You are on page 1of 172

VICTORIA S. JARILLO v.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES


G.R. No. 164435, September 29, 2009.

The subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of one's marriage to


another cannot be considered a valid defense in the crime of bigamy. The
moment the former contracted a second marriage without the previous
one having been judicially declared null and void, the crime of bigamy
was already consummated because at the time of the celebration of the
second marriage, the first marriage has not yet been declared null and
void by a court of competent jurisdiction, and is thus still deemed valid
and subsisting.

FLORENCIA G. DIAZ v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES


G.R. No. 181502, February 2, 2010

In registration cases filed under the provisions of the Public Land


Act for the judicial confirmation of an incomplete and imperfect title, an
order dismissing an application for registration and declaring the land as
part of the public domain constitutes res judicata, not only against the
adverse claimant, but also against all persons.

An amicable settlement or a compromise agreement is in the


nature of a contract and must necessarily comply with the provisions of
Article 1318 of the New Civil Code which provides that there is no
contract unless the following requisites concur: (1) Consent of the
contracting parties; (2) Object certain which is the subject matter of the
contract; (3) Cause of the obligation which is established.

RAYMUNDO S. DE LEON v. BENITA T. ONG


G.R. No. 170405, February 2, 2010.

In a contract of sale, the seller conveys ownership of the property


to the buyer upon the perfection of the contract. Should the buyer default
in the payment of the purchase price, the seller may either sue for the
collection thereof or have the contract judicially resolved and set aside.
The non-payment of the price is therefore a negative resolutory
condition. On the other hand, a contract to sell is subject to a positive
suspensive condition. The buyer does not acquire ownership of the
property until he fully pays the purchase price. For this reason, if the
buyer defaults in the payment thereof, the seller can only sue for
damages.

There is a double sale where a property was sold validly on two


separate occasions by the same seller to the two different buyers in good
faith. Under Article 1544 of the Civil Code, when neither buyer
registered the sale of the properties with the registrar of deeds, the one
who took prior possession of the properties shall be the lawful owner
thereof.

THE CITY MAYOR OF BAGUIO and THE HEAD OF THE


DEMOLITION TEAM ENGR. NAZITA BAEZ v. ATTY. BRAIN
MASWENG, Regional Hearing Officer, NCIP-CAR, THE HEIRS OF
JUDITH CARIO, JACQUELINE CARIO and the HEIRS OF MATEO
CARIO and BAYOSA ORTEGA
G.R. No. 165003, February 2, 2010

Where one's ancestral land claims are still pending before the
National Commission on Indigenous People (NCIP) for the validation, his
rights over said ancestral land, if any, are mere expectations. They are
not the present and unmistakable right required for the grant of the
provisional remedy of injunction.

DORIS U. SUNBANUN v. AURORA B. GO


G.R. No. 163280, February 2, 2010.

Under Article 1654 of the Civil Code, the lessor is obliged to


maintain the lessee in the peaceful and adequate enjoyment of the lease
for the duration of the contract. Hence, where the lessor ejected the
lodgers of the lessee without just cause and prior to the expiration of
contract of lease, the former is liable for breach of contract. Since said
act was also done in bad faith, moral and exemplary damages may be
awarded.

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. v. CA and NATIVIDAD and


ENRIQUE AGANA
G.R. No. 126297, February 2, 2010

Where an employment relationship exists, the hospital may be held


vicariously liable under Article 2176 in relation to Article 2180 of the
Civil Code or the principle of respondeat superior. Even when no
employment relationship exists but it is shown that the hospital holds out
to the patient that the doctor is its agent, the hospital may still be
vicariously liable under Article 2176 in relation to Article 1431 and
Article 1869 of the Civil Code or the principle of apparent
authority. Moreover, regardless of its relationship with the doctor, the
hospital may be held directly liable to the patient for its own negligence
or failure to follow established standard of conduct to which it should
conform as a corporation.

SPOUSES MORRIS CARPO and SOCORRO CARPO v. AYALA LAND,


INCORPORATED
G.R. No. 166577, February 3, 2010.

Laches is the negligence or omission to assert a right within a


reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to
assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it. It does not
involve mere lapse or passage of time, but is principally an impediment to
the assertion or enforcement of a right, which has become under the
circumstances inequitable or unfair to permit.

NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC. v. SPOUSES EDWARD J. HESHAN


AND NELIA L. HESHAN AND DARA GANESSA L. HESHAN,
REPRESENTED BY HER PARENTS EDWARD AND NELIA HESHAN
G.R. No. 179117, February 3, 2010.

Moral damages are neither intended to impose a penalty to the


wrongdoer nor to enrich the claimant. While courts are given discretion
to determine the amount of damages to be awarded, it is limited by the
principle that the amount awarded should not be palpably and
scandalously excessive.

SPOUSES EULOGIO N. ANTAZO and NELIA C. ANTAZO v.


LEONIDES DOBLADA, DIOSDADO CELESTRA, LEOPOLDO
CELESTRA, FERDINAND CELESTRA, and ROBERTO DOBLADA
G.R. No. 178908, February 4, 2010

Prior physical possession is the primary consideration in a forcible


entry case. A party who can prove prior possession can recover
such possession even against the owner himself. Whatever may be the
character of his possession, if he has in his favor prior possession in time,
he has the security that entitles him to remain on the property until a
person with a better right lawfully ejects him. The party in peaceable
quiet possession shall not be thrown out by a strong hand, violence or
terror.

FLOR MARTINEZ, represented by MACARIO MARTINEZ,


authorized representative and Attorney-in-Fact v. ERNESTO G.
GARCIA and EDILBERTO M. BRUA
G.R. No. 166536, February 4, 2010

A purchaser in good faith and for value is one who buys the
property of another without notice that some other person has a right to
or interest in such property and pays a full and fair price for the same at
the time of such purchase, or before he has notice of the claims or
interest of some other person in the property. Hence, where a judgment
creditor, in registering a notice of attachment in her favor over the
properties of his judgment debtor and noticed that a third party has
already annotated an adverse claim over the same, he cannot be said to
be a buyer in good faith when he later buys the property at a public
auction. The previous inscription must prevail over the former.

G.G. SPORTSWEAR MANUFACTURING CORP. and NARESH K.


GIDWANI v. BANCO DE ORO UNIBANK, INC., et al.
G.R. No. 184434. February 8, 2010

The test for issuing a TRO or an injunction is whether the facts


show a need for equity to intervene in order to protect perceived rights in
equity. In general, a higher court will not set aside the trial courts grant
or denial of an application for preliminary injunction unless it gravely
abused its discretion as when it lacks jurisdiction over the action, ignores
relevant considerations that stick out of the parties pleadings, sees the
facts with a blurred lens, ignores what is relevant, draws illogical
conclusions, or simply acts in random fashion.
HEIRS OF ESTELITA BURGOS-LIPAT v. HEIRS OF EUGENIO D.
TRINIDAD
G.R. No. 185644. March 2, 2010

The one-year redemption period applied by the CA is the rule that


generally applies to foreclosure of mortgage by a bank. The period of
redemption is not tolled by the filing of a complaint or petition for
annulment of the mortgage and the foreclosure sale conducted pursuant
to the said mortgage. However, considering the exceptional
circumstances surrounding this case, we will not apply the rule in this
instance pro hac vice.

HEIRS OF JOSE LIM, represented by ELENITO LIM v. JULIET


VILLA LIM
G.R. No. 172690, March 3, 2010.

A partnership exists when two or more persons agree to place


their money, effects, labor, and skill in lawful commerce or business, with
the understanding that there shall be a proportionate sharing of the
profits and losses among them. A contract of partnership is defined by
the Civil Code as one where two or more persons bind themselves to
contribute money, property, or industry to a common fund, with the
intention of dividing the profits among themselves.

CARMEN DEL PRADO v.


SPOUSES ANTONIO L. CABALLERO and LEONARDA CABALLERO
G.R. No. 148225, March 3, 2010.

In the case where the area of an immovable is stated in the


contract based on an estimate, the actual area delivered may not
measure up exactly with the area stated in the contract. According to
Article 1542 of the Civil Code, in the sale of real estate, made for a lump
sum and not at the rate of a certain sum for a unit of measure or number,
there shall be no increase or decrease of the price, although there be a
greater or less areas or number than that stated in the contract.

Where both the area and the boundaries of the immovable are
declared, the area covered within the boundaries of the immovable
prevails over the stated area. In cases of conflict between areas and
boundaries, it is the latter which should prevail. What really defines a
piece of ground is not the area, calculated with more or less certainty,
mentioned in its description, but the boundaries therein laid down, as
enclosing the land and indicating its limits.

MARIA VIRGINIA V. REMO v. THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF


FOREIGN AFFAIRS, G.R. No. 169202, March 5, 2010.

Section 5(d) of RA 8239 limits the instances when a married


woman may be allowed to revert to the use of her maiden name in her
passport. These instances are death of husband, divorce decree,
annulment or nullity of marriage.
SPOUSES NORMAN K. CERTEZA, JR. and MA. ROSANILA V.
CERTEZA, AMADA P. VILLAMAYOR and HERMINIO VILLAMAYOR,
JR. v. PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK
G.R. No. 190078, March 5, 2010.

The requirement for at least two participating bidders provided in the


original version of paragraph 5 of A.M. No. 99-10-05-0 is not found in Act No.
3135. The two-bidder rule is provided under P.D. No. 1594 and its
implementing rules with respect to contracts for government infrastructure
projects because of the public interest involved. Although there is a public
interest in the regularity of extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgages, the private
interest is predominant.

LEIGHTON CONTRACTORS PHILIPPINES, INC. v. CNP


INDUSTRIES, INC.
G.R. No. 160972, March 9, 2010.

In a contract for a piece of work, a claim for the cost of additional


work arising from changes in the scope of work can only be allowed upon
the: (1) written authority from the developer or project owner ordering or
allowing the written changes in work and (2) written agreement of
parties with regard to the increase in price or cost due to the change in
work or design modification. The absence of one or the other condition
bars the recovery of additional costs.

TEOFISTO OO, PRECY O. NAMBATAC, VICTORIA O. MANUGAS


and POLOR O. CONSOLACION v. VICENTE N. LIM
G.R. No. 154270, March 9, 2010.

Quieting of title is a common law remedy for the removal of any


cloud, doubt, or uncertainty affecting title to real property. Whenever
there is a cloud on title to real property or any interest in real property
by reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding
that is apparently valid or effective, but is, in truth and in fact, invalid,
ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said
title, an action may be brought to remove such cloud or to quiet the title.

Prescription, in general, is a mode of acquiring or losing ownership


and other real rights through the lapse of time in the manner and under
the conditions laid down by law.

JOCELYN M. SUAZO v. ANGELITO SUAZO and REPUBLIC OF


THEPHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 164493, March 10, 2010.

