first sale to -tt)& "ai$ of the propert) in (uestion is valid&

10 R"d"02'./n 3,''" + U1

-n$ela 4& Gutte is entitled to e9ercise the ri$ht of le$al redemption is clear& -s testamentar) heir of the estate of A&:& 'amirez! she and her co6heirs ac(uired an interest in the undivided one6si9th (1R;) share owned b) her predecessor& *he heirs of Aose :& 'amirez ac(uired his undivided share in the 8ta& 0ruz propert) from the moment of his death! and from that instant! the) became co6owners in the aforesaid propert)! to$ether with the ori$inal survivin$ co6owners of their decedent (causante)& - co6owner of an undivided share is necessaril) a co6owner of the whole& Dherefore! an) one of the 'amirez heirs! as such co6owner! became entitled to e9ercise the ri$ht of le$al redemption ( retracto de co$uneros) as soon as another co6owner (4aria Garnier :da& de 'amirez) had sold her undivided share to a stran$er! 4anuel& Dith re$ard to the written notice! we a$ree with petitioners that such notice is indispensable! and that! in view of the terms in which -rticle of the Philippine 0ivil 0ode is couched! mere knowled$e of the sale! ac(uired in some other manner b) the redemptioner! does not satisf) the statute& Fpon the other hand! -rticle 1;.7 does not prescribe an) particular form of notice! nor an) distinctive method for notif)in$ the redemptioner& 8o lon$! therefore! as the latter is informed in writin$ of the sale and the particulars thereof! the 72 da)s for redemption start runnin$! and the redemptioner has no real cause to complain& #n the case at bar! the Paz admits that on -u$ust 19! 195. the co6owner6vendor! showed and $ave Paz a cop) of the 1951 deed of sale in favor of respondents 'affiSan& *he furnishin$ of this cop) was e(uivalent to the $ivin$ of written notice re(uired b) law& -s a necessar) conse(uence! the 726da) period for the le$al redemption b) co6owner Paz *orres ( retracto de co$uneros) be$an to run its coursed from and after -u$ust 19! 195.! endin$ on 8eptember 18! of the same )ear& *he ne9t (uer) is@ did petitioners effectuate all the steps re(uired for the redemptionC *he) did not& ona fide redemption necessaril) imports a seasonable and valid tender of the entire repurchase price& -s found b) the lower court! the) offered to pa) P12k and pa) the rest of the price in installments& *he law re(uires the redemption price to be full) offered in le$al tender or else validl) consi$ned in court within the 726da) period&

(19;.)

C/n";"-/ + C/,-' /) A22"$#&

(19;;)

A#/n6/ + CA (178>)

>ive brothers and sisters inherited in e(ual pro indiviso shares a parcel of land re$istered in Lthe name of their deceased parents& *wo of the siblin$s transferred their shares to herein petitioners&

*he onl) real (uestion in this case! therefore! is the correct interpretation and application of the pertinent law as invoked! interestin$l) enou$h! b) both the petitioners and the private respondents& *his is -rticle 1288 of the 0ivil 0ode! providin$ as follows@ -rt& 1288& 8hould an) of the heirs sell his hereditar) ri$hts to a stran$er before the partition! an) or all of the co6heirs ma) be subro$ated to the ri$hts of the purchaser b) reimbursin$ him for the price of the sale! provided the) do so within the period of one month from the time the) were notified in writin$ of the sale b) the vendor&

G) virtue of such a$reements! the petitioners occupied! after the said sales! an area correspondin$ to two6fifths of the said lot! representin$ the portions sold to them& *he vendees subse(uentl) enclosed the same with a fence& #n 1955! with their consent! their son %duardo -lonzo and his wife built a semi6concrete house on a part of the enclosed area& *he other siblin$s filed a complaint invokin$ their ri$ht of redemption& *he trial court d.&0.&&"d '!" *$&"! on the $round that the ri$ht had lapsed! not havin$ been e9ercised within thirt) da)s from notice of the sales& -lthou$h there was no written notice! it was held that actual knowled$e of the sales b) the co6heirs satisfied the re(uirement of the law

#n reversin$ the trial court! the respondent court declared that the notice re(uired b) the said article was written notice and that actual notice would not suffice as a substitute& 0itin$ the same case of .e Cone;ero v. Court of (ppeals applied b) the trial court! the respondent court held that that decision! interpretin$ a like rule in -rticle 1;.7! stressed the need for written notice althou$h no particular form was re(uired& *hus! accordin$ to Austice A&G&"& 'e)es! who was the ponente of the 0ourt! furnishin$ the co6heirs with a cop) of the deed of sale of the propert) sub<ect to redemption would satisf) the re(uirement for written notice& 18o lon$! therefore! as the latter (i&e&! the redemptioner) is informed in writin$ of the sale and the particulars thereof!1 he declared! 1the thirt) da)s for redemption start runnin$& 1 #n the earlier decision of utte v. UP! 1 the 0ourt! speakin$ throu$h the same learned <urist! emphasized that the written notice should be $iven b) the vendor and not the vendees! conformabl) to a similar re(uirement under -rticle 1;.7! readin$ as follows@ -rt& 1;.7& *he ri$ht of le$al pre6emption or redemption shall not be e9ercised e9cept within thirt) da)s from the notice in writin$ b) the prospective vendor! or b) the vendors! as the case ma) be& *he deed of sale shall not be recorded in the 'e$istr) of Propert)! unless accompanied b) an affidavit of the vendor that he has $iven written notice thereof to all possible redemptioners& *he ri$ht of redemption of co6owners e9cludes that of the ad<oinin$ owners& -s 1it is thus apparent that the Philippine le$islature in -rticle 1;.7 deliberatel) selected a particular method of $ivin$ notice! and that notice must be deemed e9clusive!1 the 0ourt held that notice $iven b) the vendees and not the vendor would not toll the runnin$ of the 726da) period& #n the face of the established facts! we cannot accept the private respondentsL pretense that the) were unaware of the sales made b) their brother and sister in 19;7 and 19;3& G) re(uirin$ written proof of such notice! we would be closin$ our e)es to the obvious truth in favor of their palpabl) false claim of i$norance! thus e9altin$ the letter of the law over its purpose& *he purpose is clear enou$h@ to make sure that the redemptioners are dul) notified& De are satisfied that in this case the other brothers and sisters were actuall) informed! althou$h not in writin$! of the sales made in 19;7 and 19;3! and that such notice was sufficient& De realize that in arrivin$ at our conclusion toda)! we are deviatin$ from the strict letter of the law! which the respondent court understandabl) applied pursuant to e9istin$ <urisprudence& *he said court acted properl) as it had no competence to reverse the doctrines laid down b) this 0ourt in the above6 cited cases& #n fact! and this should be clearl) stressed! we ourselves are not abandonin$ the e 0one<ero and Guttle doctrines& W!$' %" $-" d/.n4 &.02#1 .& $d/2'.n4 $n "E*"2'./n '/ '!" 4"n"-$# -,#", .n +."% /) '!" 2"*,#.$- *.-*,0&'$n*"& /) '!.& *$&" *he co6heirs in this case were undeniabl) informed of the sales althou$h no notice in writin$ was $iven them&

11 RA =DD2 (An A*' '/ P-/+.d" P-/'"*'./n '/ 3,1"-& /) R"$# E&'$'" /n In&'$##0"'n P$10"n'&) 12 W$.+"-NW$--$n'."& L$)/-'"6$ + M$*!,*$ *he heirs of the late >rancisco U& "aforteza *he ne9t issue to be addressed is whether the failure of the respondent to pa) the balance of the (2000) represented b) 'oberto H& "aforteza and purchase price within the period allowed is fatal to his ri$ht to enforce the a$reement& Gonzalo H& "aforteza! Ar& sold a parcel of De rule in the ne$ative& (1772) land to petitioner 4achuca under a -dmittedl)! the failure of the respondent to pa) the balance of the purchase price was a breach of the 4emorandum of -$reement (4O-)& contract and was a $round for rescission thereof& *he e9tension of thirt) (72) da)s alle$edl) $ranted to the respondent b) 'oberto H& "aforteza (assisted b) his counsel -ttorne) 'omeo Gutierrez) was

"afortezas refused to continue sale despite 4achuca offerin$ to pa) the remainin$ purchase price& 4achuca filed action for specific performance&

correctl) found b) the 0ourt of -ppeals to be ineffective inasmuch as the si$nature of Gonzalo H& "aforteza did not appear thereon as re(uired b) the 8pecial Powers of -ttorne)& Eowever! the evidence reveals that after the e9piration of the si96month period provided for in the contract! the petitioners were not read) to compl) with what was incumbent upon them! i&e& the deliver) of the reconstituted title of the house and lot& #t was onl) on 8eptember 18! 1989 or nearl) ei$ht months after the e9ecution of the 4emorandum of -$reement when the petitioners informed the respondent that the) alread) had a cop) of the reconstituted title and demanded the pa)ment of the balance of the purchase price& *he respondent could not therefore be considered in dela) for in reciprocal obli$ations! neither part) incurs in dela) if the other part) does not compl) or is not read) to compl) in a proper manner with what was incumbent upon him& %ven assumin$ for the sake of ar$ument that the petitioners were read) to compl) with their obli$ation! we find that rescission of the contract will still not prosper& *he rescission of a sale of an immovable propert) is specificall) $overned b) -rticle 159. of the /ew 0ivil 0ode! which reads@ #n the sale of immovable propert)! even thou$h it ma) have been stipulated that upon failure to pa) the price at the time a$reed upon the rescission of the contract shall of ri$ht take place! the vendee ma) pa)! even after the e9piration of the period! as lon$ as no demand for rescission of the contract has been made upon him either <udiciall) or b) a notarial act& -fter the demand! the court ma) not $rant him a new term& #t is not disputed that the petitioners did not make a <udicial or notarial demand for rescission& *av*he /ovember .2! 1989 letter of the petitioners informin$ the respondent of the automatic rescission of the a$reement did not amount to a demand for rescission! as it was not notarized& #t was also made five da)s after the respondentLs attempt to make the pa)ment of the purchase price& *his offer to pa) prior to the demand for rescission is sufficient to defeat the petitionersL ri$ht under article 159. of the 0ivil 0ode& Gesides! the 4emorandum -$reement between the parties did not contain a clause e9pressl) authorizin$ the automatic cancellation of the contract without court intervention in the event that the terms thereof were violated& - seller cannot unilaterall) and e9tra<udiciall) rescind a contract or sale where there is no e9press stipulation authorizin$ him to e9tra<udiciall) rescind& /either was there a <udicial demand for the rescission thereof& *hus! when the respondent filed his complaint for specific performance! the a$reement was still in force inasmuch as the contract was not )et rescinded& -t an) rate! considerin$ that the si96month period was merel) an appro9imation of the time if would take to reconstitute the lost title and was not a condition imposed on the perfection of the contract and considerin$ further that the dela) in pa)ment was onl) thirt) da)s which was caused b) the respondents <ustified but mistaken belief that an e9tension to pa) was $ranted to him! we a$ree with the 0ourt of -ppeals that the dela) of one month in pa)ment was a mere casual breach that would not entitle the respondents to rescind the contract& 'escission of a contract will not be permitted for a sli$ht or casual breach! but onl) such substantial and fundamental breach as would defeat the ver) ob<ect of the parties in makin$ the a$reemant& PetitionersL insistence that the respondent should have consi$nated the amount is not determinative of whether respondentLs action for specific performance will lie& Petitioners themselves point out that the effect of cansi$nation is to e9tin$uish the obli$ation& #t releases the debtor from responsibilit) therefor& *he failure of the respondent to consi$nate the P;22!222&22 is not tantamount to a breach of the contract for b) the fact of tenderin$ pa)ment! he was willin$ and able to compl) with his obli$ation& PetitionersL insistence that the respondent should have consi$nated the amount is not determinative of whether respondentLs action for specific performance will lie& Petitioners themselves point out that the effect of cansi$nation is to e9tin$uish the obli$ation& #t releases the debtor from responsibilit) therefor& *he failure of the respondent to consi$nate the P;22!222&22 is not tantamount to a breach of the contract for b) the fact of tenderin$ pa)ment! he was willin$ and able to compl) with his obli$ation& *he 0ourt of -ppeals correctl) found the petitioners $uilt) of bad faith and awarded moral dama$es to the respondent& -s found b) the said 0ourt! the petitioners refused to compl) with! their obli$ation for the reason that the) were offered a hi$her price therefor and the respondent was even offered P122!222&22 b) the petitionersL law)er! -ttorne) Gutierrez! to relin(uish his ri$hts over the propert)&

:.&/n + CA (1788)

Petitioners! the spouses /ewton and 8alvacion Aison! entered into a 0ontract to 8ell with private respondent! 'obert O& Phillips N 8ons! #nc&! whereb) the latter a$reed to sell to the former a lot at the :ictoria :alle) 8ubdivision in -ntipolo! 'izal for the a$reed price of P55!222&22! with interest at 8!19;5 per annum! pa)able on an installment basis& Petitioners failed several times to pa) the monthl) installments due& *hus! in a letter dated -pril ;! 19;5& Private respondent returned petitionersL check and informed them that the contract was cancelled when on -pril 1! 1985 petitioners failed to pa) the monthl) installment due! thereb) makin$ their account delin(uent for three months& On -pril 19! 19;5! petitioners tendered pa)ment for all the installments alread) due but the tender was refused& *hus! petitioners countered b) filin$ a complaint for specific performance with the 0ourt of >irst #nstance of 'izal on 4a) 3! 19;5 and consi$nin$ the monthl) installments due with the court& >ollowin$ the hearin$ of the case! wherein the parties entered into a stipulation of facts! the trial court on Aanuar) 9! 19;9 rendered <ud$ment in favor of private respondent! dismissin$ the complaint and declarin$ the contract cancelled and all pa)ments alread) made b) petitioner franchise& orderin$ petitioners to pa) P1!222&22 as and for attorne)Ls fees? and declarin$ the consi$nation and tender of pa)ment made b) petitioners as not amountin$ to pa)ment of the correspondin$ monthl) installments& /ot satisfied with the decision of the trial court! petitioners appealed to the 0ourt of -ppeals& -$reein$ with the findin$s and conclusions of the trial court! the 0ourt of

*he award of moral dama$es is in accordance with -rticle 1191 of the 0ivil 0ode pursuant to -rticle ...2 which provides that moral dama$es ma) be awarded in case of breach of contract where the defendant acted in bad faith& *he amount awarded depends on the discretion of the court based on the circumstances of eachcase& Fnder the circumstances! the award $iven b) the 0ourt of -ppeals amountin$ to P52!222&22 appears to us to be fair and reasonable& *here is no den)in$ that in the instant case the resolution or rescission of the 0ontract to 8ell was valid& /either can it be said that the cancellation of the contract was ineffective for failure of private respondents to $ive petitioners notice thereof as petitioners were informed cancelled private respondent that the contract was cancelled in the letter dated -pril ;! 19;5 & -s '&-& /o& ;585;! was not )et effective! the notice of cancellation need not be b) notarial act! private respondentLs letter bein$ sufficient compliance with the le$al re(uirement& *he facts of Lfee instant case should be distin$uished from those in the Pala) #nc& case! as such distinction will e9plain wh) the 0ourt in said case invalidated the resolution of the contract& #n said case! the subdivision developer! without informin$ the bu)er of the cancellation of the contract! resold the lot to another person& *he lot bu)er in said case was onl) informed of the resolution of the contract some si9 )ears later after the developer! re<ected his re(uest for authorit) to assi$n his ri$hts under the contract& 8uch a situation does not obtain illness@ the instant case& #n fact! petitioners were informed of the cancellation of their contract in -pril 19;5! when private respondent wrote them the letter dated -pril ;! 19;5 and within a month the) were able to file a complaint a$ainst Private respondent& Dhile the resolution of the contract and the forfeiture of the amounts alread) paid are valid and bindin$ upon petitioners! the 0ourt is convinced that the forfeiture of the amount of P5&22 althou$h it includes the accumulated fines for petitionersL failure to construct a house as re(uired b) the contract! is clearl) ini(uitous considerin$ that the contract price is onl) P;!157&15 *he forfeiture of fift) percent (52b) of the amount alread) paid! or P7!.87&55 appears to be a fair settlement& #n arrivin$ at this amount the 0ourt $ives wei$ht to the fact that althou$h petitioners have been delin(uent in pa)in$ their amortizations several times to the pre<udice of private respondent! with the cancellation of the contract the possession of the lot review&&&& to private respondent who is free to resell it to another part)& -lso! had '&-& /o& ;585;! been applicable to the instant case! the same percenta$e of the amount alread) paid would have been forfeited *he 0ourtLs decision to reduce the amount forfeited finds support in the 0ivil 0ode& -s stated in para$raph 7 of the contract! in case the contract is cancelled! the amounts alread) paid shall be forfeited in favor of the vendor as li(uidated dama$es& *he 0ode provides that li(uidated dama$es! whether intended as an indemnit) or a penalt)! shall be e(uitabl) reduced if the) are ini(uitous or unconscionable P-rt& ...5&Q >urther! in obli$ations with a penal clause! the <ud$e shall e(uitabl) reduce the penalt) when the principal obli$ation has been partl) or irre$ularl) complied with b) the debtor

-ppeals on /ovember 3! 195; affirmed the formerLs decision& 13 C/n'$*' /) S$#"NC/n'-$*' '/ S"## S2/,&"& V$#"n6,"#$ Petitioners ne$otiated with Bala)aan to + 5$#$1$$n (2007) purchase the portion of the lot the) were occup)in$& On -u$ust 5! 1993! the parties e9ecuted a 0ontract to 8ell wherein the) stipulated that petitioners would purchase .7; s(uare meters of the sub<ect propert) for P1!31;!222&22& #t was also stipulated that Bala)aan shall e9ecute the correspondin$ deed of absolute sale over the sub<ect propert) onl) upon full pa)ment of the total purchase price& 8everal pa)ments were made but 8pouses :alenzuela failed to pa) the entire amount stipulated& #n a letter dated 8eptember ;! 1995! petitioners re(uested Bala)aan that the) be issued a deed of sale for the 118 s(& m& portion of the lot where their house was standin$! considerin$ that the) no lon$er had the resources to pa) the remainin$ balance& *he) reasoned that! since the) had alread) paid one6half of the purchase price! or a total of P528!222&22 representin$ 118 s(& m& of the sub<ect propert)! the) should be issued a deed of sale for the said portion of the propert)& Bala)aan responded b) remindin$ petitioners of their unpaid balance and asked that the) settle it within the ne9t few da)s& Bala)aan filed a 0omplaint for 'escission of 0ontract and ama$es a$ainst petitioners before the 'e$ional *rial 0ourt ('*0) of 0aloocan 0it)! Granch 1.;! which was later docketed as 0ivil 0ase /o& 06 18758& *he petition is devoid of merit& #n the present case! the nature and characteristics of a contract to sell is determinative of the propriet) of the remed) of rescission and the award of attorne)=s fees& Fnder a contract to sell! the seller retains title to the thin$ to be sold until the purchaser full) pa)s the a$reed purchase price& *he full pa)ment is a positive suspensive condition! the non6fulfillment of which is not a breach of contract! but merel) an event that prevents the seller from conve)in$ title to the purchaser& *he non6pa)ment of the purchase price renders the contract to sell ineffective and without force and effect& Fnlike a contract of sale! where the title to the propert) passes to the vendee upon the deliver) of the thin$ sold! in a contract to sell! ownership is! b) a$reement! reserved to the vendor and is not to pass to the vendee until full pa)ment of the purchase price& Otherwise stated! in a contract of sale! the vendor loses ownership over the propert) and cannot recover it until and unless the contract is resolved or rescinded? whereas! in a contract to sell! title is retained b) the vendor until full pa)ment of the purchase price& #n the latter contract! pa)ment of the price is a positive suspensive condition! failure of which is not a breach but an event that prevents the obli$ation of the vendor to conve) title from becomin$ effective& 8ince the obli$ation of respondent did not arise because of the failure of petitioners to full) pa) the purchase price! -rticle 1191P.5Q of the 0ivil 0ode would have no application& 'a)os v& 0ourt of -ppeals elucidates@ 0onstruin$ the contracts to$ether! it is evident that the parties e9ecuted a contract to sell and not a contract of sale& *he petitioners retained ownership without further remedies b) the respondents until the pa)ment of the purchase price of the propert) in full& 8uch pa)ment is a positive suspensive condition! failure of which is not reall) a breach! serious or otherwise! but an event that prevents the obli$ation of the petitioners to conve) title from arisin$! in accordance with -rticle 1183 of the 0ivil 0ode& 9 9 9 9999 *he non6fulfillment b) the respondent of his obli$ation to pa)! which is a suspensive condition to the obli$ation of the petitioners to sell and deliver the title to the propert)! rendered the contract to sell ineffective and without force and effect& *he parties stand as if the conditional obli$ation had never e9isted& -rticle 1191 of the /ew 0ivil 0ode will not appl) because it presupposes an obli$ation alread) e9tant& *here can be no rescission of an obli$ation that is still non6e9istin$! the suspensive condition not havin$ happened& *he parties= contract to sell e9plicitl) provides that Bala)aan +shall e9ecute and deliver the correspondin$ deed of absolute sale over, the sub<ect propert) to the petitioners +upon full pa)ment of the total purchase price&, 8ince petitioners failed to full) pa) the purchase price for the entire propert)! Bala)aan=s obli$ation to conve) title to the propert) did not arise& *hus! Bala)aan ma) validl) cancel the contract to sell its land to petitioner! not because it had the power to rescind the contract! but

because their obli$ation thereunder did not arise& Petitioners failed to pa) the balance of the purchase price& 8uch pa)ment is a positive suspensive condition! failure of which is not a breach! serious or otherwise! but an event that prevents the obli$ation of the seller to conve) title from arisin$& *he non6fulfillment b) petitioners of their obli$ation to pa)! which is a suspensive condition for the obli$ation of Bala)aan to sell and deliver the title to the propert)! rendered the 0ontract to 8ell ineffective and without force and effect& *he parties stand as if the conditional obli$ation had never e9isted& #nasmuch as the suspensive condition did not take place! Bala)aan cannot be compelled to transfer ownership of the propert) to petitioners& 4O/*%0-":O v& E%#'8 O> P'#4%'(.212) >acts@ *he propert) involved in this case is a portion of a parcel of land known as "ot /o& .;7 located at 8aba)le 8treet! #li$an 0it)& "ot /o& .;7 has an area of 8;2 s(uare meters covered b) Ori$inal 0ertificate of *itle (O0*) /o& 26.51. re$istered in the name of %u$enia Primero (%u$enia)! married to -lfredo Primero! 8r& (-lfredo)& #n the earl) 1982s! %u$enia leased the lot to petitioner #rene 4ontecalvo (#rene) for a monthl) rental of P522&22& On Aanuar) 17! 1985! %u$enia entered into an un6notarized -$reement7 with #rene! where the former offered to sell the propert) to the latter for P1!222&22 per s(uare meter& *he) a$reed that #rene would deposit the amount of P32!222&22 which shall form part of the down pa)ment e(uivalent to 52b of the purchase price& *he) also stipulated that durin$ the term of ne$otiation of 72 to 35 da)s from receipt of said deposit! #rene would pa) the balance of P312!222&22 on the down pa)ment& #n case #rene defaulted in the pa)ment of the down pa)ment! the deposit would be returned within 12 da)s from the lapse of said ne$otiation period and the -$reement deemed terminated& Eowever! if the ne$otiations pushed throu$h! the balance of the full value of P8;2!222&22 or the net amount of P312!222&22 would be paid in 12 e(ual monthl) installments from receipt of the down pa)ment! with interest at the prevailin$ rate& #rene failed to pa) the full down pa)ment within the stipulated 726356da) ne$otiation period& /onetheless! she continued to sta) on the disputed propert)! and still made several pa)ments with an a$$re$ate amount of P.97!222&22& On the other hand! %u$enia& #ssue@ whether the said -$reement is a contract of sale or a contract to sell& Eeld@ *he Aanuar) 17! 1985 -$reement is a 0O/*'-0* *O 8%""& 'atio@ #n the -$reement! %u$enia! as owner! did not conve) her title to the disputed propert) to #rene since the -$reement was made for the purpose of ne$otiatin$ the sale of the 8;26s(uare meter propert)& On this basis! we are more inclined to characterize the a$reement as a contract to sell rather than a contract of sale& -lthou$h not b) itself controllin$! the absence of a provision in the -$reement transferrin$ title from the owner to the bu)er is taken as a stron$ indication that the -$reement is a contract to sell& #n a contract to sell! the prospective seller e9plicitl) reserves the transfer of title to the prospective bu)er! meanin$! the prospective seller does not as )et a$ree or consent to transfer ownership of the propert) sub<ect of the contract to sell until the happenin$ of an event! which for present purposes we shall take as the full pa)ment of the purchase price& Dhat the seller a$rees or obli$es himself to do is to fulfill his promise to sell the sub<ect propert) when the entire amount of the purchase price is delivered to him& #n other words! the full pa)ment of the purchase price partakes of a suspensive condition! the non6fulfillment of which prevents the obli$ation to sell from arisin$ and thus! ownership is retained b) the prospective seller without further remedies b) the prospective bu)er& - contract to sell is commonl) entered into in order to protect the seller a$ainst a bu)er who intends to bu) the propert) in installment b) withholdin$ ownership over the propert) until the bu)er effects full pa)ment therefor&

On Aune 18! 199;! #rene and /onilon retaliated b) institutin$ 0ivil 0ase /o& ##6 7588 with the '*0 of "anao del /orte for specific performance! to compel %u$enia to conve) the .976s(uare meter portion of "ot /o& .;7 1B S$#" + A4"n*1 8POF8%8 :#"O'#- v& >acts@ 0O/*#/%/*-" On or about Aul) .1! 1995 and (.21.) while in the Fnited 8tates! >ernando purchased for himself and his wife! "ourdes! two (.) round trip airline tickets from 8an ie$o! 0alifornia to /ewark! /ew Aerse) on board 0ontinental -irlines& >ernando purchased the tickets at F8]322&22 each from a travel a$enc) called +Eolida) *ravel, and was attended to b) a certain 4ar$aret 4a$er (4a$er)& -ccordin$ to 8pouses :iloria! >ernando a$reed to bu) the said tickets after 4a$er informed them that there were no available seats at -mtrak! an intercit) passen$er train service provider in the Fnited 8tates& Per the tickets! 8pouses :iloria were scheduled to leave for /ewark on -u$ust 17! 1995 and return to 8an ie$o on -u$ust .1! 1995& 8ubse(uentl)! >ernando re(uested 4a$er to reschedule their fli$ht to /ewark to an earlier date or -u$ust ;! 1995& 4a$er informed him that fli$hts to /ewark via 0ontinental -irlines were alread) full) booked and offered the alternative of a round trip fli$ht via >rontier -ir& 8ince fl)in$ with >rontier -ir called for a hi$her fare of F8]5.;&22 per passen$er and would mean travelin$ b) ni$ht! >ernando opted to re(uest for a refund& 4a$er! however! denied his re(uest as the sub<ect tickets are non6refundable and the onl) option that 0ontinental -irlines can offer is the re6 issuance of new tickets within one (1) )ear from the date the sub<ect tickets were issued& >ernando decided to reserve two (.) seats with >rontier -ir& -s he was havin$ second thou$hts on travelin$ via >rontier -ir! >ernando went to the Gre)hound 8tation where he saw an #ssue@ oes a principal6a$ent relationship e9ist between 0-# and Eolida) *ravelC Eeld@ Oes& 'atio@ #n erroneousl) characterizin$ the contractual relationship between 0-# and Eolida) *ravel as a contract of sale! the 0- failed to appl) the fundamental civil law principles $overnin$ a$enc) and differentiatin$ it from sale& #n Co$$issioner of <nternal Revenue v. Constantino- this 0ourt e9trapolated that the primordial differentiatin$ consideration between the two (.) contracts is the transfer of ownership or title over the propert) sub<ect of the contract& #n an a$enc)! the principal retains ownership and control over the propert) and the a$ent merel) acts on the principal=s behalf and under his instructions in furtherance of the ob<ectives for which the a$enc) was established& On the other hand! the contract is clearl) a sale if the parties intended that the deliver) of the propert) will effect a relin(uishment of title! control and ownership in such a wa) that the recipient ma) do with the propert) as he pleases& -s to how the 0- have arrived at the conclusion that the contract between 0-# and Eolida) *ravel is a sale is certainl) confoundin$! considerin$ that 0-# is the one bound b) the contracts of carria$e embodied b) the tickets bein$ sold b) Eolida) *ravel on its behalf& #t is undisputed that 0-# and not Eolida) *ravel who is the part) to the contracts of carria$e e9ecuted b) Eolida) *ravel with third persons who desire to travel via 0ontinental -irlines! and this conclusivel) indicates the e9istence of a principal6a$ent relationship& *hat the principal is bound b) all the obli$ations contracted b) the a$ent within the scope of the authorit) $ranted to him is clearl) provided under -rticle 1912 of the 0ivil 0ode and this constitutes the ver) notion of a$enc)&

-mtrak station nearb)& >ernando made in(uiries and was told that there are seats available and he can travel on -mtrak an)time and an) da) he pleased& >ernando then purchased two (.) tickets for Dashin$ton! &0& Fpon returnin$ to the Philippines! >ernando sent a letter to 0-# on >ebruar) 11! 1998! demandin$ a refund and alle$in$ that 4a$er had deluded them into purchasin$ the sub<ect tickets& On 8eptember 8! .222! 8pouses :iloria filed a complaint a$ainst 0-#! pra)in$ that 0-# be ordered to refund the mone) the) used in the purchase of the sub<ect tickets with le$al interest from Aul) .1! 1995 and to pa) P1!222!222&22 as moral dama$es! P522!222&22 as e9emplar) dama$es and P.52!222&22 as attorne)=s fees& 1D A&&.4n0"n' /) C-"d.' LEASE NCC 1=B7-1=D3 8#4% -'GO v GOO O%-' (.211)

>acts@ 4ac$raphics owned several billboards across 4etro 4anila and other surroundin$ municipalities! one of which was a 75= 9 52= neon billboard located at the 4a$allanes #nterchan$e in 4akati 0it)& *he 4a$allanes billboard was leased b) 4ac$raphics to 8ime arb) in -pril 1993 at a monthl) rental of P1.2!222&22& *he lease had a term of four )ears and was set to e9pire on 4arch 72! 1998& Fpon si$nin$ of the contract! 8ime arb) paid 4ac$raphics a total of P1&. million representin$ the ten6month deposit which the latter would appl) to the last ten months of the lease& *hereafter! 4ac$raphics confi$ured the 4a$allanes billboard to feature 8ime arb)=s name and lo$o& On 4a) 9! 199;! 8ime arb) and Good)ear e9ecuted a deed entitled + eed of -ssi$nment in connection with 4icrowave 0ommunication >acilit) and in connection with Gillboard -dvertisin$ in 4akati 0it) and Pulilan! Gulacan, %.eed of

#ssue@ 0ould 8ime arb) assi$n the lease to Good)ear without the consent of 4acro$raphicsC Eeld@ /O& 'atio@ -rticle 1;39 of the /ew 0ivil 0ode provides@ -rt& 1;39& *he lessee cannot assi$n the lease without the consent of the lessor! unless there is a stipulation to the contrar)& #n an assi$nment of a lease! there is a novation b) the substitution of the person of one of the parties T the lessee& *he personalit) of the lessee! who dissociates from the lease! disappears& *hereafter! a new <uridical relation arises between the two persons who remain T the lessor and the assi$nee who is converted into the new lessee& *he ob<ective of the law in prohibitin$ the assi$nment of the lease without the lessor=s consent is to protect the owner or lessor of the leased propert)& Dhile there is no dispute that the first re(uisite is present! the 0ourt! after careful consideration of the facts and the evidence on record! finds that the other re(uirements of a valid novation are lackin$& review of the lease contract between 8ime arb) and 4ac$raphics discloses no stipulation that 8ime arb) could assi$n the lease without the consent of 4ac$raphics&

(ssi"n$ent'- throu$h which 8ime arb) assi$ned! amon$ others! its leasehold ri$hts and deposits made to 4ac$raphics pursuant to its lease contract over the 4a$allanes billboard& 8ime arb) then notified 4ac$raphics of the assi$nment of the 4a$allanes billboard in favor of Good)ear throu$h a letter6notice dated 4a) 7! 199;& 4acro$raphics refused to honor the deed of assi$nment between 8ime arb) and Good)ear& Good)ear wants to rescind the eed with 8ime arb) and to be refunded with its pa)ment& >acts@ 8ometime in Aanuar) 19;9! "omises ac(uired from the Ga$uio 0it) Government the ri$ht to occup) two stalls in the Ean$ar 4arket in Ga$uio 0it)! as evidenced b) a permit issued b) the 0it) *reasurer& On 8eptember 8! 1983! "omises entered into an a$reement with respondent Aohnn) 4& 8uerte for the '-$n&)"- /) $## .02-/+"0"n'& $nd -.4!'& /+"- '!" '%/ 0$-("' &'$##& (8tall /os& 9 and 12) for the amount of P.;2!222&22& Aohnn) $ave a down pa)ment of P35!222&22 to "omises! who acknowled$ed receipt of the amount in a document e9ecuted on the same date as the a$reement& Aohnn) made a subse(uent pa)ment of P.7!222&22? hence! a total of P;8!222&22 of the P.;2!222&22 purchase price had been made as of 1983& Gefore full pa)ment could be made! however! "omises backed out of the a$reement and returned the P;8!222&22 to omes and Aaime 8uerte! the mother and the father of Aohnn)! respectivel)& *he return of the P;8!222&22 down pa)ment was embodied in a handwritten receipt& Aohnn) filed a complaint a$ainst "omises before the 'e$ional *rial 0ourt (RTC)! Granch 5! Ga$uio 0it)! for &2"*.).* 2"-)/-0$n*" %.'! d$0$4"&! docketed as 0ivil 0ase /o& 5.26'&

-"F O8 v& 8F%'*% (.21.)

