You are on page 1of 2


Sometime in October 2004, Perilio Tandino and the heirs of Julieta Tandino
filed a complaint for unlawful detainer, with damages, against petitioner
spouses Rogelio and Esther Alvarez. The complaint alleged that the late
Julieta Tandino (the spouse of respondent Perilio Tandino and mother of the
rest of the respondents) leased a house located in Cebu City to the petitioner
spouses. The lease contract was limited to the use and occupancy of the
said residential building and did not include the lot on which it was
constructed because the said lot was then owned by the National Housing
Authority (NHA).
Under the contract, the petitioner spouses bound
themselves for five years to pay Julieta a monthly rental of P4,000.00
beginning November 22, 2001. However, since November 2003, they failed
pay to rent. Thus, as of October 2004, they were in arrears in the amount of
P48,000.00. Despite repeated demands by respondent to pay the rentals in
arrears and to surrender the possession of the residential building, the
petitioner spouses refused to pay the same. The petitioner spouses alleged
that Julito became the new owner of the house after acquiring title to the lot
beginning November 2003. They claim that Julito collected the rentals in his
capacity as a co-owner, and being a son of Julieta (husband of respondent
Perilio Tandino), he (Julito) was also entitled to the rent of the subject house.
1. Are the petitioner spouses Alvarez excused from paying the rent
because of the change of ownership of the land on which the rented
house was built?
2. Would your answer in the above-question be the same in case Julito is
the real owner of the house?
A married couple obtained a loan from the Agricultural and Credit Bank of
P37,000.00 with their land given by way of mortgage. The loan was contracted
prior to the war. It was agreed that payment was to be made in Manila. During the
war, the debtors paid not in Manila but in Iloilo, and the recipient of the money was
not the Iloilo branch of the Agricultural and Credit Bank (for it was then closed) but
the Iloilo branch of the Philippine National Bank, which was the depositary in Iloilo of
the funds belonging to the Agricultural and Credit Bank. After liberation, the
married couple went to Manila, and asked for the cancellation of the mortgage on
the ground that the indebtedness of P37,000.00 had already been paid. The
creditor refused. Instead of going to court, the married couple again borrowed from
the creditor the additional amount of P10,000.00 and as security, they offered a
second mortgage on the same land that had been given as security before. Three

years later, the married couple filed in court an action to cancel the mortgage on
the P37,000.00 prewar loan on the ground of payment.
1. Was the payment of the married couple valid?
2. Is the payment valid if the same was made in Iloilo?
Purifica Asuncion is a rice dealer/importer. In May 1952, she participated in a public
bidding held by the National Rice and Corn Corporation (NARIC). NARIC was looking
for someone to supply 20,000 metric tons of Burmese Rice. Asuncion was the lowest
bidder at $203.00 per metric ton hence she won the bidding. So a contract was
made whereby Asuncion is to deliver the rice supply and NARIC is to pay for the
imported rice by means of an irrevocable, confirmed and assignable letter of credit
in U.S. currency in favor of the Arrieta and/or supplier in Burma, immediately.
Asuncion then proceeded to contact her supplier in Burma (Thiri Setkya) and
arranged the sale of the 20k metric ton of Burmese Rice, Asuncion promised Setkya
that he will be paid by NARIC on August 4, 1952. Asuncion also made a 5% deposit
(P200k) as advance payment to Setkya. Meanwhile, NARIC tried to open a letter of
credit on the amount of $3,614,000.00 with the Philippine National Bank. PNB
agreed to open the letter of credit but only on the condition that NARIC deposits
50% of the said amount. NARIC failed to do this and the letter of credit was not
opened when the obligation to pay Setkya became due. Because of this, Asuncion
lost the opportunity to profit from the sale as the agreement was eventually
forfeited. Her 5% deposit was likewise forfeited pursuant to Burma laws.
Consequently, NARIC would also have the Court to hold that the subsequent offer to
substitute Thailand rice for the originally contracted Burmese rice amounted to a
waiver by Asuncion of whatever rights she might have derived from the breach of
the contract.
1. Is Purifica Asuncion entitled to damages?
2. Is the National Rice and Corn Corporation (NARIC) liable for damages to
Purifica Asuncion?
3. Is the National Rice and Corn Corporation (NARIC) exempt from its liability
due to the alleged waiver of rights by Asuncion?