Habitual drunkenness, gambling and refusal to find a job, while


indicative of psychological incapacity, do not, by themselves, show
psychological incapacity. All these simply indicate difficulty, neglect or
mere refusal to perform marital obligations that, as the cited
jurisprudence holds, cannot be considered to be constitutive of
psychological incapacity in the absence of proof that these are
manifestations of an incapacity rooted in some debilitating psychological
condition or illness.

TITAN CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. MANUEL A. DAVID, SR. and


MARTHA S. DAVID
G.R. No. 169548, March 15, 2010.

All property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal


partnership, unless it be proved that it pertains exclusively to the
husband or to the wife. One is not required to prove that the property
was acquired with funds of the partnership. Rather, the presumption
applies even when the manner in which the property was acquired does
not appear. Failure to overturn such presumption, the property is deemed
to be part of the conjugal partnership. Hence, in conveying the same, the
consent of both spouses is required. Absent the consent of one spouse
would render the sale null and void.

BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. REYNALD R. SUAREZ


G.R. No. 167750, March 15, 2010.

Negligence is defined as the omission to do something which a


reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily
regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of
something which a prudent man and reasonable man could not do.

The following are the conditions for the award of moral damages:
(1) there is an injury WHETHER OR NOT physical, mental or
psychological clearly sustained by the claimant; (2) the culpable act or
omission is factually established; (3) the wrongful act or omission of the
defendant is the proximate cause of the injury sustained by the claimant;
and (4) the award of damages is predicated on any of the cases stated in
article 2219 of the civil code.

LYDIA L. ROA v. HEIRS OF SANTIAGO EBORA, et al


G.R. No. 161137, March 15, 2010.

The claim of indefeasibility of the petitioners title under the


Torrens land title system would be correct if a previous valid title to the
same parcel of land did not exist. If the first registered owner had a valid
title and never parted with it nor handed or delivered to anyone its
owners duplicate of the transfer certificate of title, he should not be
faulted for any act which, without his knowledge, brought about the
issuance of another certificate upon which a purchaser in good faith and
for value could rely. If the title of purchaser in good faith and for value
will be upheld, then registered owners without the least fault on their
part could be divested of their title and deprived of their property. Such
disastrous results which would shake and destroy the stability of land
titles had not been foreseen by those who had endowed with
indefeasibility land titles issued under the Torrens system.
SULPICIO LINES, INC. v. DOMINGO E. CURSO, LUCIA E. CURSO,
MELECIO E. CURSO, SEGUNDO E. CURSO, VIRGILIO E. CURSO,
DIOSDADA E. CURSO, and CECILIA E. CURSO
G.R. No. 157009, March 17, 2010.

As a general rule, moral damages are not recoverable in actions


for damages predicated on a breach of contract, unless there is fraud or
bad faith. As an exception, moral damages may be awarded in case of
breach of contract of carriage that results in the death of a passenger, in
accordance with Article 1764, in relation to Article 2206 (3), of the Civil
Code. The foregoing legal provisions set forth the persons entitled to
moral damages. The omission from Article 2206 (3) of the brothers and
sisters of the deceased passenger reveals the legislative intent to exclude
them from the recovery of moral damages for mental anguish by reason
of the death of the deceased. Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius.

PAN PACIFIC SERVICE CONTRACTORS, INC. and RICARDO F. DEL


ROSARIO v. EQUITABLE PCI BANK (formerly THE PHILIPPINE
COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK) G.R. No. 169975, March
18, 2010.

Article 1956 of the Civil Code, which refers to monetary interest,


specifically mandates that no interest shall be due unless it has been
expressly stipulated in writing. Therefore, payment of monetary interest
is allowed only if: (1) there was an express stipulation for the payment of
interest; and (2) the agreement for the payment of interest was reduced
in writing. The concurrence of the two conditions is required for the
payment of monetary interest.

SPOUSES MELCHOR and SATURNINA ALDE v. RONALD B.


BERNAL, OLYMPIA B. ERNAL, JUANITO B. BERNAL, and MYRNA
D. BERNAL
G.R. No. 169336, March 18, 2010.

Registration is not the equivalent of title, but is only the best


evidence thereof. Title as a concept of ownership should not be confused
with the certificate of title as evidence of such ownership.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARCELO BUSTAMANTE, NEIL


BALUYOT, RICHARD DELOS TRINO, HERMINIO JOSE, EDWIN
SORIANO and ELMER SALVADOR (appellees)
G.R. No. 172357, March 19, 2010.

Under Article 2230 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages may be


awarded in criminal cases when the crime was committed with one or
more aggravating circumstances, (in this case, abuse of superior
strength). This is intended to serve as deterrent to serious wrongdoings
and as vindication of undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights
of an injured, or as a punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct.
The imposition of exemplary damages is also justified under Article
2229 of the Civil Code in order to set an example for the public good.

THE MUNICIPALITY OF HAGONOY, BULACAN, represented by the


HON. FELIX V. OPLE, Municipal Mayor, and FELIX V. OPLE, in his
personal capacity v. HON. SIMEON P. DUMDUM, JR., in his
capacity as the Presiding Judge of the REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
BRANCH 7, CEBU CITY; HON. CLERK OF COURT & EX-OFFICIO
SHERIFF of the REGIONAL TRIAL COURT of CEBU CITY; HON.
CLERK OF COURT & EX-OFFICIO SHERIFF OF THE REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT of BULACAN and his DEPUTIES; and EMILY ROSE
GO KO LIM CHAO, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND
STYLE KD SURPLUs G.R. No. 168289, March 22, 2010.

The Statute of Frauds found in paragraph (2), Article 1403 of the


Civil Code, requires for enforceability certain contracts enumerated
therein to be evidenced by some note or memorandum. The effect of
noncompliance with this requirement is simply that no action can be
enforced under the given contracts. If an action is nevertheless filed in
court, it shall warrant a dismissal, unless there has been, among others,
total or partial performance of the obligation on the part of either party.
In the latter case, the case is excluded from the coverage of the rule on
dismissals based on unenforceability under the statute of frauds, and
either party may then enforce its claims against the other.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANTHONY RANTE Y REYES


G.R. No. 184809, March 29, 2010.

There are two legal bases for awarding exemplary damages:


Articles 2230 and 2229 of the Civil Code. Also known as punitive or
vindictive damages, exemplary or corrective damages are intended to
serve as a deterrent to serious wrong doings, and as a vindication of
undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an injured or a
punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct.

LUCITA A. CANTOJA v. HARRY S. LIM


G.R. No. 168386, March 29, 2010.

The owner of the property adjoining foreshore lands, marshy lands


or lands covered with water bordering upon shores or banks of navigable
lakes or rivers, shall be given preference to apply for such lands
adjoining his property as may not be needed for the public service,
subject to the laws and regulations governing lands of this nature. The
reason for that preferential right is the same as the justification for
giving accretions to the riparian owner, which is that accretion
compensates the riparian owner for the diminutions which his land
suffers by reason of the destructive force of the waters. So, in the case of
littoral lands, he who loses by the encroachments of the sea should gain
by its recession.

FLORDELIZA EMILIO v. BILMA RAPAL


G.R. No. 181855, March 30, 2010.

For an action for reformation of instrument to prosper, the


following requisites must concur: (1) there must have been a meeting of
the minds of the parties to the contract; (2) the instrument does not
express the true intention of the parties; and (3) the failure of
the instrument to express the true intention of the parties is due to
mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct or accident.

PEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINES v. DANTE JADAP


G.R. No. 177983, March 30, 2010.

Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim


without need of proof other than the commission of the crime. In cases of
murder and homicide, moral damages may be awarded without need of
allegation and proof of the emotional suffering of the heirs, other than
the death of the victim, since the emotional wounds from the vicious
killing of the victim cannot be denied. Article 2230 of the Civil Code
states that exemplary damages may be imposed when the crime was
committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. As to actual
damages, the rule is that only receipted expenses can be the basis of
actual damages arising from medical and funeral expenditures.

As a rule, documentary evidence should be presented to


substantiate the claim for damages for loss of earning capacity. By way
of exception, damages for loss of earning capacity may be awarded
despite the absence of documentary evidence when (1) the deceased is
self-employed and earning less than the minimum wage under current
labor laws, in which case judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in
the deceased's line of work no documentary evidence is available; or (2)
the deceased is employed as a daily wage worker earning less than the
minimum wage under current labor laws.

PEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINES v. DOMINGO PANITERCE


G.R. No. 186382, April 5, 2010.

Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes


his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon.
Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death
of the accused, if the same may also be predicated on a source of
obligation other than delict. Article 1157 of the Civil Code enumerates
these other sources of obligation from which the civil liability may arise
as a result of the same act or omission: law; contracts; quasi-contracts;
and quasi-delicts.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JONJIE ESOY


G.R. No. 185849, April 7, 2010.

Under Article 2199 of the Civil Code, except as provided by law or


by stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such
pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. Such compensation
is referred to as actual or compensatory damages. Hence, where it was
stipulated during the trial that actual damages was incurred, the
stipulated amount may be rewarded without documentary proof. Such
may be dispensed with.

DANIEL T. SO v. FOOD FEST LAND, INC.


G.R. No. 183628, G.R. No. 183670, April 7, 2010.

The cause or essential purpose in a contract of lease is the use or


enjoyment of a thing. A partys motive or particular purpose in entering
into a contract does not affect the validity or existence of the contract; an
exception is when the realization of such motive or particular purpose
has been made a condition upon which the contract is made to depend.

SPOUSES BASILIO and NORMA HILAGA v. RURAL BANK OF


ISULAN
(Cotabato, Inc., as represented by its Manager)
G.R. No. 179781. April 7, 2010

When the property was mortgaged, only the tax declaration was
presented. Although a free patent title was subsequently issued in their
favor, petitioners failed to inform the creditor rural bank of such
issuance. As a result, the certificate of sale was not registered or
annotated on the free patent title. Petitioners are estopped from
redeeming the property based on the free patent title which was not
presented during the foreclosure sale nor delivered to the Register of
Deeds for annotation of the certificate of sale as required under Section 5
of Republic Act No. 720, as amended. Estoppel in pais arises when one,
by his acts, representations or admissions, or by his own silence when he
ought to speak out, intentionally or through culpable negligence, induces
another to believe certain facts to exist and such other rightfully relies
and acts on such belief, so that he will be prejudiced if the former is
permitted to deny the existence of such facts.

SILVINO A. LIGERALDE v. MAY ASCENSION A. PATALINGHUG


and the
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 168796, April 15, 2010.