#ssue@ Dhether there was a valid assi$nment of leasehold ri$hts to the market stalls to Aohnn) 8uerteC Eeld@ /o& 'atio@ *he assi$nment of the leasehold ri$hts over the two market stalls was void since it was made without the consent of the lessor! the Ga$uio 0it) Government! as re(uired under -rticle 1;39 of the 0ivil 0ode&

COMMON CARRIERS NCC 1>BD, 1>B7, 1>D3-1>== P!/"n.E A&&/*.$'./n *he SS /ernbank received from 8aco + M$*/nd-$1 (17>D) "owell 8hops a shipment consi$ned to the order of the 0ommercial Gank and *rust 0ompan) with arrival notice to >loro 8pinnin$& *he shipment was insured for ]5!352 with Phoeni9 -ssurance 0ompan) of /ew Oork a$ainst all risks includin$ loss or dama$e& Printed in the smallest t)pe on the back of the bill of ladin$ is the followin$ stipulation limitin$ the carrierLs liabilit) for loss or dama$e to ]522 per packa$e unless the shipper in writin$ declares the nature of the $oods and a hi$her valuation and pa)s additional frei$hta$e on the basis of such hi$her& *he bill of ladin$ provides that 1in acceptin$ this Gill of "adin$! the shipper! owner and consi$nee of the $oods! and the holder of the Gill of "adin$ a$ree to be bound b) all its stipulations& *he SS /ernbank arrived at the port of 4anila on /ovember .7! 19;1& *he shipment was dischar$ed into the custod) of the 4anila Port 8ervice in bad order and was almost empt)& *he >loro 8pinnin$ 4illsfiled claims with 4acondra) N 0o&! #nc& (the a$ent of the vessel) and with Ber N 0ompan) "td& (the a$ent of the insurance compan)) for the value of the missin$ car$o in the total sum of ]1!51.&58! which was e(uivalent to P3!553&98& Phoeni9 -ssurance 0ompan) paid the claim of >loro 8pinnin$ 4ills in the sum of P3!553&98& -s subro$ee! it filed this action a$ainst 4acondra) N 0o&! #nc& for the recover) of the actual value of the missin$ car$o in the sum of P3!553&98& 4acondra) N 0o replied that the ma9imum limitation of the vesselLs liabilit) was ]522 per packa$e& -ir >rance 0arrascoso (19;;) v >-0*8@ 'afael 0arrascoso! a civil en$ineer! was one of the .8 >ilipino pil$rims who left 4anila for "ourdes& Ee had a first class round trip ticket from 4anila to 'O4%& >rom 4anila to Gan$kok! he traveled in `first class!= but in Gan$kok the mana$er of -ir >rance forced him to

*he shipper paid the frei$ht on the basis of the wei$ht of the car$o and not on the basis of its actual value which was not properl) declared& *he lower court did not err in holdin$ that 4acondra) N 0o& #nc& is liable to Phoeni9 -ssurance 0ompan) onl) in the amount of ]522 under 0lause 15 of the bill of ladin$& 0lause 15 is sanctioned b) section 3 of the 0OG8- which provides that neither the carrier nor the ship shall in an) event be liable for an) loss or dama$e in connection with the transportation of $oods in the amount e9ceedin$ F8]522 per packa$e or per customar) frei$ht unit! or the e(uivalent of that sum in other currenc)! unless the nature and value of such $oods have been declared b) the shipper before shipment and inserted in the bill of ladin$& *he fore$oin$ provisions on limited liabilit) are as much a part of a bill of ladin$ as thou$h ph)sicall) in it and as much a part thereof as thou$h placed therein b) a$reement of the parties& *he trial courtLs <ud$ment is affirmed in the sense that the defendantLs liabilit) of ]522 to the plaintiff should be paid at the rate of e9chan$e prevailin$ at the time the <ud$ment is satisfied instead of at the conversion rate prevailin$ in 19;5&

#88F%@ Dhether or not 0arrascoso is entitled to award for moral dama$es E%" @ Eere there is a contract of carria$e between the parties and such contract was breached b) -ir >rance when it wron$full) forced 0arrascoso to vacate the first class seat which he paid for& *he wron$ful e9pulsion is independent of the breach since even without the contract! such wron$ful e9pulsion ma) still make -ir >rance liable for dama$es& #n other words! the wron$ful e9pulsion is in itself a tort&

vacate his seat in favor of a `white man= who had a `better ri$ht to the seat&= 0arrascoso filed for moral dama$es! averrin$ in his complaint the contract of carria$e between -ir >rance and himself& -ir >rance claims that to authorize an award for moral dama$es there must be an averment of fraud or bad faith& 0arrascoso=s complaint is silent& 8hewaram v P-" (19;;) >acts@ - P-" ticket! on the reverse side! stated in fine print that if the value of ba$$a$e is not stated! and the ba$$a$e is lost! the ma9imum liabilit) of P-" is P122&22& #f value in e9cess of P122&22 is stated! P-" will char$e e9tra because P-" is bein$ held liable for an amount e9ceedin$ P122&22& 8hewaram! a Eindu from avao! boarded a P-" plane for 4anila& -mon$ his ba$$a$e was a camera with P822&22 and it was lost& P-" offered to pa) P122&22& 8hewaram wanted full pa)ment of P822&22& CARRIAGE OF GOODS 3Y SEA ACT %astern "ines v #-0 (1985) 8hippin$ >-0*8@ (G&'& /o& "6;9233)@ a vessel operated b) petitioner %astern 8hippin$ "ines! #nc&! loaded at B o b e ! A a p a n ! for transportation to 4anila! 5222 pieces of calorized lance p i p e s i n . 8 packa$es consi$ned to Philippine Gloomin$ 4ills 0o&! #nc&! and 5 cases of spare parts consi$ned to 0entral *e9tile 4ills! #nc& Goth sets of $oods were insured with evelopment#nsurance and 8uret) 0orp& (G&'& /o& 51358)@ the same vessel took on board 1.8 cartons of $arment fabrics and accessories! in . containers! consi$ned to 4ariveles -pparel 0orporation! and two cases of surve)in$ instruments consi$ned to -man %nterprises and General 4erchandise& *he vessel cau$ht fire and sank! resultin$

*he complaint averred@ first! that there was a contract to furnish plaintiff a first class passa$e coverin$ the Gan$kok6*eheran le$? second! that said contract was breached when petitioner failed to furnish first class transportation at Gan$kok? and third! that there was bad faith when petitioner=s emplo)ee compelled 0arrascoso to leave his first class accommodation +after he was alread) seated, and to take a seat in the tourist class! b) reason of which he suffered inconvenience! embarrassment and humiliation! thereb) causin$ him mental an$uish! serious an9iet)! wounded feelin$s and social humiliation! resultin$ in moral dama$es& #t is true that there is no specific mention of the term bad faith in the complaint& Gut! the inference of bad faith is there? it ma) be drawn from the facts and circumstances set forth therein& #ssue@ Dhether the limited liabilit) rule shall appl) in the case at barC Eeld@ *he limited liabilit) rule shall not appl)& 8ince this is a stipulation on (ualified liabilit)! which operates to reduce the liabilit) of the carrier! the carrier and the shipper must a$ree thereupon& Otherwise! the carrier will be liable for full& P-" is full) liable (for full) because 8hewaran did not a$ree to the stipulation on the ticket& #t can not be said that a contract has been entered into between a passen$er and the common carrier! embod)in$ the conditions as printed at the back of the ticket& *he fact that those conditions are printed at the back of the ticket stub in letters so small that the) are hard to read would not warrant the presumption that the passen$er was aware of those conditions such that he had 1fairl) and freel) a$reed1 to those conditions& *he passen$er is considered not havin$ a$reed to the stipulation on the ticket! as manifested b) the fact that he did not si$n the ticket&

#88F%8@ Dhich law should $overnMthe 0ivil 0ode provisions on 0ommon carriers or the 0arria$e of Goods b) 8ea -ct Eeld@ *he law of the countr) to which the $oods are to be transported $ o v e r n s t h e liabilit) of the common carrier in case of their loss! destruction! or deterioration& -s the car$oes were transported from Aapan to the Philippines! the liabilit) of petitioner carrier is $overned primaril) b) the 0ivil 0ode& Eowever in all matters not re$ulated b) said 0ode! the ri$hts and obli$ations of common carrier shall be $overned b) the 0ode of 0ommerce and b) special laws& *hus the 0arria$e of Goods b) 8ea -ct! a special law! is suppletor) to the provisions of the 0ivil 0ode& -rticle 1575 of the 0ivil 0ode provides that all cases than those mentioned in -rticle 1573! the common carrier shall be presumed to have been at fault or to have acted ne$li$entl)! unless it proves that it has observed the e9traordinar) dili$ence re(uired b) law& *he burden is upon %astern 8hippin$ "ines to prove that it has e9ercised the e9traordinar) dili$ence re(uired b) law& >ire here was not considered a natural disaster or calamit) within the contemplation of -rt&1573 for it arises almost invariabl) from some act of man or b) human means? it does not fall within the cate$or) of an act of God unless caused b) li$htnin$ or b) other natural disaster or calamit)&

S$0$- M.n.n4 C/ +& N/-d",'&*!"- L#/1d (178B)

in the total loss of ship and car$o& 8amar 4inin$! #nc& imported one crate of Optima welded wed$e wire sieves from Gremen! German) throu$h the vessel 4R8 8chwabenstein owned b) /ordeutscher "lo)d& *he transaction was covered b) Gill of "adin$ /o& 18! which specified that (1) the shipment was received at Gremen! (.) the frei$ht had been prepaid up to the port of destination or port of disc&ar"e of "oods! which was in avao! and (7) that the carrier undertook to transport the $oods onl) up to the port of disc&ar"e of s&ip! which was in 4anila& Fpon arrival of the vessel in 4anila! the $oods were unloaded and delivered to the bonded warehouse of -40O"& *he $oods! however! were not delivered to nor received b) 8amar 4inin$! #nc& in avao& >or loss of the $oods! 8amar 4inin$! #nc& filed a suit a$ainst /ordeutscher "lo)d for pa)ment of P1!;91&97& *he trial court decided in favor of 8amar 4inin$! #nc&! promptin$ /ordeutscher "lo)d to appeal the case&

/ordeutscher "lo)d is /O* liable& *here were two undertakin$s under the Gill of "adin$& *he first one is for the transport of $oods from Gremen to 4anila! and the second one is for the transs&ip$ent of the same $oods from 4anila to avao& *he same Gill of "adin$ provided that +PtheQ carrier! in makin$ arran$ements for an) transs&ippin"^ shall be considered solel) the forwardin$ a$ent of the shipper and without an) responsibilit) whatsoever even thou$h the frei$ht for the whole transport has been collected b) him&, *hus! at the hiatus between the two undertakin$s! which is the moment when the $oods are dischar$ed in 4anila! /ordeutscher "lo)d=s personalit) chan$es from that of carrier to that of the a$ent of the consi$nee& 8uch bein$ the case! there was in effect actual deliver) of the $oods from /ordeutscher "lo)d as carrier to /ordeutscher "lo)d as a$ent of the consi$nee& Fnder -rticle 157; of the /00! the carrier ma) be relieved of the responsibilit) for loss or dama$e to the $oods upon actual or constructive deliver) to the consi$nee or to the person who has a ri$ht to receive them& *here is actual deliver) in the contract for transport of $oods when possession has been turned over to the consi$nee or to his dul) authorized a$ent and a reasonable time is $iven him to remove the $oods& #n this case! there was actual deliver) to the consi$nee throu$h its dul) authorized a$ent! the carrier& /ordeutscher "lo)d! as a$ent! cannot be held liable for the loss of the $oods since there was no showin$ of ne$li$ence! deceit! or fraud on its part! neither was there an) showin$ of notorious incompetence or insolvenc) on the part of -40O"! which acted as /ordeutscher "lo)d=s substitute in storin$ the $oods awaitin$ transshipment& ('elevant provisions on a$enc)@ -rticles 1883! 1889! 189.! and 1929 of the /00) 5ote6 T&e Court applied t&e 5CC in resolvin" t&e case since F4t7&e liability of t&e co$$on carrier for t&e loss- destruction- or deterioration of "oods transported fro$ a forei"n country to t&e P&ilippines is "overned pri$arily by t&e 5CC. <n all $atters not re"ulated by said Code- t&e ri"&ts and obli"ations of co$$on carriers s&all be "overned by t&e Code of Code of Co$$erce and by special laws.K

N"% W/-#d In'"-n$'./n$# D"+"#/20"n', In* +& NY5 F.#-:$2$n S!.22.n4 (2012)

/ew Dord #nternational evelopment! #nc& purchased three $enerator sets from 4* 0orporation! which shipped the $enerator sets b) truck from Disconsin to #llinois then to 0alifornia& >rom 0alifornia! the $oods were loaded on a vessel owned and operated b) /OB >il6Aapan 8hippin$ 0orporation and bound for Eon$ Bon$& #n Eon$ Bon$! the shipment was unloaded and transshipped to another vessel owned and operated b) /OB! this time bound for 4anila& On its <ourne) to 4anila! however! the vessel encountered t)phoon Iadian"& *he vessel arrived safel) in 4anila 8outh

5PI would &ave been liable for t&e da$a"e to t&e "oods. ut 5ew QorldRs clai$ a"ainst it &as prescribed since t&e sa$e was not exercised wit&in t&e one year period provided for in t&e C?=S(. T&e Court- &owever- &eld t&e insurer liable to 5ew Qorld as it was responsible for 5ew QorldRs late filin" of t&e clai$ a"ainst 5PI. *hat the loss was occasioned b) a t)phoon! an e9emptin$ cause under -rticle 1573 of the 0ivil 0ode! does not automaticall) relieve the common carrier of liabilit)& *he latter had the burden of provin$ that the t)phoon was the pro9imate and onl) cause of loss and that it e9ercised due dili$ence to prevent or minimize such loss before! durin$! and after the disastrous t)phoon& /OB failed to dischar$e this burden& 8ection 7(;) of the 0OG8- provides that the carrier shall be dischar$ed from all liabilit) in case of loss or dama$e unless the suit is brou$ht within one )ear after deliver) of the $oods or the date when the

Earbor and shipment was received b) 4arina Port 8ervices! #nc& (4arina)! the arrastre or car$o6handlin$ operator! on 25 October 1997& -n inspection of the containers of the three $enerators was conducted? two vans bore si$ns of e9ternal dama$e while the third van was unscathed& Eowever! when the $enerators sets were finall) delivered to /ew Dorld=s <ob site on .2 October 1997! it was found that all three sets suffered e9tensive dama$e and could no lon$er be repaired& 8ince the $oods were covered with a marine insurance polic) b) 8eaboardT %astern #nsurance 0ompan)! /ew Dorld sent it a formal claim dated 1; /ovember 1997& #nstead of immediatel) processin$ the claim! the insurance compan) re(uired /ew Dorld to submit an itemized list of dama$ed parts of the $oods& /ew Dorld refused to submit the list since the insurance polic) made no mention of this additional re(uisite& Eence! the insurance compan) refused to process the claim& Eavin$ lost recourse with the insurance compan)! /ew Dorld filed a claim for specific performance and dama$es a$ainst 4* 0orporation! /OB! and 8eaboard onl) on 11 October 1993& *he '*0 absolved all the respondents e9cept /OB& Eowever! it reasoned that /ew Dorld filed its claim a$ainst /OB be)ond the one )ear period provided under the 0arria$e of Goods b) 8ea -ct (0OG8-)! which was counted from the date the $oods were delivered to the arrastre operator (25 October) and not from the date the) were delivered to /ew Dorld=s <ob site (.2 October)& *he 0affirmed the '*0 rulin$&

$oods should have been delivered& Eence! the last da) for filin$ suit fell on 25 October 1993& /ew Dorld filed its formal claim for its loss with 8eaboard as earl) as 1; /ovember 1997 or about 11 months before the suit a$ainst /OB would have fallen due& #n the ordinar) course! if 8eaboard had processed that claim and paid the same! 8eaboard would have been subro$ated to /ew Dorld=s ri$ht to recover from /OB& -nd it could have then filed the suit as a subro$ee& *he 0ourt ordered 8eaboard to pa) /ew Dorld interest on the proceeds of the polic) for the duration of the dela) until the claim is full) satisfied at the rate of twice the ceilin$ prescribed b) the 4onetar) Goard&

WARSAW CONVENTION P$n A0 +& R$2$d$& Dhile standin$ in line to board a Pan -m fli$ht in Guam bound for 4anila! Aose Pan -m is /O* re(uired to pa) more than what ma) be recovered under the /otice of Ga$$a$e "iabilit) "imitation& 8aid /otice indicates that the Darsaw 0onvention $overns in case of death or in<ur)

(1772)

'apadas was asked b) an airline control a$ent to check6in his attache case& 'apadas protested! pointin$ to the fact that the other passen$ers were allowed to hand6carr) bulkier ba$$a$e& Ee stepped out of the line onl) to $o back to the end of it in an attempt to $et throu$h without havin$ to re$ister his attache case& *he control a$ent noticed this and 'apadas acceded to check6in his ba$$a$e! which wei$hed appro9imatel) 8 kilo$rams& *here was! however! no declaration of its contents or the value thereof& Fpon arrival in 4anila! the attache case could not be found& Pan -m sent a letter to 'apadas to settle the matter for the sum of F8 1;2 (at F8 .2 per kilo$ram) representin$ the alle$ed limit of liabilit) for loss or dama$e to a passen$er=s propert) under the /otice of Ga$$a$e "iabilit) "imitation attached to and formin$ part of the passen$er ticket& 'apadas refused the offer and filed an action for dama$es a$ainst the airlines! placin$ the value of his lost attache case at F8 3.!327&92& *he lower court ruled in favor of 'apadas after findin$ that there was no stipulation $ivin$ notice to the ba$$a$e liabilit) limitation& *he 0ourt of -ppeals affirmed the lower court&

to a passen$er or of loss! dama$e or destruction to a passen$er=s lu$$a$e& *he Darsaw 0onvention! as amended! specificall) provides that it is applicable to international carria$e! which it defines in -rticle 1! par& . as +an) carria$e in which! accordin$ to the a$reement between the parties! the place of departure and the place of destination! whether or not there be a breach in the carria$e or a transshipment! are situated either within the territories of two Ei$h 0ontractin$ Parties or within the territor) of a sin$le Ei$h 0ontractin$ Part) if there is an a$reed stoppin$ place within the territor) of another 8tate! even if that 8tate is not a Ei$h 0ontractin$ Part)&, /owhere in the Darsaw 0onvention! as amended! is such a detailed notice of ba$$a$e liabilit) limitations re(uired& /evertheless! it should become a common! safe and practical custom amon$ air carriers to indicate beforehand the precise sums e(uivalent to those fi9ed b) -rticle ..(.) of the 0onvention& *he /otice of Ga$$a$e "iabilit) "imitation! in this case! states that +liabilit) for loss! dela)! or dama$e to ba$$a$e is limited as follows unless a hi$her value is declared in advance and additional char$es are paid@ for most international travel! to appro9imatel) F8 .2 per kilo for checked ba$$a$e and F8 322 per passen$er for unchecked ba$$a$e& 999, -s 'apadas did not declare a hi$her value for his lu$$a$e or paid additional char$es! Pan -m pe$$ed its liabilit) at F8 .2 per kilo$ram& Eowever! since the checkin$ in was a$ainst 'apadas= will! the 0ourt treated the lost ba$ as +partakin$ of involuntar) and hurriedl) checked6in lu$$a$e and continuin$ its earlier status as unchecked lu$$a$e&, *he fair liabilit) should then be F8 322& *he 0ourt also allowed 'apadas to recover attorne)= fees in the amount of PhP 12!222 as -rticle ..(3) of the Darsaw 0onvention provides that the limits of liabilit) prescribed in the instrument +shall not prevent the court from awardin$! in accordance with its own law! in addition! the whole or part of the costs and other e9penses of liti$ation incurred b) the plaintiff&,

S$n'/& III +& N/-'!%"&' O-."n' A.-#.n"& (1772)

-u$usto Genedicto 8antos ###! a minor and resident of the Philippines! purchased a round6trip ticket from /orthwest Orient -irlines with the route 8an >rancisco to 4anila via *ok)o and back& espite previous confirmation and re6confirmation! when he checked in at the /orthwest counter in the 8an >rancisco airport! he was informed that he had no reservation for his fli$ht from *ok)o to 4anila& Ee had to be wait6listed& 8antos ###! represented b) his father! sued /orthwest for da$a"es in the '*0 of 4akati& /orthwest moved to dismiss the complaint on the $round of lack of

T&e P&ilippine courts &ave no ;urisdiction. Santos <<< initially invoked t&e doctrine of rebus sic stantibus and ar"ued t&at in view of t&e si"nificant develop$ents in t&e airline industry t&rou"& t&e years- t&e Qarsaw Convention &as beco$e irrelevant. *he 0ourt re<ected this contention! sa)in$ that rebus sic stantibus does not operate automaticall) to render the treat) inoperative& *here is a necessit) for a formal act of re<ection! usuall) made b) the head of 8tate! with a statement of the reasons wh) compliance with the treat) is no lon$er re(uired& *his is not the situation in the present case& Santos <<< also ar"ued t&at (rticle 1M%*' of t&e Qarsaw Convention refers to venue and not ;urisdiction. *he 0ourt ruled otherwise& +Dhere the matter is $overned b) the Darsaw 0onvention! <urisdiction takes on a dual concept& Aurisdiction in the international sense must be established in accordance with -rticle .8(1)! followin$ which the <urisdiction of a particular court must be established pursuant to applicable domestic law& Onl) after the (uestion of which <urisdiction is determined will the issue of venue be taken up& *his second (uestion shall be $overned b) the law of the court to which the case is submitted&,

<urisdiction! citin$ -rticle .8(1) of the Darsaw 0onvention! which provides that@ +-n action for dama$e must be brou$ht at the option of the plaintiff! in the territor) of one of the Ei$h 0ontractin$ Parties! either before the court of the domicile of the carrier! or of his principal place of business! or where he has a place of business throu$h which the contract has been made! or before the court at the place of destination&, #t was /orthwest=s contention that the Philippines was not its domicile nor was this its principal place of business& /either was 8antos ###=s ticket issued in this countr) nor was his destination 4anila but 8an >rancisco in the Fnited 8tates& *he lower court $ranted /orthwest=s motion to dismiss& *he 0ourt of -ppeals affirmed& MARITIME LAW :as(uez vs 0(1985) 4: 1Pioneer 0ebu1 encountered t)phoon 1Blarin$1 and struck a reef and subse(uentl) sunk& *he parents of 7 passen$ers who died sued the owner of the vessel& efendant admitted the e9istence of a contract of carria$e& Dhen the vessel left 4anila! its officers were alread) aware of the t)phoon Blarin$ buildin$ up somewhere in 4indanao& *here bein$ no t)phoon si$nals on the route from 4anila to 0ebu! and the vessel havin$ been cleared b) the 0ustoms authorities! the 4: 1Pioneer 0ebu1 left on its vo)a$e to 0ebu despite the t)phoon& Dhen it reached 'omblon #sland! it was decided not to seek shelter thereat! inasmuch as the weather condition was still $ood& Fpon passin$ *an$uin$ui island! however! the weather suddenl) chan$ed and heav) rains felt >earin$ that due to zero visibilit)! the vessel mi$ht hit 0hocolate island $roup! the captain ordered a reversal of the course so that the vessel could Lweather outL the t)phoon b) facin$ the winds and the waves in the open& Fnfortunatel)! the

Santos averred t&at under (rticle 1M%*'- !anila was t&e place of destination and not San /rancisco&ence t&e case was property filed wit& t&e RTC. *o this! the 0ourt stated that the place of destination within the meanin$ of the 0onvention is determined b) the terms of the contract of carria$e or! specificall) in this case! the ticket between the passen$er and the carrier& *he contract is a sin$le undivided operation! be$innin$ with the place of departure and endin$ with the ultimate destination& *he ultimate destination indicated in the ticket herein was 8an >rancisco& 4anila should therefore be considered merel) an a$reed stoppin$ place and not the destination& /inally- Santos clai$ed t&at 5ort&west co$$itted a tort %acted arbitrarily and in bad fait&- discri$inated a"ainst &i$- co$$itted willful $isconduct' and (rticle 1M%*' does not apply to actions based on tort. *he 0ourt used the rulin$ in @usserl vs. Swiss (ir Transport Co$pany where it was held that the Darsaw 0onvention +accommodates all of the multifarious bases on which a claim mi$ht be founded in different countries! whether under code or common law! whether under contract or tort! etc&

*he defense of caso fortuito is untenable& *o constitute a caso fortuito that would e9empt a person from responsibilit)! it is necessar) that (1) the event must be independent of the human will? (.) the occurrence must render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill the obli$ation in a normal manner? and that (7) the obli$or must be free of participation in! or a$$ravation of! the in<ur) to the creditor& Fnder the circumstances! while! indeed! the t)phoon was an inevitable occurrence! )et! havin$ been kept posted on the course of the t)phoon b) weather bulletins at intervals of si9 hours! the captain and crew were well aware of the risk the) were takin$ as the) hopped from island to island from 'omblon up to *an$uin$ui& *he) held fre(uent conferences! and oblivious of the utmost dili$ence re(uired of ver) cautious persons! the) decided to take a calculated risk& #n so doin$! the) failed to observe that e9traordinar) dili$ence re(uired of them e9plicitl) b) law for the safet) of the passen$ers transported b) them with due re$ard for an circumstances and unnecessaril) e9posed the vessel and passen$ers to the tra$ic mishap& *he) failed to overcome that presumption of fault or ne$li$ence that arises in cases of death or in<uries to passen$ers&

vessel struck a reef near 4alapascua island! sustained leaks and eventuall) sunk! takin$ the 0aptain with it& efense@ the sinkin$ of the vessel was caused b) force ma<eure! and that the defendantLs liabilit) had been e9tin$uished b) the total loss of the vessel& CONTRACT FOR A PIECE OF WOR5 /akpil and 8ons vs& 0(198;) *he construction of plaintiff Phil& Gar -ssociation=s buildin$ was undertaken b) the Fnited 0onstruction! #nc& on an 1administration1 basis! on the su$$estion of Auan A& 0arlos! the president and $eneral mana$er of said corporation& *he proposal was approved b) plaintiffLs board of directors and si$ned b) its president 'oman Ozaeta& *he plans and specifications for the buildin$ were prepared b) the other third6part) defendants Auan >& /akpil N 8ons& *he buildin$ was completed in Aune! 19;;& On -u$ust .! 19;8 an unusuall) stron$ earth(uake hit 4anila and the buildin$ in (uestion sustained ma<or dama$e& *he front columns of the buildin$ buckled! causin$ the buildin$ to tilt forward dan$erousl)& *he tenants vacated the buildin$& -s a temporar) remedial measure! the buildin$ was shored up b) Fnited 0onstruction! #nc& at the cost of P17!;;1&.8& PG- sued Fnited and 0arlos! which in turn sued architects /akpil N 8ons! and /akpil& - 0ommissioner appointed b) the court found that@ while the dama$e sustained b) the PG- buildin$ was caused directl) b) the -u$ust .! 19;8 earth(uake whose ma$nitude was estimated at 5&7 the) were also caused b) the defects in the plans and specifications prepared b) the third6part) defendantsL architects! deviations from said plans and specifications b) the defendant contractors and failure of the latter to observe the re(uisite workmanship in the construction of the buildin$ and of the contractors! architects and even the *he contractor and the architects are liable& -rt& 15.7& *he en$ineer or architect who drew up the plans and specifications for a buildin$ is liable for dama$es if within fifteen )ears from the completion of the structure the same should collapse b) reason of a defect in those plans and specifications! or due to the defects in the $round& *he contractor is likewise responsible for the dama$e if the edifice falls within the same period on account of defects in the construction or the use of materials of inferior (ualit) furnished b) him! or due to an) violation of the terms of the contract& #f the en$ineer or architect supervises the construction! he shall be solidaril) liable with the contractor& -cceptance of the buildin$! after completion! does not impl) waiver of an) of the causes of action b) reason of an) defect mentioned in the precedin$ para$raph& *he action must be brou$ht within ten )ears followin$ the collapse of the buildin$&, On the other hand! $enerall)! no person is responsible for a fortuitous event& GF* if upon the happenin$ of a fortuitous event or an act of God! there concurs a correspondin$ fraud! ne$li$ence! dela) or violation or contravention in an) manner of the tenor of the obli$ation as provided for in -rticle 1152 of the 0ivil 0ode! which results in loss or dama$e! the obli$or cannot escape liabilit)& efendants and third6part) defendants are ne$li$ent& Fnited 0onstruction 0o&! #nc& was found to have made substantial deviations from the plans and specifications& and to have failed to observe the re(uisite workmanship in the construction as well as to e9ercise the re(uisite de$ree of supervision? while the third6part) defendants were found to have inade(uacies or defects in the plans and specifications prepared b) them&

owners to e9ercise the re(uisite de$ree of supervision in the construction of sub<ect buildin$& *he '*0 adopted the findin$s e9cept the last part on the lack of supervision b) the owners as it had no basis in law& PARTNERSHIP 1 EE.&'"n*" Oulo vs Oan$ (1959)

Eeirs of Aose "im vs

Oan$ 0hiao 8en$ wrote a letter to the palintiff 4rs& 'osario F& Oulo! proposin$ the formation of a partnership between them to run and operate a theatre& Pursuant to the above offer! which plaintiff evidentl) accepted! the parties e9ecuted a partnership a$reement establishin$ the 1Oan$ N 0ompan)! "imited&, #n Aune ! 193;! the) e9ecuted a supplementar) a$reement! e9tendin$ the partnership for a period of three )ears be$innin$ Aanuar) 1! 1938 to ecember 71! 1952& *he land on which the theatre was constructed was leased b) plaintiff 4rs& Oulo& *he lessor terminated the lease in accordance with the a$reement of the parties& Oulo refused to vacate so an e<ectment suit was filed a$ainst her& Oulo eventuall) lost the case& On October .5! 1952! 4rs& Oulo demanded from Oan$ 0hiao 8en$ her share in the profits of the business& Oan$ answered the letter sa)in$ that upon the advice of his counsel he had to suspend the pa)ment (of the rentals) because of the pendenc) of the e<ectment suit b) the owners of the land a$ainst 4rs& Oulo& #n this letter Oan$ alle$es that inasmuch as he is a sublessee and inasmuch as 4rs& Oulo has not paid to the lessors the rentals from -u$ust! 1939! he was retainin$ the rentals to make $ood to the landowners the rentals due from 4rs& Oulo in arrears& Oulo sued Oan$& Oan$=s defense@ the contract between Oulo and Oan$ is not one of partnership but a lease& #t was made to appear to be a partnership because of the prohibition a$ainst sublease in Oulo=s lease contract with the ori$inal owners& Petitioners are heirs of Aose "im (wife N

*he a$reement was a sublease! not a partnership& *he followin$ are the re(uisites of partnership@ (1) two or more persons who bind themselves to contribute mone)! propert)! or industr) to a common fund? (.) intention on the part of the partners to divide the profits amon$ themselves& (-rt& 15;5! 0ivil 0ode&)& #n the first place! plaintiff did not furnish the supposed P.2!222 capital& #n the second place! she did not furnish an) help or intervention in the mana$ement of the theatre& #n the third place! it does not appear that she has ever demanded from defendant an) accountin$ of the e9penses and earnin$s of the business& Dere she reall) a partner! her first concern should have been to find out how the business was pro$ressin$! whether the e9penses were le$itimate! whether the earnin$s were correct! etc& 8he was absolutel) silent with respect to an) of the acts that a partner should have done? all that she did was to receive her share of P7!222 a month! which can not be interpreted in an) manner than a pa)ment for the use of the premises which she had leased from the owners& 0learl)! plaintiff had alwa)s acted in accordance with the ori$inal letter of defendant of Aune 15! 1935 which shows that both parties considered this offer as the real contract between them& >indin$s of trial court affirmed b) the 8upreme 0ourt@ the plaintiff and the defendant because defendant has not actuall) contributed the sum mentioned in the -rticles of Partnership! or an) other amount? that the real a$reement between the plaintiff and the defendant is not of the partnership but one of the lease for the reason that under the a$reement the plaintiff did not share either in the profits or in the losses of the business as re(uired b) -rticle 15;9 of the 0ivil 0ode? and that the fact that plaintiff was $ranted a 1$uaranteed participation1 in the profits also belies the supposed e9istence of a partnership between them&

%lfeldo is a partner&

"im (.212)

: T./&";/ + S2& A,4 (.212)

children)& 'espondent Aulia is widow of Aose=s eldest son %lfeldo& Petitioners alle$ed that Aose an officer of a sawmill compan) 8ometime in 1982! Aose! to$ether with his friends Aimm) and /orberto! formed a partnership to en$a$e in the truckin$ business& #nitiall)! with a contribution of P52!222&22 each! the) purchased a truck to be used in the haulin$ and transport of lumber of the sawmill& Aose mana$ed the operations of this truckin$ business until his death on -u$ust 15! 1981& *hereafter! AoseLs heirs! includin$ %lfledo! and partners a$reed to continue the business under the mana$ement of %lfledo& *he shares in the partnership profits and income that formed part of the estate of Aose were held in trust b) %lfledo! with petitionersL authorit) for %lfledo to use! purchase or ac(uire properties usin$ said funds& Petitioners also alle$ed that! at that time! %lfledo was a fresh commerce $raduate servin$ as his father=s driver in the truckin$ business& Ee was never a partner or an investor in the business and merel) supervised the purchase of additional trucks usin$ the income from the truckin$ business of the partners& G) the time the partnership ceased! it had nine trucks! which were all re$istered in %lfledoLs name& %lfeldo also bou$ht several properties alle$edl) usin$ profits from the partnership& Aulia claimed that %lfeldo was a partner of /orberto and Aimm)& A& *iose<o #nvestment 0orp entered into a A:- with Primetown Propert) for the development of a residential condo pro<ect& PPG# entered into a contract to sell with the spouses -n$ for one of the units& *he spouses -n$ filed a$ainst A& *iose<o and PPG# for rescission of the contract due to their failure to turn over the unit since the pro<ect was not completed& A& *iose<o asserts that it has no liabilit) to the spouses -n$ since it was not priv) to the contract to sell entered into b) them and PPG#&

- partnership e9ists when two or more persons a$ree to place their mone)! effects! labor! and skill in lawful commerce or business! with the understandin$ that there shall be a proportionate sharin$ of the profits and losses amon$ them& - contract of partnership is defined b) the 0ivil 0ode as one where two or more persons bind themselves to contribute mone)! propert)! or industr) to a common fund! with the intention of dividin$ the profits amon$ themselves& -rt& 15;9& #n determinin$ whether a partnership e9ists! these rules shall appl)@ (1) %9cept as provided b) -rticle 18.5! persons who are not partners as to each other are not partners as to third persons? (.) 0o6ownership or co6possession does not of itself establish a partnership! whether such co6 owners or co6possessors do or do not share an) profits made b) the use of the propert)? (7) *he sharin$ of $ross returns does not of itself establish a partnership! whether or not the persons sharin$ them have a <oint or common ri$ht or interest in an) propert) from which the returns are derived? (3) *he receipt b) a person of a share of the profits of a business is a prima facie evidence that he is a partner in the business! but no such inference shall be drawn if such profits were received in pa)ment@ (a) -s a debt b) installments or otherwise? (b) -s wa$es of an emplo)ee or rent to a landlord? (c) -s an annuit) to a widow or representative of a deceased partner? (d) -s interest on a loan! thou$h the amount of pa)ment var) with the profits of the business? (e) -s the consideration for the sale of a $oodwill of a business or other propert) b) installments or otherwise& %vidence on %lfeldo bein$ a partner@ 1) 0resencia (Aose=s wife)testified that Aose $ave %lfledo P52!222&22! as share in the partnership! on a date that coincided with the pa)ment of the initial capital in the partnership? (.) %lfledo ran the affairs of the partnership! wieldin$ absolute control! power and authorit)! without an) intervention or opposition whatsoever from an) of petitioners herein? (7) all of the properties! particularl) the nine trucks of the partnership! were re$istered in the name of %lfledo? (3) Aimm) testified that %lfledo did not receive wa$es or salaries from the partnership! indicatin$ that what he actuall) received were shares of the profits of the business? and (5) none of the petitioners! as heirs of Aose! the alle$ed partner! demanded periodic accountin$ from %lfledo durin$ his lifetime& Petitioner is also liable to the spouses -n$& :iewed in the li$ht of the A:-! petitioner cannot avoid liabilit) b) claimin$ that it was not in an) wa) priv) to the 0ontracts to 8ell e9ecuted b) PPG# and respondents& -s correctl) ar$ued b) the latter! moreover! a <oint venture is considered in this <urisdiction as a form of partnership and is! accordin$l)! $overned b) the law of partnerships&P53Q Fnder -rticle 18.3 of the 0ivil 0ode of the Philippines! all partners are solidaril) liable with the partnership for ever)thin$ char$eable to the partnership! includin$ loss or in<ur) caused to a third person or penalties incurred due to an) wron$ful act or omission of an) partner actin$ in the ordinar) course of the business of the partnership or with the authorit) of his co6 partners&P55Q Dhether innocent or $uilt)! all the partners are solidaril) liable with the partnership itself&

R"$#,9.' + :$&/ (.211)

petitioner Aosefina 'ealubit (Aosefina) entered into a 0oint 9enture ("ree$ent with >rancis %ric -maur) Giondo (Giondo)! a >rench national! for the operation of an ice manufacturin$ business& 8ubse(uentl)! Giondo transferred his ri$hts and interests in the business to Aaso& Aaso apprised Aosefina of his ac(uisition and formall) demanded an accountin$ and inventor) of the business as well as the remittance of their portion of its profits& >ailin$ to heed his demand! he filed a suit a$ainst Aosefina& Aosefina contends that the ice tradin$ business is under a sin$le proprietorship and the business alread) stopped operations and that the transfer without her consent is invalid&

*he transfer of Giondo=s share of the partnership to Aaso is valid althou$h it does not make hima partner& Generall) understood to mean an or$anization formed for some temporar) purpose! a <oint venture is likened to a particular partnership or one which +has for its ob<ect determinate thin$s! their use or fruits! or a specific undertakin$! or the e9ercise of a profession or vocation&,P.5Q *he rule is settled that <oint ventures are $overned b) the law on partnershipsP.8Q which are! in turn! based on mutual a$enc) or delectus personae& Fnder 00 1817! +(t)he transfer b) a partner of his partnership interest does not make the assi$nee of such interest a partner of the firm! nor entitle the assi$nee to interfere in the mana$ement of the partnership business or to receive an)thin$ e9cept the assi$nee=s profits& *he assi$nment does not purport to transfer an interest in the partnership! but onl) a future contin$ent ri$ht to a portion of the ultimate residue as the assi$nor ma) become entitled to receive b) virtue of his proportionate interest in the capital& the 8pouses Aaso are entitled to Giondo=s s&are in t&e profits! despite Auanita=s lack of consent to the assi$nment of said >renchman=s interest in the <oint venture&

2 NCC 1>7>, 1>77-1803, 181=-182B I&#$nd S$#"& + the defendant compan)! a $eneral P./n""-& partnership dul) re$istered under the laws of the Philippines! purchased from the plaintiff a motor vehicle with the condition (1955) that failure to pa) an) of said installments as the) fall due would render the whole unpaid balance immediatel) due and demandable& Eavin$ failed to receive the installment due on Aul) ..! 19;1! the plaintiff sued the defendant compan) for the unpaid balance& Of the 5 $eneral partners! the complaint was dismissed insofar as "umaui$ was concerned! on motion b) the plaintiff& *he other partners contend that the dismissal a$ainst "umaui$ should also benefit them&

*he liabilit) of the other partners are not e9tin$uished& Fnder 00 181;! -ll partners includin$ industrial ones! shall be liable pro rata with all their propert) and after all the partnership assets have been e9hausted! for the contracts which ma) be entered into in the name and for the account of the partnership! under its si$nature and b) a person authorized to act for the partnership& Eowever! an) partner ma) enter into a separate obli$ation to perform a partnership contract& #n the instant case! there were five (5) $eneral partners when the promissor) note in (uestion was e9ecuted for and in behalf of the partnership& 8ince the liabilit) of the partners is pro rata! the liabilit) of the appellant Gen<amin 0& aco shall be limited to onl) one6fifth ( 1R 5 ) of the obli$ations of the defendant compan)& *he fact that the complaint a$ainst the defendant 'omulo G& "umaui$ was dismissed! upon motion of the plaintiff! does not unmake the said "umaui$ as a $eneral partner in the defendant compan)& #n so movin$ to dismiss the complaint! the plaintiff merel) condoned "umaui$Ls individual liabilit) to the plaintiff&

3 NCC 1832-183B S.n4&/n + I&$9"#$ #sabela 8awmill was formed b) partners S$%0.# "eon Gariba)! 4ar$arita G& 8alde<eno! and *imoteo *ubun$banua& 8alda<eno withdrew (17>7) from the partnership and after dissolution! Gariba) and *imoteo continued the

*he remainin$ partners did not terminate the business of the partnership 1#sabela 8awmill1& #nstead of windin$ up the business of the partnership! the) continued the business still in the name of said partnership& #t is e9pressl) stipulated in the memorandum6a$reement that the remainin$ partners had constituted themselves as the partnership entit)! the 1#sabela 8awmill1& .2

business still under the name #sabela 8awmill& *he partnership is indebted to various creditors& *he 8heriff sold the assets of #sabela 8awmillt to 8alda<eno was subse(uentl) sold to a separate compan)& *he issue is whether or not the partnership=s termination resulted in its dissolution

*here was no li(uidation of the assets of the partnership& *he remainin$ partners! "eon Gariba) and *imoteo *ubun$banua! continued doin$ the business of the partnership in the name of 1#sabela 8awmill1& *he) used the properties of said partnership& #t does not appear that the withdrawal of 4ar$arita G& 8alda<eno from the partnership was published in the newspapers& *he appellees and the public in $eneral had a ri$ht to e9pect that whatever! credit the) e9tended to "eon Gariba) and *imoteo *ubun$banua doin$ the business in the name of the partnership 1#sabela 8awmill1 could be enforced a$ainst the proeprties of said partnership& *he <udicial foreclosure of the chattel mort$a$e e9ecuted in favor of 4ar$arita G& 8alda<eno did not relieve her from liabilit) to the creditors of the partnership& -lthou$h it ma) be presumed that 4ar$arita G& 8alda<eno had action in $ood faith! the appellees aslo acted in $ood faith in e9tendin$ credit to the partnership& Dhere one of two innocent persons must suffer! that person who $ave occasion for the dama$es to be caused must bear the conse(uences& Ead 4ar$arita G& 8alda<eno not entered into the memorandum6a$reement allowin$ "eon Gariba) and *imoteo *ubun$banua to continue doin$ the business of the aprtnership! the applees would not have been misled into thinkin$ that the) were still dealin$ with the partnership 1#sabela 8awmill1& Fnder the facts! it is of no moment that technicall) speakin$ the partnership 1#sabela 8awmill1 was dissolved b) the withdrawal therefrom of 4ar$arita G& 8alda<eno& *he partnership was not terminated and it continued dopin$ business throu$h the two remainin$ partners&

NCC 18BB, 18D2

AGENCY 1 S*/2" /) A,'!/-.'1 NFA + IAC 4edalla! as commission a$ent of the plaintiff 8uperior 8hippin$ 0orporation! (1992) entered into a contract for hire of ship known as 14: 8ea 'unner1 with defendant /ational Grains -uthorit) (formerl) />-)& Fnder the said contract 4edalla obli$ated to transport on the 14: 8ea 'unner1 8!552 sacks of rice belon$in$ to defendant /ational Grains -uthorit) from the port of 8an Aose! Occidental 4indoro! to 4alabon! 4etro 4anila& Fpon completion of the deliver) of rice at its destination! plaintiff re(uested pa)ment from defendant /G-& efendant /Ginformed plaintiff that it could not $rant its re(uest because the contract to transport the rice was entered into b) defendant /G- and defendant 4edalla who did not disclose that he was actin$ as a mere a$ent of plaintiff& efendant /G- paid

Petitioner />-Ls contention holds no water& #t is an undisputed fact that Gil 4edalla was a commission a$ent of respondent 8uperior 8hippin$ 0orporation which owned the vessel 14: 8ea 'unner1 that transported the sacks of rice belon$in$ to petitioner />-& *he conte9t of the law is clear& -rt& 1887! which is the applicable law in the case at bar provides@ -rt& 1887& #f an a$ent acts in his own name! the principal has no ri$ht of action a$ainst the persons with whom the a$ent has contracted? neither have such persons a$ainst the principal& <n suc& case t&e a"ent is t&e one directly bound in favor of t&e person wit& w&o$ &e &as contracted- as if t&e transaction were &is own- except w&en t&e contract involves t&in"s belon"in" to t&e principal& *he provision of this article shall be understood to be without pre<udice to the actions between the principal and a$ent& 0onse(uentl)! when thin$s belon$in$ to the principal (in this case! 8uperior 8hippin$ 0orporation) are dealt with! the a$ent is bound to the principal althou$h he does not assume the character of such a$ent and appears actin$ in his own name& #n other words! the a$entLs apparent representation )ields to the principalLs true representation and that! in realit) and in effect! the contract must be considered as entered into between the principal and the third person (8) Auco and :iardo v& 8) Auco! 32 Phil& ;73)&

defendant 4edalla the sum of P.5!953&92! for frei$ht services in connection with the shipment of 8!552 sacks of rice& #t is contended b) petitioner />- that it is not liable under the e9ception to the rule (-rt& 1887) since it had no knowled$e of the fact of a$enc) between respondent 8uperior 8hippin$ and 4edalla at the time when the contract was entered into between them (/>- and 4edalla)& Petitioner submits that 1(-)n undisclosed principal cannot maintain an action upon a contract made b) his a$ent unless such principal was disclosed in such contract& One who deals with an a$ent ac(uires no ri$ht a$ainst the undisclosed principal&1 #80# was the owner of propert) alon$ 'o9as Goulevard that was leased to several tenants who in turn subleased the propert) in violation of the contract of lease& *he .7 sublesees operated several establishments on the propert) includin$ beer houses and the like& #80# sold the propert) to Frban Gank& Goth parties a$reed that the final installment of PhP.5!222!222 would be released b) the bank upon #80#=s deliver) of full and actual possession of the land! free from an) tenants& -tt)& PeSa! a stockholder and director of #80#! was instructed b) #80# to recover possession of the propert) from the sublessees& -tt)! Pena re(uested Frban Gank for authorit) to $et rid of the sublessees as an a$ent of the latter& #n response to the letters the bank advised PeSa that the bank had noted the en$a$ement of his services b) #80# and stressed that #80# remained as the law)er=s principal& Gut in a later letter (19 ecember 1993 "etter)! Frban Gank confirmed in no uncertain terms PeSa=s desi$nation as its authorized representative to secure and maintain possession of the Pasa) propert) a$ainst the tenants& Fnder the terms of the letter! petitioner6respondent bank confirmed his en$a$ement (a) 1to hold and maintain possession1 of the Pasa) propert)? (b) 1to protect the same from former tenants! occupants or an) other

0orollaril)! if the principal can be obli$ed to perform his duties under the contract! then it can also demand the enforcement of its ri$hts arisin$ from the contract&

U-9$n 3$n( + P"n$ (.211)

I T!"-" %$& $ */n'-$*' /) $4"n*1 %.'! U-9$n 3$n( $nd A''1 P"n$ PeSa is entitled to pa)ment for compensation for services rendered as a$ent of Frban Gank! but on the basis of the principles of un<ust enrichment and (uantum meruit! and not on the purported oral contract& #n a contract of a$enc)! a$ents bind themselves to render some service or to do somethin$ in representation or on behalf of the principal! with the consent or authorit) of the latter& *he basis of the civil law relationship of a$enc) is representation! the elements of which include the followin$@ (a) the relationship is established b) the parties= consent! e9press or implied? (b) the ob<ect is the e9ecution of a <uridical act in relation to a third person? (c) a$ents act as representatives and not for themselves? and (d) a$ents act within the scope of their authorit)& Gased on the evidence on records and the proceedin$s below! the 0ourt concludes that Frban Gank constituted -tt)& PeSa as its a$ent to secure possession of the Pasa) propert)& *his conclusion! however! is not determinative of the basis of the amount of pa)ment that must be made to him b) the bank& *he conte9t in which the a$enc) was created la)s the basis for the amount of compensation -tt)& PeSa is entitled to& *he transactional histor) and conte9t of the sale between #80# and Frban Gank of the Pasa) propert)! and -tt)& PeSa=s participation in the transfer of possession thereof to Frban Gank provide crucial linka$es that establish the nature of the relationship between the law)er and the landowner6bank& *he letter of 19 ecember 1993 described in the facts confirmed the a$enc)& #n an) case! the subse(uent actions of Frban Gank resulted in the ratification of PeSa=s authorit) as an a$ent actin$ on its behalf with respect to the Pasa) propert)& Frban Gank did not repudiate the actions of PeSa! even if it was full) aware of his representations to third parties on its behalf as owner of the Pasa) propert)& #ts tacit ac(uiescence to his dealin$s with respect to the Pasa) propert) and the tenants spoke of its intent to ratif) his actions! as if these were its own& %ven assumin$ ar$uendo that it issued no written authorit)! and that the oral contract was not substantiall) established! the bank dul) ratified his acts as its a$ent b) its ac(uiescence and acceptance of the benefits! namel)! the peaceful turnover of possession of the propert) free from sub6 tenants& II A''1 P"n$ %$& $#&/ $n $4"n' /) ISCIT '!" 10Y $''/-n"1G& )""& %$& .n+$#.d

person who are threatenin$ to return to the said propert) andRor interfere with )our possession of the said propert) for and in our behalf1? and (c) to represent the bank in an) instituted court action intended to prevent an) intruder from enterin$ or sta)in$ in the premises #n an alle$ed telephone conversation! respondent Gorlon$an alle$edl) asked PeSa to maintain possession of the Pasa) propert) and to represent Frban Gank in an) le$al action that mi$ht be instituted relative to the propert)& PeSa supposedl) demanded 12b of the market value of the propert) as compensation and attorne)=s fees and reimbursement for all the e9penses incurred from the time he took over land until possession was turned over to Frban Gank& 'espondent Gorlon$an purportedl) a$reed on condition that possession would be turned over to the bank! free of tenants! not later than four months? otherwise! PeSa would lose the 12b compensation and attorne)=s fees& RTCK -tt)& PeSa should be believed when he testified that in a telephone conversation! the president of Frban Gank! *eodoro Gorlon$an! a respondent herein! a$reed to pa) him for his services 12b of the value of the propert) then worth PhP.32!222!222! or PhP.3!222!222& 0osts and other awards additionall) amount to PhP3!522!222! for a total award of PhP.8!522!222 accordin$ to the trial court& CAK such an award has no basis! as in fact! no contract of a$enc) e9ists between -tt)& PeSa and Frban Gank& Eence! -tt)& PeSa should onl) be recompensed accordin$ to the principle of un<ust enrichment! and that he should be awarded the amount of PhP7!222!222 onl) for his services and reimbursements of costs& *he disparit) in the size of the award $iven b) the trial court vis6\6vis that of the 0ourt of -ppeals (PhP.8!522!222 v& PhP7!222!222) must be placed in the conte9t of the service that -tt)& PeSa proved that he rendered for Frban Gank&

*he evidence does not support PeSa=s claim that Frban Gank a$reed to 1attorne)=s fees and compensation1 of 12b of the market value of the propert)& %ven if! however! PeSa was constituted as the a$ent of Frban Gank! it does not necessaril) preclude that a third part) would be liable for the pa)ment of the a$enc) fee of PeSa& /or does it preclude the le$al fact that PeSa while an a$ent of Frban Gank! was also an a$ent of #80#! and that his a$enc) from the latter never terminated& *his is because the authorit) $iven to PeSa b) both #80# and Frban Gank was common T to secure the clean possession of the propert) so that it ma) be turned over to Frban Gank& *his is an ordinar) le$al phenomenon T that an a$ent would be an a$ent for the purpose of pursuin$ a shared $oal so that the common ob<ective of a transferor and a new transferee would be met& #ndeed! the 0ivil 0ode e9pressl) acknowled$ed instances when two or more principals have $ranted a power of attorne) to an a$ent for a common transaction& *he a$enc) relationship between an a$ent and two principals ma) even be considered e9tin$uished if the ob<ect or the purpose of the a$enc) is accomplished& #n this case! PeSa=s services as an a$ent of both #80# and Frban Gank were en$a$ed for one shared purpose or transaction! which was to deliver the propert) free from unauthorized sub6 tenants to the new owner T a task that PeSa was able to achieve and is entitled to receive pa)ment for& *hat the a$enc) between #80# and PeSa continued! that #80# is to shoulder the a$enc) fee and reimbursement for costs of PeSa! and that Frban Gank never a$reed to pa) him a 12b a$enc) fee is established and supported b) the followin$@ >irst! the initial a$enc) relationship between #80# and PeSa persisted& /o proof was ever offered that the letter of #80# to PeSa! for the latter 1to immediatel) recover and take possession of the propert) upon e9piration of the contract of lease on .9 /ovember 19931 was terminated& #t is a9iomatic that the appointment of a new a$ent for the same business or transaction revokes the previous a$enc) from the da) on which notice thereof was $iven to the former a$ent& #f it is true that the a$enc) relationship was to be borne b) Frban Gank alone! PeSa should have demonstrated that his previous a$enc) relationship with #80# is incompatible with his new relationship with Frban Gank! and was thus terminated& 8econd! instead! what is on the record is that #80# confirmed the continuation of this a$enc) between PeSa and itself and committed to pa) for the services of PeSa& *hird! PeSa has never shown an) written confirmation of his 12b a$enc) fee! whether in a note! letter! memorandum or board resolution of Frban Gank& >ourth! PeSa is not a credible witness for testif)in$ that he onl) learned of the sale of the propert) of 19 ecember 1993 when the acts of #80#! of Frban Gank and his own up to that point all indicated that he must have known about the sale to Frban Gank? and (b) it is incredible that Frban Gank will a$ree to add another PhP.3!222!222 to the cost of the propert) b) a$reein$ to the a$enc) fee demanded b) PeSa& /o prudent and reasonable person would a$ree to e9pose his corporation to a new liabilit) of PhP.3!222!222 even if! in this case! a refusal would lead to the Pasa) 0it) policemen and unauthorized sub6tenants enterin$ the $uarded propert) and would possibl) erupt in violence& III A0/,n' /) C/02"n&$'./n -$enc) is presumed to be for compensation& Gut because in this case we find no evidence that Frban Gank a$reed to pa) PeSa a specific amount or percenta$e of amount for his services! we turn to the principle a$ainst un<ust enrichment and on the basis of (uantum meruit& 8ince there was no written a$reement with respect to the compensation due and owed to -tt)& PeSa under the letter dated 19

-s the records bear! -tt)& PeSa=s services consisted of causin$ the departure of unauthorized sub6tenants in twent)6three commercial establishments in an entertainment compound alon$ 'o9as Goulevard& #t involved the filin$ of e<ectment suits a$ainst them! PeSa=s personal defense in the counter6suits filed a$ainst him! his settlement with them to the tune of PhP1!522!222! which he advanced from his own funds! and his retention of securit) $uards and e9penditure for other costs amountin$ to more or less PhP1!522!222& *here is no claim b) -tt)& PeSa of an) service be)ond those& Ee claims dama$es from the threats to his life and safet) from the an$r) tenants! as well as a ve9atious collection suit he had to face from a creditor6friend from whom he borrowed PhP7!222!222 to finance the e9penses for the services he rendered Frban Gank&

ecember 1993! the 0ourt will resort to determinin$ the amount based on the well6established rules on (uantum meruit& #n this instance! no e9tra6ordinar) skills emplo)in$ advanced le$al trainin$ nor sophisticated le$al maneuverin$ were re(uired to be emplo)ed in e<ectin$ .7 sub6tenants who have no lease contract with the propert) owner! and whose onl) authorit) to enter the premises was unlawfull) $iven b) a former tenant whose own tenanc) has clearl) e9pired& *he .7 sub6tenants operated beer houses and ni$htclubs! ordinar) retail establishments for which no sophisticated structure prevented eas) entr)& #ndeed! it appears that onl) securit) $uards! chains and padlocks were needed to keep the sublessees out& #t was onl) the alle$ed connivance of Pasa) 0it) policemen that PeSa=s abilit) to retain the possession was rendered insecure& -nd how much did it take PeSa to enter into a settlement a$reement with them and make all these problems $o awa)C G) PeSa=s own account! PhP1!522!222 onl)& *hat means that each tenant received an avera$e of PhP;5!.15&32 onl)& 8urel)! the le$al services of PeSa cannot be much more than what the sub6tenants were willin$ to settle for in the first place& De therefore award him the e(uivalent amount of PhP1!522!222 for the le$al and other related services he rendered to e<ect the ille$all) sta)in$ tenants of Frban Gank=s propert)& #n an) case! 12b of the purchase price of the Pasa) propert) T a sta$$erin$ PhP.3!1;1!.22 T is an unconscionable amount! which we find reason to reduce& /either will the 0ourt accede to the settlement offer of PeSa to Frban Gank of at least PhP78!222!222 for alle$ed le$al e9penses incurred durin$ the course of the proceedin$s an amount that he has not substantiated at an) time& Eence! the 0ourt affirms the appellate court=s award of PhP7!222!222 to PeSa! for e9penses incurred correspondin$ to the performance of his services& -n additional award of PhP1!522!222 is $ranted to him for the services he performed as a law)er in securin$ the ri$hts of Frban Gank as owner of the Pasa) propert)&

V.#/-.$ + C/n'.n"n'$# (.21.)

Dhile in the Fnited 8tates! >ernando purchased from EO"# -O *'-:%"! for himself and his wife! "ourdes! two (.) round trip airline tickets from 8an ie$o! 0alifornia to /ewark! /ew Aerse) on board 0ontinental -irlines& Ee was attended to b) a certain 4ar$aret 4a$er (4a$er)& -ccordin$ to 8pouses :iloria! >ernando a$reed to bu) the said tickets after 4a$er informed them that there were no available seats at -mtrak! an intercit) passen$er train service provider in the Fnited 8tates& 8ubse(uentl)! >ernando re(uested 4a$er to reschedule their fli$ht to /ewark to an earlier date& 4a$er informed him that fli$hts to /ewark via 0ontinental -irlines were alread) full) booked and offered the alternative of a round trip fli$ht via >rontier -ir& 8ince fl)in$ with >rontier -ir called for a hi$her fare of F8]5.;&22 per passen$er and would mean travelin$ b) ni$ht! >ernando opted to re(uest for a refund& 4a$er! however! denied his re(uest as the

(.i"esterRs 5ote6 T&is di"est is len"t&y because t&e ori"inal case is B3 pa"es lon" in Qord' I A 2-.n*.2$#-$4"n' -"#$'./n&!.2 "E.&'& 9"'%""n CAI $nd H/#.d$1 T-$+"# *he essential elements of a$enc) are@ (1) there is consent! e9press or implied of the parties to establish the relationship? (.) the ob<ect is the e9ecution of a <uridical act in relation to a third person? (7) the a$ent acts as a representative and not for himself! and (3) the a$ent acts within the scope of his authorit)& 0ontrar) to the findin$s of the 0-! all the elements of an a$enc) e9ist in this case& *he first and second elements are present as 0-# does not den) that it concluded an a$reement with Eolida) *ravel! whereb) Eolida) *ravel would enter into contracts of carria$e with third persons on 0-#=s behalf& *he third element is also present as it is undisputed that Eolida) *ravel merel) acted in a representative capacit) and it is 0-# and not Eolida) *ravel who is bound b) the contracts of carria$e entered into b) Eolida) *ravel on its behalf& *he fourth element is also present considerin$ that 0-# has not made an) alle$ation that Eolida) *ravel e9ceeded the authorit) that was $ranted to it& #n fact! 0-# consistentl) maintains the validit) of the contracts of carria$e that Eolida) *ravel e9ecuted with 8pouses :iloria and that 4a$er was not $uilt) of an) fraudulent misrepresentation& *hat 0-# admits the authorit) of Eolida) *ravel to enter into contracts of carria$e on its behalf is easil) discernible from its >ebruar) .3! 1998 and 4arch .3! 1998 letters! where it impliedl) reco$nized the validit) of the contracts entered into b) Eolida) *ravel with 8pouses :iloria& Dhen >ernando informed 0-# that it was Eolida) *ravel who issued to them the sub<ect tickets! 0-# did not den) that Eolida) *ravel is its authorized a$ent& Prior to 8pouses :iloria=s filin$ of a complaint a$ainst it! 0-# never refuted that it $ave Eolida) *ravel the power and authorit) to conclude contracts of carria$e on its behalf& -s clearl) e9tant from the records! 0-# reco$nized the validit) of the contracts of carria$e that Eolida) *ravel entered into with 8pouses :iloria and considered itself bound with 8pouses :iloria b) the terms and conditions thereof? and this constitutes an une(uivocal testament to Eolida) *ravel=s authorit) to act as its a$ent& *his

sub<ect tickets are non6refundable and the onl) option that 0ontinental -irlines can offer is the re6issuance of new tickets within one (1) )ear from the date the sub<ect tickets were issued& >ernando decided to reserve two (.) seats with >rontier -ir& -s he was havin$ second thou$hts on travelin$ via >rontier -ir! >ernando went to the Gre)hound 8tation where he saw an -mtrak station nearb)& >ernando made in(uiries and was told that there are seats available and he can travel on -mtrak an)time and an) da) he pleased& >ernando then purchased two (.) tickets for Dashin$ton! &0& >rom -mtrak! >ernando went to Eolida) *ravel and confronted 4a$er with the -mtrak tickets! tellin$ her that she had misled them into bu)in$ the 0ontinental -irlines tickets b) misrepresentin$ that -mtrak was alread) full) booked& >ernando reiterated his demand for a refund but 4a$er was firm in her position that the sub<ect tickets are non6refundable& Fpon returnin$ to the Philippines! >ernando sent a letter to 0-# demandin$ a refund and alle$in$ that 4a$er had deluded them into purchasin$ the sub<ect tickets& 0ontinental 4icronesia denied >ernando=s re(uest for a refund and advised him that he ma) take the sub<ect tickets to an) 0ontinental ticketin$ location for the re6 issuance of new tickets within two (.) )ears from the date the) were issued& 0ontinental 4icronesia informed >ernando that the sub<ect tickets ma) be used as a form of pa)ment for the purchase of another 0ontinental ticket! albeit with a re6issuance fee& >ernando went to 0ontinental=s ticketin$ office at -)ala -venue! 4akati 0it) to have the sub<ect tickets replaced b) a sin$le round trip ticket to "os -n$eles! 0alifornia under his name& *herein! >ernando was informed that "ourdes= ticket was non6 transferable! thus! cannot be used for the

0ourt cannot therefore allow 0-# to take an alto$ether different position and den) that Eolida) *ravel is its a$ent without condonin$ or $ivin$ imprimatur to whatever dama$e or pre<udice that ma) result from such denial or retraction to 8pouses :iloria! who relied on $ood faith on 0-#=s acts in reco$nition of Eolida) *ravel=s authorit)& %stoppel is primaril) based on the doctrine of $ood faith and the avoidance of harm that will befall an innocent part) due to its in<urious reliance! the failure to appl) it in this case would result in $ross travest) of <ustice& %stoppel bars 0-# from makin$ such denial& 0onsiderin$ that the fundamental hallmarks of an a$enc) are present! this 0ourt finds it rather peculiar that the 0- had branded the contractual relationship between 0-# and Eolida) *ravel as one of sale& *he distinctions between a sale and an a$enc) are not difficult to discern and this 0ourt! as earl) as 1952! had alread) formulated the $uidelines that would aid in differentiatin$ the two (.) contracts& #n Co$$issioner of <nternal Revenue v. Constantino-.1 this 0ourt e9trapolated that the primordial differentiatin$ consideration between the two (.) contracts is the transfer of ownership or title over the propert) sub<ect of the contract& #n an a$enc)! the principal retains ownership and control over the propert) and the a$ent merel) acts on the principal=s behalf and under his instructions in furtherance of the ob<ectives for which the a$enc) was established& On the other hand! the contract is clearl) a sale if the parties intended that the deliver) of the propert) will effect a relin(uishment of title! control and ownership in such a wa) that the recipient ma) do with the propert) as he pleases& II In $*'./n& 9$&"d /n <,$&.-d"#.*', $ 2-.n*.2$# *$n /n#1 9" !"#d #.$9#" )/- '!" '/-' */00.''"d 91 .'& $4"n'G& "02#/1""& .) .' !$& 9""n "&'$9#.&!"d 91 2-"2/nd"-$n*" /) "+.d"n*" '!$' '!" 2-.n*.2$# %$& $#&/ $' )$,#' /- n"4#.4"n' /- '!$' '!" 2-.n*.2$# "E"-*.&" */n'-/# $nd &,2"-+.&./n /+"- '!"0 -n e9amination of this 0ourt=s pronouncements in C&ina (ir Lines will reveal that an airline compan) is not completel) e9onerated from an) liabilit) for the tort committed b) its a$ent=s emplo)ees& - prior determination of the nature of the passen$er=s cause of action is necessar)& #f the passen$er=s cause of action a$ainst the airline compan) is premised on culpa a#uiliana or (uasi6 delict for a tort committed b) the emplo)ee of the airline compan)=s a$ent! there must be an independent showin$ that the airline compan) was at fault or ne$li$ent or has contributed to the ne$li$ence or tortuous conduct committed b) the emplo)ee of its a$ent& *he mere fact that the emplo)ee of the airline compan)=s a$ent has committed a tort is not sufficient to hold the airline compan) liable& *here is novinculu$ ;uris between the airline compan) and its a$ent=s emplo)ees and the contractual relationship between the airline compan) and its a$ent does not operate to create a <uridical tie between the airline compan) and its a$ent=s emplo)ees& -rticle .182 of the 0ivil 0ode does not make the principal vicariousl) liable for the tort committed b) its a$ent=s emplo)ees and the principal6a$enc) relationshipper se does not make the principal a part) to such tort? hence! the need to prove the principal=s own fault or ne$li$ence& On the other hand! if the passen$er=s cause of action for dama$es a$ainst the airline compan) is based on contractual breach or culpa contractual! it is not necessar) that there be evidence of the airline compan)=s fault or ne$li$ence& -s this 0ourt previousl) stated in C&ina (ir Lines and reiterated in (ir /rance vs. =ille"o! 1in an action based on a breach of contract of carria$e! the a$$rieved part) does not have to prove that the common carrier was at fault or was ne$li$ent& -ll that he has to prove is the e9istence of the contract and the fact of its non6performance b) the carrier&1 8pouses :iloria=s cause of action on the basis of 4a$er=s alle$ed fraudulent misrepresentation is clearl) one of tort or (uasi6delict! there bein$ no pre6e9istin$ contractual relationship between them& *herefore! it was incumbent upon 8pouses :iloria to prove that 0-# was e(uall) at fault& Eowever! the records are devoid of an) evidence b) which 0-#=s alle$ed liabilit) can be substantiated& -part from their claim that 0-# must be held liable for 4a$er=s supposed fraud because Eolida) *ravel is 0-#=s a$ent! 8pouses :iloria did not present evidence that 0-# was a part) or had contributed to

purchase of a ticket in his favor& Ee was also informed that a round trip ticket to "os -n$eles was F8]1!8;5&32 so he would have to pa) what will not be covered b) the value of his 8an ie$o to /ewark round trip ticket& #n a letter dated Aune .1! 1999! >ernando demanded for the refund of the sub<ect tickets as he no lon$er wished to have them replaced& #n addition to the dubious circumstances under which the sub<ect tickets were issued! >ernando claimed that 0-#=s act of char$in$ him with F8]1!8;5&32 for a round trip ticket to "os -n$eles! which other airlines priced at F8]85;&22! and refusal to allow him to use "ourdes= ticket! breached its undertakin$ under its 4arch .3! 1998 letter& >ernando and his wife filed a complaint a$ainst 0-#! pra)in$ that 0-# be ordered to refund the mone) the) used in the purchase of the sub<ect tickets with le$al interest& 2 EE'.n4,.&!0"n' D"#$ R$0$ + T$n -n a$reement was entered into on 1939 between the e la 'ama 8teamship 0o& (195;) #nc& and the /ational evelopment 0ompan) (/ 0) whereb) e la 'ama undertook the mana$ement of the three vessels known as 1 oSa -urora!1 1 oSa /ati1 and 1 oSa -licia1 which had been purchased b) the Philippine Government from Aapan with the advise and technical supervision of e la 'ama& #n the mana$ement contract! it was provided that e la 'ama had the option to bu) the vessels at the fifth )ear ff the purchase and deliver) of each of the vessels at a price which is to consist of the cost price of each vessel! plus such e9penses as e la 'ama ma) have incurred in connection with the construction! outfittin$! provisionin$ and operation thereof? but should e la 'ama fail to e9ercise the ri$ht of option it should be reimbursed of the e9penses it incurred in mannin$! e(uippin$! fuelin$! overhaulin$ and repairin$ the vessels! and the pa)ment of loadin$ commission dischar$in$

4a$er=s complained act either b) instructin$ or authorizin$ Eolida) *ravel and 4a$er to issue the said misrepresentation& - person=s vicarious liabilit) is anchored on his possession of control! whether absolute or limited! on the tortfeasor& Dithout such control! there is nothin$ which could <ustif) e9tendin$ the liabilit) to a person other than the one who committed the tort& #t is incumbent upon 8pouses :iloria to prove that 0-# e9ercised control or supervision over 4a$er b) preponderant evidence& *he e9istence of control or supervision cannot be presumed and 0-# is under no obli$ation to prove its denial or nu$ator) assertion& *herefore! without a modicum of evidence that 0-# e9ercised control over Eolida) *ravel=s emplo)ees or that 0-# was e(uall) at fault! no liabilit) can be imposed on 0-# for 4a$er=s supposed misrepresentation&

ISSUEK DO/ e la 'ama can demand from / 0 to refrain from usin$ the names of the three vesselsC Oes& *o permit / 0 to continue usin$ the names would be to countenance the unlawful appropriation of the benefit of a $oodwill which e la 'ama has ac(uired as a result of the continued usa$e and lar$e e9pense? it would be tantamount to permittin$ / 0 to $rab the reputation or $oodwill of the business of another&

commission! overridin$ commission sub6 a$entLs commission! etc& *he / 0 cancel the $eneral a$enc) that it had $ranted to e "a 'ama upon one )ear=s notice& *his was opposed b) e "a 'ama! which alle$ed that it had been $ranted the option to purchase the vessels& *he 0ourt however upheld the ri$ht of the / 0 to cancel the mana$ement contract and the option of e la 'ama to purchase the vessels was rendered ineffective&