Some of the guidelines in resolving petitions for declaration of


nullity of marriage are the following: (1) The burden of proof to show the
nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff; (2) the root cause of the
psychological incapacity must be medically or clinically identified,
alleged in the complaint, sufficiently proven by experts and clearly
explained in the decision; (3) the incapacity must be proven to be existing
at the "time of the celebration" of the marriage; (4) such incapacity must
also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable; and
(5) such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the
party to assume the essential obligations of marriage.
SPOUSES JOSELINA ALCANTARA and ANTONIO ALCANTARA, and
SPOUSES JOSEFINO RUBI and ANNIE DISTOR- RUBI v. BRIGIDA
L. NIDO, as attorney-in-fact of REVELEN N. SRIVASTAVA
G.R. No. 165133, April 19, 2010.

Article 1874 of the Civil Code explicitly requires a written


authority before an agent can sell an immovable property. Hence, where
no such written authority exists, the sale conducted by the supposed
agent covering the property of his principal is void. A void contract
produces no effect either against or in favor of anyone and cannot be
ratified.

PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK v. SPOUSES DIONISIO GERONIMO


and
CARIDAD GERONIMO
G.R. No. 170241. APRIL 19, 2010

The questioned extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage


and sale are void for failure to comply faithfully with the statutory
requirements of foreclosure. Petitioner failed to establish its compliance
with the publication requirement under Section 3 of Act No. 3135. Ang
Pinoy is a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in
Manila, not in Caloocan City where the mortgaged property is located.
This is contrary to the requirement under Section 3 of Act No. 3135
pertaining to the publication of the notice of sale in a newspaper of
general circulation in the city where the property is situated. Also, the
invocation of the presumption of regularity in the performance of official
duty on the part of the sheriff is misplaced. While posting the notice of
sale is part of a sheriffs official functions, the actual publication of the
notice of sale cannot be considered as such, since this concerns the
publishers business. Simply put, the sheriff is incompetent to prove that
the notice of sale was actually published in a newspaper of general
circulation.

FRANCISCO ALONSO, substituted by MERCEDES V. ALONSO,


TOMAS V. ALONSO and ASUNCION V. ALONSO v. CEBU
COUNTRY CLUB, INC. and REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
represented by the OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
G.R. No. 188471, April 20, 2010.

To benefit from R.A. No. 9443, therefore, a person must hold as a


condition precedent a duly issued Transfer Certificate of Title or
a Reconstituted Certificate of Title.

HACIENDA BIGAA, INC. v. EPIFANIO V. CHAVEZ (deceased),


substituted by SANTIAGO V. CHAVEZ
G.R. No. 174160, April 20, 2010.

As a general rule in forcible entry cases, ownership or title is


inconsequential; the primordial issue is possession de facto and not
possession de jure. The court, however, may tackle the issue of ownership
or title, if raised, if this issue is indispensable in resolving the issue of
possession.

All lands of the public domain are owned by the State the
Republic. Thus, all attributes of ownership, including the right to
possess and use these lands, accrue to the Republic. The
registration of lands of the public domain under
the Torrens system, by itself, cannot convert public lands into
private lands.

NISSAN NORTH EDSA operating under the name MOTOR


CARRIAGE, INC. v. UNITED PHILIPPINE SCOUT VETERANS
DETECTIVE AND PROTECTIVE AGENCY
G.R. No. 179470, April 20, 2010.

The unilateral act of terminating a contract constitutes a breach


thereof and entitles the other party to collect damages.

MANUEL O. FUENTES and LETICIA L. FUENTES v. CONRADO G.


ROCA, ANNABELLE R. JOSON, ROSE MARIE R. CRISTOBAL and
PILAR MALCAMPO
G.R. No. 178902, April 21, 2010.

Article 124 of the Family Code, where one spouse sold a conjugal
property without the consent of the other spouse, does not provide for a
period within which the latter may assail the sale. It simply provides that
without the other spouses written consent or a court order allowing the
sale, the same would be void. Under the provisions of the Civil Code
governing contracts, a void or inexistent contract has no force and effect
from the very beginning. It cannot be validated either by ratification or
prescription. But, although a void contract has no legal effects even if no
action is taken to set it aside, when any of its terms have been
performed, an action to declare its inexistence is necessary to allow
restitution of what has been given under it. This action, according to
Article 1410 of the Civil Code does not prescribe.

SPOUSES FAUSTINO AND JOSEFINA GARCIA, SPOUSES MELITON


GALVEZ AND HELEN GALVEZ, and CONSTANCIA ARCAIRA
represented by their Attorney-in-Fact JULIANA O. MOTAS v.
COURT OF APPEALS, EMERLITA DE LA CRUZ, and DIOGENES G.
BARTOLOME
G.R. No. 172036, April 23, 2010.

The Maceda Law applies to contracts of sale of real estate on


installment payments, including residential condominium apartments but
excluding industrial lots, commercial buildings and sales to tenants.

In contracts to sell, where ownership is retained by the seller and is not


to pass until the full payment. Payment of the price is a positive
suspensive condition, failure of which is not a breach but an event that
prevents the obligation of the vendor to convey title from becoming
effective. Strictly speaking, there can be no rescission or resolution of an
obligation that is still non-existent due to the non-happening of the
suspensive condition.

ATTY. PEDRO M. FERRER v. SPOUSES ALFREDO DIAZ and


IMELDA DIAZ, REINA COMANDANTE and SPOUSES BIENVENIDO
PANGAN and ELIZABETH PANGAN
G.R. No. 165300, April 23, 2010.

Pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 1347 of the Civil


Code, no contract may be entered into upon a future inheritance
except in cases expressly authorized by law. For the inheritance to
be considered future, the succession must not have been opened
at the time of the contract. A contract may be classified as a
contract upon future inheritance, prohibited under the second
paragraph of Article 1347, where the following requisites concur:
(1) That the succession has not yet been opened; (2) That the
object of the contract forms part of the inheritance; and (3) That
the promissor has, with respect to the object, an expectancy of a
right which is purely hereditary in nature.

ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, Eugenio Lopez Jr., Augusto


Almeda-Lopez and Oscar M. Lopez v. Office of the Ombudsman,
Roberto S. Benedicto, Exequiel B. Garcia, Miguel V. Gonzales and
Salvador Tan
G.R. No. 133347, April 23, 2010

Death of an accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes


his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon.
Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death
of accused, if the same may also be predicated on a source of obligation
other than delict. Article 1157 of the Civil Code enumerates these other
sources of obligation from which the civil liability may arise as a result of
the same act or omission.

KOREAN AIR CO., LTD. and SUK KYOO KIM v. ADELINA A.S. YUSON
G.R. No. 170369, June 16, 2010.

An offer is a unilateral proposition made by one party to another


for the celebration of a contract. For an offer to be certain, a contract
must come into existence by the mere acceptance of the offeree without
any further act on the offerors part. The offer must be definite, complete
and intentional. There is an offer in the context of Article 1319 only if
the contract can come into existence by the mere acceptance of the
offeree, without any further act on the part of the offeror. Hence, the
offer must be definite, complete and intentional.

FELICIDAD T. MARTIN, MELISSA M. ISIDRO, GRACE M. DAVID,


CAROLINE M. GARCIA, VICTORIA M. ROLDAN, and BENJAMIN T.
MARTIN, JR. v. DBS BANK PHILIPPINES, INC. (Formerly known as
Bank of Southeast Asia) now merged with and into BPI FAMILY BANK
G.R. No. 174632, G.R. No. 174804, June 16, 2010.

It is not the filing of the action for rescission that marks the
violation of the lease agreement but the failure of the Martins to repair
and rehabilitate the property despite demand.

SPOUSES BENEDICT and MARICEL DY TECKLO v. RURAL BANK OF


PAMPLONA, INC. represented by its President/Manager, JUAN LAS
G.R. No. 171201, June 18, 2010.

If a mortgage contract, which contains a blanket clause whereby the


mortgaged property would also serve as a security for future loans, is duly
annotated on the TCT of the mortgaged property, such constitutes sufficient
notice to the world that the mortgage secures not only the first loan but also
future loans the mortgagor may obtain. The second loan need not be
separately annotated on the said TCT in order to bind third parties.

OFFICE OF THE CITY MAYOR OF PARAAQUE CITY, OFFICE OF THE


CITY ADMINISTRATOR OF PARAAQUE CITY, OFFICE OF THE CITY
ENGINEER OF PARAAQUE CITY, OFFICE OF THE CITY PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR, OFFICE OF THE BARANGAY
CAPTAIN AND SANGGUNIANG PAMBARANGAY OF BARANGAY
VITALEZ, PARAAQUE CITY, TERESITA A. GATCHALIAN, et. al v.
MARIO D. EBIO AND HIS CHILDREN/HEIRS
G.R. No. 178411, June 23, 2010.

Alluvial deposits along the banks of a creek do not form part of the
public domain as the alluvial property automatically belongs to the owner of
the estate to which it may have been added. The only restriction provided for
by law is that the owner of the adjoining property must register the same
under the Torrens system; otherwise, the alluvial property may be subject to
acquisition through prescription by third persons.

ST. JOSEPHS COLLEGE, SR. JOSEPHINI AMBATALI, SFIC, and


ROSALINDA TABUGO v. JAYSON MIRANDA, represented by his father,
RODOLFO S. MIRANDA
G.R. No. 182353, June 29, 2010.

Where persons bestowed with special parental authority under Article


218 of the Family Code failed to exercised a higher degree of care, caution and
foresight, which could have prevented a mishap from happening, are liable for
damages. Ordinarily, the liability of teachers does not extend to the school or
university itself, although an educational institution may be held liable under
the principle of Respondeat Superior. It has also been held that the liability of
the employer for the tortuous acts or negligence of its employees is primary
and solidary, direct and immediate and not conditioned upon the insolvency of
or prior recourse against the negligent employee.
MARSMAN DRYSDALE LAND v. PHILIPPINE GEOANALYTICS, INC.
AND
GOTESCO PROPERTIES, INC. G.R. No. 183374
GOTESCO PROPERTIES, INC. v. MARSMAN DRYSDALE LAND, INC.
AND PHILIPPINE GEOANALYTICS, INC. G.R. No. 183376, June 29,
2010.

The concurrence of two or more creditors or of two or more debtors in


one and the same obligation does not imply that each one of the former has a
right to demand, or that each one of the latter is bound to render, entire
compliance with the prestations. There is a solidary liability only when the
obligation expressly so states, or when the law or nature of the obligation
requires solidarity.

ASIAN CONSTRUCTION and DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v.


CATHAY PACIFIC STEEL CORPORATION (CAPASCO)
G.R. No. 167942, June 29, 2010.

Contracts of adhesion are as binding as ordinary contracts. Those who


adhere to the contract are in reality free to reject it entirely and if they adhere,
they give their consent.

The law allows a party to recover attorney's fees under a written


agreement. The attorney's fees here are in the nature of liquidated damages
and the stipulation therefor is aptly called a penal clause. It has been said that
so long as such stipulation does not contravene law, morals, or public order, it
is strictly binding upon defendant.