PERE@ + PN3 (17==)

:& Perez mort$a$ed a "ot to P/G! Gacolod Granch! to secure pa)ment of a loan& :& Perez later died intestate! survived b) his widow and children (Petitioners)& -t that time! P1!915&22 had not )et been paid& P/G! pursuant to authorit) $ranted it in the mort$a$e deed! caused the mort$a$ed properties to be e9tra<udiciall) foreclosed& *he Provincial 8heriff accordin$l) sold the "ot at auction and was purchased b) P/G& -fter the lapse of the )ear of redemption! a *0* over it was issued in the name of the Gank& 7mos& later! Petitioners filed suit a$ainst P/G for the annulment of the e9tra6<udicial foreclosure sale as well as to recover dama$es& *rial court held that the Gank should have foreclosed its mort$a$e in court? that the power to sell contained in the deed of mort$a$e had terminated upon the death of the mort$a$or& %& ObaSez owned a "ot& Ee entered into an -$enc) -$reement with 8aban& Fnder the -$reement! ObaSez authorized 8aban to look for a bu)er of the lot for P.22!222&22 and to mark up the price to include the amounts needed for pa)ment of ta9es! etc& and 8aban=s commission for the sale& 8aban was able to sell the lot to "im and the 8pouses "im& *he price as indicated in the eed is P.22!222&22? however! the vendees paid P;22!222&22& "im issued in the name of 8aban 3 postdated checks in

*he ar$ument that foreclosure b) the Gank under its power of sale is barred upon death of the debtor! because a$enc) is e9tin$uished b) the death of the principal %under (rt. *JD1 of Civil Code of *MMA and 5CC *A*A' ne$lects to take into account that the power to foreclose is not an ordinar) a$enc) %t&at conte$plates exclusively t&e representation of t&e principal by t&e a"ent' but is primaril) an authorit) conferred upon the mort$a$ee for the latterLs own protection& #t is! in fact! an ancillar) stipulation supported b) the same causa or consideration for the mort$a$e and forms an essential and inseparable part of that bilateral a$reement& *he power to foreclose e9tra<udiciall) survives the death of the mort$a$or! even under the law prior to the 0ivil 0ode of the Philippines now in force&

LIM + SA3AN (200B)

*he a$enc) was not revoked since ObaSez re(uested "im to make stop pa)ment orders onl) after the consummation of the sale& -t that time! 8aban had alread) performed his obli$ation as ObaSez=s a$ent when! throu$h 8aban=s efforts! ObaSez e9ecuted the .eed of (bsolute Sale of the lot with "im and the 8pouses "im& *o deprive 8aban of his commission over a sale which was consummated throu$h his efforts would be a breach of the contract of a$enc)! which e9pressl) states that 8aban would be entitled to an) e9cess in the purchase price after deductin$ the P.22!222&22 due to ObaSez and other char$es& *he 80 has reco$nized the ri$ht of a broker to his commission for findin$ a suitable bu)er even thou$h the seller himself consummated the sale with the bu)er& *he 0ourt held that it would be in the hei$ht of in<ustice to permit the principal to terminate the contract of a$enc) to the pre<udice of the broker when he had alread) reaped the benefits of the broker=s efforts& Eowever! 8aban=s a$enc) was not coupled with an interest& -n a$enc) is coupled with an interest

the a$$re$ate amount of P.7;!537&22& ObaSez sent a letter to "im! askin$ that the checks to 8aban be cancelled and to e9tend another partial pa)ment for the lot in his favor& -fter the checks were dishonored! 8aban filed a 0omplaint for collection a$ainst ObaSez and "im& '*0 dismissed 8aban=s complaint! declarin$ the checks as stale and non6ne$otiable! and absolvin$ "im from an) liabilit) towards 8aban& 0- reversed? it held that 8aban was entitled to his commission& #t ruled that ObaSez=s revocation of his contract of a$enc) with 8aban was invalid because the a$enc) was coupled with an interest and ObaSez effected the revocation in bad faith in order to deprive 8aban of his commission and to keep the profits for himself&

where it is established for the mutual benefit of the principal and of the a$ent! or for the interest of the principal and of third persons! and it cannot be revoked b) the principal so lon$ as the interest of the a$ent or of a third person subsists& Dhen an a$ent=s interest is confined to earnin$ his a$reed compensation! the a$enc) is not one coupled with an interest! since an a$ent=s interest in obtainin$ his compensation as such a$ent is an ordinar) incident of the a$enc) relationship&

COMPROMISE SAMONTE SAMONTE (17>D) + Plaintiffs and efendants are the children of efendant >austino b) his first marria$e& urin$ this first marria$e! the) ac(uired con<u$al properties (7 lots) and a house& Dhen his wife died! >austino continued to hold and administer the lots! to$ether with a his wife=s lot& Dith the income from the properties! >austino 8amonte entered in lon$ term leases of fishponds in Gulacan& #n their complaint! Plaintiffs claim that >austino contracted his second marria$e without li(uidatin$ the con<u$al properties and the income from his first marria$e& *he) contend that whatever >austino had ac(uired durin$ his second marria$e should be divided into two parts M one part to his children b) the first marria$e and the other to form part of the con<u$al partnership between him and defendant "ourdes 4anuel& "ater! Plaintiffs and efendants si$ned and e9ecuted a compromise a$reement T efendants paid Plaintiffs! and the latter waived their claims& *he efendants also distributed amon$st themselves the fishponds and the income from each one& 0># approved the compromise a$reement& efendant 0a)etano contended that a <ud$ment based on the compromise a$reement is no <ud$ment at all! invokin$ the doctrine in Sa$iniada vs. !ata- where 80 ruled that +&&& - decision must state clearl) and distinctl) the facts and the law upon which it is based& Dhere the so6called 1decision1 embod)in$ a compromise a$reement lacks these essentials of a <ud$ment! it is not a decision&, Eowever! the 80 has ruled that the Sa$iniada vs. !ata case is no lon$er authorit) because the view that a decision based upon a compromise a$reement does not become immediatel) final and e9ecutor)! was arrived at onl) b) four members of the 8upreme 0ourt! which view is inconsistent with what was adhered to in subse(uent cases and the e9plicit provision of -rticle .275 of the 0ivil 0ode& Gesides! even the four <ustices of the 8upreme 0ourt acknowled$ed! in the Sa$iniada case! that a decision based upon a compromise a$reement is a <ud$ment& >urthermore! there is no provision of law or an) e9istin$ <urisprudence that has pronounced a compromise a$reement entered into b) parties6liti$ants without bein$ assisted b) their counsel to be null and void and of no le$al effect& On the contrar)! there is authorit) to the effect that the client is $enerall) conceded to have the e9clusive control over the sub<ect6matter of the liti$ation and ma)! at an) time before <ud$ment! if actin$ in $ood faith! compromise! settle and ad<ust his cause of action out of court without his attorne)Ls intervention! knowled$e! or consent&

8ome efendants filed a motion to suspend the compromise a$reement due to misrepresentations b) >austino& *his was denied b) the 0>#& PREFERENCE OF CREDIT 1 NCC 22B1-22D1 CARRIED LUM3ER -s securit) for a loan secured b) >acoma + ACCFA from -00>-! the >acoma mort$a$ed to (17>D) -00>- its lease ri$hts over a lot and the warehouse to be constructed& -lso! supplementar) mort$a$es were e9ecuted b) the >acoma as securit) for other loans which were used b) it for the construction of a ricemill buildin$& *he >acoma defaulted! so at public auction! the mort$a$ed properties were sold to -00>- in 19;2! and 3 da)s before the auction sale which the sheriff conducted at the instance of 0"0& *he >acoma had also failed to pa) 0"0! so the latter sued the >acoma for collection& *he 8heriff levied upon the >acomaLs lease ri$hts! warehouse and ricemill buildin$& -00>- filed a third6part) claim with the 8heriff! however! it was still sold& 0"0 sued -00>- to assert its preferential lien over the warehouse and ricemill buildin$& *he 0># held that 0"0 has a lien over the warehouse and ricemill buildin$! and that this lien was superior to -00>-Ls mort$a$e credit& C/n&,"#/ M"'$# + 040 filed before the 8%0 a petition to be P#$n'"-& declared in a state of suspension of pa)ment! for rehabilitation! and for the (.228) appointment of a rehabilitation receiver or mana$ement committee under 8ection 5(d) of Presidential ecree /o& 92.6-& *he 8%0! findin$ the petition sufficient in form and substance! declared that 1all actions for claims a$ainst 040 pendin$ before an) court! tribunal! office! board! bod) andRor commission are deemed suspended immediatel) until further order1 from the 8%0& *hereafter! respondent Planters evelopment Gank (Planters Gank)! one of 040=s creditors! commenced the e9tra6 <udicial foreclosure of 040=s real estate mort$a$e& 040 filed a motion for the issuance of a temporar) restrainin$ order *he 0># was mistaken in assumin$ that the enumeration of ten claims! mort$a$es and liens in /00 ..3. creates an order of preference& #t is not correct to sa) that the materialmanLs (mechanicLs) lien or refectionar) credit! bein$ listed as /o& 3! is superior to the mort$a$e credit listed as /o& 5& *he enumeration is not an order of preference& *hat article lists the credits which ma) concur with respect to specific real properties and which would be satisfied pro rata accordin$ to /00 ..39& *he >acoma warehouse was constructed with the materials supplied b) 0"0 and the construction was financed b) -00>-! which had loaned P.5!.22 to the >acoma& *herefore! it is <ust and proper that the two creditors should have pro rata shares in that warehouse& *he 0># relied on the arretto rulin$! which was predicated on the assumption that an insolvenc) proceedin$ was necessar) in order 1to enable the court to ascertain the pro rata dividend correspondin$ to each1 of the two creditors as well as the 1other creditors1 entitled to preference& *his rulin$ is inapplicable because there are no other creditors aside from 0"0 and -00>-&

#f rehabilitation is no lon$er feasible and the assets of the corporation are finall) li(uidated! secured creditors shall en<o) preference over unsecured creditors! sub<ect onl) to the provisions of the 0ivil 0ode on concurrence and preference of credits& 0reditors of secured obli$ations ma) pursue their securit) interest or lien! or the) ma) choose to abandon the preference and prove their credits as ordinar) claims& #n this case! Planters Gank! as a secured creditor! en<o)s preference over a specific mort$a$ed propert) and has a ri$ht to foreclose the mort$a$e under 8ection ..38 of the 0ivil 0ode& *he creditor6 mort$a$ee has the ri$ht to foreclose the mort$a$e over a specific real propert) whether or not the debtor6mort$a$or is under insolvenc) or li(uidation proceedin$s& *he ri$ht to foreclose such mort$a$e is merel) suspended upon the appointment of a mana$ement committee or rehabilitation receiver 19 or upon the issuance of a sta) order b) the trial court&.2Eowever! the creditor6mort$a$ee ma) e9ercise his ri$ht to foreclose the mort$a$e upon the termination of the rehabilitation proceedin$s or upon the liftin$ of the sta) order&

and a writ of preliminar) in<unction with the 8%0 to en<oin the foreclosure of the real estate mort$a$e& A-4,0"n' /) CMCK the rules on concurrence and preference of credits should appl) in foreclosure proceedin$s& A-4,0"n' /) P#$n'"-& 3$n(K the rules on concurrence and preference of credits and the rules on insolvenc) are not applicable in this case because 040 has been not been declared insolvent and there are no insolvenc) proceedin$s a$ainst 040& 2 In&/#+"n*1 L$%, A*' N/ 17D= G$'"%$1 E#"*'-/n.*& Geronimo and -ndrew e9ecuted separate +& A&.$9$n( but almost identical deeds of suret)ship for Gatewa) in favor of respondent -sianbank (2008) 0orporation& Gatewa) issued two Philippine 0ommercial #nternational Gank checks for the amounts of F8 32!222 and F8 .2!222! respectivel)! as pa)ment for its arreara$es and interests for the periods Aune 72 and Aul) 72! 1999? but both checks were dishonored for insufficienc) of funds& -sianbank=s demands for pa)ment made upon Gatewa) and its sureties went unheeded& -sianbank filed with the 'e$ional *rial 0ourt ('*0) in 4akati 0it) a complaint for a sum of mone) a$ainst Gatewa)! Geronimo! and -ndrew& '*0 rendered a <ud$ment holdin$ defendants Gatewa) %lectronics 0orporation! Geronimo e "os 'e)es and -ndrew e "os 'e)es <ointl) and severall) liable to pa) the plaintiff& Gatewa) filed on /ovember 12! .223 a petition for voluntar) insolvenc)P;Q with the '*0 in #mus! 0avite! Granch ..! docketed as 8%0 0ase /o& 275623! in which -sianbank was listed in the attached 8chedule of Obli$ations as one of the creditors& A-4,0"n' /) G$'"%$1K Gatewa)! havin$ been declared insolvent! ar$ues that <urisdiction over all claims a$ainst all of its properties and assets properl) pertains to the insolvenc) court& -ccordin$l)! Gatewa) adds! citin$ 8ec& ;2 of -ct /o& 195;!P9Q as amended! or the <nsolvency G$'"%$1 M$1 3" D.&*!$-4"d )-/0 L.$9.#.'1 3,' N/' G"-/n.0/ *he contention! as formulated! is in a (ualified sense meritorious& Fnder 8ec& 18 of -ct /o& 195;! as couched! the issuance of an order declarin$ the petitioner insolvent after the insolvenc) court finds the correspondin$ petition for insolvenc) to be meritorious shall sta) all pendin$ civil actions a$ainst the petitioner=s propert)& Fpon the filin$ of the petition for insolvenc)! pendin$ civil actions a$ainst the propert) of the petitioner are not ipso facto sta)ed! but the insolvent ma) appl) with the court in which the actions are pendin$ for a sta) of the actions a$ainst the insolvent=s propert)& A-4,0"n' /) G"-/n.0/K Geronimo=s lament about losin$ his ri$ht to subro$ation is erroneous& Ee ar$ues that b) virtue of the order of insolvenc) issued b) the insolvenc) court! title and ri$ht to possession to all the properties and assets of Gatewa) were vested upon Gatewa)=s assi$nee in accordance with 8ec& 7. of the <nsolvency Law& Eeld@ *he transfer of Gatewa)=s propert) to the insolvenc) assi$nee! if this be the case! does not ne$ate Geronimo=s ri$ht of subro$ation! for such ri$ht ma) be had or e9ercised in the insolvenc) proceedin$s& *he possibilit) that he ma) onl) recover a portion of the amount he is liable to pa) is the risk he assumed as a suret) of Gatewa)& 8uch loss does not! however! render ineffectual! let alone invalidate! his suret)ship&

Law! an) pendin$ action a$ainst its properties and assets must be dismissed! the claimant rele$ated to the insolvenc) proceedin$s for the claimant=s relief&

CREDIT TRANSACTIONS 1 C/00/n P-/+.&./n& 2 C/00/d$',0 P$;,1/ +& CA Petitioner 0olito *& Pa<u)o (+Pa<u)o,) paid P322 to a certain Pedro Perez for the (200B) ri$hts over a .526s(uare meter lot in Garrio Pa)atas! Uuezon 0it)& Pa<u)o then constructed a house made of li$ht materials on the lot& Pa<u)o and private respondent %ddie Guevarra (+Guevarra,) e9ecuted a Iasunduan or a$reement& Pa<u)o! as owner of the house! allowed Guevarra to live in the house for free provided Guevarra would maintain the cleanliness and orderliness of the house& Guevarra promised that he would voluntaril) vacate the premises on Pa<u)o=s demand&#n 8eptember 1993! Pa<u)o informed Guevarra of his need of the house and demanded that Guevarra vacate the house& Guevarra refused& Pa<u)o filed an e<ectment case a$ainst Guevarra with the 4etropolitan *rial 0ourt of Uuezon 0it)! Granch 71 (+4*0,)& *he '*0 upheld the Iasunduan! which established the landlord and tenant relationship between Pa<u)o and Guevarra& *he terms of the Iasunduan bound Guevarra to return possession of the house on demand& 0ourt of -ppeals ruled that the Iasunduan is not a lease contract but a co$$odatu$ because the a$reement is not for a price certain& 3 S.02#" L/$n /- M,',,0 E<,.'$9#" + N4 'espondents /$ 8heun$ /$or!P3Q Ben S!",n4 N4/ -ppliance ivision! #nc& and Gen<amin %& Go filed an action for annulment andRor reformation of documents and contractsP5Q a$ainst petitioner %(uitable P0# Gank (%(uitable) and its emplo)ees! -imee

De do not subscribe to the 0ourt of -ppeals= theor) that the Iasunduan is one of co$$odatu$& #n a contract of co$$odatu$! one of the parties delivers to another somethin$ not consumable so that the latter ma) use the same for a certain time and return it& P;7Q -n essential feature ofco$$odatu$ is that it is $ratuitous& -nother feature of co$$odatu$ is that the use of the thin$ belon$in$ to another is for a certain period&P;3Q *hus! the bailor cannot demand the return of the thin$ loaned until after e9piration of the period stipulated! or after accomplishment of the use for which the co$$odatu$ is constituted&P;5Q #f the bailor should have ur$ent need of the thin$! he ma) demand its return for temporar) use&P;;Q #f the use of the thin$ is merel) tolerated b) the bailor! he can demand the return of the thin$ at will! in which case the contractual relation is called a precariu$&P;5Q Fnder the 0ivil 0ode! precariu$ is a kind of co$$odatu$&P;8Q *he Iasunduan reveals that the accommodation accorded b) Pa<u)o to Guevarra was not essentiall) $ratuitous& Dhile the Iasunduan did not re(uire Guevarra to pa) rent! it obli$ated him to maintain the propert) in $ood condition& *he imposition of this obli$ation makes the Iasunduan a contract different from a co$$odatu$. *he effects of the Iasunduan are also different from that of a co$$odatu$& 0ase law on e<ectment has treated relationship based on tolerance as one that is akin to a landlord6tenant relationship where the withdrawal of permission would result in the termination of the lease&P;9Q *he tenant=s withholdin$ of the propert) would then be unlawful& *his is settled <urisprudence& %ven assumin$ that the relationship between Pa<u)o and Guevarra is one of co$$odatu$! Guevarra as bailee would still have the dut) to turn over possession of the propert) to Pa<u)o! the bailor& *he obli$ation to deliver or to return the thin$ received attaches to contracts for safekeepin$! or contracts of commission! administration and co$$odatu$&P52Q *hese contracts certainl) involve the obli$ation to deliver or return the thin$ received&

*he promissor) notes were valid& #t is erroneous! however! to conclude that contracts of adhesion are invalid per se. *he) are! on the contrar)! as bindin$ as ordinar) contracts& - part) is in realit) free to accept or re<ect it& - contract of adhesion becomes void onl) when the dominant part) takes advanta$e of the weakness of the other part)! completel) deprivin$ the latter of the opportunit) to bar$ain on e(ual footin$&P;1Q

Ou and Ge<an "ionel -pas! in the 'e$ional *rial 0ourt ('*0)! Granch 1; of 0ebu 0it)& P;Q *he) claimed that %(uitable induced them to avail of its peso and dollar credit facilities b) offerin$ low interest ratesP5Q so the) accepted %(uitableLs proposal and si$ned the bankLs pre6printed promissor) notes on various dates be$innin$ 199;& *he)! however! were unaware that the documents contained identical escalation clauses $rantin$ %(uitable authorit) to increase interest rates without their consent& *hese were rebutted b) the bank& -fter trial! the '*0 upheld the validit) of the promissor) notes& #t found that! in .221 alone! %(uitable restructured respondentsL loans amountin$ to F8]..8!.22 andP1!222!222&P11Q *he trial court! however! invalidated the escalation clause contained therein because it violated the principle of mutualit) of contracts&P1.Q /evertheless! it took <udicial notice of the steep depreciation of the peso durin$ the intervenin$ periodP17Q and declared the e9istence of e9traordinar) deflation&P13Q 0onse(uentl)! the '*0 ordered the use of the 199; dollar e9chan$e rate in computin$ respondentsL dollar6denominated loans&P15Q "astl)! because the business reputation of respondents was (alle$edl)) severel) dama$ed when %(uitable froze their accounts!P1;Q the trial court awarded moral and e9emplar) dama$es to them& ISSUEK Dhether or not there was an e9traordinar) deflation ALMEDA + 3ATHALA #n 1995! Gathala (throu$h its President) renewed its "ease 0ontract with the husband of -lmeda& *he rent was based on the assessed value of the propert)& *he contract stipulated that the lessee shall pa) for an) additional char$e or burden ma) be imposed on the propert) b) the $overnment& #t also stipulated that should there be e9traordinar) inflation or devaluation! the value of the peso at the time of the establishment of the obli$ation shall be the basis of pa)ment(similar to /00 1.52)&

*hat was not the case here& -s the trial court noted! if the terms and conditions offered b) %(uitable had been trul) pre<udicial to respondents! the) would have walked out and ne$otiated with another bank at the first available instance& Gut the) did not& #nstead! the) continuousl) availed of %(uitableLs credit facilities for five lon$ )ears& %(uitable dictated the interest rates if the term (or period for repa)ment) of the loan was e9tended& 'espondents had no choice but to accept them& *his was a violation of -rticle 1728 of the 0ivil 0ode& >urthermore! the assailed escalation clause did not contain the necessar) provisions for validit)! that is! it neither provided that the rate of interest would be increased onl) if allowed b) law or the 4onetar) Goard! nor allowed de6escalation& >or these reasons! the escalation clause was void& Dith re$ard to the proper rate of interest! in 5ew Sa$pa"uita uilders v. P&ilippine 5ational ankP51Q we held that! because the escalation clause was annulled! the principal amount of the loan was sub<ect to the ori$inal or stipulated rate of interest& Fpon maturit)! the amount due was sub<ect to le$al interest at the rate of 1.b per annum& %9traordinar) inflation e9ists when there is an unusual decrease in the purchasin$ power of currenc) and such decrease could not be reasonabl) foreseen or was be)ond the contemplation of the parties at the time of the obli$ation& eflation is an inverse situation& espite the devaluation of the peso! G8P never declared a situation of e9traordinar) inflation& 'espondents should pa) their dollar denominated loans at the e9chan$e rate fi9ed b) the G8P on the date of maturit)& ecision of lower courts are reversed and set aside&

ISSUEK -re lessees liable for :-* and should -rticle 1.52 of the /00 appl) $iven the aforementioned stipulations in their lease contractC PetitionersL reliance on the si9th condition of the contract is! likewise! unavailin$& *his provision clearl) states that respondent can onl) be held liable for new taxes imposed after the effectivit) of the contract of lease! that is! after 4a) 1995! and onl) if the) pertain to the lot and the buildin$ where the leased premises are located& 0onsiderin$ that '- 551; took effect in 1993! the :-* cannot be considered as a 1new ta91 in 4a) 1995! as to fall within the covera$e of the si9th stipulation& /either can petitioners le$itimatel) demand rental ad<ustment because of e9traordinar) inflation or devaluation& Petitioners contend that -rticle 1.52 of the 0ivil 0ode does not appl) to this case because the contract

*he lessors wanted the lessee to pa) for the :-* char$ed on the propert) and also wanted to increase the rent b) 57b& Gathala (lessee) refused and filed a petition for declarator) relief in 4akati '*0& "ater on! the -lmedas (lessors) filed an action for e<ection! rescission and dama$es& '*0 ruled in favor of Gathala& 0- affirmed&

stipulation speaks of e9traordinar) inflation or devaluation while the 0ode speaks of e9traordinar) inflation or deflation& Dhile! indeed! condition /o& 5 of the contract speaks of 1e9traordinar) inflation or devaluation1 as compared to -rticle 1.52Ls 1e9traordinar) inflation or deflation!1 we find that when the parties used the term 1devaluation!1 the) reall) did not intend to depart from -rticle 1.52 of the 0ivil 0ode& 0ondition /o& 5 of the contract should! thus! be read in harmon) with the 0ivil 0ode provision& *hat this is the intention of the parties is evident from petitionersL letter dated Aanuar) .;! 1998! where! in demandin$ rental ad<ustment ostensibl) based on condition /o& 5! petitioners made e9plicit reference to -rticle 1.52 of the 0ivil 0ode! even (uotin$ the law verbatim& In)#$'./n has been defined as the sharp increase of mone) or credit! or both! without a correspondin$ increase in business transaction& *here is inflation when there is an increase in the volume of mone) and credit relative to available $oods! resultin$ in a substantial and continuin$ rise in the $eneral price level& EE'-$/-d.n$-1 .n)#$'./n e9ists when there is a decrease or increase in the purchasin$ power of the Philippine currenc) which is unusual or be)ond the common fluctuation in the value of said currenc)! and such increase or decrease could not have been reasonabl) foreseen or was manifestl) be)ond the contemplation of the parties at the time of the establishment of the obli$ation&

*he factual circumstances obtainin$ in the present case do not make out a case of e9traordinar) inflation or devaluation as would <ustif) the application of -rticle 1.52 of the 0ivil 0ode& De would like to stress that the erosion of the value of the Philippine peso in the past three or four decades! startin$ in the mid6si9ties! is characteristic of most currencies& -nd while the 0ourt ma) take <udicial notice of the decline in the purchasin$ power of the Philippine currenc) in that span of time! such downward trend of the peso cannot be considered as the e9traordinar) phenomenon contemplated b) -rticle 1.52 of the 0ivil 0ode& >urthermore! absent an official pronouncement or declaration b) competent authorities of the e9istence of e9traordinar) inflation durin$ a $iven period! the effects of e9traordinar) inflation are not to be applied& B In'"-"&' CASTELO + CA Petitioners entered into a contract named eed of 0onditional 8ale with ela 'osa involvin$ land located in %spana! 4anila& ela 'osa paid 12;!222 upon si$nin$ the contract leavin$ a balance of 1;7!328& *he contract stipulated that the balance is to paid on or before ecember 71! 198. %.'!/,' .n'"-"&' and penalt) char$es& 8he had a $race period of ; months after ecember 71 and the interest shall be at 1.b per annum and penalt) char$e shall be 1b per month& ela 'osa failed to pa) the balance at the end of the $race period so the petitioners so petitioners filed a complaint for specific performance plus dama$es& ISSUEK ate when the interest starts to run&

De believe and so hold that the phrase 1to pa) interest!1 found in the dispositive portion of the 0astro6 Gartolome decision must! under applicable law! refer to the interest stipulated b) the parties in the eed of 0onditional 8ale which the) had entered into on 15 October 198.& De note! in the first place! that the phrase 1to pa) interest1 comes close upon the heels of the precedin$ phrase 1to compl) with her obli$ation under the conditional sale to pa) the balance M of P1;7!328&22&1 - stron$ inference thus arises that the 1interest1 re(uired to be paid is the interest stipulated as part of the 1obli$ation Pof private respondent dela 'osaQ under the conditional sale Pa$reementQ to pa) the balance of Pthe purchase price of the landQ&1 Fnder -rticle ..29! the appropriate measure for dama$es in case of dela) in dischar$in$ an obli$ation consistin$ of the pa)ment of a sum of mone) is the pay$ent of penalty interest at t&e rate a"reed upon in t&e contract of t&e parties& #n the absence of a stipulation of a particular rate of penalt) interest! pa)ment of additional interest at a rate e#ual to t&e re"ular or $onetary interest ! becomes due and pa)able& >inall)! if no re$ular interest had been a$reed upon b) the contractin$ parties! then the dama$es pa)able will consist of pa)ment of le"al interest which is si9 percent (;b) or! in the case of

Petitioners eventuall) won and ela 'osa was ordered to pa) a total of 195!5.7 representin$ the principal worth 1;7!328 and interestof 73!715 computed to be incurred from the date of the decision of the 0- (/ov 198;)& Petitioners contend that the computation was erroneous because the 1.bRannum interest and 1bRmonth penalt) char$e should be computed from Aanuar) 1987! the date of the start of the $race period&

loans or forbearances of mone)! twelve percent (1.b) per annu$& -ppl)in$ -rticle ..29 to the instant case! we must refer to the 1 eed of 0onditional 8ale1 which! as alread) noted! had specificall) provided for 1interest at the rate of 1.b per annu$1 and a 11b penalt) char$e a month PtoQ be imposed on their remainin$ diminishin$ balance&1 *he interest cannot be said to run from the date of the decision& *he contention of private respondent that -rticle ..29 of the 0ivil 0ode is not applicable in this case because the interest referred to therein is $iven as compensation for the use of mone)! not for the incurrin$ of dela) as in the instant case! need not detain us for lon$& -rticle ..29 $overns transactions involvin$ the pa)ment of indemnit) in the concept of dama$es arisin$ from dela) in the dischar$e of obli$ations consistin$ of the pa)ment of a sum of mone)& *he 1obli$ation consistin$ in the pa)ment of a sum of mone)1 referred to in -rticle ..29 is not confined to a loan or forbearance of mone)& *he 0ourt has! for instance! consistentl) applied -rticle ..29 in the determination of the interest properl) pa)able where there was default in the pa)ment of the price or consideration under a contract of sale as in the case at bar& -rticle ..29 has also been applied b) this 0ourt in cases involvin$ an action for dama$es for in<ur) to persons and loss of propert)? to actions for dama$es arisin$ from unpaid insurance claims? and an action involvin$ the appropriate rate of interest on <ust compensation that is pa)able for e9propriated lands& *he stipulation in the 1 eed of 0onditional 8ale1 re(uirin$ the pa)ment of interest is not unlawful& *he validit) of the contract of conditional sale itself has not been put to (uestion b) private respondent dela 'osa and there is nothin$ in the record to su$$est that the same ma) be contrar) to law! morals! $ood custom! public order or public polic)& -ccordin$l)! the contractual stipulation must be re$arded as bindin$ and enforceable as the law between the parties& De believe that the contractin$ parties intended the latter view of their stipulation on interest? for if the parties had intended that durin" t&e "race period from 1 Aanuar) 1987 to 72 Aune 1987! interest consistin$ of 1.b per annu$ plus another 1.b per annu$ (e(uivalent to 1b per month)! or a total of 1B, per annu$! was pa)able! then the) could have simpl) said so& #nstead! the parties distin$uished between interest at the rate of 1.b per annu$ and the 1b a month penalty c&ar"e& *he interpretation we adopt is also supported b) the principle that in case of ambi$uit) in contract lan$ua$e! that interpretation which establishes a less onerous transmission of ri$hts or imposition of lesser burdens which permits $reater reciprocit) between the parties! is to be adopted& (w&y t&e court &ad to say t&is< do not understand) HELDK ;b Presidential ecree /o& 11; authorized the 4onetar) Goard to prescribe the ma9imum rate or rates of interest for the loan or renewal thereof or the forbearance of an) mone)! $oods or credits and amended the Fsur) "aw (-ct /o& .;55) for that purpose& -ctin$ on the authorit) vested on it b) the Fsur) "aw! as amended b) P& & /o& 11;! the 4onetar) Goard of 0entral Gank issued 0entral Gank 0ircular /o& 31;& /ote that 0ircular /o& 31;! fi9in$ the rate of interest at 1.b per annum! deals with (1) loans? (.) forbearance of an) mone)! $oods or credit? and (7) <ud$ments& #n Refor$ina v& To$ol- 0r&- 179 80'- .;2 P1985Q! the 0ourt held that the <ud$ments spoken of and referred to in 0ircular /o& 31; are 1<ud$ments in liti$ation involvin$ loans or forbearance of an) mone)! $oods or credits& -n) other kind of monetar) <ud$ment which has nothin$ to do with nor involvin$ loans or forbearance of an) mone)! $oods or credits does not fall within the covera$e of the said law for it is not! within the ambit of the authorit) $ranted to the 0entral Gank&1 De held that 0ircular /o& 31; does not appl) to <ud$ments involvin$ dama$es and compensation in

PILIPINAS 3AN5 + CA

%chaus filed a complaint a$ainst Pilipnas Gank and its president for a sum of mone)& %chaus alle$es that there was dacion en pa$o between Greatland and Pilipinas& Greatland assi$ned of the total consideration of the dacion in her favor& espite demands! Pilipinas refused to pa) in bad faith& Pilipinas admits the dacion but claims that its former president had no authorit) to enter into such! that it never ratified the same and that even if the same was bindin$! the conditions for its effectivit) were not fulfilled& '*0 ruled in favor of %chaus& #t ordered

Pilipinas to pa) the principal! and amon$ others! actual dama$es with le$al interest until full) paid& 0- affirmed with modification and ruled that Pilipinas is liable for principal with le$al interest startin$ from Aan 1981! the date of first demand& *his decision became final and e9ecutor)& *here was an issue as to the interest rate to be applied& *he 0- clarified in a 'esolution that the rate is 1.b per annum accordin$ to 0entral Gank 0ircular& Pilipinas still ar$ues that /00 ..29 should appl)! and the interest should be ;b& Pan Pacific and its president el 'osario entered into a contract with %(uitable P0# for mechanical works on airconditionin$ s)stem& *he) stipulated that the total consideration is P.7&74 sub<ect to price ad<ustment in case of increase in labor cost and price of materials& *here was an increase in such in 1992 so the price was ad<usted& Gut this caused the operational capital of Pan pacific to be inade(uate for the pro<ect& %(uitable withheld pa)ment and offered a loan of 1&84 to Pan Pacific& & -$ainst its will and on the stren$th of respondent=s promise that the price ad<ustment would be released soon! Pan Pacific! throu$h el 'osario! was constrained to e9ecute a promissor) note in the amount of P1&8 million as a re(uirement for the loan& Pan Pacific also posted a suret) bond& *he P1&8 million was released directl) to laborers and suppliers and not a sin$le centavo was $iven to Pan Pacific& Pan Pacific made several demands for pa)ment on the price ad<ustment but respondent merel) kept on promisin$ to release the same& 4eanwhile! the P1&8 million loan matured and respondent demanded pa)ment plus interest and penalt)& Pan Pacific refused to pa) the loan& Pan Pacific insisted that it would not have incurred the loan if respondent released the price ad<ustment on time& On ; 4a) 1993! Pan pacific filed a complaint for declaration of

e9propriation proceedin$s& De also held that pa)ment of unli(uidated cash advances to an emplo)ee b) his emplo)er and the return of mone) paid b) a bu)er of a leasehold ri$ht but which contract was voided due to the fault of the seller& *he said amount was a portion of the P5!55;!775&;9 which petitioner was obli$ated to pa) Greatland as consideration for the sale of several parcels of land b) Greatland to petitioner& T!" $0/,n' /) P2,300,000 00 %$& $&&.4n"d 91 G-"$'#$nd .n )$+/- /) 2-.+$'" -"&2/nd"n' T!" &$.d /9#.4$'./n '!"-")/-" $-/&" )-/0 $ */n'-$*' /) 2,-*!$&" $nd &$#" $nd n/' )-/0 $ */n'-$*' /) #/$n /0,',,0 H"n*", %!$' .& $22#.*$9#" .& '!" -$'" /) =Y 2"- $nn,0 $& 2-/+.d"d .n A-'.*#" 2207 /) '!" C.+.# C/d" /) '!" P!.#.22.n"& $nd n/' '!" -$'" /) 12Y 2"- $nn,0 $& 2-/+.d"d .n C.-*,#$- N/ B1=&

PAN PACIFIC + ECUITA3LE PCI

ISSUEK 1.b or 18b&a Fnder -rticle ..29 of the 0ivil 0ode! the appropriate measure for dama$es in case of dela) in dischar$in$ an obli$ation consistin$ of the pa)ment of a sum of mone) is the pa)ment of penalt) interest at the rate a$reed upon in the contract of the parties& #n the absence of a stipulation of a particular rate of penalt) interest! pa)ment of additional interest at a rate e(ual to the re$ular monetar) interest becomes due and pa)able& >inall)! .) n/ -"4,#$- .n'"-"&' !$d 9""n $4-""d ,2/n 91 '!" */n'-$*'.n4 2$-'."&, '!"n '!" d$0$4"& 2$1$9#" %.## */n&.&' /) 2$10"n' /) #"4$# .n'"-"&' %!.*! .& =Y, /- .n '!" *$&" /) #/$n& /- )/-9"$-$n*"& /) 0/n"1, 12Y 2"- $nn,0 I' .& /n#1 %!"n '!" 2$-'."& '/ $ */n'-$*' !$+" )$.#"d '/ ).E '!" -$'" /) .n'"-"&' /- %!"n &,*! $0/,n' .& ,n%$--$n'"d '!$' '!" C/,-' %.## $22#1 '!" 12Y .n'"-"&' 2"- $nn,0 /n $ #/$n /- )/-9"$-$n*" /) 0/n"1 & T!" %-.''"n $4-""0"n' "n'"-"d .n'/ 9"'%""n 2"'.'./n"-& $nd -"&2/nd"n' 2-/+.d"& )/- $n .n'"-"&' $' '!" *,--"n' 9$n( #"nd.n4 -$'" .n *$&" /) d"#$1 .n 2$10"n' $nd '!" 2-/0.&&/-1 n/'" *!$-4"d $n .n'"-"&' /) 18Y *o prove petitioners= entitlement to the 18b bank lendin$ rate of interest! petitioners presented the promissor) note prepared b) respondent bank itself& *his promissor) note! althou$h declared void b) the lower courts because it did not e9press the real intention of the parties! is substantial proof that the bank lendin$ rate at the time of default was 18b per annum& -bsent an) evidence of fraud! undue influence or an) vice of consent e9ercised b) petitioners a$ainst the respondent! the interest rate a$reed upon is bindin$ on them&

nullit)Rannulment of the promissor) note! sum of mone)! and dama$es a$ainst %(uitable& '*0 ruled that %(uitable is to pa) Pan pacific 1&74 representin$ unpaid balance of the ad<usted price with interest of 1.b startin$ 4a) 1993! the filin$ of the complaint& 0- affirmed this& Petitioners filed a 4otion for Partial 'econsideration seekin$ a reconsideration of the 0-=s ecision imposin$ the le$al rate of 1.b& Petitioners claimed that the interest rate applicable should be the 18b bank lendin$ rate& 8pecificall)! petitioners invoke 8ection .&5 of the -$reement and 8ection ;2&12 of the General 0onditions as follows@ ("ree$ent 1.2 <f any pay$ent is delayed- t&e C?5TR(CT?R $ay c&ar"e interest t&ereon at t&e current bank lendin" rateswit&out pre;udice to ?Q5ERRS recourse to any ot&er re$edy available under existin" law& D C!$''"# M/-'4$4" PN3 + MANILA #n a decision rendered b) 0># of 4anila! INVESTMENT the defendants were ordered to pa) P/G& #n case of non6pa)ment of the amounts (1951) ad<ud$ed! the decision also provided for the sale at public auction of the personal properties covered b) the chattel mort$a$e e9ecuted b) the defendants in favor of P/G& #nstead of a public auction! the parties a$reed to have them sold! and were in fact sold! at a private sale& *he net proceeds were applied to the partial satisfaction of the said <ud$ment& 4ore than five )ears but less than 12 )ears from the date when the decision become e9ecutor)! the P/G! filed an action to revive the <ud$ment claimin$ for the deficienc)& PAMECA + CA (1999) P-4%0- obtained a loan from GP& -s a securit) for the said loan! a chattel mort$a$e was also e9ecuted over T!" 2-.+$'" &$#" %$& +$#.d -s the disposition of the mort$a$ed properties in a private sale was b) a$reement between the parties! it is clear that appellants are now in estoppels to (uestion it e9cept on the $round of fraud or duress T pleas that the) do not invoke& *he) do not even claim that the private sale had caused them substantial pre<udice& #n -blaza vs #$nacio (G' /o "6113;;)! the 0ourt said +4r& Austice Bent! in the 1. th edition of his 0ommentaries! as well as other authors in the (uestion of chattel mort$a$es! have said! that in case of a sale under a foreclosure of a chattel mort$a$e! there is no (uestion that the mort$a$ee or creditor ma) maintain an action for the deficienc)! if an) should occur& -nd the fact that -ct 1528 permits a private sale! such sale is not in fact! a satisfaction of the debt! to an) $reater e9tent than the value of the propert) at the time of the sale& *he amount received at the time of the sale! of course! alwa)s re(uirin$ $ood faith and honest) in the sale! is onl) a pa)ment! pro tanto and an action ma) be maintained for a deficienc) in the debt& #t is clear! therefore! that the proceeds of the sale of the mort$a$ed properties of the herein appellants constitute onl) a pro tanto satisfaction of the monetar) award made b) the court and the appellee bank is entitled to collect the balance& PAMECA .& "n'.'#"d '/ '!" d").*."n*1 Dhereas! in pled$e! the sale of the thin$ pled$ed e9tin$uishes the entire principal obli$ation! such that

P-4%0-=8 properties& P-4%0- failed to pa) so GP e9tra<udiciall) foreclosed the chattel mort$a$e and as sole bidder in the public auction! purchased the foreclosed properties& 8ince the proceeds were not enou$h to pa) the entire obli$ation! dbp filed a complaint for the collection for the collection of the balance&

the pled$or ma) no lon$er recover proceeds of the sale in e9cess of the amount of the principal obli$ation! 8ection 13 of the 0hattel 4ort$a$e law e9pressl) entitled the mort$a$or to the balance of the proceeds! upon satisfaction of the principal obli$ation and costs& 8ince the 0hattel 4ort$a$e "aw bars the creditor6mort$a$ee from retainin$ the e9cess of the sale proceeds there is a corollar) obli$ation on the part of the debtor6mort$a$or to pa) the deficienc) in case of a reduction in the price a public auction& -lthou$h -rticle 1383! para$raph (7) e9pressl) bars an) further action a$ainst the purchaser to recover an unpaid balance of the price! where the vendor opts to foreclose the chattel mort$a$e on the thin$ sold! should the vendee=s failure to pa) cover . or more installments! this provision is specificall) applicable to a sale on installments& *he mere fact that respondent bank was the sole bidder in the public sale does not warrant the conclusion that the transaction was attended with fraud& >raud is a serious alle$ation that re(uires full and convincin$ evidence! and ma) not be inferred from the lone circumstance that it was onl) respondent bank that bid in the sale of the foreclosed properties&

= R"$# E&'$'" M/-'4$4" ISAGUIRRE + DE -le<andro de "ara was the ori$inal LARA applicant6claimant over a parcel of land& On this lot stands a two6stor) residential6 (.222) commercial apartment declared for ta9ation purposes in the name of >elicitas! the wife of -le<andro& - deed of sale and special cession of ri$hts and interests was e9ecuted b) respondent and petitioner whereb) the former sold a .52 s(uare meter portion the lot! to$ether with the two6 stor) structure& Petitioner filed a sales application over the sub<ect propert) on the basis of the deed of sale& Eis application was approved resultin$ in the issuance of an O0* in his name& 4eanwhile! the sales application of respondent was also $iven due course resultin$ in the issuance of O0* in the name of respondent& ue to the overlappin$ of titles! petitioner filed an action for (uietin$ of title and dama$es& *he trial court ruled in favor of petitioner& Eowever! the 0- reversed the rulin$ of the trial court and held that the contract between the parties was an e(uitable mort$a$e! not a sale& *he appellate court also held that the title in the name of petitioner is null and void& *his decision was affirmed b) the 8upreme 0ourt& 8ubse(uentl)! respondent filed a motion for e9ecution and she also moved for a writ of possession& > P#"d4"

T!" -"&2/nd"n' .& "n'.'#"d '/ 2/&&"&&./n *he decision of the appellate court! which was affirmed b) the 80! served as more than ade(uate basis for the issuance of the writ of possession in favor of respondent since these decisions affirmed respondent=s title over the sub<ect propert)& 0orollar) to such ri$ht! respondent also has the ri$ht to e9clude from the possession of her propert) an) other person to whom she has not transmitted such propert) - mort$a$e is a contract entered into in order to secure the fulfillment of a principal obli$ation& #t is constituted b) recordin$ the document in which it appears with the proper 'e$istr) of Propert)! althou$h! even if it is no recorded! the mort$a$e is nevertheless bindin$ between the parties& *hus! the onl) ri$ht $ranted b) alw in favor of the mort$a$ee is to demand the e9ecution and the recordin$ of the document in which the morta$$e is formalized& -s a $enral rule! the mort$a$or retains possession of the mort$a$ed propert) since a mort$a$e is merel) alien and title to the propert) does not pass to the mort$a$ee& Eowever! even thou$h a mort$a$ee does not have possession of the propert)! there is no impairment of his securit) since the mort$a$e directl) and immediatel) sub<ects the propert) upon which it is imposed! whoever the possessor ma) be! to the fulfillment of the obli$ation for whose securit) it was constituted& #f the debtor is unable to pa) his debt! the mort$a$e creditor ma) institute an action to foreclose the mort$a$e! whether <udiciall) or e9tra<udiciall)! whereb) the mort$a$ed provert) will then be sold at a public auction and the proceeds therefrom $ivem to the creditor to the e9tent necessar) to dischar$e the mort$a$e loan& -pparentl)! petitioner=s contention that +to re(uire him to deliver possession of the propert) to respondent prior to the full pa)ment of the latter=s mort$a$e loan would be e(uivalent to the cancellation of the mort$a$e, is without basis& 'e$ardless of its possessor! the mort$a$ed propert) ma) still be sold! with the prescribed formalities! in the event of the debtor=s default in the pa)ment of his loan obli$ation&

ONG + RO3AN LENDING (1951)

8pouses On$ obtained several loans from 'oban "endin$& *hese loans were secured b) a real estate mort$a$e on petitioners= parcels of land& *hen! the parties e9ecuted a acion in Pa)ment wherein petitioners assi$ned the properties to respondent in settlement of their total obli$ation& 8ubse(uentl)! petitioners filed a complaint for declaration of mort$a$e contract as abandoned! annulment of deeds! ille$al e9action! un<ust enrichment! accountin$ and dama$es! alle$in$ that the 4emorandum of -$reement and the acion in pa)ment e9ecuted are void for bein$ pactu$ co$$sissoriu$&

T!" M"0/-$nd,0 /) A4-""0"n' $nd D$*./n .n P$10"n' */n&'.','" pactum commisorium %!.*! .& 2-/!.9.'"d ,nd"- A-'.*#" 2088 /) '!" C.+.# C/d" *he elements of pactu$ co$$isoriu$ are@ 1) *here should be a propert) mort$a$ed b) wa) of securit) for the pa)ment of the principal obli$ation! and .) *here should be a stipulation for automatic appropriation b) the creditor of the thin$ mort$a$ed in case of non6pa)ment of the principal obli$ation within the stipulated period& *he 4emorandum of -$reement and the acion in Pa)ment contain no provisions for foreclosure proceedin$s nor redemption& Fnder the 4O-! the failure b) the petitioners to pa) their debt within the one6)ear period $ives respondent the ri$ht to enforce the acion in Pa)ment transferrin$ to it ownership of the properties& 'espondent! in effect! automaticall) ac(uires ownership of the properties upon petitioner=s failure to pa) their debt within the stipulated period& #n a true dacion en pa"o! the assi$nment of the propert) e9tin$uishes the monetar) debt& #n the case at bar! the alienation of the properties was b) wa) of securit)! and not b) wa) of satisf)in$ the debt& P!.#-A0 !$& $ +$#.d *$,&" /) $*'./n $4$.n&' '!" R$0/& &2/,&"& *he indemnit) a$reement! which was the last a$reement e9ecuted b) the parties! provides that the liabilit) shall be <oint and several! primar)! and +the same as that of the principal! and shall be e9i$ible upon the occurrence of such default,& %ven as counter6$uarantors! the 'amoses aren=t entitled to demand e9haustion of the properties of the principal debtor& *he) e9ecuted a counter6$uarant) wit& real estate $ort"a"e. #t is accepted that $uarantors have no ri$ht to demand e9haustion of the properties of the principal debtor! under -rticle .258 of the /ew 0ivil 0ode! where a pled$e or mort$a$e has been $iven as a special securit) (8aavedra vs& Price! ;8 Phil& ;88? 8outhern 4otors vs& Garbosa! 57 O&G& 175)&

8 G,$-$n'1 /- S,-"'1&!.2 PHIL-AM GENERAL -' 0 e9ecuted a P/ in favor of Gen& INSURANCE CO , -cceptance N >inance 0orp& On the same INC V RAMOS date! Phil6-m General #ns& 0o& e9ecuted a suret) bond to secure said P/& *he 'amos (19;;) spouses later si$ned a counter6$uarant) a$reement with '%4 in favor of Phil6-m a$ainst its liabilit) under the suret) bond& *he 'amoses and -' 0 e9ecuted an indemnit) a$reement in favor of Phil6-m bindin$ themselves +<ointl) and severall), to indemnif) the latter for whatever it ma) suffer under the suret) bond& -' 0 failed to pa) its obli$ation under the P/& Phil6-m filed a complaint a$ainst the 'amoses! askin$ that the spouses be ordered to <ointl) and severall) pa) Phil6-m the amount owed plus 1.b interest! attorne)=s fees and costs& *he 'amoses claimed there was no cause of action! since the) were $uarantors onl) so that Phil6-m must first e9haust the properties of -' 0! the principal debtor! before proceedin$ a$ainst them& TOH V SOLID 3AN5 8olid Gank e9tended an omnibus credit facilit) worth P124 in favor of >GP0 (.227) throu$h a +letter6advise,& 72 da)s later! spouses *oh (0hairman and :P of >GP0) and spouses /$ "i (Pres& and G4) si$ned the 0ontinuin$ Guarant) re(uired under the letter6advise& *he contract was defined therein as a suret) a$reement and provided that the si$natories would be solidaril) liable for and in consideration of loans or advances and +credit in an) other

T!" C/n'.n,.n4 G,$-$n'1 .& $ +$#.d $nd 9.nd.n4 */n'-$*' $& .' .& $ 2,9#.* d/*,0"n' '!$' "n;/1& '!" 2-"&,02'./n /) $,'!"n'.*.'1 $nd d," "E"*,'./n /othin$ in the 0ontinuin$ Guarant) restricts the *ohs= responsibilit)? the) are still liabilit) under it even if the) are no lon$er stockholders of >GP0& #n fact the obli$ations assumed b) them therein subsist +upon the undersi$ned! the heirs! e9ecutors! administrators! successors and assi$ns of the undersi$ned! and shall inure to the benefit of! and be enforceable b) )ou! )our successors! transferees and assi$ns!, and that their commitment +shall remain in full force and effect until written notice shall have been received b) Pthe GankQ that it has been revoked b) the undersi$ned&, :eril)! if the *ohs intended not to be char$ed as sureties after their withdrawal from >GP0! the) could have simpl) terminated the a$reement b) servin$ the re(uired notice of revocation upon the Gank as e9pressl)

AUTOCORP GROUP V INTRA STRATA (.228)

manner to! or at the re(uest or for the account, of >GP0& >GP0 took out "R0s! which were secured b) trust receipts si$ned b) the /$ "is& Dhen the Gank found that the /$ "is had fraudulentl) departed from their con<u$al home! the) sent a demand letter to >G0P and the *ohs! invokin$ the acceleration clause& *he *ohs claimed that the 0ontinuin$ Guarant) was not le$all) valid an$ bindin$ a$ainst them since it was e9ecuted lon$ after the) had withdrawn from >GP0& -utocorp! represented b) its President 'odri$uez! secured two ordinar) re6e9port bonds from #ntra 8tata (#8-0) in favor of the Gureau of 0ustoms& -utocorp e9ecuted two #ndemnit) -$reements with identical stipulations in favor of #8-0! which 'odri$uez si$ned both as President and in his personal capacit)& -utocorp failed to re6 e9port the items and the GO0 considered the bonds forfeited& #8-0 sued when -utocorp failed to pa) the face value of the two bonds& -utocorp claims that the obli$ation to #8-0 is not )et due and demandable since there was no actual forfeiture of the bonds )et (no writ of e9ecution has been issued a$ainst said bonds)& 'odri$uez claims that he is a $uarantor and can onl) be held liable if -utocorp fails to pa) the obli$ation and that the) should not be held liable since there was a modification as to the effectivit) of the bonds&

allowed therein& Eowever! since the Gank is $uilt) of makin$ e9tensions prohibited under 0.259! the *ohs as sureties are released from their obli$ation& 00.255 provides that the liabilit) of a suret) is measured b) the terms of his contract! and while he is liable to the full e9tent thereof! his accountabilit) is strictl) limited to that assumed b) its terms&

T!" /9#.4$'./n '/ .nd"0n.)1 ISAC 9"*$0" d," $nd d"0$nd$9#" '!" 0/0"n' '!" 9/nd& 9"*$0" $n&%"-$9#" )/- n/n-*/02#.$n*" %.'! '!" ,nd"-'$(.n4 %.'! '!" 3OC *he #ndemnit) -$reements $ive #8-0 the ri$ht to recover the face value of the sub<ect bonds plus attorne)=s fees at the time #8-0 becomes liable on the said bonds to the GO0! re$ardless of whether the GO0 had actuall) forfeited the bonds! demanded pa)ment thereof andRor received such pa)ment& *he #ndemnit) -$reements e9plicitl) provide that petitioners shall be liable to indemnif) #8-0 1whether or not pa)ment has actuall) been made1 and #8-0 ma) proceed a$ainst petitioners b) court action or otherwise 1even prior to makin$ pa)ment to the PGO0Q which ma) hereafter be done b) P#8-0Q&1 *his provision is but a sli$htl) e9panded contractual e9pression of 00.251 which provides! inter alia! that the $uarantor ma) proceed a$ainst the principal debtor the moment the debt becomes due and demandable& 3/'! A,'/*/-2 $nd R/d-.4,"6 $&&,0"d #.$9.#.'1 $& -"4,#$- 2$-'."& $nd /9#.4$'"d '!"0&"#+"& $& &,-"'."& *he use of the term +$uarantee, in a contract does not ipso facto mean that the contract is one of $uarant)& - modification as to the bonds= effectivit) would not absolve either suret) from liabilit)! since the #8-0 was $iven authorit) to do so under the #ndemnit) -$reements& P&ilippine ($erican =eneral <nsurance Co.- <nc. v. !utuc6 an a$reement whereb) the sureties bound themselves to be liable in case of an e9tension or renewal of the bond! without the necessit) of e9ecutin$ another indemnit) a$reement for the purpose and without the necessit) of bein$ notified of such e9tension or renewal! is valid? and that there is nothin$ in it that militates a$ainst the law! $ood customs! $ood morals! public order or public polic)& T!" 2-/+.&./n& /) '!" Und"-'$(.n4 $-" n,## $nd +/.d )/- 9".n4 */n'-$-1 '/ CC2003 00.227 was incorporated in the /ew 0ivil 0ode as an e9pression of public polic) precisel) to appl) to situations such as that presented in this case& *he hotel business like the common carrierLs business is imbued with public interest& 0aterin$ to the public! hotelkeepers are bound to provide not onl) lod$in$ for hotel $uests and securit) to their persons and belon$in$s& *he twin dut) constitutes the essence of the business& *he law in turn does not allow such dut) to the public to be ne$ated or diluted b) an) contrar) stipulation in so6called 1undertakin$s1 that ordinaril) appear in prepared forms imposed b) hotel keepers on $uests for their si$nature& 00.22.! which e9empts the hotel6keeper from liabilit) if the loss is due to the acts of his $uest! his famil)! or visitors! does not appl) to this case because this provision presupposes that the hotel6keeper

7 D"2/&.' YHT REALTY V CA (.225)

4c"ou$hlin used to sta) at 8heraton durin$ his trips to the PE until 1983! when *an convinced him to transfer to *ropicana& #n 1985! 4c"ou$hlin sta)ed at *ropicana and rented a safet) deposit bo9! which could onl) be opened throu$h the use of two ke)s! one of which was kept b) the $uest and the other remainin$ with hotel mana$ement& 4c"ou$hlin discovered that some items he had kept in the safet) deposit bo9 were missin$& Ee found out that *an took his ke) and opened the bo9

with the assistance of her friends who worked at the hotel& 4c"ou$hlin insisted that the hotel must assume responsibilit) for the loss! but the mana$ement invoked the Fndertakin$ for the Fse of 8afet) eposit Go9 which provided that the hotel would be free from an) liabilit) arisin$ from an) loss in the contents andRor use of the safet) deposit bo9 for an) cause whatsoever& 10 T-,'! .n L"nd.n4 A*' UCP3 +& 3"#,&/ F0PG $ranted the spouses Geluso a Promissor) /otes "ine under a 0redit (.225) -$reement whereb) the spouses could avail from the F0PG! credit of up to a ma9imum amount of P1&. 4 for a term endin$ on -pr& 72! 1995& *he spouses e9ecuted three promissor) notes which were renewed several times& #n 1995! the pa)ment of the principal and interest of the latter two promissor) notes were debited from the spouses Geluso=s account with F0PG? )et! a consolidated loan for P 1&7 4illion was a$ain released to the spouses Geluso under one promissor) note with a due date of >eb& .8! 1998& urin$ the term of these promissor) notes! the spouses were able to pa) the total sum of about P 5;7!;9.&27& Eowever! the) failed to pa) for the interest and penalt) on their obli$ations& -s a result! F0PG demanded that the) pa) their total obli$ation of P .&9 million but the spouses Geluso failed to compl) therewith&

is not $uilt) of concurrent ne$li$ence or has not contributed in an) de$ree to the occurrence of the loss& - depositar) is not responsible for the loss of $oods b) theft! unless his actionable ne$li$ence contributes to the loss& #n the case at bar! the responsibilit) of securin$ the safet) deposit bo9 was shared not onl) b) the $uest himself but also b) the mana$ement since two ke)s are necessar) to open the safet) deposit bo9& Dithout the assistance of hotel emplo)ees! the loss would not have occurred&

*he stipulation in the promissor) notes sub<ectin$ the interest rate to review does not render the imposition b) F0PG of interest rates on the obli$ations of the spouses Geluso valid& -ccordin$ to said stipulation@ *he interest rate shall be sub<ect to review and ma) be increased or decreased b) the "%/ %' considerin$ amon$ others the prevailin$ financial and monetar) conditions? or the rate of interest and char$es which other banks or financial institutions char$e or offer to char$e for similar accommodations? andRor the resultin$ profitabilit) to the "%/ %' after due consideration of all dealin$s with the GO''OD%'& #t should be pointed out that the $,'!/-.'1 '/ -"+."% '!" .n'"-"&' -$'" %$& 4.+"n UCP3 $#/n" $& '!" #"nd"-& 4oreover! F0PG ma) appl) the considerations enumerated in this provision as it wishes& -s worded in the above provision! F0PG ma) $ive as much wei$ht as it desires to each of the followin$ considerations@ (1) *he prevailin$ financial and monetar) condition? (.) *he rate of interest and char$es which other banks or financial institutions char$e or offer to char$e for similar accommodations? andRor (7) *he resultin$ profitabilit) to the "%/ %' (F0PG) after due consideration of all dealin$s with the GO''OD%' (the spouses Geluso)&

11 U&,-1 L$% $nd C3 C.-*,#$- N/ B1= C$-2/ +& C!,$ 8ps& 0arpo borrowed from respondents %leanor 0hua and %lma ) /$ the sum of (.225) P155!222! pa)able within ; months with an interest rate of ;b per month! secured b) a mort$a$e the spouses e9ecuted over their residential house and lot& >or failure to pa)! the said propert) was e9tra6<udiciall) foreclosed and sold at public auction to the respondents! who were the onl) bidders for the amount of P7;5!355&82& Fpon failure of the petitioners to e9ercise their ri$ht of

*he invalidation of the interest rate is con$ruent with the rule that a usurious loan transaction is not a complete nullit) but defective onl) with respect to the a$reed interest& -rt& 13.2! 00 allows the severance of the ille$al terms of a divisible contract! thereb) allowin$ the le$al ones to be enforced& #n simple loan with stipulation of usurious interest! the prestation of the debtor to pa) the principal debt! which is the cause of the contract (-rticle 1752! 0ivil 0ode) is not ille$al& *he ille$alit) lies onl) as to the prestation to pa) the stipulated interest? hence! bein$ separable! the latter onl) should be deemed void! since it is the onl) one that is ille$al& 8ince the principal obli$ation still stands and remains valid and the mort$a$e contract derives its validit) from the validit) of the principal obli$ation! the invalid stipulation on interest rate is similarl) insufficient to render void the ancillar) mort$a$e contract&

redemption! a certificate of sale was issued and the old title over the propert) was cancelled and a new one issued in the name of respondents& Petitioners continued to occup) the premises! promptin$ the respondents to file a petition for writ of possession with the '*0! which was $ranted and an order was issued on 4arch .7! 1999& #t was onl) on Aul) .7! 1999 that petitioners filed a complaint for annulment of real estate mort$a$e and the conse(uent foreclosure proceedin$s! and thereupon consi$ned the amount of P.55!195&.; with the '*0& 12 S/#,'./n Ind"9.'. MIAA +& COA *he 4#-- Goard of irectors issued a resolution $rantin$ a si$nin$ bonus in the (.21.) amount of P72! 222 to all 4#-- Officials and %mplo)ees but such $rant was disputed b) 0O- statin$ that the pa)ment of said contract si$nin$ bonus was previousl) declared +improper and without le$al basis, b) the 8upreme 0ourt in the case of 888 vs& 0O-& /ow! the 0O- is demandin$ a refund of the paid si$nin$ bonus from the 4#-- Officials and emplo)ees who received it&

8ince an e9cessive stipulated interest rate ma) be void for bein$ contrar) to public polic)! an action to annul said interest rate does not prescribe& 8uch indeed is the remed)? it is not the action for annulment of the ancillar) real estate mort$a$e& /ote that the $eneral rule is that an action to annul an e9cessive stipulated (usurious) interest does not provide! for such interest rate is void for bein$ contrar) to public polic)& Eowever! in this case! since the petitioners assailed the validit) of the interest rate onl) when the writ of possession was issued! the 0ourt held that the petitioners slept on their ri$hts&

*his is not a case of solutio indebiti& *he elements of solutio indebiti are the followin$@ (1) there must be pa)ment $iven with the intent to fulfil an obli$ation which is believed to e9ist? (.) there must be the absence of a cause for pa)ment? and (7) the person must have paid under the mistaken belief that such debt was due b) him& *herefore! the e9istence of solutio indebiti is founded on the mistake of fact on the part of the supposed obli$or& #n this case! the 4#-- Goard of irectors who approved the pa)ment of the si$nin$ bonus are clearl) in bad faith when the) approved the disbursement& *hus! such bad faith on their part cannot be e(uated with mistake of fact& *heir authorit) under 8ection 8 of the 4#-- charter is not absolute as their e9ercise thereof is +sub<ect to e9istin$ laws! rules and re$ulations, and the) cannot den) knowled$e of SSS v. C?( and the various issuances of the %9ecutive epartment prohibitin$ the $rant of the si$nin$ bonus& #n fact! the) are dut)6bound to understand and know the law that the) are tasked to implement and their une9plained failure to do so barred them from claimin$ that the) were actin$ in $ood faith in the performance of their dut)& #ncidentall)! P/G obli$es the spouses 0heah to return the withdrawn mone) under the principle of solutio indebiti! which is laid down in -rticle .153 of the 0ivil 0ode@ -rt& .153& #f somethin$ is received when there is no ri$ht to demand it! and it was undul) delivered throu$h mistake! the obli$ation to return it arises& *he indispensable re(uisites of the <uridical relation known as solutio indebiti! are! (a) that he who paid was not under obli$ation to do so? and (b) that the pa)ment was made b) reason of an essential mistake of fact& #n the case at bench! P/G cannot recover the proceeds of the check under the principle it invokes& #n the first place! the $ross ne$li$ence of P/G! as earlier discussed! can never be e(uated with a mere mistake of fact! which must be somethin$ e9cusable and which re(uires the e9ercise of prudence& /o recover) is due if the mistake done is one of $ross ne$li$ence&

PN3 +& CHONG (.21.)

#n doin$ a friend a favor to help the latter=s friend collect the proceeds of a forei$n check! Ofelia deposited the check in her and her husband=s dollar account& *he local bank accepted the check for collection and immediatel) credited the proceeds thereof to said spouses= account even before the lapse of the clearin$ period& -nd <ust when the mone) had been withdrawn and distributed amon$ different beneficiaries! it was discovered that all alon$! to the horror of Ofelia whose intention to accommodate a friend=s friend backfired! she and her bank had dealt with a bounced check&

TORTS

1 D").n.'./n /) T/-' :inzons60hato& #nternal 'evenue 0ommissioner "iwa)wa) >ortune *obacco :inzons60hato issued a rule reclassif)in$ >ortune6manufactured ci$arettes .225 +0hampion,! +Eope, and +4ore, as locall)6 manufactured but bearin$ forei$n brands& "ater! 0on$ress passed a law '- 5;53 raisin$ the ad valorem ta9 rate from 55b to +55b provided that the ma9imum ta9 shall not be less than P5 per pack,& >ortune filed a suit a$ainst her for violatin$ its constitutional ri$ht a$ainst deprivation of propert) with due process and the ri$ht to e(ual protection& :inzons60hato interposed as defense! the performance of official dut) within scope of authorit)! and that she merel) acted as an a$ent of the 8tate& 4ore so! there is not cause of action for lack of alle$ation of malice or bad faith& 4* elevated to 0-! which denied it sa)in$ that under -rticle 7. liabilit) ma) arise even without malice or bad faith& 2 E#"0"n'& /) T/-' Garcia v& 8alvador 'anida 8alvador! a trainee at "ima) Gulk Eandlin$ *erminal! was re(uired to .225 under$o medical e9amination at the 0ommunit) ia$nostic 0enter (0 0)& Orlando Garcia! a medical technolo$ist! conducted the tests and issued the result that 'anida was positive for Eepatitis G! and told b) the compan) doctor that she had a liver disease& 'anida was terminated for failin$ the ph)sical e9am& Dhen 'anida told her father 'amon about her disease! he suffered a heart attack& #n the hospital! 'anida undertook another e9am which turned out ne$ative& *he compan) doctor however said that the test b) the dia$nostic center was more reliable because of the 4icro6%lisa method& 'anida went back to the 0 0! and to another hospital! all which came back ne$ative& 'anida was rehired! but she and her father

*he rule in this <urisdiction is that a public officer ma) be validl) sued in hisRher private capacit) for acts done in the course of the performance of the functions of the office! where he @ (1) acted with malice! bad faith! or ne$li$ence? or (.) where he violated a constitutional ri$ht of the plaintiff& *he 80 also ruled that the decisive provision is -rticle 7.! it bein$ a special law! which prevails over a $eneral law (the -dministrative 0ode where civil liabilit) ma) arise where there is bad faith! malice! or $ross ne$li$ence on the part of a superior public officer&)& -rticle 7. was patterned after the +tort, in -merican law& - tort is a wron$! a tortious act which has been defined as the commission or omission of an act b) one! without ri$ht! whereb) another receives some in<ur)! directl) or indirectl)! in person! propert) or reputation& *here are cases in which it has been stated that civil liabilit) in tort is determined b) the conduct and not b) the mental state of the tortfeasor! and there are circumstances under which the motive of the defendant has been rendered immaterial& *he reason sometimes $iven for the rule is that otherwise! the mental attitude of the alle$ed wron$doer! and not the act itself! would determine whether the act was wron$ful& Presence of $ood motive! or rather! the absence of an evil motive! does not render lawful an act which is otherwise an invasion of another=s le$al ri$ht? that is! liabilit) in tort in not precluded b) the fact that defendant acted without evil intent&

Garcia failed to meet the industr) and thus le$al! standards of dili$ence& Ee is $uilt) of $ross ne$li$ence and liable to pa) dama$es& *he elements of an actionable conduct are@ 1) dut)! .) breach! 7) in<ur)! and 3) pro9imate causation& >irst! the statutor) dut) is in 8ection . of '- 3;55! *he 0linical "aborator) "aw in con<unction with three other sections of the OE -dministrative Order 396G! 8eries of 1998! the 'evised 'ules Governin$ the 'e$istration! Operation and 4aintenance of 0linical "aboratories in the Philippines& 1) 0 0 was not administered! directed and supervised b) a licensed ph)sician? .) Garcia conducted the test without the supervision of patholo$ist 0astro? and 7) the test result was released without authorization of 0astro& *hus! second! 'anida suffered in<ur) as a direct conse(uence of Garcia=s failure to compl) with the mande of the laws and rules& -nd as 8ection .2 states@ ever) person who who ne$li$entl) causes dama$e to another shall indemnif) the other& %>#/#*#O/@ /e$li$ence is the failure to observe for the protection of the interest of another person that de$ree of care! precaution and vi$ilance which the circumstances <ustl) demand! whereb) such other person suffers in<ur)& >or health care providers! the test of the e9istence of ne$li$ence is@ did the health care provider either fail to do somethin$ which a reasonabl) prudent health care provider would have done! or that he or she did somethin$ that a reasonabl) prudent health care provider would not have done? and that failure or action caused in<ur) to the patient? if )es! then he is $uilt) of ne$li$ence&

filed a complaint for dama$es a$ainst Garcia and the patholo$ist *he lower court found Garcia liable for dama$es! which the 0- affirmed but e9onerated 0astro for lack of participation in the issuance of the results& Gladmir 0ubacub worked as a maintenance man for Ocean Guilder 0onstruction& Dhen he $ot chicken po9! he was told b) the $eneral mana$er ennis Eao to rest for three da)s in the compan) +barracks,& On the third da)! we started to work a$ain! but in the afternoon asked to be brou$ht home to *arlac& G4 Eao instead told his friends to brin$ him to the nearest hospital& -fter bein$ summoned! Gladimir=s parents transferred him to U0 General Eospital! where Gladimir died within two da)s& *he death certificate issued b) the U0 General Eospital mentioned pneumonia as the antecedent cause! while the doctor attributed the death to amon$ others! septicemia and chicken po9& Gladimir=s parents filed a complaint for dama$es a$ainst Ocean Guilders citin$ the ne$li$ence of G4 Eao& *he) asserted that Eao=s failure to brin$ Gladimir to a better6 e(uipped hospital T like 8t& "ukes! 0apitol 4ed! PGE and the like T violated -rticle 1;1 of the "abor 0ode& *he lower court and the 0- a$reed that Ocean Guilders was liable but differed as to the amount awarded& 3 T/-'NC,$&.-D"#.*' 0oca6cola v& 0")dia Geronimo owned and operated Binder$arten Donderland 0anteen! which 1997 sold soft drinks and other $oods to the students of Binder$arten Donderland and to the public& #n -u$ust 1989! some parents of the students complained that the 0oke and 8prite soft drinks contained fiber6like matter and other forei$n substances& 8he discovered the presence of some fiber6like *he action in based on (uasi6delict! therefore! it prescribes in four )ears& *he alle$ations in the complaint makes a reference to the reckless and ne$li$ent manufacture of +adulterated food items intended to be sold for public consumption&, *he vendee=s remedies are not limited to those prescribed in -rticle 15;5 of the 0ivil 0ode& *he vendor could be liable for (uasi6delict under -rticle .15;! and an action based thereon ma) be brou$ht b) the vendee& *he e9istence of a contract between the parties does not bar the commission of a tort b) the one a$ainst the other and the conse(uent recover) of dama$es therefor& "iabilit) for (uasi6delict ma) still e9ist despite the presence of contractual relations&

Ocean Guilders v& 0ubacub .211

Eao and the compan) are not $uilt) of ne$li$ence and thus the decisions of the lower courts are reversed and the petition dismissed& *his case is for dama$es based on torts! the emplo)er6emplo)ee relationship bein$ merel) incidental& *hree elements must be present! viz@ (1) dut) (.) breach (7) in<ur) and pro9imate causation& *he 0held that it was the dut) of petitioners to provide ade(uate medical assistance to the emplo)ees under -rt& 1;1 of the "abor 0ode! failin$ which a breach is committed& Gut the 80 found that the actions of Eao T $rantin$ a three6da) rest! brin$in$ Gladimir to the nearest hospital Tamounted to the +necessar) assistance, to ensure +ade(uate and immediate medical attendance, as re(uired& -nd contrar) to the lower courts= findin$s! Eao as a la)man cannot be e9pected to know that Gladimir needed to be brou$ht to a hospital with better facilities& #n an) case! the alle$ed ne$li$ence of Eao cannot be considered to be the pro9imate cause of the death of Gladimir& %>#/#*#O/@ Pro9imate cause is that which! in natural and continuous se(uence! unbroken b) an efficient intervenin$ cause! produces in<ur)! and without which! the result would not have occurred& -n in<ur) or dama$e is pro9imatel) caused b) an act or failure to act! whenever it appears from the evidence in the case that the act or omission pla)ed a substantial part in brin$in$ about or actuall) causin$ the in<ur) or dama$e! and that the in<ur) or dama$e was either a direct result or a reasonabl) probable conse(uence of the act or omission& Other issues@ *he dul)6re$istered death certificate is considered a public document& (Eere the hospital=s certificate is considered bindin$& *he doctor also was not the attendin$ ph)sician all throu$hout! and onl) orderd the transfer of the deceased to the $eneral hospital and was not around at the time of death&)

substances in the contents of some unopened 0oke bottles and a plastic matter in the contents of an unopened 8prite bottle& *he epartment of Eealth informed her that the samples she submitted are adulterated& Eer sales of soft drinks plummeted! and not lon$ after that! she had to close shop& 8he became <obless and destitute& 8he demanded from 0oca60ola the pa)ment of dama$es but was rebuffed! so she filed a complaint before the '*0 of a$upan 0it)& *he court $ranted an 4* filed b) petitioner! on the $round that the complaint is based on contract! and not on (uasi6delict! as there e9ists pre6e9istin$ contractual relation between the parties& *hus! on the basis of -rticle 1551! in relation to -rticle 15;.! the complaint should have been filed within si9 months from the deliver) of the thin$ sold& *he 0reversed the '*0 decision and held that Geronimo=s complaint is one for (uasi6 delict because of petitioner=s act of ne$li$entl) manufacturin$ adulterated food items intended to be sold for public consumption? and that the e9istence of contractual relations between the parties does not absolutel) preclude an action b) one a$ainst the other for (uasi6delict arisin$ from ne$li$ence in the performance of a contract& #n 1995 >ernando :iloria purchased for himself and his wife "ourdes two roundtrip tickets from 8an ie$o! 0alifornia to /ewark! /ew Aerse) on board 0ontinental -irlines& >ernando bou$ht tickets at ]322&22 from Eolida) *ravel a$enc) and was attended b) a certain 4ar$aret 4a$er! who convinced him to bu) the tickets after bein$ informed that the train is no lon$er available& >ernando asked 4a$er to rebook them to an earlier fli$ht& Eowever! 4a$er informed him that all fli$hts to /ewark via 0ontinental -irlines were alread) full) booked& 4a$er offered tickets from >rontier -ir! which were worth ]5.;&22 and entailed travelin$ at ni$ht& >ernando asked for a refund! but was denied& 4a$er said the onl) option 0ontinental -irlines can offer is the reissuance of new tickets one )ear from

S2/,&"& V.#/-.$ + C/n'.n"n'$# A.-#.n"& (.21.)