ANTHONY ORDUA, DENNIS ORDUA, and ANTONITA ORDUA v.


EDUARDO J. FUENTEBELLA, MARCOS S. CID, BENJAMIN F. CID,
BERNARD G. BANTA, and
ARMANDO GABRIEL, JR.
G.R. No. 176841, June 29, 2010.

The Statute of Frauds expressed in Article 1403, par. (2), of the


Civil Code applies only to executory contracts, i.e., those where no
performance has yet been made. Stated a bit differently, the legal
consequence of non-compliance with the Statute does not come into play
where the contract in question is completed, executed, or partially
consummated.

The general rule is that one dealing with a parcel of land registered
under the Torrens System may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate
of title issued therefor and is not obliged to go beyond the certificate. Where, in
other words, the certificate of title is in the name of the seller, the innocent
purchaser for value has the right to rely on what appears on the certificate, as
he is charged with notice only of burdens or claims on the res as noted in the
certificate. However, a buyer of a piece of land which is in the actual
possession of persons other than the seller must be wary and should
investigate the rights of those in possession. Otherwise, without such inquiry,
the buyer can hardly be regarded as a buyer in good faith.

Art. 1544 of the Civil Code prescribed the rules on preference in case of
double sales of immovable property: (1) knowledge by the first buyer of the
second sale cannot defeat the first buyers rights except when the second
buyer first register in good faith the second sale; and (2) knowledge gained by
the second buyer of the first sale defeats his rights even if he is first to register,
since such knowledge taints his registration with bad faith.

SELWYN F. LAO AND EDGAR MANANSALA v. SPECIAL PLANS, INC.


G.R. No. 164791, June 29, 2010.

In order for compensation to be proper, it is necessary that: 1. Each one


of the obligors be bound principally and that he be at the same time a principal
creditor of the other; 2. Both debts consist in a sum of money, or if the things
due are consumable, they be of the same kind, and also of the same quality if
the latter has been stated; 3. The two debts are due; 4. The debts are
liquidated and demandable; 5. Over neither of them be any retention or
controversy, commenced by third parties and communicated in due time to the
debtor.

HEIRS OF PEDRO DE GUZMAN v. ANGELINA PERONA and


HEIRS OF ROSAURO DE GUZMAN, et al
G.R. No. 152266, July 2, 2010

Respondent BD bank, through its appraiser Oscar M. Ronquillo,


conducted an inspection and appraisal of the property covered by TCT
No. 78181, together with the existing improvements thereon. After the
said inspection and appraisal of the property, respondent BD Bank
approved the loan in favor of the spouses Rosauro and Angelina and,
thereafter, executed a Real Estate Mortgage with the said spouses.
Clearly, respondent bank was able to present sufficient evidence that the
mortgage contract emanated from a valid and regular transaction.
Respondent bank, before it accepted the collateral, exercised due
diligence in verifying the ownership and status of the land and the
improvements existing in the property mortgaged.

OMC CARRIERS, INC. and JERRY AALUCAS y PITALINO v.


SPOUSES ROBERTO C. NABUA and ROSARIO T. NABUA
G.R. No. 148974, July 2, 2010

When an injury is caused by the negligence of an employee, there


instantly arises a presumption of the law that there was negligence on
the part of the employer, either in the selection of his employee or in the
supervision over him after such selection. However, the presumption may
be overcome by a clear showing on the part of the employer that he has
exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family in the
selection and supervision of his employee.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v.


HANOVER WORLWIDE TRADING CORPORATION
G.R. No. 172102, July 2, 2010

Applicants for registration of title must prove: (1) that the subject
land forms part of the disposable and alienable lands of the public
domain, and (2) that they have been in open, continuous, exclusive and
notorious possession and occupation of the same under a bona fide claim
of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier.

Settled is the rule that the burden of proof in land registration


cases rests on the applicant who must show by clear, positive and
convincing evidence that his alleged possession and occupation of the
land is of the nature and duration required by law. Unfortunately, as
petitioner contends, the pieces of evidence presented by respondent do
not constitute the "well-nigh incontrovertible" proof necessary in cases of
this nature.

METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. RURAL BANK


OF GERONA, INC.
G.R. No. 159097, July 5, 2010

Article 1302 (2) of the Civil Code provides that it is presumed that
there is legal subrogation when a third person, not interested in the
obligation, pays with the express or tacit approval of the debtor. Article
1303 of the Civil Code further states that subrogation transfers to the
person subrogated the credit with all the rights thereto appertaining,
either against the debtor or against third persons. As the entity against
which the collection was enforced, Metrobank was subrogated to the
rights of Central Bank and has a cause of action to recover from RBG the
amounts it paid to the Central Bank, plus 14% per annum interest.

HEIRS OF SPOUSES CRISPULO FERRER and ENGRACIA


PUHAWAN v.
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, et al
G.R. NO. 190384, July 5, 2010

It is not the mere lapse of time that vests title over the land to the
claimant; it is also necessary that the land be an alienable and disposable
land of the public domain and that the claimant be in open, continuous,
exclusive, and notorious possession of the land. Listed down, the
acquisition through adverse possession of public lands requires the
following: (1) the land applied for must be an alienable and disposable
public land; and (2) the claimants, by themselves or through their
predecessors-in-interest, have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and
notorious possession and occupation of the land since June 12, 1945 or
earlier.
VICENTE ADRIANO v. ALICE TANCO, et al
G.R. No. 168164, July 5, 2010

The existence of a tenancy relationship cannot be presumed and


allegations that one is a tenant do not automatically give rise to security
of tenure. For tenancy relationship to exist, the following essential
requisites must be present: (1) the parties are the landowner and the
tenant; (2) the subject matter is agricultural land; (3) there is consent
between the parties; (4) the purpose is agricultural production; (5) there
is personal cultivation by the tenant; and, (6) there is sharing of the
harvests between the parties. All the requisites must concur in order to
establish the existence of tenancy relationship, and the absence of one or
more requisites is fatal. In the instant case, the essential requisites of
consent and sharing are lacking. The essential element of consent is
sorely missing because there is no proof that the landowners recognized
Vicente, or that they hired him, as their legitimate tenant. Likewise, the
essential requisite of sharing of harvests is lacking. Independent
evidence, such as receipts, must be presented to show that there was
sharing of the harvest between the landowner and the tenant. Self-
serving statements are not sufficient.

ASIAN CATHAY FINANCE AND LEASING CORPORATION (ACFLC)


v. SPOUSES CESARIO GRAVADOR and NORMA DE VERA and
SPOUSES EMMA CONCEPCION G. DUMIGPI and FEDERICO L.
DUMIGPI
G.R. No. 186550, July 5, 2010

Stipulations authorizing the imposition of iniquitous or


unconscionable interest are contrary to morals, if not against the law.
Under Article 1409 of the Civil Code, these contracts are inexistent and
void from the beginning. They cannot be ratified nor the right to set up
their illegality as a defense be waived. The nullity of the stipulation on
the usurious interest does not, however, affect the lenders right to
recover the principal of the loan. Nor would it affect the terms of the real
estate mortgage. A legal interest of 12% per annum will be added in
place of the excessive interest formerly imposed.

Settled is the rule that for a waiver to be valid and effective, it


must, in the first place, be couched in clear and unequivocal terms which
will leave no doubt as to the intention of a party to give up a right or
benefit which legally pertains to him. Additionally, the intention to waive
a right or an advantage must be shown clearly and convincingly.

PENTACAPITAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION v. MAKILITO B.


MAHINAY
G.R. No. 171736, July 5, 2010

Under Article 1354 of the Civil Code, it is presumed that


consideration exists and is lawful unless the debtor proves the contrary.
The presumption that a contract has sufficient consideration cannot be
overthrown by the bare, uncorroborated and self-serving assertion of
respondent that it has no consideration. The alleged lack of consideration
must be shown by preponderance of evidence.

A penalty clause Is an accessory obligation which the parties


attach to a principal obligation for the purpose of ensuring the
performance thereof by imposing on the debtor a special prestation
(generally consisting of the payment of a sum of money) in case the
obligation is not fulfilled or is irregularly or inadequately fulfilled.
However, a penalty charge of 3% per month is unconscionable; hence, it
should be reduced to 1% per month or 12% per annum, pursuant to
Article 1229 of the Civil Code

AMELIA B. HEBRON v. FRANCO L. LOYOLA, et al


G.R. No. 168960, July 5, 2010

Laches is the failure of or neglect for an unreasonable and


unexplained length of time to do that which by exercising due diligence,
could or should have been done earlier, or to assert a right within
reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled
thereto has either abandoned it or declined to assert it. Hence, where the
parties are closely related to each other and considering also that the
parties are many different heirs, some of whom reside outside the
Philippines, the passage of six years before the respondents asked for
partition through the court is not unreasonable. The respondents, then,
are not guilty of laches.

SARGASSO CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT


CORPORATION/PICK & SHOVEL, INC.,/ATLANTIC ERECTORS,
INC. (JOINT VENTURE) v.
PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY
G.R. NO. 170530, July 5, 2010

Under Article 1881 of the Civil Code, the agent must act within the
scope of his authority to bind his principal. So long as the agent has
authority, express or implied, the principal is bound by the acts of the
agent on his behalf, WHETHER OR NOT or not the third person dealing
with the agent believes that the agent has actual authority. Thus, all
signatories in a contract should be clothed with authority to bind the
parties they represent. In relation, the authority of government officials
to represent the government in any contract must proceed from an
express provision of law or valid delegation of authority. Hence, where
the petitioner failed to present competent evidence to prove that the
respondents general manager possessed such actual authority
delegated either by the Board of Directors, or by statutory provision,
there could be no real consent, much less a perfected contract, to speak
of.

THE HEIRS OF REDENTOR COMPLETO and ELPIDIO ABIAD v.


SGT. AMANDO C. ALBAYDA, JR.
G.R. No. 172200, July 6, 2010

Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, the obligation imposed by


Article 2176 is demandable not only for ones own acts or omissions, but
also for those persons for whom one is responsible. Employers shall be
liable for the damages caused by their employees, but the employers
responsibility shall cease upon proof that they observed all the diligence
of a good father of the family in the selection and supervision of their
employees.
In the selection of prospective employees, employers are required
to examine them as to their qualifications, experience, and service
records. On the other hand, with respect to the supervision of employees,
employers should formulate standard operating procedures, monitor
their implementation, and impose disciplinary measures for breaches
thereof. To establish these factors in a trial involving the issue of
vicarious liability, employers must submit concrete proof, including
documentary evidence.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROSILA ROCHE


G.R. No. 175846, July 6, 2010

An application for registration of title must, under Section 14(1),


P.D. 1529, meet three requirements: a) that the property is alienable and
disposable land of the public domain; b) that the applicants by
themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the
land; and c) that such possession is under a bona fide claim of ownership
since June 12, 1945 or earlier.