C/n'.n"n'$# A.-#.n"& .& n/' +.*$-./,&#1 #.$9#" )/- <,$&.-d"#.*' ,nd"- A-'.*#" 2180 /) '!" C.+.# C/d" )/- '!" n"4#.4"n*" /) '!" "02#/1"" /) .'& $4"n', H/#.d$1 T-$+"# $4"n*1 #f the passen$er=s cause of action a$ainst the airline compan) is premised on culpa a#uiliana or (uasi6 delict for a tort committed b) the emplo)ee of the airline compan)=s a$ent! '!"-" 0,&' 9" $n .nd"2"nd"n' &!/%.n4 '!$' '!" $.-#.n" */02$n1 %$& $' )$,#' /- n"4#.4"n' /- !$& */n'-.9,'"d '/ '!" n"4#.4"n*" /- '/-',/,& */nd,*' */00.''"d 91 '!" "02#/1"" /) .'& $4"n' & *he mere fact that the emplo)ee of the airline compan)=s a$ent has committed a tort is not sufficient to hold the airline compan) liable& *here is no vinculum <uris between the airline compan) and its a$ent=s emplo)ees and the contractual relationship between the airline compan) and its a$ent does not operate to create a <uridical tie between the airline compan) and its a$ent=s emplo)ees& -rticle .182 of the 0ivil 0ode does not make the principal vicariousl) liable for the tort committed b) its a$ent=s emplo)ees and the principal6a$enc) relationship per se does not make the principal a part) to such tort? hence! the need to prove the principal=s own fault or ne$li$ence&

the date of the issue of the sub<ect tickets& >ernando found out that the -mtrak trains were not reall) full! and went to Eolida) *ravel to confront 4a$er about deludin$ him into bu)in$ 0ontinental tickets b) misrepresentin$ that -mtrak trains were alread) full& Ee demanded a refund& Eence the complaint& B D/*'-.n" /) P-/E.0$'" C$,&" C$#$#$& + C/,-' /) #n 1989! %liza Ae<eurche G& 8un$a! then a A22"$#& colle$e freshman at 8iliman Fniversit)! boarded a passen$er <eepne) owned and (.229) operated b) :icente 0alalas& *he <eep was filled to capacit) of about .3 passen$ers! and she was made to sit on a wooden e9tension seat at the back door at the rear end of the <eepne)& %ventuall)! the vehicle stopped to let a passen$er off! so 8un$a decided to $ive wa)& Aust as she was doin$ so! an #suzu truck driven b) #$lecerio :erena and owned b) >rancisco 8alva bumped the left rear portion of the <eepne)& 8un$a was in<ured and was confined in the hospital& 8un$a sued 0alalas for dama$es arisin$ from breach of contract of carria$e& 0alalas filed a third6part) complaint a$ainst 8alva& *he trial court ruled a$ainst 8alva! but was reversed b) the 0ourt of -ppeals& Gefore the 8upreme 0ourt 0alalas interposes the defense that it was :erena=s ne$li$ence which was the pro9imate cause of the in<uries sustained b) 8un$a& C/n&/#.d$'"d 3$n( #n 195;! "&0& iaz and 0o& opened a + C/,-' /) A22"$#& savin$s account with 0onsolidated Gank (8olidbank)& #n 1991! "&0& iaz! throu$h its (.227) cashier 4ercedes 4acara)a filled up a savin$s deposit slips& 4acara)a instructed #smael 0alapre! "&0& iaz=s messen$er! to deposit the mone) with 8olidbank& 4acara)a also $ave 0alapre the passbook& 0alapre went to 8olidbank! but since the transaction took some time! he went to -llied Gank to make another deposit and left the passbook with 8olidbank& Dhen 0alapre returned! he was informed that someone else had taken the passbook& *eller /o& ; could not remember to whom she $ave the passbook& D N"4#.4"n*" C$#$#$&, $& '!" */00/n *$--."- /) S,n4$, %$& 9/,nd ,nd"- */n'-$*' '/ *$--1 '!" #$''"- '/ !"d"&'.n$'./n &$)"#1 $nd *$nn/' .n'"-2/&" '!" d")"n&" /) V"-"n$G& n"4#.4"n*" $& '!" 2-/E.0$'" *$,&" /) S,n4$G& .n;,-."& #t is immaterial that the pro9imate cause of the collision between the <eepne) and the truck was the ne$li$ence of the truck driver& T!" d/*'-.n" /) 2-/E.0$'" *$,&" .& $22#.*$9#" /n#1 .n $*'./n& )/<,$&.-d"#.*', n/' .n $*'./n& .n+/#+.n4 9-"$*! /) */n'-$*' *he doctrine is a device for imputin$ liabilit) to a person where there is no relation between him and another part)& #n such a case! the obli$ation is created b) law itself& Gut! where there is a pre6e9istin$ contractual relation between the parties! it is the parties themselves who create the obli$ation! and the function of the law is merel) to re$ulate the relation thus created& #nsofar as contracts of carria$e are concerned! some aspects re$ulated b) the 0ivil 0ode are those respectin$ the dili$ence re(uired of common carriers with re$ard to the safet) of passen$ers as well as the presumption of ne$li$ence in cases of death or in<ur) to passen$ers&

T!" S,2-"0" C/,-' %$& ,n*/n+.n*"d /) '!" '!"/-1 /) '!" C/,-' /) A22"$#& '!$' '!" 2-/E.0$'" *$,&" /) '!" ,n$,'!/-.6"d %.'!d-$%$# %$& '!" '"##"-G& )$.#,-" '/ *$## ,2 L C D.$6 '/ +"-.)1 '!" %.'!d-$%$# 8olidbank did not have the dut) to call up "&0& iaz to confirm the withdrawal& *here is no arran$ement between 8olidbank and "&0& iaz to this effect& %ven the a$reement between 8olidbank and "&0& iaz pertainin$ to measures that the parties must observe whenever withdrawals of lar$e amounts are made does not direct 8olidbank to call up "&0& iaz& *here is no law mandatin$ banks to call up their clients whenever their representatives withdraw si$nificant amounts from their accounts& "&0& iaz therefore had the burden to prove that it is the usual practice of 8olidbank to call up its clients to verif) a withdrawal of a lar$e amount of mone)& "&0& iaz failed to do so&

P!.#.22.n" N$'./n$# R$.#%$1& + 3-,n'1 (.22;)

'hoda Grunt)! a F&8& national! visited the Philippines in 1982& 8he and her >ilipino host! Auan 4anuel Garcia! travelled to Ga$uio 0it) on board a 4ercedes Genz sedan& *he sedan collided with a train of the Philippine /ational 'ailwa)s at 4oncada! *arlac& Grunt) died& %thel Grunt)! mother of 'hoda! sued the P/' for ne$li$ence& 8he pointed out that P/' was $rossl) ne$li$ent in not providin$ the necessar) e(uipment at the railroad crossin$ in 4oncada& *here was no fla$bar or red li$ht si$nal to warn motorists who were about to cross the tracks& *here was onl) a switchman e(uipped with a flashli$ht& On the other hand! the sedan was runnin$ at the speed of 52 kmRh&

T!" S,2-"0" C/,-' !"#d '!$' '!" PNR %$& n"4#.4"n' .n )$.#.n4 '/ 2-/+.d" $d"<,$'" &$)"'1 "<,.20"n' $' '!" -$.#-/$d *-/&&.n4 #t ma) broadl) be stated that railroad companies owe to the public a dut) of e9ercisin$ a reasonable de$ree of care to avoid in<ur) to persons and propert) at railroad crossin$s! which duties pertain both in the operation of trains and in the maintenance of the crossin$s& 4oreover! ever) corporation constructin$ or operatin$ a railwa) shall make and construct at all points where such railwa) crosses an) public road! $ood! sufficient! and safe crossin$s and erect at such points! at a sufficient elevation from such road as to admit a free passa$e of vehicles of ever) kind! a si$n with lar$e and distinct letters placed thereon! to $ive notice of the pro9imit) of the railwa)! and warn persons of the necessit) of lookin$ out for trains& *he 8upreme 0ourt has previousl) determined the liabilit) of the P/' for dama$es for its failure to put a cross bar! or si$nal li$ht! fla$man or switchman! or semaphores& 8uch failure is evidence of ne$li$ence and disre$ard of the safet) of the public! even if there is no law or ordinance re(uirin$ it because public safet) demands that said device or e(uipment be installed&

-lthea = -lthea D"4-"" /) N"4#.4"n*"

> S'$nd$-d /) C/nd,*' -lthea 0orinthian Gardens v& *he *an<an$cos own "ots ;8 and ;9 8ps& *an<an$co located at 0orinthian Gardens 8ubdivision! Uuezon 0it)! which is mana$ed b) (.228) petitioner 0orinthian Gardens -ssociation! #nc& (0orinthian)& On the other hand! respondents6spouses >rank and *eresita 0uaso (the 0uasos) own "ot ;5 which is ad<acent to the *an<an$cos= lots& Gefore the 0uasos constructed their house on "ot ;5! a relocation surve) was necessar)& -s Geodetic %n$ineer emocrito e ios (%n$r& e ios)! operatin$ under the business name &4& e ios 'ealt) and 8urve)in$! conducted all the previous surve)s for the subdivisionLs developer! 0orinthian referred %n$r& e ios to the 0uasos& Gefore! durin$ and after the construction of the said house! 0orinthian conducted periodic ocular inspections in order to determine compliance with the approved plans pursuant to the 4anual of 'ules and 'e$ulations of 0orinthian& Fnfortunatel)! after the 0uasos constructed their house emplo)in$ the services of 0&G& Paraz N 0onstruction 0o&! #nc& (0&G& Paraz) as

*he instant case is obviousl) one for tort! as $overned b) -rticle .15; of the 0ivil 0ode& #n ever) tort case filed under this provision! plaintiff has to prove b) a preponderance of evidence@ (1) the dama$es suffered b) the plaintiff? (.) the fault or ne$li$ence of the defendant or some other person for whose act he must respond? and (7) the connection of cause and effect between the fault or ne$li$ence and the dama$es incurred& Fndeniabl)! the perimeter fence of the 0uasos encroached on "ot ;9 owned b) the *an<an$cos b) 85 s(uare meters as dul) found b) both the '*0 and the 0- in accordance with the evidence on record& -s a result! the *an<an$cos suffered dama$e in havin$ been deprived of the use of that portion of their lot encroached upon& *hus! the primordial issue to be resolved in this case is whether 0orinthian was ne$li$ent under the circumstances and! if so! whether such ne$li$ence contributed to the in<ur) suffered b) the *an<an$cos& - ne$li$ent act is an inadvertent act? it ma) be merel) carelessl) done from a lack of ordinar) prudence and ma) be one which creates a situation involvin$ an unreasonable risk to another because of the e9pectable action of the other! a third person! an animal! or a force of nature& - ne$li$ent act is one from which an ordinar) prudent person in the actorLs position! in the same or similar circumstances! would foresee such an appreciable risk of harm to others as to cause him not to do the act or to do it in a more careful manner& *he test to determine the e9istence of ne$li$ence in a particular case ma) be stated as follows@ id the defendant in committin$ the alle$ed ne$li$ent act use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinar) person would have used in the same situationC #f not! then he is $uilt) of ne$li$ence& *he law! in effect! adopts the standard supplied b) the ima$inar) conduct of the discreet paterfamilias in 'oman law& *he e9istence of ne$li$ence in a $iven case is not determined b) reference to the personal <ud$ment of the actor in the situation before him& *he law considers what would be reckless!

builder! their perimeter fence encroached on the *an<an$cos= "ot ;9 b) 85 s(uare meters& %ventuall)! the 0uasos filed a *hird6Part) 0omplaint a$ainst 0orinthian! 0&G& Paraz and %n$r& e ios& *he 0uasos ascribed ne$li$ence to 0&G& Paraz for its failure to ascertain the proper specifications of their house! and to %n$r& e ios for his failure to undertake an accurate relocation surve)! thereb)! e9posin$ them to liti$ation& *he 0uasos also faulted 0orinthian for approvin$ their relocation surve) and buildin$ plans without verif)in$ their accurac) and in makin$ representations as to %n$r& e iosL inte$rit) and competence& *he 0uasos alle$ed that had 0orinthian e9ercised dili$ence in performin$ its dut)! the) would not have been involved in a boundar) dispute with the *an<an$cos& *hus! the 0uasos opined that 0orinthian should also be held answerable for an) dama$es that the) mi$ht incur as a result of such construction&

blameworth)! or ne$li$ent in a man of ordinar) intelli$ence and prudence! and determines liabilit) accordin$ to that standard& G) this test! we find 0orinthian ne$li$ent& 0orinthian cannot and should not be allowed to <ustif) or e9cuse its ne$li$ence b) claimin$ that its approval of the 0uasos= buildin$ plans was onl) limited to a so6called 1table inspection?1 and not actual site measurement& *o accept some such postulate is to put a premium on ne$li$ence& 0orinthian was not or$anized solel) for the defendants 0uasos& #t is also the subdivision of the plaintiffs6spouses *an<an$cos 6 and of all others who have their dwellin$ units or abodes therein& G) its 4anual of 'ules and 'e$ulations! it is reasonable to assume that 0orinthian! throu$h its representative! in the approval of buildin$ plans! and in the conduct of periodic inspections of on6$oin$ construction pro<ects within the subdivision! is responsible in insurin$ compliance with the approved plans! inclusive of the construction of perimeter walls! which in this case is the sub<ect of dispute between the *an<an$cos and the 0uasos&31 #t is not <ust or e(uitable to relieve 0orinthian of an) liabilit) when! b) its ver) own rules! it imposes its authorit) over all its members to the end that 1no new construction can be started unless the plans are approved b) the -ssociation and the appropriate cash bond and pre6construction fees are paid&1 4oreover! 0orinthian can impose sanctions for violatin$ these rules& *hus! the proposition that the inspection is merel) a 1table inspection1 and! therefore! should e9empt 0orinthian from liabilit)! is unacceptable& -fter all! if the supposed inspection is merel) a 1table inspection1 and the approval $ranted to ever) member is a mere formalit)! then the purpose of the rules would be defeated& 0ompliance therewith would not be mandator)! and sanctions imposed for violations could be disre$arded& 0orinthianLs imprimatur on the construction of the 0uasosL perimeter wall over the propert) of the *an<an$cos assured the 0uasos that ever)thin$ was in order& #n sum! 0orinthian=s failure to prevent the encroachment of the 0uasos= perimeter wall into *an<an$cos= propert) T despite the inspection conducted T constitutes ne$li$ence and! at the ver) least! contributed to the in<ur) suffered b) the *an<an$cos& *he instant case involved a collision between a ta9icab and a bic)cle which resulted in serious ph)sical in<uries to the bic)cle rider! -lba)da& #t is a rule in ne$li$ence suits that the plaintiff has the burden of provin$ b) a preponderance of evidence the motorist=s breach in his dut) of care owed to the plaintiff! that the motorist was ne$li$ent in failin$ to e9ercise the dili$ence re(uired to avoid in<ur) to the plaintiff! and that such ne$li$ence was the pro9imate cause of the in<ur) suffered& -rticle .15; of the 0ivil 0ode provides that whoever b) act or omission causes dama$e to another! there bein$ fault or ne$li$ence! is obli$ed to pa) for the dama$e done& 8uch fault or ne$li$ence! if there is no pree9istin$ contractual relation between the parties! is called a (uasi6delict& #n this re$ard! the (uestion of the motoristLs ne$li$ence is a (uestion of fact& #t was proven b) a preponderance of evidence that 0ompleto failed to e9ercise reasonable dili$ence in drivin$ the ta9icab because he was over6speedin$ at the time he hit the bic)cle ridden b) -lba)da& 8uch ne$li$ence was the sole and pro9imate cause of the serious ph)sical in<uries sustained b) -lba)da& 0ompleto did not slow down even when he approached the intersection of 8th and 11th 8treets of :-G& #t was also proven that -lba)da had the ri$ht of wa)! considerin$ that he reached the intersection ahead of 0ompleto& *he bic)cle occupies a le$al position that is at least e(ual to that of other vehicles lawfull) on the hi$hwa)! and it is fortified b) the fact that usuall) more will be re(uired of a motorist than a bic)clist in dischar$in$ his dut) of care to the other because of the ph)sical advanta$es the automobile has over the bic)cle&

8 S2"*.$# C.-*,0&'$n*"& Eeirs of 0ompleto v& 'espondent -mando 0& -lba)da! Ar& -lba)da (-lba)da) is a 4aster 8er$eant of the Philippine -ir >orce& Petitioner 'edentor (.212) 0ompleto (0ompleto)! now represented b) his heirs! was the ta9i driver of a *o)ota 0orolla! bearin$ Plate /o& PO 61.8! owned and operated b) co6petitioner %lpidio -biad (-biad)& -lba)da and 0ompleto fi$ured in an accident alon$ the intersection of 8th and 11th 8treets! :-G& -lba)da filed a complaint for dama$es before the 'e$ional *rial 0ourt ('*0) of Pasa) 0it)& *he amended complaint alle$ed that! on -u$ust .5! 1995! while -lba)da was on his wa) to the office to report for dut)! ridin$ a bic)cle alon$ 11th 8treet! the ta9i driven b) 0ompleto bumped and sideswiped him! causin$ serious ph)sical in<uries& -lba)da alle$ed that the pro9imate cause of the incident which necessitated his sta)

in the hospital for appro9imatel) seven (5) months was the ne$li$ence of 0ompleto who! at the time of the accident! was in the emplo) of -biad&

Fnder -rticle .182 of the 0ivil 0ode! the obli$ation imposed b) -rticle .15; is demandable not onl) for one=s own acts or omissions! but also for those persons for whom one is responsible& %mplo)ers shall be liable for the dama$es caused b) their emplo)ees! but the emplo)ers= responsibilit) shall cease upon proof that the) observed all the dili$ence of a $ood father of the famil) in the selection and supervision of their emplo)ees& Dhen an in<ur) is caused b) the ne$li$ence of an emplo)ee! a le$al presumption instantl) arises that the emplo)er was ne$li$ent& *his presumption ma) be rebutted onl) b) a clear showin$ on the part of the emplo)er that he e9ercised the dili$ence of a $ood father of a famil) in the selection and supervision of his emplo)ee& #f the emplo)er successfull) overcomes the le$al presumption of ne$li$ence! he is relieved of liabilit)& #n other words! the burden of proof is on the emplo)er& *he trial court=s findin$ that 0ompleto failed to e9ercise reasonable care to avoid collision with -lba)da at the intersection of 11th and 8th 8treets of :-G $ives rise to liabilit) on the part of 0ompleto! as driver! and his emplo)er -biad& *he responsibilit) of two or more persons who are liable for (uasi6delict is solidar)& *he civil liabilit) of the emplo)er for the ne$li$ent acts of his emplo)ee is also primar) and direct! owin$ to his own ne$li$ence in selectin$ and supervisin$ his emplo)ee& *he civil liabilit) of the emplo)er attaches even if the emplo)er is not inside the vehicle at the time of the collision& #n the selection of prospective emplo)ees! emplo)ers are re(uired to e9amine them as to their (ualifications! e9perience! and service records& On the other hand! with respect to the supervision of emplo)ees! emplo)ers should formulate standard operatin$ procedures! monitor their implementation! and impose disciplinar) measures for breaches thereof& *o establish these factors in a trial involvin$ the issue of vicarious liabilit)! emplo)ers must submit concrete proof! includin$ documentar) evidence& -biad testified that before he hired 0ompleto! he re(uired the latter to show his bio6data! /G# clearance! and driver=s license and that he would wake up earl) to personall) check the condition of the vehicle before it is used& *he protestation of -biad to escape liabilit) is short of the dili$ence re(uired under the law& *his case for dama$es arose out of the accidental shootin$ of petitioners= son& Fnder -rticle 11;1 of the 0ivil 0ode! petitioners ma) enforce their claim for dama$es based on the civil liabilit) arisin$ from the crime under -rticle 122 of the 'evised Penal 0ode or the) ma) opt to file an independent civil action for dama$es under the 0ivil 0ode& #n this case! instead of enforcin$ their claim for dama$es in the homicide case filed a$ainst 4atiba$! petitioners opted to file an independent civil action for dama$es a$ainst respondent whom the) alle$ed was 4atiba$=s emplo)er& Petitioners based their claim for dama$es under -rticles .15; and .182 of the 0ivil 0ode& Fnlike the subsidiar) liabilit) of the emplo)er under -rticle 127 of the 'evised Penal 0ode! the liabilit) of the emplo)er! or an) person for that matter! under -rticle .15; of the 0ivil 0ode is primar) and direct! based on a person=s own ne$li$ence *his case involves the accidental dischar$e of a firearm inside a $un store& Fnder P/P 0ircular /o& 9! entitled the +Polic) on >irearms and -mmunition ealershipR'epair!, a person who is in the business of purchasin$ and sellin$ of firearms and ammunition must maintain basic securit) and safet) re(uirements of a $un dealer! otherwise his "icense to Operate ealership will be suspended or canceled& #ndeed! a hi$her de$ree of care is re(uired of someone who has in his possession or under his control an instrumentalit) e9tremel) dan$erous in character! such as dan$erous weapons or substances& 8uch person in possession or control of dan$erous instrumentalities has the dut) to take e9ceptional precautions to prevent an) in<ur) bein$ done thereb)& Fnlike the ordinar) affairs of life or business which involve little or no risk! a business dealin$ with dan$erous weapons re(uires the e9ercise of a

Pacis v& 4orales (.212)

On 15 Aanuar) 1995! petitioners -lfredo P& Pacis and 0leopatra & Pacis (petitioners) filed with the trial court a civil case for dama$es a$ainst respondent Aerome Aovanne 4orales (respondent)& Petitioners are the parents of -lfred ennis Pacis! Ar& (-lfred)! a 156)ear old student who died in a shootin$ incident inside the *op Gun >irearms and -mmunitions 8tore ($un store) in Ga$uio 0it)& 'espondent is the owner of the $un store& -lfred ennis! then minor! died due to a $unshot wound in the head which he sustained while he was at the $un store owned and operated b) defendant Aerome Aovanne 4orales& Dith -lfred Pacis at the time of the shootin$ were -ristedes 4atiba$ and Aason Eerbolario& *he) were sales a$ents of the defendant! and the caretakers of the $un store&*he bullet which killed -lfred

ennis Pacis was fired from a $un brou$ht in b) a customer of the $un store for repair& *he $un was left b) defendant 4orales in a drawer of a table located inside the $un store& efendant 4orales was in 4anila at the time& Eis emplo)ee -rmando Aarna$ue! who was the re$ular caretaker of the $un store was also not around& Ee left earlier and re(uested sales a$ents 4atiba$ and Eerbolario to look after the $un store while he and defendant 4orales were awa)& Aarna$ue entrusted to 4atiba$ and Eerbolario a bunch of ke)s used in the $un store which included the ke) to the drawer where the fatal $un was kept& #t appears that 4atiba$ and Eerbolario later brou$ht out the $un from the drawer and placed it on top of the table& -ttracted b) the si$ht of the $un! the )oun$ -lfred ennis Pacis $ot hold of the same& 4atiba$ asked -lfred ennis Pacis to return the $un& *he latter followed and handed the $un to 4atiba$& #t went off! the bullet hittin$ the )oun$ -lfred in the head& 7 R"& I2&$ L/<,.',PROFESSIONAL -fter an anterior resection sur$er) and SERVICES VS h)sterectom) performed b) r& -mpil and AGANA r& >uentes at the 4edical 0it)! /atividad suffered e9cruciatin$ pain in the (.225) followin$ da)s! even durin$ another medical trip to the F8& Fpon her return! /atividad=s dau$hter discovered a piece of $auze protrudin$ from her va$ina& Fpon bein$ informed about it! r& -mpil proceeded to her house where he mana$ed to e9tract b) hand a piece of $auze measurin$ 1&5 inches in width& 'espondents filed a case for dama$es a$ainst P8#! r& -mpil and r& >uentes& *he '*0 ruled in favor of respondents but on appeal to the 0-! r& >uentes was absolved from responsibilit)& *he -$anas now maintain that the 0ourt of -ppeals erred in findin$ that r& >uentes is not $uilt) of ne$li$ence or medical

hi$her de$ree of care& -s a $un store owner! respondent is presumed to be knowled$eable about firearms safet) and should have known never to keep a loaded weapon in his store to avoid unreasonable risk of harm or in<ur) to others& 'espondent has the dut) to ensure that all the $uns in his store are not loaded& >irearms should be stored unloaded and separate from ammunition when the firearms are not needed for read)6 access defensive use& Dith more reason! $uns accepted b) the store for repair should not be loaded precisel) because the) are defective and ma) cause an accidental dischar$e such as what happened in this case& 'espondent was clearl) ne$li$ent when he accepted the $un for repair and placed it inside the drawer without ensurin$ first that it was not loaded& #n the first place! the defective $un should have been stored in a vault& Gefore acceptin$ the defective $un for repair! respondent should have made sure that it was not loaded to prevent an) untoward accident& #ndeed! respondent should never accept a firearm from another person! until the c)linder or action is open and he has personall) checked that the weapon is completel) unloaded& >or failin$ to insure that the $un was not loaded! respondent himself was ne$li$ent& >urthermore! it was not shown in this case whether respondent had a "icense to 'epair which authorizes him to repair defective firearms to restore its ori$inal composition or enhance or up$rade firearms& 0learl)! respondent did not e9ercise the de$ree of care and dili$ence re(uired of a $ood father of a famil)! much less the de$ree of care re(uired of someone dealin$ with dan$erous weapons! as would e9empt him from liabilit) in this case&

*he element of 1control and mana$ement of the thin$ which caused the in<ur)1 is absent in this case hence! the doctrine of res ipsa lo(uitur will not lie& L.'"-$##1, -"& .2&$ #/<,.',- 0"$n& H'!" '!.n4 &2"$(& )/- .'&"#) H I' .& '!" -,#" '!$' '!" )$*' /) '!" /**,--"n*" /) $n .n;,-1, '$("n %.'! '!" &,--/,nd.n4 *.-*,0&'$n*"&, 0$1 2"-0.' $n .n)"-"n*" /-$.&" $ 2-"&,02'./n /) n"4#.4"n*", /- 0$(" /,' $ 2#$.n'.))G& 2-.0$ )$*." *$&", $nd 2-"&"n' $ <,"&'./n /) )$*' )/- d")"nd$n' '/ 0""' %.'! $n "E2#$n$'./n S'$'"d d.))"-"n'#1, %!"-" '!" '!.n4 %!.*! *$,&"d '!" .n;,-1, %.'!/,' '!" )$,#' /) '!" .n;,-"d, .& ,nd"- '!" "E*#,&.+" */n'-/# /) '!" d")"nd$n' $nd '!" .n;,-1 .& &,*! '!$' .' &!/,#d n/' !$+" /**,--"d .) !", !$+.n4 &,*! */n'-/# ,&"d 2-/2"- *$-", .' $))/-d& -"$&/n$9#" "+.d"n*", .n '!" $9&"n*" /) "E2#$n$'./n '!$' '!" .n;,-1 $-/&" )-/0 '!" d")"nd$n'G& %$n' /) *$-", $nd '!" 9,-d"n /) 2-//) .& &!.)'"d '/ !.0 '/ "&'$9#.&! '!$' !" !$& /9&"-+"d d," *$-" $nd d.#.4"n*" T!" -"<,.&.'"& )/- '!" $22#.*$9.#.'1 /) '!" d/*'-.n" /) -"& .2&$ #/<,.',- $-"K (1) the occurrence of an in<ur)? (.) the thin$ which caused the in<ur) was under the control and mana$ement of the defendant? (7) the occurrence was such that in the ordinar) course of thin$s! would not have happened if those who had control or mana$ement used proper care? and (3) the absence of e9planation b) the defendant& Of the fore$oin$ re(uisites! the most instrumental is the 1control and mana$ement of the thin$ which caused the in<ur)&1 #n this case! r& -mpil was the lead sur$eon durin$ the operation of /atividad& Ee re(uested the assistance of r& >uentes onl) to perform h)sterectom) when he ( r& -mpil) found that the mali$nanc) in her si$moid area had spread to her left ovar)& r& >uentes performed the sur$er) and thereafter

malpractice! invokin$ the doctrine of res ipsa lo(uitur& *he) contend that the pieces of $auze are prima facie proofs that the operatin$ sur$eons have been ne$li$ent&

reported and showed his work to r& -mpil& *he latter e9amined it and findin$ ever)thin$ to be in order! allowed r& >uentes to leave the operatin$ room& r& -mpil then resumed operatin$ on /atividad& Ee was about to finish the procedure when the attendin$ nurses informed him that two pieces of $auze were missin$& - 1dili$ent search1 was conducted! but the misplaced $auzes were not found& r& -mpil then directed that the incision be closed& urin$ this entire period! r& >uentes was no lon$er in the operatin$ room and had! in fact! left the hospital& #t was this act of orderin$ the closure of the incision notwithstandin$ that two pieces of $auze remained unaccounted for! that caused in<ur) to /atividad=s bod)& 0learl)! the control and mana$ement of the thin$ which caused the in<ur) was in the hands of r& -mpil! not r& >uentes& NOTEK #n this <urisdiction! res ipsa lo(uitur is not a rule of substantive law! hence! does not per se create or constitute an independent or separate $round of liabilit)! bein$ a mere evidentiar) rule& #n other words! mere invocation and application of the doctrine does not dispense with the re(uirement of proof of ne$li$ence& Eere! the ne$li$ence was proven to have been committed b) r& -mpil and not b) r& >uentes&

CAP 3ELFRANTL (.225)