In the instant case, Roche did not present evidence that the land
she applied for has been classified as alienable or disposable land of the
public domain. Thus, it cannot be said that she complied with all
requisites for registration of title under Section 14(1) of P.D. 1529. Since
Roche was unable to overcome the presumption that the land she applied
for is inalienable land that belongs to the State, the Government did not
have to adduce evidence to prove it.

ELPIDIO S. UY, doing business under the name and style of


EDISON DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION V. PUBLIC ESTATES
AUTHORITY
G.R. Nos. 147925-26, July 7, 2010

The principle of unjust enrichment cannot be validly invoked by a


party who, through his own act or omission, took the risk of being denied
payment for additional costs by not giving the other party prior notice of
such costs and/or by not securing their written consent thereto, as
required by law and their contract.

THE LEARNING CHILD, INC. and SPS. FELIPE AND MARY ANNE
ALFONSO v. AYALA ALABANG VILLAGEASSOCIATION, et al
G.R. No. 134269, July 7, 2010

Estoppel by deed is a bar which precludes one party from asserting


as against the other party and his privies any right or title in derogation
of the deed, or from denying the truth of any material facts asserted in it.

NIEVES ESTARES BALDOS, substituted by FRANCISCO BALDOS


and MARTIN BALDOS v. COURT OF APPEALS and REYNALDO
PILLAZAR a.k.a. REYNALDO ESTARES BALDOS
G.R. No. 170645, July 9, 2010
As a general law, Act No. 3753 applies to the registration of all
births, not otherwise covered by P.D. No. 651, as amended, occurring
from 27 February 1931 onwards. Hence, where the individual was born
on 30 October 1948 but registration of his birth took place in 1985, said
registration is outside of the coverage of P.D. No. 651, as amended. The
late registration of Reynaldos birth falls under Act No. 3753, otherwise
known as the Civil Registry Law, which took effect on 27 February 1931
and is implemented by National Census Statistics Office (NCSO)
Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 198313 governs the
implementation of Act No. 3753 in this case.

SPS. FEDERICO VALENZUELA and LUZ BUENA-VALENZUELA v.


SPS. JOSE MANO, JR. and ROSANNA REYES-MANO
G.R. No. 172611, July 9, 2010

Settled is the rule that a person, whose certificate of title included


by mistake or oversight the land owned by another, does not become the
owner of such land by virtue of the certificate alone. The Torrens System
is intended to guarantee the integrity and conclusiveness of the
certificate of registration but is not intended to perpetrate fraud against
the real owner of the land. The certificate of title cannot be used to
protect a usurper from the true owner.

VIOLETA TUDTUD BANATE, MARY MELGRID M. CORTEL,


BONIFACIO CORTEL, ROSENDO MAGLASANG, and PATROCINIA
MONILAR v. PHILIPPINE COUNTRYSIDE RURAL BANK
(LILOAN, CEBU), INC. and TEOFILO SOON, JR.
G.R. No. 163825, July 13, 2010

As a general rule, a mortgage liability is usually limited to the


amount mentioned in the contract. However, the amounts named as
consideration in a contract of mortgage do not limit the amount for which
the mortgage may stand as security if, from the four corners of the
instrument, the intent to secure future and other indebtedness can be
gathered. This stipulation is valid and binding between the parties and is
known as the blanket mortgage clause (also known as the dragnet
clause). In the present case, the mortgage contract indisputably
provides that the subject properties serve as security, not only for the
payment of the subject loan, but also for such other loans or advances
already obtained, or still to be obtained. The cross-collateral stipulation
in the mortgage contract between the parties is thus simply a variety of a
dragnet clause. After agreeing to such stipulation, the petitioners cannot
insist that the subject properties be released from mortgage since the
security covers not only the subject loan but the two other loans as well.

SPOUSES DIVINIA C. PUBLICO AND JOSE T. PUBLICO v. TERESA


BAUTISTA
G.R. No. 174096, July 20, 2010

The Pagpapatunay was not a new obligation which could have


extinguished the Kasulatan since the condition of payment that was set
out in the Pagpapatunay was never fulfilled. Petitioners invocation of
Article 1236 of the Civil Code does not help them. They cannot deny their
indebtedness to respondent on the basis of said Article since the payment
advanced by respondent on petitioners behalf redounded to their benefit
and Divinia never objected to it when she came to learn of it. It is thus
immaterial that Divinia was unaware of respondents action for the law
ultimately allows recovery to the extent that the debtors-petitioners were
benefited.

BENNY Y. HUNG v. BPI CARD FINANCE CORP


G.R. No. 182398, July 20, 2010

When an obligation, not constituting a loan or forbearance of


money, is breached, an interest on the amount of damages awarded may
be imposed at the discretion of the court at the rate of 6% per annum.
When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes final
and executory, the rate of legal interest, whether the case falls under
paragraph 1 or paragraph 2, shall be 12% per annum from such finality
until its satisfaction, this interim period being deemed to be by then an
equivalent to a forbearance of credit.

JUANITA TRINIDAD RAMOS, et al v. DANILO PANGILINAN, et al


G.R. No. 185920, July 20, 2010

The general rule is that the family home is a real right which is
gratuitous, inalienable and free from attachment, constituted over the
dwelling place and the land on which it is situated, which confers upon a
particular family the right to enjoy such properties, which must remain
with the person constituting it and his heirs. It cannot be seized by
creditors except in certain special cases. Whether under the Civil Code or
the Family Code, it is not sufficient that the person claiming exemption
merely alleges that such property is a family home. This claim for
exemption must be set up and proved. In the present case, since
petitioners claim that the family home was constituted prior to August 3,
1988, or as early as 1944, they must comply with the procedure
mandated by the Civil Code. There being absolutely no proof that the
Pandacan property was judicially or extrajudicially constituted as the
Ramos family home, the laws protective mantle cannot be availed of by
petitioners.

ALIDA MORES v. SHIRLEY M. YU-GO, et al


G.R. No. 172292, July 23, 2010

If the lessee makes, in good faith, useful improvements which are


suitable to the use for which the lease is intended, without altering the
form or substance of the property leased, the lessor upon the termination
of the lease shall pay the lessee one-half of the value of the improvements
at that time. Should the lessor refuse to reimburse said amount, the
lessee may remove the improvements, even though the principal thing
may suffer damage thereby. He shall not, however, cause any more
impairment upon the property leased than is necessary. With regard to
the ornamental expenses, the lessee shall not be entitled to any
reimbursement, but he may remove the ornamental objects, provided no
damage is caused to the principal thing, and the lessor does not choose
to retain them by paying their value at the time the lease is extinguished.

SOLIDBANK CORPORATION v. ERMANENT HOMES,


INCORPORATED
G.R. No. 171925, July 23, 2010

In order that obligations arising from contracts may have the force
of law between the parties, there must be mutuality between the parties
based on their essential equality. A contract containing a condition which
makes its fulfillment dependent exclusively upon the uncontrolled will of
one of the contracting parties is void. In the instant case, there was no
showing that either Solidbank or Permanent coerced each other to enter
into the loan agreements. The terms of the Omnibus Line Agreement and
the promissory notes were mutually and freely agreed upon by the
parties. The stipulations on interest rate repricing are valid because (1)
the parties mutually agreed on said stipulations; (2) repricing takes effect
only upon Solidbanks written notice to Permanent of the new interest
rate; and (3) Permanent has the option to prepay its loan if Permanent
and Solidbank do not agree on the new interest rate.

SPOUSES EDMUNDO and LOURDES SARROSA v. WILLY O. DIZON


G.R. No. 183027, July 26, 2010

The right of the purchaser to the possession of the foreclosed


property becomes absolute upon the expiration of the redemption period.
The basis of this right to possession is the purchaser's ownership of the
property. After the consolidation of title in the buyer's name for failure of
the mortgagor to redeem, the writ of possession becomes a matter of
right and its issuance to a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure is
merely a ministerial function.

SOLAR HARVEST, INC. v. DAVAO CORRUGATED CARTON


CORPORATION
G.R. No. 176868, July 26, 2010

Article 1191 of the New Civil Code provides that the power to
rescind obligations is implied in reciprocal ones, in case one of the
obligors should not comply with what is incumbent upon him. In
reciprocal obligations, as in a contract of sale, the general rule is that the
fulfillment of the parties respective obligations should be simultaneous.
Hence, no demand is generally necessary because, once a party fulfills
his obligation and the other party does not fulfill his, the latter
automatically incurs in delay. But when different dates for performance of
the obligations are fixed, the default for each obligation must be
determined by the rules given in the first paragraph of the present
article, that is, the other party would incur in delay only from the moment
the other party demands fulfillment of the formers obligation. In the
instant case, without a previous demand for the fulfillment of the
obligation, petitioner would not have a cause of action for rescission
against respondent as the latter would not yet be considered in breach of
its contractual obligation.

ADRIAN WILSON INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATES, INC. v. TMX


PHILIPPINES, INC.,
G.R. No. 162608, July 26, 2010

Actual damages puts the claimant in the position in which he had


been before he was injured. The award thereof must be based on the
evidence presented, not on the personal knowledge of the court; and
certainly not on flimsy, remote, speculative and nonsubstantial proof.
Under the Civil Code, one is entitled to an adequate compensation only
for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. While TMX
failed to prove the exact amount of the salaries it had paid, as a matter of
equity, the court accorded TMX a relief in the form of temperate
damages.

LAZARO PASCO and LAURO PASCO v. HEIRS OF FILOMENA DE


GUZMAN, represented by CRESENCIA DE GUZMAN-PRINCIPE
G.R. No. 165554, July 26, 2010

5% monthly interest is iniquitous and unconscionable. Accordingly,


the legal interest of 12% per annum must be imposed in lieu of the
excessive interest stipulated in the agreement.

UNSWORTH TRANSPORT INTERNATIONAL (PHILS.), INC. v.


COURT OF APPEALS and PIONEER INSURANCE AND SURETY
CORPORATION
G.R. No. 166250, July 26, 2010

Common carriers, as a general rule, are presumed to have been at


fault or negligent if the goods they transported deteriorated or got lost or
destroyed. That is, unless they prove that they exercised extraordinary
diligence in transporting the goods. In order to avoid responsibility for
any loss or damage, therefore, they have the burden of proving that they
observed such diligence.

GOLDEN APPLE REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


AND ROSVIBON REALTY CORPORATION v. SIERRA GRANDE
REALTY CORPORATION, et al
G.R. No. 119857, July 28, 2010

A close reading of the CA Decision would reveal that the said court
used the phrase badges of fraud to refer to certain fraudulent acts that
attended the execution of the Contract to Sell and the Deeds of Absolute
Sale which would eventually tend to prove that the same transactions
were indeed suspicious as the said contracts were antedated, simulated
and fraudulent. Such phrase did not refer to any particular provision of a
law, hence, the general and ordinary meaning of the phrase prevails.

ATIMA GAGUIL MAGOYAG, HADJI HASAN MADLAWI MAGOYAG v.


HADJI ABUBACAR MARUHOM
G.R. No. 179743, August 2, 2010

The most fundamental rule in the interpretation of contracts is


that, if the terms are clear and leave no doubt as to the intention of the
contracting parties, the literal meaning of the contract provisions shall
control. Its meaning should be determined without reference to extrinsic
facts or aids. Crystal clear in the Deed of Assignment are unambiguous
provisions that respondent assigned, sold, transferred, and conveyed the
subject market stall to petitioners. Nowhere in the Deed does it say that
respondent obtained a loan of P20,000.00, and mortgaged the subject
stall as security. Respondent, as a mere grantee of the subject stall, was
prohibited from selling, donating, or otherwise alienating the same
without the consent of the City Government; violation of the condition
shall automatically render the sale, donation, or alienation null and void.
Hence, the contract of sale is void.

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RAMON P. JACINTO


G.R. No. 154622, August 3, 2010

There was no express stipulation in the Restructuring Agreement


that respondent is released from his liability on the issued checks and in
fact the letter-agreements between FWCC and Land Bank expressly
provide that respondents JSS (Joint and Several Signatures) continue to
secure the loan obligation and the postdated checks issued continue to
guaranty the obligation.

LUCIANO BRIONES and NELLY BRIONES v. JOSE MACABAGDAL,


FE D. MACABAGDAL and VERGON REALTY INVESTMENTS
CORPORATION
G.R. No. 150666, August 3, 2010

Article 2714 of the Civil Code presumes good faith, and since no
proof exists to show that the mistake was done by petitioners in bad faith,
the latter should be presumed to have built the house in good faith.
Considering that petitioners acted in good faith in building their house on
the subject property of the respondent-spouses, there is no basis for the
award of moral damages to respondent-spouses. Likewise, the Court
deletes the award to Vergon of compensatory damages and attorneys
fees for the litigation expenses Vergon had incurred as such amounts
were not specifically prayed for in its Answer to petitioners third-party
complaint.

ROSARIO P. TAN v. ARTEMIO G. RAMIREZ, et al


G.R. No. 158929, August 3, 2010
The main purpose of a compromise agreement is to put an end to
litigation because of the uncertainty that may arise from it. Reciprocal
concessions are the very heart and life of every compromise agreement.
By the nature of a compromise agreement, it brings the parties to agree
to something that neither of them may actually want, but for the peace it
will bring them without a protracted litigation. In the instant case, no
right can arise from the compromise agreement because the parties
executed the same only to buy peace and to write finis to the controversy;
it did not create or transmit ownership rights over the subject property.

Roberto cannot claim that he acted in good faith under the belief
that there was no defect or dispute in the title of the vendor, Belacho. Not
being a possessor in good faith and with just title, the ten-year period
required for ordinary acquisitive prescription cannot apply in Robertos
favor. Even the thirty-year period under extraordinary acquisitive
prescription has not been met because of the respondents claim to have
been in possession, in the concept of owner, of the subject property for
only twenty-four years, from the time the subject property was tax
declared in 1974 to the time of the filing of the complaint in 1998.

RICARDO P. TORING v. TERESITA M. TORING and REPUBLIC OF


THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 165321, August 3, 2010

Psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code must


be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c)
incurability, to be sufficient basis to annul a marriage. The psychological
incapacity should refer to "no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity
that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants
that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the
marriage."

Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the psychological


incapacity must exist at the time of the celebration of the marriage, even
if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization. In the
absence of this element, a marriage cannot be annulled under Article 36.
MANUEL P. NEY and ROMULO P. NEY v.
SPOUSES CELSO P. QUIJANO and MINA N. QUIJANO
G.R. No. 178609, August 4, 2010

An action for reconveyance is one that seeks to transfer property,


wrongfully registered by another, to its rightful and legal owner. Indeed,
reconveyance is an action distinct from an action for quieting of title,
which is filed whenever there is a cloud on title to real property or any
interest therein, by reason of any instrument, record, claim,
encumbrance or proceeding which is apparently valid or effective but is
in truth and in fact, invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, and
may be prejudicial to said title for purposes of removing such cloud or to
quiet title. However, we find nothing erroneous in the CAs ruling
treating respondents action for reconveyance as an action to quiet title.
JAY HIDALGO UY, represented by his father, ANTONIO J. UY v.
Spouses FRANCISCO MEDINA and NATIVIDAD MEDINA, et al
G.R. No. 172541, August 8, 2010

Even though the sale of the land to petitioner took place before the
judgment of the trial court in favor of Swift and the issuance of the writ
of execution over the property in question, failure to register it with the
Register of Deeds negated any priority which he may have acquired by
virtue of the earlier sale. Elementary is the rule that it is the act of
registration which gives validity to transfer or liens created upon land
registered under the Torrens System.

GAUDENCIO LABRADOR, represented by LULU LABRADOR USON,


as Attorney-in-Fact v. SPS. ILDEFONSO PERLAS and PACENCIA
PERLAS, et al
G.R. No. 173900, August 8, 2010

Under the Torrens System of registration, an Original Certificate of


Title (OCT) becomes indefeasible and incontrovertible one year after its
final decree. It is a fundamental principle in land registration that the
certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and
incontrovertible title to a property in favor of the person whose name
appears therein.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE


DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DIVISION OF LIPA CITY v. PRIMO
MENDOZA and MARIA LUCERO
G.R. No. 185091, August 8, 2010

A decree of registration is conclusive upon all persons, including


the Government of the Republic and all its branches, WHETHER OR NOT
or not mentioned by name in the application for registration or its notice.
Indeed, title to the land, once registered, is imprescriptible. No one may
acquire it from the registered owner by adverse, open, and notorious
possession. Thus, to a registered owner under the Torrens system, the
right to recover possession of the registered property is equally
imprescriptible since possession is a mere consequence of ownership.

Where the owner agrees voluntarily to the taking of his property


by the government for public use, he thereby waives his right to the
institution of a formal expropriation proceeding covering such property.
Therefore, in the instant case, the Mendozas remedy is an action for the
payment of just compensation, not ejectment.

ST. JAMES COLLEGE OF PARAAQUE; JAIME T. TORRES, et al v.


EQUITABLE PCI BANK
G.R. No. 179441, August 9, 2010.

For novation, as a mode of extinguishing or modifying an


obligation, to apply, the following requisites must concur: 1) There must
be a previous valid obligation; 2) The parties concerned must agree to a
new contract; 3) The old contract must be extinguished; and 4) There
must be a valid new contract. Further, it is a well-settled principle that
Novatio non praesumitur or novation is never presumed. Consequently,
that which arises from a purported modification in the terms and
conditions of the obligation must be clear and express.

SPOUSES BRAULIO NAVARRO AND CESARIA SINDAO v. PERLA


RICO GO
G.R. No. 187288, August 9, 2010

A person is considered an innocent purchaser in good faith when


he buys the property of another, without notice that some other person
has a right or an interest in such property, and pays a full price for the
same at the time of such purchase, or before he has notice of the claims
or interest of some other person in the property. In the instant case,
petitioners live in the vicinity of the land which was fenced and planted to
fruit bearing trees. As such, they were put on notice that the land was
possessed by someone. Where the land subject of sale is in possession of
a person other than the vendor, prudence dictates that the vendee should
go beyond the certificate of title. Absent such investigation, good faith
cannot be presumed.

BONIFACIO SANZ MACEDA, JR. v.


DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 174979

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BONIFACIO SANZ


MACEDA, JR.
G.R. No. 175010, August 11, 2010

Under Article 1191 of the Civil Code, the aggrieved party has a
choice between specific performance and rescission with damages in
either case. However, if specific performance becomes impractical or
impossible, the court may order rescission with damages to the injured
party. Hence, where after the lapse of more than 30 years, it has become
impossible to implement the loan agreement as it was written,
considering the absence of evidence as to the rising costs of construction,
as well as the obvious changes in market conditions on the viability of the
operations of the hotel, it is deemed equitable and practicable to rescind
the obligation of DBP to deliver the balance of the loan proceeds to
Maceda.

ALC INDUSTRIES, INC. v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND


HIGHWAYS
G.R. Nos. 173219-20, August 11, 2010

Clearly, the DPWH gave two reasons for the rescission: 1) ALCs
failure to comply with Clause 10 of the RISA; and 2) its continuing
commission of acts amounting to breaches of contract, resulting in
negative slippage in its performance. Thus, the DPWH was entitled to
terminate the project and expel ALC from it
ISIDRO ABLAZA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 158298, August 11, 2010

Where the marriage was contracted on December 26, 1949, the


applicable law was the old Civil Code, the law in effect at the time of the
celebration of the marriage. Hence, the rule on the exclusivity of the
parties to the marriage as having the right to initiate the action for
declaration of nullity of the marriage under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC had
absolutely no application. Hence, a brother of one of the contracting
parties, under the old law, can initiate such action for he, albeit not a
compulsory heir under the laws of succession, has the right to succeed to
the estate of a deceased brother under the conditions stated in Article
1001 and Article 1003 of the Civil Code.

GERBERT R. CORPUZ v. DAISYLYN TIROL STO. TOMAS and


The SOLICITOR GENERAL
G.R. No. 186571, August 11, 2010

The second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code was


included in the law "to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino
spouse remains married to the alien spouse who, after obtaining a
divorce, is no longer married to the Filipino spouse." The legislative
intent is for the benefit of the Filipino spouse, by clarifying his or her
marital status, settling the doubts created by the divorce decree. Hence,
only the Filipino spouse can invoke the second paragraph of Article 26 of
the Family Code; the alien spouse can claim no right under this provision.

HEIRS OF PAULINO ATIENZA v. DOMINGO P. ESPIDOL


G.R. No. 180665, August 11, 2010

Regarding the right to cancel the contract for non-payment of an


installment, there is need to initially determine if what the parties had
was a contract of sale or a contract to sell. In a contract of sale, the title
to the property passes to the buyer upon the delivery of the thing
sold. In a contract to sell, on the other hand, the ownership is, by
agreement, retained by the seller and is not to pass to the vendee until
full payment of the purchase price. In the contract of sale, the buyers
non-payment of the price is a negative resolutory condition; in the
contract to sell, the buyers full payment of the price is a positive
suspensive condition to the coming into effect of the agreement. In the
first case, the seller has lost and cannot recover the ownership of the
property unless he takes action to set aside the contract of sale. In the
second case, the title simply remains in the seller if the buyer does not
comply with the condition precedent of making payment at the time
specified in the contract.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ZENAIDA GUINTO-ALDANA


G.R. No. 175578, August 11, 2010
While the best evidence to identify a piece of land for registration
purposes is the original tracing cloth plan issued by the Bureau of Lands
(now the Lands Management Services of the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources [DENR]), blueprint copies and other evidence
could also provide sufficient identification.