VS

Gelfranlt evelopment! #nc& (respondent) is the owner of Gelfranlt Guildin$ in -n$eles 0it)! Pampan$a& #t leased to petitioners 0olle$e -ssurance Plan Phil&! #nc& (0-P) and 0omprehensive -nnuit) Plans and Pension 0orporation (0-PP) several units on the second and third floors of the buildin$& - fire destro)ed portions of the buildin$! includin$ the third floor units bein$ occupied b) petitioners& *he report of the arson investi$ator showed that the ori$in of the fire was from an overheated percolator located in the storeroom occupied b) 0-P& 'espondent demanded reparation from 0-P but the latter refused to pa) so an action for dama$es was filed& Goth the '*0 and 0- ruled in favor of respondent&

*he doctrine of res ipsa lo(uitur applies& Fnder this doctrine! "E2"-' '"&'.0/n1 0$1 9" d.&2"n&"d %.'! '/ &,&'$.n $n $##"4$'./n /) n"4#.4"n*" .) '!" )/##/%.n4 -"<,.&.'"& /9'$.nK $) '!" $**.d"n' .& /) $ (.nd %!.*! d/"& n/' /-d.n$-.#1 /**,- ,n#"&& &/0"/n" .& n"4#.4"n'T 9) '!" *$,&" /) '!" .n;,-1 %$& ,nd"- '!" "E*#,&.+" */n'-/# /) '!" 2"-&/n .n *!$-4" $nd *) '!" .n;,-1 &,))"-"d 0,&' n/' !$+" 9""n d," '/ $n1 +/#,n'$-1 $*'./n /- */n'-.9,'./n /n '!" 2$-' /) '!" 2"-&/n .n;,-"d *he fire that dama$ed Gelfranlt Guildin$ was not a spontaneous natural occurrence but the outcome of a human act or omission& #t ori$inated in the store room which petitioners had possession and control of& 'espondent had no hand in the incident& Eence! the conver$ence of these facts and circumstances speaks for itself@ petitioners alone havin$ knowled$e of the cause of the fire or the best opportunit) to ascertain it! and respondent havin$ no means to find out for itself! it is sufficient for the latter to merel) alle$e that the cause of the fire was the ne$li$ence of the former and to rel) on the occurrence of the fire as proof of such ne$li$ence& #t was all up to petitioners to dispel such inference of ne$li$ence! but their bare denial onl) left the matter unanswered&

10 C/n'-.9,'/-1 n"4#.4"n*" /) 2#$.n'.)) NPC VS HEIRS OF *his is a review on certiorari of the CASIONAN ecision of the 0ourt of -ppeals (0-) which found the /ational Power (.228) 0orporation (/P0) liable for dama$es for the death of /oble 0asionan due to electrocution from the compan)=s hi$h tension transmission lines& Petitioner contends that the mere presence of the hi$h tension wires above the trail did not cause the victim=s death& #nstead! it was

*here was no contributor) ne$li$ence on /oble=s part& *he sa$$in$ hi$h tension wires were an accident waitin$ to happen& -s established durin$ trial! the lines were sa$$in$ around 8 to 12 feet in violation of the re(uired distance of 18 to .2 feet& #f the transmission lines were properl) maintained b) petitioner! the bamboo pole carried b) /oble would not have touched the wires& Ee would not have been electrocuted& /e$li$ence is the failure to observe! for the protection of the interest of another person! that de$ree of care! precaution! and vi$ilance which the circumstances <ustl) demand! whereb) such other person suffers in<ur)& On the other hand! */n'-.9,'/-1 n"4#.4"n*" .& */nd,*' /n '!" 2$-' /) '!" .n;,-"d

/oble=s ne$li$ent carr)in$ of the bamboo pole that caused his death& #t insists that /oble was ne$li$ent when he allowed the bamboo pole he was carr)in$ to touch the hi$h tension wires& *his is especiall) true because other people traversin$ the trail have not been similarl) electrocuted&

2$-'1, */n'-.9,'.n4 $& $ #"4$# *$,&" '/ '!" !$-0 !" !$& &,))"-"d, %!.*! )$##& 9"#/% '!" &'$nd$-d %!.*! !" .& -"<,.-"d '/ */n)/-0 )/- !.& /%n 2-/'"*'./n& *here is contributor) ne$li$ence when the part)=s act showed lack of ordinar) care and foresi$ht that such act could cause him harm or put his life in dan$er& #t is an act or omission amountin$ to want of ordinar) care on the part of the person in<ured which! concurrin$ with the defendant=s ne$li$ence! is the pro9imate cause of the in<ur)& *he underl)in$ precept on contributor) ne$li$ence is that a plaintiff who is partl) responsible for his own in<ur) should not be entitled to recover dama$es in full but must bear the conse(uences of his own ne$li$ence& #f indeed there was contributor) ne$li$ence on the part of the victim! then it is proper to reduce the award for dama$es& *his is in consonance with the 0ivil 0ode provision that liabilit) will be miti$ated in consideration of the contributor) ne$li$ence of the in<ured part)& A-'.*#" 21>7 /) '!" C.+.# C/d" .& "E2#.*.' /n '!.& &*/-" 12 #n Ma8ao /ugar Central! it was held that to hold a person as havin$ contributed to his in<uries! it must be shown that he performed an act that brou$ht about his in<uries in disre$ard of warnin$s or si$ns on an impendin$ dan$er to health and bod)& #n this case! the trail where /oble was electrocuted was re$ularl) used b) members of the communit)& *here were no warnin$ si$ns to inform passersb) of the impendin$ dan$er to their lives should the) accidentall) touch the hi$h tension wires& -lso! the trail was the onl) viable wa) from alicon to #to$on& Eence! /oble should not be faulted for simpl) doin$ what was ordinar) routine to other workers in the area& *he abrupt and sudden left turn b) Gamot! without first establishin$ his ri$ht of wa)! was the pro9imate cause of the mishap which claimed the life of 0astillon and in<ured 8er$io& Eowever! 0astillon is $uilt) of contributor) ne$li$ence& 0astillon! at the time of the mishap@ (1) was drivin$ the motorc)cle at a hi$h speed? (.) was tail$atin$ the *amaraw <eepne)? (7) has imbibed one or two bottles of beer? and (3) was not wearin$ a protective helmet which contributed to the result of the incident& *he underl)in$ precept on contributor) ne$li$ence is that a plaintiff who is partl) responsible for his own in<ur) should not be entitled to recover dama$es in full but must bear the conse(uences of his own ne$li$ence& *he defendant must thus be held liable onl) for the dama$es actuall) caused b) his ne$li$ence& *he determination of the miti$ation of the defendant=s liabilit) varies dependin$ on the circumstances of each case& >ortuitous event or caso fortuito is defined as +an event which takes place b) accident and could not have been foreseen&, *o e9empt a person from liabilit)! it is necessar) that he be free from an) previous ne$li$ence or misconduct b) reason of which the loss ma) have been occasioned& Dhen a person=s ne$li$ence concurs with an act of God in producin$ dama$e or in<ur) to another! such person is not e9empt from liabilit) b) showin$ that the immediate or pro9imate cause of the dama$e or in<ur) was a fortuitous event& Dhen the effect is found to be partl) the result of the participation of man T whether it be from active intervention! or ne$lect! or failure to act T the whole occurrence is hereb) humanized! and removed from the rules applicable to acts of God #n the case at hand! private respondent failed to prove the ne$li$ence of petitioner& On the other hand! petitioners were able to prove throu$h their witnesses that the) have obtained both buildin$ permit and

L$09"-' + H".-& /) C$&'.##/n (.225)

0astillon after havin$ dinner and drinkin$ a bottle of beer went on a motorc)cle ride with 8er$io ridin$ at the back& *he) fi$ured in a vehicular accident with a *amaraw <eepne) owned b) "ambert and driven b) Gamot& *his resulted to the death of 0astillon and in<uries to 8er$io& *hus an action for dama$es was filed b) his heirs&

11 F/-',.'/,& "+"n' S/,'!"$&'"-n Petitioner owned a four6store) school C/##"4" + CA, D" buildin$ in Pasa) 0it)& Dhen t)phoon :"&,& E'$# 8alin$ hit 4etro 4anila! one part of the roof :,#1 10, 1778 of the buildin$ was blown b) the wind P,-.&.0$ : which landed and destro)ed the roofin$ of the house of private respondent& *hus a suit for dama$es was filed a$ainst petitioners&

10

Dhen the plaintiff=s own ne$li$ence was the immediate and pro9imate cause of his in<ur)! he cannot recover dama$es& Gut if his ne$li$ence was onl) contributor)! the immediate and pro9imate cause of the in<ur) bein$ the defendant=s lack of due care! the plaintiff ma) recover dama$es! but the courts shall miti$ate the dama$es to be awarded&

certificate of occupanc) which are! at the ver) least! pri$a facie evidence of the re$ular and proper construction of the school buildin$& 4oreover! no other incident has been reported re$ardin$ the buildin$ despite other t)phoons stron$er than 8alin$ have hit it& 12 P#$.n'.))G& $&&,02'./n /) -.&(N+/#"n'. n/n ).' .n;,-.$ I#/*/& N/-'" E#"*'-.* urin$ the onslau$ht of *)phoon Genin$! C/02$n1 + CA /ana Gelen ventured ou$ht to see whether her merchandise has been dama$ed& Dhile wadin$ in waist deep water! and openin$ the $ate of her house! she was (1989) electrocuted b) a dan$lin$ electrical wire owned b) petitioner #locos /orte %lectric 0ompan)& *hus an action for dama$es was brou$ht b) the heirs a$ainst the petitioner& #t is to be noted that /ana Gelen installed a bur$lar deterrent usin$ petitioner=s wires without their permission! to which petitioner ar$ues to be the cause of her electrocution& 13 D/*'-.n" /) L$&' C#"$- C!$n*" L$2$nd$1 +& An4$#$ On 3 4a) 1997! at about .@35 p&m&! a atsun crewcab driven b) -polonio (200>) eocampo ( eocampo) bumped into a 0hev) pick6up owned b) 4ichael 'a)mond -n$ala (respondent) and driven b) Gernulfo Gorres (Gorres)& "apanda) -$ricultural and evelopment 0orporation ("- %0O) owned the crewcab which was assi$ned to its mana$er 4anuel 4endez (4endez)& eocampo was the driver and bod)$uard of 4endez& Goth vehicles were runnin$ alon$ 'afael 0astillo 8t&! -$dao! avao 0it) headin$ north towards "anan$! avao 0it)& *he left door! front left fender! and part of the front bumper of the pick6up were dama$ed& 'espondent filed an action for Uuasi6 elict! ama$es! and -ttorne)=s >ees a$ainst "- %0O! its administrative officer Eenr) Geren$uel (Geren$uel) and eocampo& 'espondent alle$ed that his pick6up was slowin$ down to about five to ten kilometers per hour (kph) and was makin$ a left turn preparator) to turnin$ south when it was bumped from behind b) the crewcab which was runnin$ at around ;2 to 52 kph& *he crewcab stopped .1 meters Goth parties were ne$li$ent in this case& Gorres was at the outer lane when he e9ecuted a F6turn& >ollowin$ 8ection 35(b) of '- 317;! which provides that@ (b) *he driver of a vehicle intendin$ to turn to the left shall approach such intersection in the lane for traffic to the ri$ht of and nearest to the center line of the hi$hwa)! and! in turnin$! shall pass to the left of the center of the intersection! e9cept that! upon hi$hwa)s laned for traffic and upon one6 wa) hi$hwa)s! a left turn shall be made from the left lane of traffic in the direction in which the vehicle is proceedin$&) Gorres should have sta)ed at the inner lane which is the lane nearest to the center of the hi$hwa)& Eowever! eocampo was e(uall) ne$li$ent& Gorres slowed down the pick6up preparator) to e9ecutin$ the F6turn& eocampo should have also slowed down when the pick6up slowed down& eocampo admitted that he noticed the pick6up when it was still about .2 meters awa) from him& :ehicular traffic was li$ht at the time of the incident& *he pick6up and the crewcab were the onl) vehicles on the road& eocampo could have avoided the crewcab if he was not drivin$ ver) fast before the collision& >urther! the crewcab stopped .1 meters from the point of impact& #t would not have happened if eocampo was not drivin$ ver) fast& 8ince both parties are at fault in this case! '!" d/*'-.n" /) #$&' *#"$- *!$n*" $22#."&& *he doctrine of last clear chance states that where both parties are ne$li$ent but the ne$li$ent act of one is appreciabl) later than that of the other! or where it is impossible to determine whose fault or ne$li$ence caused the loss! the one who had the last clear opportunit) to avoid the loss but failed to do so is char$eable with the loss& #n this case! eocampo had the last clear chance to avoid the collision& 8ince eocampo was drivin$ the rear vehicle! he had full control of the situation since he was in a position to observe the vehicle in front of him& eocampo had the responsibilit) of avoidin$ bumpin$ the vehicle in front of him& - F6turn is done at a much slower speed to avoid skiddin$ and overturnin$! compared to runnin$ strai$ht ahead& eocampo could have avoided the vehicle if he was not drivin$ ver) fast while followin$ the pick6up& eocampo was not onl) drivin$ fast! he also admitted that he did not step on the brakes even upon seein$ the pick6up& Ee onl) stepped on the brakes after the collision& #n the doctrine of volenti non fit in;uria it is considered that when a person voluntaril) assents to a known dan$er he must abide b) the conse(uences resultin$ therefrom& Eowever! this doctrine finds no application in the case at bar& - person is e9cused from the force of the rule! if an emer$enc) is found to e9ist or if the life or propert) of another is in peril or when he seeks to rescue his endan$ered propert) #n this case at hand! /ana Gelen tried to save her $oods! which was the source of her livelihood! from bein$ dama$ed b) the flood& >urthermore! at the time the fatal incident occurred! she was at a place where she had a ri$ht to be without re$ard to petitionerLs consent as she was on her wa) to protect her merchandise&

from the point of impact& 'espondent alle$ed that he heard a screechin$ sound before the impact& 'espondent was seated beside the driver and was lookin$ at the speedometer when the accident took place& 'espondent testified that Gorres made a si$nal because he noticed a blinkin$ li$ht while lookin$ at the speedometer& eocampo alle$ed that the pick6up and the crewcab he was drivin$ were both runnin$ at about 32 kph& *he pick6up was runnin$ alon$ the outer lane& *he pick6up was about 12 meters awa) when it made a F6 turn towards the left& eocampo testified that he did not see an) si$nal from the pick6up& eocampo alle$ed that he tried to avoid the pick6up but he was unable to avoid the collision& eocampo stated that he did not appl) the brakes because he knew the collision was unavoidable& eocampo admitted that he stepped on the brakes onl) after the collision& 1B V.*$-./,& L.$9.#.'1 $ P$-"n'&NG,$-d.$n& L.9. +& IAC eceased Aulie -nn Gotion$! 18 )ears old! and deceased Dendell "ibi! between 18 to (1772) 19 )ears old! were sweethearts for two )ears prior to the incident& -fter Aulie decided to end the relationship findin$ the $u) sadistic and irresponsible! Dendell incessantl) pursued her and pra)ed that the) be to$ether a$ain& *his made him resort to threats& Gut! Aulie hold steadfast to her decision& #n order to avoid the Dendell! Aulie lived with her best friend& On the da) of the incident! the two were found shot dead b) a 8mith and Desson revolver& *he parents of the Aulie instituted this case a$ainst the parents of Dendell for dama$es& 9 T"$*!"-& 8t& Aoseph=s 0olle$e Dhile inside the premises of 8t& Aoseph=s vs 4iranda 0olle$e! the class where respondent Aa)son 4iranda belon$ed was conductin$ (.212) a science e9periment about fusion of sulphur powder andiron fillin$s under the tutela$e of 'osalinda *abu$o! she bein$ the teacher and the emplo)ee! while the

*he subsidiar) liabilit) of parents for dama$es caused b) their minor children imposed under -rt .182 of the 0ivil 0ode and -rt& 121 of 'evised Penal 0ode covered obli$ations arisin$ from both (uasi6 delicts and criminal offenses& *he court held that the civil liabilit) of the parents for (uasi6delict of their minor children is primar) and not subsidiar) and that responsibilit) shall cease when the persons can prove that the) observe all the dili$ence of a $ood father of a famil) to prevent dama$e& Eowever! Dendell=s mother testified that her husband owns a $un which he kept in a safet) deposit bo9 inside a drawer in their bedroom& %ach of the spouses had their own ke)& 8he likewise admitted that durin$ the incident! the $un was no lon$er in the safet) deposit bo9& Dendell could not have $otten hold of the $un unless the ke) was left ne$li$entl) l)in$ around and that he has free access of the mother=s ba$ where the ke) was kept& *he spouses failed to observe and e9ercise the re(uired dili$ence of a $ood father to prevent such dama$e&

*he pro9imate cause of the Aason=s in<ur) was the concurrent failure of petitioners to prevent to foreseeable mishap that occurred durin$ the conduct of the science e9periment& Petitioners were ne$li$ent b) failin$ to e9ercise the hi$her de$ree of care! caution and foresi$ht incumbent upon the school! its administrators and teachers& Petitioners= ne$li$ence and failure to e9ercise the re(uisite de$ree of care and caution is demonstrated b) the followin$@ Petitioner school did not take affirmative steps to avert dama$e and in<ur) to its students

adviser is %stafania -bdan& *abu$o left her class while it was doin$ the e9periment without havin$ ade(uatel) secured it from an) untoward incident or occurrence& #n the middle of the e9periment! Aa)son! who was the assistant leader of one of the class $roups! checked the result of the e9periment b) lookin$ into the test tube with ma$nif)in$ $lass& *he test tube was bein$ held b) one of his $roup mates who moved it close and towards the e)e of Aa)son& -t that instance! the compound in the test tube spurted out and several particles of which hit Aa)son=s e)e and the different parts of the bodies of some of his $roup mates& -s a result thereof! Aa)son=s e)es were chemicall) burned! particularl) his left e)e! for which he had to under$o sur$er) and had to spend for his medication&

althou$h it had full information on the nature of dan$erous science e9periments conducted b) the students durin$ class? Petitioner school did not install safet) measures to protect the students who conduct e9periments in class? Petitioner school did not provide protective $ears and devices! specificall) $o$$les! to shield students from e9pected risks and dan$ers? and Petitioner *abu$o was not inside the classroom the whole time her class conducted the e9periment! specificall)! when the accident involvin$ Aa)son occurred& #n an) event! the size of the classMfift) (52) studentsM conductin$ the e9periment is difficult to monitor& 4oreover! petitioners cannot simpl) deflect their ne$li$ence and liabilit) b) insistin$ that petitioner *abu$o $ave specific instructions to her science class not to look directl) into the heated compound& *he defense of due dili$ence of a $ood father of a famil) raised b) petitioner 8t& Aoseph 0olle$e will not e9culpate it from liabilit) because it has been shown that it was $uilt) of ine9cusable la9it) in the supervision of its teachers (despite an apparent ri$id screenin$ process for hirin$) and in the maintenance of what should have been a safe and secured environment for conductin$ dan$erous e9periments& Petitioner school is still liable for the wron$ful acts of the teachers and emplo)ees because it had full information on the nature of dan$erous science e9periments but did not take affirmative steps to avert dama$e and in<ur) to students& *he fact that there has never been an) accident in the past durin$ the conduct of science e9periments is not a <ustification to be complacent in <ust preservin$ the status (uo and do awa) with creative foresi$ht to install safet) measures to protect the students& 8chools should not simpl) install safet) reminders and distribute safet) instructional manuals& 4ore importantl)! schools should provide protective $ears and devices to shield students from e9pected risks and anticipated dan$ers& *he 0ourt applied the +four6fold test, in determinin$ the e9istence of an emplo)er6emplo)ee relationship to absolve -(uinas of liabilit)& *he school directress= testimon) that -(uinas had an a$reement with a con$re$ation of sisters under which! in order to fulfill its ministr)! the con$re$ation would send reli$ion teachers to -(uinas to provide catechesis to its students& -(uinas insisted that it wasn=t the school which chose Oam)amin to teach but her reli$ious con$re$ation& On the basis of such testimon)! the 0ourt held that -(uinas had no control over Oam)amin=s teachin$ methods& *he 0ourt likewise held that -(uinas took the necessar) steps to ensure that onl) (ualified outside catechists are allowed to teach its )oun$ students&

ACUINAS SCHOOL + INTON (2011)

#n 1998! Aose "uis #nton was a 7 rd $rade student at -(uinas& 8ister Oam)amin tau$ht his reli$ion class& urin$ one class! he left his seat and went over to his classmate to surprise him& Oam)amin saw him and sent him back to his seat& -fter a while! Aose "uis stood up a$ain and went to his classmate& Oam)amin kicked him on the le$s several times! pulled and shoved his head and made him cop) the notes on the blackboard while seated on the floor& Aose "uis= parents filed an action for dama$es on behalf of their son a$ainst Oam)amin and -(uinas&

* O%n"-&NM$n$4"-& /) E&'$9#.&!0"n'&NE02#/1"-& MERCURY DRUG + 4ercur) ru$ is the re$istered owner of a HUANG 4itsubishi truck! with petitioner del 'osario as driver& 'espondent 8ps& Euan$ are (200>) parents of respondent 8tephen Euan$! who owned a 8edan& *he . vehicles $ot into an accident as the) were traversin$ a hi$hwa)& *he 8edan was on the left innermost lane while the truck was on the ne9t lane to its ri$ht when the

4ercur) ru$ is <ointl) and severall) liable with

el 'osario as the emplo)er&

#n order to be relieved of such liabilit)! 4ercur) should show that it e9ercised the dili$ence of a $ood father of a famil)! both in the selection and supervision of the emplo)ee in the performance of his duties& 4ercur) failed in both respects& #n selectin$ emplo)ees! the emplo)er is re(uired to e9amine them as to their (ualifications! e9perience and service records& Dith respect to supervision! the emplo)er should formulate standard operatin$ procedures! monitor their implementation and impose disciplinar) measures for their breach& *o establish such! concrete proof! such as documentar) evidence must be submitted b) him&

latter swerved to its left and slammed the front ri$ht side of the sedan& -s a conse(uence! the car was wrecked and 8tephen incurred massive in<uries and became paral)zed& 'espondents faulted el 'osario for committin$ fross ne$li$ence and reckless imprudence and 4ercur) ru$ for failin$ to e9ercise the dili$ence of a $ood father of a famil) in the selection and supervision of its driver&

#n the case at bar! it was shown that el 'osario didnLt take drivin$ tests and ps)cholo$ical e9ams when he applied for the position of a *ruck 4an& #n addition! 4ercur) didnLt present el 'osarioLs /G# and police clearances& /e9t! the last seminar attended b) the driver occurred a lon$ 1. )ears before the accident occurred& "astl)! 4ercur) didnLt have a backup driver for lon$ trips& Dhen the accident happened el 'osario has been out on the road for more than 17 hours& -s to ne$li$ence with re$ard to supervision over its emplo)ees! 4ercur) didnLtimpose an) sanction on el 'osario when the latter reported to the former about the incident& Eence! 4ercur) didnLt e9ercise due dili$ence

1D In'"-)"-"n*" %.'! */n'-$*',$# -"$#'./n& LAGON "a$on purchased from the estate of Gai *onina 8epi! throu$h an intestate court! + CA two parcels of land located at *acuron$! 8ultan Budarat& - few months after the sale! private respondent "apuz filed a complaint for torts and dama$es a$ainst (2000) petitioner& 'espondent claimed that he entered into a contract of lease with the late Gai *onina 8epi 4en$elen Guiabar over three parcels of land& One of the provisions a$reed upon was for private respondent to put up commercial buildin$s which would! in turn! be leased to new tenants& *he rentals to be paid b) those tenants would answer for the rent private respondent was obli$ated to pa) Gai *onina 8epi for the lease& Dhen Gai *onina 8epi died! private respondent started remittin$ his rent to thec ourt6appointed administrator of her estate& Gut when the administrator advised him to stop collectin$ rentals from the tenants of the buildin$s he constructed! he discovered that petitioner! representin$ himself as the new owner of the propert)! had been collectin$ rentals from the tenants& Ee thus filed a complaint a$ainst the latter& Petitioner claimed that before he bou$ht the propert)! he went to -tt)& Gen<amin >a<ardo! the law)er who alle$edl) notarized the lease contract between private respondent and Gai *onina 8epi! to verif) if the parties indeed renewed the lease contract after it e9pired in 1953& Petitioner averred that -tt)& >a<ardo showed him 3 copies of the lease renewal but these were all unsi$ned&

*he purchase b) petitioner of the propert) durin$ the e9istence of respondent=s lease does not constitute tortuous interference& /00 1713 provides that an) third person who induces another to violate his contract shall be liable for dama$es to the other contractin$ part)& *he tort reco$nized in that provision is known as interference with contractual relations& *he interference is penalized because it violates the propert) ri$hts of a part) in a contract to reap the benefits that should result therefrom& *he 0ourt! in the case of So Pin" un v. Court of (ppeals! down the elements of tortuous interference with contractual relations@ (a) e9istence of a valid contract? (b) knowled$e on the part of the third person of the e9istence of the contract and (c) interference of the third person without le$al <ustification or e9cuse& *he .nd and 7rd elements are not present& Petitioner conducted his own personal investi$ation and in(uir)! and unearthed no suspicious circumstance that would have made a cautious man probe deeper and watch out for an) conflictin$ claim over the propert)& -n e9amination of the entire propert)=s title bore no indication of the leasehold interest of private respondent& %ven the re$istr) of propert) had no record of the same& *he records do not support the alle$ation of private respondent that petitionerind uced the heirs of Gai *onina 8epi to sell the propert) to him& 'ecords show that the decision of the heirs of the late Gai *onina 8epi to sell the propert) was completel) of their own volition and that petitioner did absolutel) nothin$ to influence their <ud$ment& Private respondent himself did not proffer an) evidence to support his claim& #n short! even assumin$ that private respondent was ableto prove the renewal of his lease contract with Gai *onina 8epi! the fact was that he was unable to prove malice or bad faith on the part of petitioner in purchasin$ the propert)& *herefore! the claim of tortuous interference was never established& Petitioner=s purchase of the sub<ect propert) was merel) an advancement of his financial or economic interests! absent an) proof that he was enthused b) improper motives& #n the ver) earl) case of Gilchrist v& 0udd)! the 0ourt declared

that a person is not a malicious interferer if his conduct is impelled b) a proper business interest& #n other words! a financial or profit motivation will not necessaril) make a person an officious interferer liable for dama$es as lon$ as there is no malice or bad faith involved& *his case is one of da$nun abs#ue in;uria or dama$e without in<ur)& +#n<ur), is the le$al invasion of a le$al ri$ht while +dama$e, is the hurt! loss or harm which results from the in<ur)& DO/ the acts constituted an interference with contractual relations& Oes& Dhile it is true that a third person cannot possibl) be sued for breach of contract because onl) parties can breach contractual provisions! a contractin$ part) ma) sue a third person not for breach but for inducin$ another to commit such breach& -rticle 1713 of the 0ivil 0ode provides@ -rt& 1713& -n) third person who induces another to violate his contract shall be liable for dama$es to the other contractin$ part)& *he elements of tort interference are@ (1) e9istence of a valid contract? (.) knowled$e on the part of the third person of the e9istence of a contract? and (7) interference of the third person is without le$al <ustification& *he presence of the first and second elements is not disputed& *he act of Go! "andicho and *ecson in inducin$ 'obinson and ->>- to enter into another contract directl) with -0G %9press "iner to obtain a lower price for the second vessel resulted in ->>-=s breach of its contractual obli$ation to pa) in full the commission due to 0ordero and unceremonious termination of 0ordero=s appointment as e9clusive distributor& *he attendant circumstances demonstrated that respondents trans$ressed the bounds of permissible financial interest to benefit themselves at the e9pense of 0ordero& *hus! the trial and appellate courts correctl) ruled that the actuations of Go! 'obinson! *ecson and "andicho were without le$al <ustification and intended solel) to pre<udice 0ordero&

G/ + C/-d"/ (2010)

'obinson si$ned documents appointin$ 0ordero as the e9clusive distributor of ->>- catamaran and other fast ferr) vessels in the Philippines& -fter ne$otiations with >elipe "andicho and :incent *ecson! law)ers of -llan 0& Go who is the ownerRoperator of -0G %9press "iner of 0ebu 0it)! a sin$le proprietorship! 0ordero was able to close a deal for the purchase of two (.) 8%-0-* .5& Eowever! 0ordero later discovered that Go was dealin$ directl) with 'obinson when he was informed b) ennis Padua of Dartsila Philippines that Go was canvassin$ for a second catamaran en$ine from their compan) which provided the ship en$ine for the first 8%-0-* .5& >rom the time petitioner Go and respondent "andicho directl) dealt with respondent 'obinson in Grisbane! and ceased communicatin$ throu$h petitioner 0ordero as the e9clusive distributor of ->>- in the Philippines! 0ordero was no lon$er informed of pa)ments remitted to ->>- in Grisbane& Dhen 0ordero complained to Go! 'obinson! "andicho and *ecson about their acts pre<udicial to his ri$hts and demanded that the) respect his e9clusive distributorship! Go simpl) let his law)ers led b) "andicho and *ecson handle the matter and tried to settle it b) promisin$ to pa) a certain amount and to purchase hi$h6speed catamarans throu$h 0ordero& Eowever! 0ordero was not paid an)thin$ and worse! ->>- throu$h its law)er in -ustralia even terminated his e9clusive dealership insistin$ that his services were en$a$ed for onl) one (1) transaction! that is! the purchase of the first 8%-0-* .5 in -u$ust 1995&

1= D$0$4"& C,&'/d./ + CA (177=)

*he plaintiff owns a parcel of land with a two6door apartment erected thereon situated at #nterior P& Gur$os 8t&! Palin$on! *ipas! *a$i$! 4etro 4anila& 8aid propert) ma) be described to be surrounded b) other immovables pertainin$ to defendants herein& Dhen said propert) was purchased b) 4abasa! there were tenants occup)in$ the premises and who were acknowled$ed b) plaintiff 4abasa as tenants& Eowever! sometime in >ebruar)! 198.! one of said tenants vacated the apartment and when plaintiff 4abasa went to see the premises! he saw that there had been built an adobe fence in the first passa$ewa) makin$ it narrower in width& 8aid adobe fence was

DO/ plaintiff is entitled to a ri$ht of wa)& Oes DO/ plaintiff is entitled to dama$es& /o #n the case at bar! althou$h there was dama$e! there was no le$al in<ur)& 0ontrar) to the claim of private respondents! petitioners could not be said to have violated the principle of abuse of ri$ht& #n order that the principle of abuse of ri$ht provided in -rticle .1 of the 0ivil 0ode can be applied! it is essential that the followin$ re(uisites concur@ (1) *he defendant should have acted in a manner that is contrar) to morals! $ood customs or public polic)? (.) *he acts should be willful? and (7) *here was dama$e or in<ur) to the plaintiff& *he act of petitioners in constructin$ a fence within their lot is a valid e9ercise of their ri$ht as owners! hence not contrar) to morals! $ood customs or public polic)& *he law reco$nizes in the owner the ri$ht to en<o) and dispose of a thin$! without other limitations than those established b) law& #t is within the ri$ht of petitioners! as owners! to enclose and fence their propert)& -rticle 372 of the 0ivil 0ode provides that 1(e)ver) owner ma) enclose or fence his land or tenements b) means of walls! ditches! live or dead hed$es! or b) an) other means without detriment to servitudes constituted thereon&1 -t the time of the construction of the fence! the lot was not sub<ect to an) servitudes

first constructed b) defendants 8antoses alon$ their propert) which is also alon$ the first passa$ewa)& efendant 4orato constructed her adobe fence and even e9tended said fence in such a wa) that the entire passa$ewa) was enclosed& -nd it was then that the remainin$ tenants of said apartment vacated the area& 1> A*',$# /- C/02"n&$'/-1 O*""$n""-.n4 /estor /& Garretto (Garretto) is the owner C/n'-$*'/-& In* + of the Gar$e 1-ntonieta1 which was last N"&'/- N 3$--"''/ licensed and permitted to en$a$e in (2011) coastwise tradin$& ! Garretto and petitioner Oceaneerin$ 0ontractors (Phils&)! #nc& (Oceaneerin$) entered into a *ime 0harter -$reement for the purpose of transportin$ construction materials from 4anila to -)un$on! /e$ros Oriental& Grokered b) freelance ship broker 4anuel :elasco! the a$reement included Oceaneerin$=s acknowled$ment of the seaworthiness of the bar$e& *he bar$e eventuall) left 4anila for /e$ros Oriental& On 5 ecember 1995! however! Garretto=s Gar$eman! %ddie "a 0hica! e9ecuted a 4arine Protest under which the bar$e reportedl) capsized in the vicinit) of 0ape 8antia$o! Gatan$as& Garreto filed a case claimin$ that the capsizin$ was due to the ne$li$ence of Oceeaneerin$ emplo)ees& Oceeaneerin$ filed a compulsor) counterclaim alle$in$ that it was due to the unseaworthiness of the vessel& #t claimed actual! e9emplar) and attorne)=s fees& *he 0- ruled that a common carrier le$all) char$ed with e9traordinar) dili$ence in the vi$ilance over the $oods transported b) him? and! that the sinkin$ of the vessel created a presumption of ne$li$ence andRor unseaworthiness& Eowever! the 0disallowed the counterclaims for the value of the construction materials which were lost as a conse(uence of the sinkin$ of the bar$e& 18 D"$'! 91 *-.0" /- <,$&.-d"#.*' P"/2#" +& A2$*.9#" >rom the account of prosecution witness 4)lene :izconde (4)lene)! widow of (.212) -rnold :izconde (the victim)! the followin$ Php 52!222 is the proper amount of dama$es& *he 0ourt thus affirms the appellate court=s ecision! with modification! however& *he 0ourt reduces DO/ Oceeaneerin$ is entitled to actualRcompensator) dama$es& Oes *he rule is lon$ and well settled that there must be pleadin$ and proof of actual dama$es suffered for the same to be recovered& #n addition to the fact that the amount of loss must be capable of proof! it must also be actuall) proven with a reasonable de$ree of certaint)! premised upon competent proof or the best evidence obtainable& *he burden of proof of the dama$e suffered is! conse(uentl)! imposed on the part) claimin$ the same& De find that Oceaneerin$ correctl) fault the 0- for not $rantin$ its claim for actual dama$es or! more specificall)! the portions thereof which were dul) pleaded and ade(uatel) proved before the '*0& Dhile concededl) not included in the demand letters dated 1. 4arch 1998 and 17 Aul) 1998 Oceaneerin$ served Garretto! the former=s counterclaims for the value of its lost car$o in the sum of P3!255!522&22 and salva$in$ e9penses in the sum of P1.5!222&22 were distinctl) pleaded and pra)ed for in the .; Aanuar) 1999 answer it filed a (uo& >or lack of sufficient showin$ of bad faith on the part of Garretto! we find that the 0-! finall)! erred in $rantin$ Oceaneerin$=s claim for attorne)=s fees&

transpired on the da) her husband died@ On 4a) .7! 1999! startin$ at about .@22 p&m&! her husband! her uncle and appellant! who is her first cousin! had a drinkin$ spree at a nei$hbor=s house& *he spree lasted up to 8@72 p&m& followin$ which her husband returned home and slept in their room& 8he thereupon placed their ei$ht6month old child beside him and went to the kitchen to prepare milk for the child& 8hortl) thereafter! she! from a distance of about three to four meters! heard appellant utter 1Putan$ ina mo! papata)in kita[1 and then saw appellant! throu$h the open door to the room! stab her husband several times -ppelant was found $uilt) and char$ed with reclusion perpetua& *he '*0 awarded Php 55!222 in dama$es! which the 0- reduced to Php 52!222 On >ebruar) 1.! .221! at around 1.@.2 in the afternoon! 'odelio Pan$ilinan ('odelio) was workin$ at a $asoline station owned b) Aose Guencamino (Aose) at Guliran! 8an 4i$uel! Gulacan& Ee was b) the $asoline tank which was two or three arms len$th from the cashier=s office when three armed men on board a motorc)cle arrived& *wo of the men immediatel) went to the cashier while the driver sta)ed on the motorc)cle& #nside the office! one of the men pulled out a fan knife while the other! armed with a $un! fired a shot at Aanet 'amos (Aanet)! the cashier& *he) forcibl) took the mone) in the cash re$ister and the man with the $un fired a second shot that fatall) hit Aanet in the ri$ht side of her head& *he two armed men returned to their companion waitin$ b) the motorc)cle and to$ether sped awa) from the scene of the crime& 'odelio $ave a description of the driver of the motorc)cle but not of the two armed men who entered the cashier=s office since the) had their backs turned to him& *he /ational Gureau of #nvesti$ation (/G#) prepared a carto$raphic sketch based on the information provided b) 'odelio& Aose! the owner of the $as station! stated that the stolen mone) was worth P32!222&22& 'eceipts in the amount of P13!522&22 were presented as funeral e9penses& On >ebruar) .7! .221! the petitioner was

the amount of civil indemnit) awarded b) the appellate court from P55!222 to P52!222! as determined b) the trial court& People v& -nod e9plains wh) the award of P55!222 as civil indemnit) lies onl) in cases where the proper imposable penalt) is death! viz@ #t is worth stressin$ that! at the outset! the appellant! to$ether with "umba)an! was sentenced b) the '*0 to suffer the penalt) of reclusion perpetua& *hus! the 0-=s reliance on our rulin$ in People v& dela 0ruz was misplaced& #n dela 0ruz! this 0ourt cited our rulin$ in People v& *ubon$banua! wherein we held that the civil indemnit) imposed should be P55!222&22& Eowever! the instant case does not share the same factual milieu as dela 0ruz and *ubon$banua& #n the said cases! at the outset! the accused were sentenced to suffer the penalt) of death& Eowever! in view of the enactment of 'epublic -ct /o& 973; or the -ct Prohibitin$ the #mposition of the eath Penalt) on Aune .3! .22;! the penalt) meted to the accused was reduced to reclusion perpetua& *his <urisprudential trend was followed in the recent case of People of the Philippines v& Generoso 'olida ) 4oreno! etc&! where this 0ourt also increased the civil indemnit) from P52!222&22 to P55!222&22& Gased on the fore$oin$ dis(uisitions and the current applicable <urisprudence! we hereb) reduce the civil indemnit) awarded herein to P52!222&22& 9 9 9 -s reflected earlier! appellant was sentenced b) the trial court to reclusion perpetua&