In an original registration of title under Section 14(1) P.D. No.


1529, the applicant for registration must be able to establish by evidence
that he and his predecessor-in-interest have exercised acts of dominion
over the lot under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or
earlier. He must prove that for at least 30 years, he and his predecessor
have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and
occupation of the land. Actual possession of a land consists in the
manifestation of acts of dominion over it of such a nature as a party
would naturally exercise over his own property.

SPOUSES NICANOR TUMBOKON (deceased), substituted by:


ROSARIO SESPEE, et al v. APOLONIA G. LEGASPI, and PAULINA
S. DE MAGTANUM
G.R. No. 153736, August 12, 2010

The petitioners adduced no competent evidence to establish that


Victor Miralles, the transferor of the land to Cresenciana Inog (the
petitioners immediate predecessor in interest) had any legal right in the
first place to transfer ownership. He was not himself an heir of Alejandra,
being only her son-in-law (as the husband of Ciriaca, one of Alejandras
two daughters).

For res judicata to bar the institution of a subsequent action, the


following requisites must concur: (1) the former judgment must be final;
(2) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the
subject matter and the parties; (3) it must be a judgment on the merits;
and (4) there must be between the first and second actions (a) identity of
parties, (b) identity of the subject matter, and (c) identity of cause of
action. The doctrine of res judicata has two aspects: the first, known as
bar by prior judgment, or estoppel by verdict, is the effect of a judgment
as a bar to the prosecution of a second action upon the same claim,
demand, or cause of action; the second, known as conclusiveness of
judgment, also known as the rule of auter action pendant, ordains that
issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be
raised in any future case between the same parties involving a different
cause of action and has the effect of preclusion of issues only.

HEIRS OF JOSE REYES, JR.v. AMANDA S. REYES, et al


G.R. No. 158377, August 13, 2010

The acceptance of the payments even beyond the 10-year period of


redemption estopped the mortgagees' heirs from insisting that the period
to redeem the property had already expired. Their actions impliedly
recognized the continued existence of the equitable mortgage. The
conduct of the original parties as well as of their successors-in-interest
manifested that the parties to the Kasulatan ng Biling Mabibiling Muli
really intended their transaction to be an equitable mortgage, not a pacto
de retro sale.

MA. SOCORRO CAMACHO-REYES v. RAMON REYES


G.R. No. 185286, August 18, 2010

The factors characterizing psychological incapacity to perform the


essential marital obligations are: (1) gravity, (2) juridical antecedence,
and (3) incurability. The incapacity must be grave or serious such that the
party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in
marriage; it must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the
marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the
marriage; and it must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure
would be beyond the means of the party involved.

PACIENCIA A. DALEON and CLARO EDUARDO D. JAVIER, JR., et al


v. MA. CATALINA P. TAN, FIDEL P. TAN and MANUEL P. TAN
G.R. No. 186094, August 23, 2010

A contract is the law between the parties. Thus, from the moment
the contract is perfected, the parties are bound not only to the fulfillment
of what has been expressly stipulated but also to all consequences which,
according to their nature, may be in keeping with good faith, usage and
law. Also, the stipulations of the contract being the law between the
parties, courts have no alternative but to enforce them as they were
agreed upon and written, there being no law or public policy against the
stipulated forfeiture of payments already made.

A forfeiture clause in a contract of sale, which in a sense is


punitive and confiscatory, is to be construed strictissimi juris and, in
resolving a controversy involving it, the principles of equity must apply to
the end that exact justice is achieved.

CEBU AUTOMATIC MOTORS, INC. and TIRSO UYTENGSU III v.


GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION
G.R. No. 151168, August 25, 2010

A lessor may judicially eject (and thereby likewise rescind the


contract of lease) the lessee if the latter violates any of the conditions
agreed upon in the lease contract. The lessor is not required to first bring
an action for rescission, but may ask the court to do so and
simultaneously seek the ejecment of the lessee in a single action for
unlawful detainer.
FRANCISCO MUOZ, JR. v. ERLINDA RAMIREZ and ELISEO
CARLOS
G.R. No. 156125, August 25, 2010

Under Article 120 of the Family Code, which supersedes Article


158 of the Civil Code, when the cost of the improvement and any
resulting increase in value are more than the value of the property at the
time of the improvement, the entire property of one of the spouses shall
belong to the conjugal partnership, subject to reimbursement of the value
of the property of the owner-spouse at the time of the improvement;
otherwise, said property shall be retained in ownership by the owner-
spouse, likewise subject to reimbursement of the cost of the
improvement.

Article 1602 of the Civil Code enumerates the instances when a


contract, regardless of its nomenclature, may be presumed to be an
equitable mortgage: (a) when the price of a sale with right to repurchase
is unusually inadequate; (b) when the vendor remains in possession as
lessee or otherwise; (c) when upon or after the expiration of the right to
repurchase another instrument extending the period of redemption or
granting a new period is executed; (d) when the purchaser retains for
himself a part of the purchase price; (e) when the vendor binds himself to
pay the taxes on the thing sold; and, (f) in any other case where it may be
fairly inferred that the real intention of the parties is that the transaction
shall secure the payment of a debt or the performance of any other
obligation. These instances apply to a contract purporting to be an
absolute sale.

SPOUSES ERNESTO LIM and ZENAIDA LIM v. RUBY SHELTER


BUILDERS AND REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
G.R. No. 182707, September 1, 2010

Section 1 of Presidential Decree 13444 vests in the National


Housing Authority (now HLURB) exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide
the following cases: (a) unsound real estate business practices; (b) claims
involving refund and any other claims filed by subdivision lot or
condominium unit buyer against the project owner, developer, dealer,
broker or salesman; and (c) cases involving specific performance of
contractual and statutory obligations filed by buyers of subdivision lot or
condominium unit against the owner, developer, dealer, broker or
salesman.

HEIRS and/or ESTATE OF ATTY. ROLANDO P. SIAPIAN,


represented by SUSAN S. MENDOZA, v. INTESTATE ESTATE OF
THE LATE EUFROCINA G. MACKAY as represented by DR.
RODERICK MACKAY and ENGR. ELVIN MACKAY
G.R. No. 184799, September 1, 2010

It is settled that a claim for attorneys fees may be asserted either


in the very action in which a lawyer rendered his services or in a
separate action. But enforcing it in the main case bodes well as it
forestalls multiplicity of suits. The intestate court in this case, therefore,
correctly allowed Atty. Siapian to interject his claim for attorneys fees in
the estate proceedings against some of the heirs and, after hearing,
adjudicate the same on April 3, 1997 with an order for Arturo, et. al to
pay Atty. Siapian the fees of P3 million due him. Also, since the award of
P3 million in attorneys fees in favor of Atty. Siapian had already become
final and executory, the intestate court was within its powers to order the
Register of Deeds to annotate his lien on the Estates titles to its
properties. The Estate has no cause for complaint since the lien was
neither a claim nor a burden against the Estate itself. It was not
enforceable against the Estate but only against Arturo, et. al, who
constituted the majority of the heirs.

EUGENIO FELICIANO, substituted by his wife CEFERINA DE


PALMA- FELICIANO, et. al v. PEDRO CANOZA, et al
G.R. No. 161746, September 1, 2010

A deed of extrajudicial partition executed without including some


of the heirs, who had no knowledge of and consent to the same, is
fraudulent and vicious. Hence, an action to set it aside on the ground of
fraud could be instituted. Such action for the annulment of the said
partition, however, must be brought within four (4) years from the
discovery of the fraud.

SPOUSES REX AND CONCEPCION AGGABAO v.


DIONISIO Z. PARULAN, JR. and MA. ELENA PARULAN
G.R. No. 165803, September 1, 2010

The standard to determine the good faith of the buyers dealing


with a seller who had title to and possession of the land but whose
capacity to sell was restricted, in that the consent of the other spouse
was required before the conveyance, is that the buyers must show that
they inquired not only into the title of the seller but also into the sellers
capacity to sell. Thus, the buyers of conjugal property must observe two
kinds of requisite diligence, namely: (a) the diligence in verifying the
validity of the title covering the property; and (b) the diligence in
inquiring into the authority of the transacting spouse to sell conjugal
property in behalf of the other spouse.

UNIVERSITY PHYSICIANS' SERVICES, INCORPORATED v.


MARIAN CLINICS, INC. and DR. LOURDES MABANTA
G.R. No. 152303, September 1, 2010

Article 1665 of the Civil Code provides that "the lessee shall return
the thing leased, upon the termination of the lease, just as he received it,
save what has been lost or impaired by the lapse of time, or by ordinary
wear and tear, or from an inevitable cause." Article 1667 likewise states
that "the lessee is responsible for the deterioration or loss of the thing
leased, unless he proves that it took place without his fault." In other
words, by law, a lessee is obliged to return the thing(s) leased and be
responsible for any deterioration or loss of the properties, except for
those that were not his fault.
JOSELITO R. PIMENTEL v. MARIA CHRYSANTINE L. PIMENTEL
and
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 172060, September 13, 2010

At the time of the commission of the alleged crime, petitioner and


respondent were married. The subsequent dissolution of their marriage,
in case the petition in Civil Case No. 04-7392 is granted, will have no
effect on the alleged crime that was committed at the time of the
subsistence of the marriage. In short, even if the marriage between
petitioner and respondent is annulled, petitioner could still be held
criminally liable since at the time of the commission of the alleged crime,
he was still married to respondent.

HEIRS OF JUANITA PADILLA, represented by CLAUDIO PADILLA v.


DOMINADOR MAGDUA
G.R. No. 176858, September 15, 2010

Co-heirs or co-owners cannot acquire by acquisitive prescription


the share of the other co-heirs or co-owners absent a clear repudiation of
the co-ownership. Since possession of co-owners is like that of a trustee,
in order that a co-owners possession may be deemed adverse to the
cestui que trust or other co-owners, the following requisites must concur:
(1) that he has performed unequivocal acts of repudiation amounting to
an ouster of the cestui que trust or other co-owners, (2) that such positive
acts of repudiation have been made known to the cestui que trust or
other co-owners, and (3) that the evidence thereon must be clear and
convincing.