C-.&/&'/0/ P"/2#" (.212)

+&

*he 0ivil "iabilities #n robber) with homicide! civil indemnit) and moral dama$es in the amount of P52!222&22 each is $ranted automaticall) in the absence of an) (ualif)in$ a$$ravatin$ circumstances& *hese awards are mandator) without need of alle$ation and evidence other than the death of the victim owin$ to the fact of the commission of the crime& #n this case! the 0- properl) awarded the amount of P52!222&22 as civil indemnit)& #n addition! we also award the amount of P52!222&22 as moral dama$es& *o be entitled to compensator) dama$es! it is necessar) to prove the actual amount of loss with a reasonable de$ree of certaint)! premised upon competent proof and the best evidence obtainable to the in<ured part)& 1P'Qeceipts should support claims of actual dama$es&1 *hus! as correctl) held b) the trial court and affirmed b) the 0-! the amount of P13!522&22 incurred as funeral e9penses can be sustained since these are e9penditures supported b) receipts& -lso! the courts below correctl) held petitioner liable to return the amount of P32!222&22 which was stolen from the $as station before the victim was shot and killed&

detained after bein$ implicated in a robber) that occurred in 8an 4i$uel! Gulacan& urin$ his detention! 'odelio and another $asoline bo) arrived and identified him in a police lineup as one of the three robbers who killed Aanet&to two public roads or hi$hwa)s& '*0@ reclusion perpetua! ordered to indemnif) the heirs of victim Aanet 'amos in the amount of P55!222&22! the owner or operator! Aose Guencamino! Ar&! of the $asoline station that was robbed! in the amount of P32!222&22 plus P13!522&22 as funeral e9penses& 0-@ "owered indemnit) from 55!222 to 52!222 On 4arch 15! .225! respondent :ivian *an "ee filed before the '*0 of Uuezon 0it) a 0omplaint a$ainst petitioner Philippine Eawk 0orporation and defendant 4ar$arito -vila for dama$es based on (uasi6delict! arisin$ from a vehicular accident that occurred on 4arch 15! 1991 in Garan$a) Guensoceso! Gumaca! Uuezon& *he accident resulted in the death of respondent=s husband! 8ilvino *an! and caused respondent ph)sical in<uries& On Aune 18! 199.! respondent filed an -mended 0omplaint! in her own behalf and in behalf of her children! in the civil case for dama$es a$ainst petitioner& 'espondent sou$ht the pa)ment of indemnit) for the death of 8ilvino *an! moral and e9emplar) dama$es! funeral and interment e9penses! medical and hospitalization e9penses! the cost of the motorc)cle=s repair! attorne)=s fees! and other <ust and e(uitable reliefs& *he accident involved a motorc)cle! a passen$er <eep! and a bus with God) /o& 119& *he bus was owned b) petitioner Philippine Eawk 0orporation! and was then bein$ driven b) 4ar$arito -vila& 'espondent=s husband died due to the vehicular accident& *he immediate cause of his death was massive cerebral hemorrha$e& 'espondent further testified that her husband was leasin$ and operatin$ a 0alte9 $asoline station in Gumaca! Uuezon that )ielded one million pesos a )ear in

P!.#.22.n" H$%( +& L"" (2010)

#n the computation of loss of earnin$ capacit)! onl) net earnin$s! not $ross earnin$s! are to be considered? that is! the total of the earnin$s less e9penses necessar) for the creation of such earnin$s or income! less livin$ and other incidental e9penses& #n the absence of documentar) evidence! it is reasonable to pe$ necessar) e9penses for the lease and operation of the $asoline station at 82 percent of the $ross income! and pe$ livin$ e9penses at 52 percent of the net income ($ross income less necessar) e9penses)& #n this case! the computation for loss of earnin$ capacit) is as follows@ 'easonable and /ecessar) %9penses (82b of G-#)

/et %arnin$ 0apacit)

"ife %9pectanc) P.R7 (826a$e at the time of death)Q

Gross -nnual #ncome (G-#)

*he 0ourt of -ppeals also awarded actual dama$es for the e9penses incurred in connection with the death! wake! and interment of respondent=s husband in the amount of P153!555&72! and the medical e9penses of respondent in the amount of P1;8!219&55& -ctual dama$es must be substantiated b) documentar) evidence! such as receipts! in order to prove e9penses incurred as a result of the death of the victim or the ph)sical in<uries sustained b) the victim& - review of the valid receipts submitted in evidence showed that the funeral and related e9penses amounted onl) to P113!938&;2! while the medical e9penses of respondent amounted onl) to P1.!.33&.5! )ieldin$ a total of P1.5!19.&85 in actual dama$es& >urther! the 0ourt of -ppeals correctl) awarded respondent civil indemnit) for the death of her husband! which has been fi9ed b) current <urisprudence at P52!222&22& *he award is proper under -rt& ..2; of the 0ivil 0ode&

revenue& *he) also had a copra business! which $ave them an income of P7!222&22 a month or P7;!222&22 a )ear& river of Philippine Eawk found ne$li$ent! dama$es awarded&

17 A''/-n"1G& )""& S2& M/.&"& And-$d$ Pilhino 8ales 0orporation (Pilhino) sued +& P.#!.#n/ S$#"& Aose -ndrada! Ar& and his wife! 4a9ima! to C/-2 recover mone)! plus interest and incidental char$es& Fpon Pilhino=s application! the (.211) '*06 avao 0it) issued a writ of preliminar) attachment! which came to be implemented a$ainst a Eino truck and a >uso truck both owned b) Aose& Eowever! the levies on attachment were lifted after Aose filed a counter6attachment bond& *he '*0 rendered a decision a$ainst Aose and his wife& Pilhino opted to enforce the writ of e9ecution a$ainst the properties of the -ndradas instead of claimin$ a$ainst the counter6attachment bond considerin$ that the premium on the bond had not been paid& Eowever! the Eino truck could not be transferred to Pilhino=s name due to its havin$ been alread) sold to and re$istered in the name of petitioner 4oises -ndrada! 4oises -ndrada and his wife claim that the) had alread) ac(uired the Eino truck from Aose free from an) lien or encumbrance prior to its seizure b) the sheriff? that their ac(uisition had been made in $ood faith! considerin$ that at the time of the sale the preliminar) attachment had alread) been lifted? and that Pilhino=s recourse was to proceed a$ainst the counter6attachment bond& '*0 dismissed complaint of Pilhino and all counterclaims& 4oises appealed with respect to his counterclaim& 0- affirmed '*0& 4oises then filed petition for certiorari (a)aw pa kasi tumi$il) claimin$ dama$es from Pilhilno=s lev) of the truck&

T!" SC )/,nd n/ 0"-.' .n '!" 2"'.'./n )/- -"+."% *he 0- found that Pilhino acted in $ood faith in filin$ a case to annul the deed of sale involvin$ the Eino truck between Aose and 4oises! considerin$ that Pilhino had +believed that the sale in favor of 4oises was resorted to so that Aose Pmi$htQ evade his obli$ations&, *he 0- concluded that no remed) was available for an) dama$es that the petitioners sustained from the filin$ of the case a$ainst them because +the law affords no remed) for such dama$es resultin$ from an act which does not amount to a le$al in<ur) or wron$&, *he 0-=s findin$ and conclusion rested on the '*0=s own persuasion that the sale of the Eino truck to 4oises -ndrada had been simulated& *he petitioners further seek attorne)=s fees based on -rticle ..28 (3) of the Civil Code- which provides that +in t&e absence of stipulation- attorneyRs fees and expenses of liti"ation- ot&er t&an ;udicial costscannot be recovered- except xxx %B' in cases of clearly unfounded civil action or proceedin" a"ainst t&e plaintiff xxx., T!" 2"'.'./n"-& $-" n/' "n'.'#"d '/ $''/-n"1G& )""& #t is well accepted in this <urisdiction that no premium should be placed on the ri$ht to liti$ate and that not ever) winnin$ part) is entitled to an automatic $rant of attorne)=s fees& #ndeed! before the effectivit) of the new Civil Code! such fees could not be recovered in the absence of a stipulation& #t was onl) with the advent of the new Civil Code that the ri$ht to collect attorne)=s fees in the instances mentioned in -rticle ..28 was reco$nized! and such fees are now included in the concept of actual dama$es& One such instance is where the defendant is $uilt) of $ross and evident bad faith in refusin$ to satisf) the plaintiff=s plainl) valid! <ust and demandable claim& *his is a corollar) of the $eneral principle e9pressed in -rticle 19 of the Civil Code that ever)one must! in the performance of his duties! observe honest) and $ood faith and the rule embodied in -rticle 1152 that an)one $uilt) of fraud (bad faith) in the performance of his obli$ation shall be liable for dama$es& Gut! as noted b) the 0ourt in !orales v. Court of (ppeals! the award of attorne)=s fees is the e9ception rather than the rule& *he power of a court to award attorne)=s fees under -rticle ..28 of the Civil Code demands factual! le$al! and e(uitable <ustification? its basis cannot be left to speculation and con<ecture& T!" 4"n"-$# -,#" .& '!$' $''/-n"1G& )""& *$nn/' 9" -"*/+"-"d $& 2$-' /) d$0$4"& 9"*$,&" /) '!" 2/#.*1 '!$' n/ 2-"0.,0 &!/,#d 9" 2#$*"d /n '!" -.4!' '/ #.'.4$'"

P$n P$*.).* +& E<,.'$9#" PCI 3$n( 2010

Pan Pacific entered into a contract of mechanical works with %P0#G& *he 0ontract stipulated! amon$ others! that Pan Pacific shall be entitled to a price ad<ustment in case of increase in labor costs and prices of materials (escalation clause) *he pro<ect (P0#G *ower ## e9tension buildin$ in 4akati 0it)) was completed in Aune 199.& #n accordance with the escalation clause! Pan Pacific claimed a price ad<ustment of P5!1;5!935&5.& 'espondent asked for a reduction in the price ad<ustment& *o show $oodwill! Pan Pacific reduced the price ad<ustment to P3!858!538&;5& %P0#G wanted the price ad<ustment reduced to P7!572!955&25& %P0#G withheld the pa)ment of the price ad<ustment despite Pan Pacific=s repeated demands& #nstead! %P0#G offered Pan Pacific a loan of P1&8 million& -$ainst its will and on the stren$th of the promise that the price ad<ustment would be released soon! Pan Pacific e9ecuted a promissor) note in the amount of P1&8 million as a re(uirement for the loan& *he P1&8 million was released directl) to laborers and suppliers and not a sin$le centavo was $iven to Pan Pacific&

Fnder -rticle ..29 of the 0ivil 0ode! the appropriate measure for dama$es in case of dela) in dischar$in$ an obli$ation consistin$ of the pa)ment of a sum of mone) is the pa)ment of penalt) interest at the rate a$reed upon in the contract of the parties& #n the absence of a stipulation of a particular rate of penalt) interest! pa)ment of additional interest at a rate e(ual to the re$ular monetar) interest becomes due and pa)able& >inall)! if no re$ular interest had been a$reed upon b) the contractin$ parties! then the dama$es pa)able will consist of pa)ment of le$al interest which is =Y! or .n '!" *$&" /) #/$n& /- )/-9"$-$n*"& /) 0/n"1, 12Y per annum& #t is onl) when the parties to a contract have failed to fi9 the rate of interest or when such amount is unwarranted that the 0ourt will appl) the 1.b interest per annum on a loan or forbearance of mone)& *he written a$reement entered into between petitioners and respondent provides for an interest at the current bank lendin$ rate in case of dela) in pa)ment and the promissor) note char$ed an interest of 18b& *o prove petitioners= entitlement to the 18b bank lendin$ rate of interest! petitioners presented the promissor) note prepared b) respondent bank itself& *his promissor) note! althou$h declared void b) the lower courts because it did not e9press the real intention of the parties! is substantial proof that the bank lendin$ rate at the time of default was 18b per annum& -bsent an) evidence of fraud! undue influence or an) vice of consent e9ercised b) petitioners a$ainst the respondent! the interest rate a$reed upon is bindin$ on them& #-ote$ 0- computed the remainin$ balance due from %P0#G in favor of Pan Pacific to be P1!51;!215&25& %P0#G did not appeal this rulin$! but appealed onl) with re$ard to the applicable interest rate& ispositive@ WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition& De SET ASIDE the ecision and 'esolution of the 0ourt of -ppeals in 0-6G&'& 0: /o& ;79;;& De ORDER respondent to pa) petitioners P1!51;!215&25 with interest at the bank lendin$ rate of 18b per annum startin$ ; 4a) 1993 until the amount is full) paid&

20 M/-$# d$0$4"& S2& V$#"n6,"#$ +& Petitioner >ederico :alenzuela (>ederico) S2& M$4n/ is the son of -ndres :alenzuela (-ndres) who was the owner and possessor of a 2010 parcel of land in Pulilan! Gulacan& -ndres died and the possession of said propert) was transferred to >ederico& *he heirs of -ndres waived all their ri$hts to the propert) in favor of >ederico& 4eanwhile! a eed of 0onditional 8ale was e9ecuted between >eliciano Geronimo (>eliciano) and herein respondent Aose 4ano! Ar& (Aose)! wherein the former a$reed to sell to the latter a parcel of land in Pulilan& Aose applied for a >ree Patent and an Ori$inal 0ertificate of *itle (O0*) /o& P6751 was issued in his name& Aose sold a part of this land to a 7rd part)&

De rule that >ederico is the owner of the disputed 335 s(uare meter lot& *he eed of 0onditional 8ale did not include the area covered b) the land owned b) Petitioner& Eowever! subse(uent surve)s showed that "ot /o& 1215;6- with an area of 335 s(uare meters had been made to appear as part of the lot sold b) >eliciano to Aose& De rule that Aose committed fraud in obtainin$ title to the disputed propert)& *he chain of events leadin$ to the issuance of title in his name shows be)ond cavil the bad faith or a fraudulent pattern on his part& *he evidence on record disclosed that even before Aose purchased the .!25; s(uare meters from >eliciano! he had alread) caused on Aanuar) 72! 1991 the surve) of a .!579 s(uare meters lot& -lthou$h the document of sale e9pressl) stated that the area sold was .!25; s(uare meters and is located at ampol 1st! Pulilan! Gulacan! however! when he filed his application for free patent in 4arch 1991! he used the surve) on the .!579 s(uare meters and indicated the same to be located at ampol ##! Pulilan! Gulacan& -lso! in his application! he stated that the land described and applied for is not claimed or occupied b) an) person when in realit) the same is owned and possessed b) >ederico& -rticle ..15of the 0ivil 0ode defines what are included in moral dama$es while -rticle ..19 enumerates the cases where the) ma) be recovered& 4oral dama$es are in the cate$or) of an award

-pparentl)! the title involved in this sale included the area covered b) the land owned b) Petitioner& Petitioner constructed a fence on his propert)& 'espondent claims he owns the propert) based on his O0*&

desi$ned to compensate the claimant for actual in<ur) suffered and not to impose a penalt) on the wron$doer& +*he person claimin$ moral dama$es must prove the e9istence of bad faith b) clear and convincin$ evidence for the law alwa)s presumes $ood faith& #t is not enou$h that one merel) suffered sleepless ni$hts! mental an$uish! serious an9iet) as the result of the actuations of the other part)& #nvariabl) such action must be shown to have been willfull) done in bad faith or with ill motive&, #n the same fashion! to warrant the award of e9emplar) dama$es! the wron$ful act must be accompanied b) bad faith! and an award of dama$es would be allowed onl) if the $uilt) part) acted in wanton! fraudulent! reckless or malevolent manner& -s re$ards attorne)=s fees! the law is clear that in the absence of stipulation! attorne)=s fees ma) be recovered as actual or compensator) dama$es under an) of the circumstances provided for in -rticle ..28 of the 0ivil 0ode& Eavin$ ruled that Aose committed fraud in obtainin$ title to the disputed propert) then he should be liable for both moral and e9emplar) dama$es& "ikewise! since petitioners were compelled to liti$ate to protect their ri$hts and havin$ proved that Aose acted in bad faith! attorne)=s fees should likewise be awarded&

21 N/0.n$# d$0$4"& GUANIO + MA5ATI 8ps& Guanio booked at the 8han$ri6la Eotel SHANGRI-LA HOTEL 4akati for their weddin$ reception& urin$ the initial food tastin$! 8han$ri6"a prepared (.211) for ; persons but 8ps& Guanio claimed that the) re(uested for 5 persons& -t the final food tastin$! the salmon served was half the size the) were served durin$ the initial food tastin$& urin$ the reception! the caterin$ director and sales mana$er did not show up? their $uests complained of the dela) in the service of the dinner? certain items listed in the published menu were unavailable? the hotel=s waiters were rude and unapolo$etic when confronted about the dela)? and despite -lvarez=s promise that there would be no char$e for the e9tension of the reception be)ond 1.@22 midni$ht! the) were billed and paid P8!222 per hour for the three6hour e9tension of the event up to 3@22 -&4& the ne9t da) 8ps& Guanio sent a letter6complaint to 8han$ri6la and received an apolo$etic repl) from the hotel=s %9ecutive -ssistant 4ana$er in char$e of >ood and Gevera$e& *he) nevertheless filed a complaint for breach of contract and dama$es before the '*0 of 4akati 0it)& 4akati '*0 rendered <ud$ment in favor of petitioners& PEOPLE + MARCUE@ 4ar(uez was char$ed with Bidnappin$& 4ar(uez pleaded not $uilt) to the crime char$ed and alle$ed that 4erano offered

R"&2/nd"n'& $-" /-d"-"d '/ 2$1 PD0,000 91 %$1 /) n/0.n$# d$0$4"& Greach of contract is defined as the failure without le$al reason to compl) with the terms of a contract& #t is also defined as the failure! without le$al e9cuse! to perform an) promise which forms the whole or part of the contract& *he appellate court! and even the trial court! observed that petitioners were remiss in their obli$ation to inform respondent of the chan$e in the e9pected number of $uests& Petitioners= failure to dischar$e such obli$ation thus e9cused! as the above6(uoted para$raph 3&5 of the parties= contract provide! respondent from liabilit) for 1an) dama$e or inconvenience1 occasioned thereb)& 'espectin$ the letter of 8vensson on which the trial court heavil) relied as admission of respondent=s liabilit) but which the appellate court brushed aside! the 0ourt finds the appellate court=s stance in order& #t is not uncommon in the hotel industr) to receive comments! criticisms or feedback on the service it delivers& #t is also customar) for hotel mana$ement to tr) to smooth ruffled feathers to preserve $oodwill amon$ its clientele& 'espondent admitted that three hotel functions coincided with petitioners= reception& *o the 0ourt! the dela) in service mi$ht have been avoided or minimized if respondent e9ercised prescience in schedulin$ events& /o less than (ualit) service should be delivered especiall) in events which possibilit) of repetition is close to nil& Petitioners are not e9pected to $et married twice in their lifetimes& #n the present petition! under considerations of e(uit)! the 0ourt deems it <ust to award the amount of P52!222&22 b) wa) of nominal dama$es to petitioners! for the discomfiture that the) were sub<ected to durin$ to the event& *he 0ourt reco$nizes that ever) person is entitled to respect of his di$nit)! personalit)! privac) and peace of mind& 'espondent=s lack of prudence is an affront to this ri$ht&

T!" $%$-d /) n/0.n$# d$0$4"& .& */--"*' *he award of nominal dama$es is also allowed under -rticle ...1 of the /ew 0ivil 0ode which states

(.211)

the child for adoption&

that@ -rticle ...1& /ominal dama$es are ad<udicated in order that a ri$ht of the plaintiff! which has been violated or invaded b) the defendant! ma) be vindicated or reco$nized! and not for the purpose of indemnif)in$ the plaintiff for an) loss suffered b) him& #t took 4erano almost a )ear to le$all) recover her bab)& Austine was onl) three months old when this whole debacle be$an& 8he was alread) nine months old when 4erano saw her a$ain& 8he spent her first birthda) at the 'eception and 8tud) 0enter for 0hildren of the 8D & %videntl)! 4erano=s ri$ht as a parent which was violated and invaded must be vindicated and reco$nized! thereb) <ustif)in$ the award of nominal dama$es&

22 T"02"-$'" d$0$4"& TAN + OMC Petitioners filed a complaint for dama$es CARRIERS, INC with the '*0 a$ainst O40 and -rambala& *he complaint states that -rambala was (.211) drivin$ a truck with a trailer owned b) O40& Dhen -rambala noticed that the truck had suddenl) lost its brakes! he told his companion to <ump out& 8oon thereafter! he also <umped out and abandoned the truck& riverless! the truck rammed into the house and tailorin$ shop owned b) petitioner "eticia *an and her husband 0eledonio *an! instantl) killin$ 0eledonio who was standin$ at the doorwa) of the house at the time& '*0 found O40 and -rambala <ointl) and severall) liable to the petitioners for dama$es& 0- affirmed the '*0=s findin$s on the issues of the respondents= ne$li$ence and liabilit) for dama$es& Eowever! the 0- modified the dama$es awarded to the petitioners b) reducin$ the actual dama$es award from P755!895&22 to P5.!.95&22& *he 0- observed that onl) the latter amount was dul) supported b) official receipts& *he 0- also deleted the '*0=s award for loss of earnin$ capacit)& *he 0- further reduced the e9emplar) dama$es from P522!222&22 to P.22!222&22! and deleted the award of attorne)=s fees because the '*0 merel) included the award in the dispositive portion of the decision without discussin$ its le$al basis&

De be$in b) discussin$ the petitioners= claim for actual dama$es arisin$ from the dama$e inflicted on petitioner "eticia *an=s house and tailorin$ shop! takin$ into account the sewin$ machines and various household appliances affected& Our basic law tells us that to recover dama$es there must be pleadin$ and proof of actual dama$es suffered& *he petitioners do not den) that the) did not submit an) receipt to support their claim for actual dama$es to prove the monetar) value of the dama$e caused to the house and tailorin$ shop when the truck rammed into them& *hus! no actual dama$es for the destruction to petitioner "eticia *an=s house and tailorin$ shop can be awarded& /onetheless! absent competent proof on the actual dama$es suffered! a part) still has the option of claimin$ temperate dama$es! which ma) be allowed in cases where! from the nature of the case! definite proof of pecuniar) loss cannot be adduced althou$h the court is convinced that the a$$rieved part) suffered some pecuniar) loss& *he photo$raphs the petitioners presented as evidence show the e9tent of the dama$e done to the house! the tailorin$ shop and the petitioners= appliances and e(uipment& #rrefutabl)! this dama$e was directl) attributable to -rambala=s $ross ne$li$ence in handlin$ O40=s truck& Fnfortunatel)! these photo$raphs are not enou$h to establish the amount of the loss with certaint)& >rom the attendant circumstances and $iven the propert) destro)ed! we find the amount of P.22!222&22 as a fair and sufficient award b) wa) of temperate dama$es& 8imilarl)! the 0- was correct in disallowin$ the award of actual dama$es for loss of earnin$ capacit)& ama$es for loss of earnin$ capacit) are awarded pursuant to -rticle ..2; of the 0ivil 0ode& -s a rule! documentar) evidence should be presented to substantiate the claim for loss of earnin$ capacit)& G) wa) of e9ception! dama$es for loss of earnin$ capacit) ma) be awarded despite the absence of documentar) evidence when@ (1) the deceased is self6emplo)ed and earnin$ less than the minimum wa$e under current labor laws! in which case! <udicial notice ma) be taken of the fact that in the deceasedLs line of work! no documentar) evidence is available? or (.) the deceased is emplo)ed as a dail) wa$e worker earnin$ less than the minimum wa$e under current labor laws& #n the past! we awarded temperate dama$es in lieu of actual dama$es for loss of earnin$ capacit) where earnin$ capacit) is plainl) established but no evidence was presented to support the alle$ation of the in<ured part)=s actual income& #n the present case! the income6earnin$ capacit) of the deceased was never disputed& Petitioners 4ar) Aane *an! 4ar) ")n *an! 0eledonio *an! Ar&! 4ar) Ao) *an and 4ark -llan *an were all minors at the time the petition was filed and the) all relied mainl) on the income earned b) their father from his tailorin$ activities for their sustenance and support& Fnder these facts and takin$ into account the unrebutted annual earnin$s of the deceased! we hold that the petitioners are entitled to temperate dama$es in the amount of P722!222&22 Por rou$hl)! the $ross income for two (.) )earsQ to compensate for dama$es for loss of the earnin$ capacit) of the deceased& %9emplar) or corrective dama$es are imposed b) wa) of e9ample or correction for the public $ood! in addition to moral! temperate! li(uidated or compensator) dama$es& #n (uasi6delicts! e9emplar) dama$es ma) be $ranted if the defendant acted with $ross ne$li$ence& 0eledonio *an=s death and the destruction of the petitioners= home and tailorin$ shop were

un(uestionabl) caused b) the respondents= $ross ne$li$ence& *he law allows the $rant of e9emplar) dama$es in cases such as this to serve as a warnin$ to the pubic and as a deterrent a$ainst the repetition of this kind of deleterious actions& *he $rant! however! should be tempered! as it is not intended to enrich one part) or to impoverish another& >rom this perspective! we find the 0-=s reduction of the e9emplar) dama$es awarded to the petitioners from P522!222&22 to P.22!222&22 to be proper& #n view of the award of e9emplar) dama$es! we find it also proper to award the petitioners attorne)Ls fees! in consonance with -rticle ..28(1) of the 0ivil 0ode& De find the award of attorne)=s fees! e(uivalent to 12b of the total amount ad<ud$ed the petitioners! to be <ust and reasonable under the circumstances& >inall)! we impose le$al interest on the amounts awarded! in keepin$ with our rulin$ in %astern 8hippin$ Lines- <nc. v. Court of (ppeals. GIOVANI SERRANO 1 CERVANTES, P"'.'./n"-, +& PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, R"&2/nd"n' :,#1 D, 2010 FACTSK *he case stemmed from a brawl involvin$ 15 to 18 members of two (.) rival $roups that occurred at the Fniversit) of the Philippines! iliman! Uuezon 0it) (FP) on the evenin$ of 4arch 8! 1999& *he incident resulted in the stabbin$ of -nthon) Galan$ (victim)& Pinpointed as the victim=s assailant! the petitioner was char$ed on 4arch 11! 1999!5 with frustrated homicide& *he 0- awarded actual dama$es in the amount of P7!858&52? HELDK *he 80 convicted the accused but onl) for attempted homicide& De modif) the 0- decision with respect to the petitioner=s civil liabilit)& *he 0- ordered actual dama$es to be paid in the amount of P7!858&52& *his is erroneous and contrar) to the prevailin$ <urisprudence& #n People v& -ndres!75 we held that if the actual dama$es! proven b) receipts durin$ the trial! amount to less than P.5!222&22! the victim shall be entitled to temperate dama$es in the amount of P.5!222&22! in lieu of actual dama$es& *he award of temperate dama$es is based on -rticle ...3 of the /ew 0ivil 0ode which states that temperate or moderate dama$es ma) be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniar) loss was suffered but its amount cannot be proven with certaint)& #n this case! the victim is entitled to the award of P.5!222&22 as temperate dama$es considerin$ that the amount of actual dama$es is onl) P7!858&52& *he amount of actual dama$es shall be deleted&

23 L.<,.d$'"d d$0$4"& PENTACAPITAL FACTSK INVESTMENT Petitioner filed a complaint for a sum of CORPORATION, mone) a$ainst respondent 4akilito P"'.'./n"-, 4ahina) based on two separate loans +& obtained b) the latter in the amount of MA5ILITO 3 P1!97;!822&22& MAHINAY, R"&2/nd"n' :,#1 D, 2010

HELDK *he respondent is made to pa) the principal amount of the loan plus penalties *he promissor) notes likewise re(uired the pa)ment of a penalt) char$e of 7b per month or 7;b per annum& De find such rates ,n*/n&*./n$9#"& *his 0ourt has reco$nized a penalt) clause as an accessor) obli$ation which the parties attach to a principal obli$ation for the purpose of ensurin$ the performance thereof b) imposin$ on the debtor a special prestation ($enerall) consistin$ of the pa)ment of a sum of mone)) in case the obli$ation is not fulfilled or is irre$ularl) or inade(uatel) fulfilled&3; Eowever! a penalt) char$e of 7b per month is unconscionable?35 hence! we reduce it to 1b per month or 1.b per annum! pursuant to -rticle 1..9 of the 0ivil 0ode which states@ -rt& 1..9& *he <ud$e shall e(uitabl) reduce the penalt) when the principal obli$ation has been partl) or irre$ularl) complied with b) the debtor& %ven if there has been no performance! the penalt) ma) also be reduced b) the courts if it is ini(uitous or unconscionable&38 "astl)! respondent promised to pa) .5b of his outstandin$ obli$ations as attorne)=s fees in case of non6pa)ment thereof& -ttorne)=s fees here are in the nature of li(uidated dama$es& -s lon$ as said stipulation does not contravene law! morals! or public order! it is strictl) bindin$ upon respondent& /onetheless! courts are empowered to reduce such rate if the same is ini(uitous or unconscionable pursuant to the above6(uoted provision&39 *his sentiment is echoed in -rticle ...5 of the 0ivil 0ode! to wit@ -rt& ...5& "i(uidated dama$es! whether intended as an indemnit) or a penalt)! shall be e(uitabl) reduced if the) are ini(uitous or unconscionable& Eence! we reduce the stipulated attorne)=s fees from .5b to 12b&

2B EE"02#$-1NC/--"*'.+" d$0$4"& PEOPLE OF THE FACTSK PHILIPPINES, 0apanas was char$ed with simple rape in Plaintiff6-ppellee! the #nformation for rapin$ ---& Eowever! in vs& the trial! it was proven that --- was RENATO DADULLA 0apanas= dau$hter& 0apanas could ! CAPANAS, therefore be liable for (ualified rape& efendant6-ppellant& F"9-,$-1 7, 2011 3ERSAMIN, (.' 42"RD D";"/"<-

HELDK 0apanas could onl) be convicted for simple rape& *he accused could not be convicted of the $raver offense of (ualified rape! althou$h proven! because relationship was neither alle$ed nor necessaril) included in the information& H/%"+"-, '!" $44-$+$'.n4 *.-*,0&'$n*" 0$1 9" $22-"*.$'"d .n $%$-d.n4 d$0$4"& .n )$+/- /) AAA Fnder -rticle ..72 of the 0ivil 0ode!7. the attendance of an) a$$ravatin$ circumstance ($eneric! (ualif)in$! or attendant) entitles the offended part) to recover e9emplar) dama$es& Eere! relationship was the a$$ravatin$ circumstance attendant in both cases& De need to award P72!222&22 as e9emplar) dama$es in rape and of P12!222&22 as e9emplar) dama$es in acts of lasciviousness& -lthou$h! as earlier mentioned! an a$$ravatin$ circumstance not specificall) alle$ed in the information (albeit established at trial) cannot be appreciated to increase the criminal liabilit) of the accused! the established presence of one or two a$$ravatin$ circumstances of an) kind or nature entitles the offended part) to e9emplar) dama$es under -rticle ..72 of the 0ivil 0ode because '!" -"<,.-"0"n' /) &2"*.).*.'1 .n '!" .n)/-0$'./n $))"*'"d /n#1 '!" *-.0.n$# #.$9.#.'1 /) '!" $**,&"d, n/' !.& *.+.# #.$9.#.'1 *he term 1a$$ravatin$ circumstances1 used b) the 0ivil 0ode! the law not havin$ specified otherwise! is to be understood in its broad or $eneric sense& *he ordinar) or (ualif)in$ nature of an a$$ravatin$ circumstance is a distinction that should onl) be of conse(uence to the criminal! rather than to the civil! liabilit) of the offender& #n fine! relative to the civil aspect of the case! an a$$ravatin$ circumstance! whether ordinar) or (ualif)in$! should entitle the offended part) to an award of e9emplar) dama$es within the unbridled meanin$ of -rticle ..72 of the 0ivil 0ode&