In the present case, the prescriptive period began to run only from
5 June 1998, the date petitioners received notice of Ricardos
repudiation of their claims to the land. Since petitioners filed an action
for recovery of ownership and possession, partition and damages with the
RTC on 26 October 2001, only a mere three years had lapsed. This three-
year period falls short of the 10-year or 30-year acquisitive prescription
period required by law in order to be entitled to claim legal ownership
over the land. Thus, Dominador cannot invoke acquisitive prescription.
CELESTINO SANTIAGO substituted by LAURO SANTIAGO and
ISIDRO GUTIERREZ substituted by ROGELIO GUTIERREZ v.
AMADA R. ORTIZ-LUIS substituted by JUAN ORTIZ-LUIS, JR
G.R. Nos. 186184 & 1869881, September 20, 2010

Except as otherwise provided in Republic Act No. 6657, no person


may own, or retain, directly or indirectly, any public or private
agricultural land, the size of which shall vary according to factors
governing a viable family-size, such as commodity produced, terrain,
infrastructure, and soil fertility as determined by the Presidential
Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) created hereunder, but in no case shall
retention by the landowner exceed five (5) hectares. Three (3) hectares
may be awarded to each child of the landowner, subject to the following
qualifications: (1) that he is at least fifteen (15) years of age; and (2) that
he is actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm; Provided,
That landowners whose land have been covered by Presidential Decree
No. 27 shall be allowed to keep the area originally retained by them
thereunder, Provided further, That the original homestead grantees or
direct compulsory heirs who still own the original homestead at the time
of the approval of this Act shall retain the same areas as long as they
continue to cultivate said homestead.

The right to choose the area to be retained, which shall be


compact or contiguous, shall pertain to the landowner.Provided, however,
That in case the area selected for retention by the landowner is tenanted,
the tenant shall have the option to choose WHETHER OR NOT to remain
therein or be a beneficiary in the same or another agricultural land with
similar or comparable features. In case the tenant chooses to remain in
the retained area, he shall be considered a leaseholder and shall lose his
right to be a beneficiary under this Act. In case the tenant chooses to be
a beneficiary in another agricultural land, he loses his right as a lease-
holder to the land retained by the landowner. The tenant must exercise
this option within a period of one (1) year from the time the landowner
manifests his choice of the area for retention.

SPS. ANTONIO & LETICIA VEGA v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM


(SSS) & PILAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
G.R. No. 181672, September 20, 2010

Article 1625 of the Civil Code provides that an assignment of a


credit, right or action shall produce no effect as against third persons,
unless it appears in a public instrument, or the instrument is recorded in
the Registry of Property in case the assignment involves real property.
Said provision merely applies to assignment of credits and other
incorporeal rights and not to conveyances of, for instance, a house and
lot.

JARABINI G. DEL ROSARIO v. ASUNCION G. FERRER, substituted


by her heirs, VICENTE, PILAR, ANGELITO, FELIXBERTO, JR., all
surnamed G. FERRER, and MIGUELA FERRER ALTEZA.
G.R. No. 187056 September 20, 2010

The express irrevocability of the donation is the distinctive


standard that identifies the document as a donation inter vivos.

PRUDENTIAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY (now BANK OF THE


PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. LIWAYWAY ABASOLO
G.R. No. 186738 September 27, 2010

Under Art. 1311 contracts take effect only between the parties,
their assigns and heirs, except in case where the rights and obligations
arising from the contract are not transmissible by their nature, or by
stipulation or by provision of law. The heir is not liable beyond the value
of the property he received from the decedent.
If a contract should contain some stipulation in favor of a third
person, he may demand its fulfillment provided he communicated his
acceptance to the obligor before its revocation. A mere incidental benefit
or interest of a person is not sufficient. The contracting parties must have
clearly and deliberately conferred a favor upon a third person.

HEIRS OF ENRIQUE TORING, represented herein by MORIE


TORING v. HEIRS OF TEODOSIA BOQUILAGA, represented herein
by PAULINO CADLAWON, CRISPIN ALBURO, VIVENCIO GOMEZ,
EDUARDO CONCUERA and PONCIANO NAILON
G.R. No. 163610 September 27, 2010

The nature of judicial reconstitution proceedings is the restoration


of an instrument or the reissuance of a new duplicate certificate of title
which is supposed to have been lost or destroyed in its original form and
condition. Its purpose is to have the title reproduced after proper
proceedings in the same form they were when the loss or destruction
occurred and not to pass upon the ownership of the land covered by the
lost or destroyed title.

SPS. FELIPE and JOSEFA PARINGIT v. MARCIANA PARINGIT


BAJIT, ADOLIO PARINGIT and ROSARIO PARINGIT ORDOO
G.R. No. 181844 September 29, 2010

Implied trust under Article 1450 presupposes a situation where a


person, using his own funds, buys property on behalf of another, who in
the meantime may not have the funds to purchase it. Title to the
property is for the time being placed in the name of the trustee, the
person who pays for it, until he is reimbursed by the beneficiary, the
person for whom the trustee bought the land. It is only after the
beneficiary reimburses the trustee of the purchase price that the former
can compel conveyance of the property from the latter.

An implied trust prescribes within 10 years from the time the right
of action accrues. A right of action implies the existence of a cause of
action and a cause of action has three elements: a) the existence of a
right in plaintiffs favor; b) defendants obligation to respect such right;
and c) defendants act or omission that violates the plaintiffs right.
Only when the last element occurs or takes place can it be said in law
that a cause of action has arisen.

FINANCIAL BUILDING CORPORATION v. RUDLIN


INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, BLOOMFIELD EDUCATIONAL
FOUNDATION, INC., RODOLFO J. LAGERA, MA. ERLINDA J.
LAGERA AND JOSAPHAT R. BRAVANTE
G.R. No. 164186, October 04, 2010

RUDLIN INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, BLOOMFIELD


EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION, INC., RODOLFO J. LAGERA, MA.
ERLINDA J. LAGERA AND JOSAPHAT R. BRAVANTE v. FINANCIAL
BUILDING CORPORATION
G.R. NO. 164347

The award of attorney's fees is the exception rather than the rule,
as they are not always awarded every time a party prevails in a suit
because of the policy that no premium should be placed on the right to
litigate.

FILOMENA R. BENEDICTO v. ANTONIO VILLAFLORES


G.R. No. 185020, October 06, 2010

Under Article 448, a landowner is given the option to either


appropriate the improvement as his own upon payment of the proper
amount of indemnity, or sell the land to the possessor in good faith.
Relatedly, Article 546 provides that a builder in good faith is entitled to
full reimbursement for all the necessary and useful expenses incurred; it
also gives him right of retention until full reimbursement is made.

It is settled that the award of attorney's fees is the exception


rather than the general rule; counsel's fees are not awarded every time a
party prevails in a suit because of the policy that no premium should be
placed on the right to litigate.

COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC. v. RODRIGO


MERCADO, et al.
G.R. No. 190381, October 06, 2010

Under the Civil Code of the Philippines, contracting parties may


establish such stipulations, clauses, terms, and conditions, as they deem
convenient, so long as they are not contrary to law, morals, good
customs, public order, or public policy. A compromise agreement is a
contract whereby the parties undertake reciprocal obligations to resolve
their differences in order to avoid litigation or put an end to one already
instituted. It is a judicial covenant having the force and effect of a
judgment, subject to execution in accordance with the Rules of Court,
and having the effect and authority of res judicata upon its approval by
the court where the litigation is pending.

THE HEIRS OF ROMANA SAVES v. THE HEIRS OF ESCOLASTICO


SAVES, NAMELY: REMEDIOS SAVES-ADAMOS, LUZ SAVES-
HERNANDEZ AND DODONG SAVES, AND ENRIQUETA CHAVES-
ABELLA
G.R. No. 152866, October 06, 2010

It is a well-settled doctrine that one who deals with property


registered under the Torrens system need not go beyond the same, but
only has to rely on the certificates of title. He is charged with notice only
of such burdens and claims as are annotated on the certificates.
Laches is defined as the failure to assert a right for an
unreasonable and unexplained length of time, warranting a presumption
that the party entitled to assert it has either abandoned or declined to
assert it.

ERMELINDA C. MANALOTO, AURORA J. CIFRA, FLORDELIZA J.


ARCILLA, LOURDES J. CATALAN, ETHELINDA J. HOLT,
BIENVENIDO R. JONGCO, ARTEMIO R. JONGCO, JR. AND JOEL
JONGCO v. ISMAEL VELOSO III
G.R. No. 171365, October 06, 2010

As Article 19 of the Civil Code requires, "every person must, in the


exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with
justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith." A
violation of such principle constitutes an abuse of rights, a tortuous
conduct.

CAMPER REALTY CORP. v. MARIA NENA PAJO-REYES


REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT ELISEO B. BALLAO,
AUGUSTO P. BAJADO, RODOLFO PAJO AND GODOFREDO PAJO,
JR.
G.R. No. 179543, October 06, 2010

In sales involving real property or any interest therein, a written


authority in favor of the agent is necessary, otherwise the sale is void.
Since the property was subjected to ensuing transfers, it is necessary to
establish the rights, if any, of the transferees vis--vis that of Nena's.

RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION v. PEDRO P.


BUENAVENTURA
G.R. No. 176479, October 06, 2010

Foreclosure is valid only when the debtor is in default in the


payment of his obligation. It is a necessary consequence of non-payment
of mortgage indebtedness. As a rule, the mortgage can be foreclosed only
when the debt remains unpaid at the time it is due. In a real estate
mortgage, when the principal obligation is not paid when due, the
mortgagee has the right to foreclose on the mortgage, to have the
property seized and sold, and to apply the proceeds to the obligation.

SPOUSES VICTORIANO CHUNG AND DEBBIE CHUNG v.


ULANDAY CONSTRUCTION, INC.
G.R. No. 156038, October 11, 2010

In contractual relations, the law allows the parties leeway and


considers their agreement as the law between them. Contract
stipulations that are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public
order or public policy shall be binding and should be complied with in
good faith. No party is permitted to change his mind or disavow and go
back upon his own acts, or to proceed contrary thereto, to the prejudice
of the other party.

It is a requisite in the grant of exemplary damages that the act of


the offender must be accompanied by bad faith or done in a wanton,
fraudulent, or malevolent manner. On the other hand, attorney's fees may
be awarded only when a party is compelled to litigate or to incur
expenses to protect his interest by reason of an unjustified act of the
other party, as when the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in
refusing the plaintiff's plainly valid, just and demandable claim.

MINDANAO SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, INC.,


REPRESENTED BY ITS LIQUIDATOR, THE PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT
INSURANCE CORPORATION v. EDWARD WILLKOM; GILDA GO;
REMEDIOS UY; MALAYO BANTUAS, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE
DEPUTY SHERIFF OF REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 3,
ILIGAN CITY; AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF CAGAYAN DE
ORO CITY
G.R. No. 178618, October 11, 2010

There being no merger between FISLAI and DSLAI (now MSLAI),


for third parties such as respondents, the two corporations shall not be
considered as one but two separate corporations. A corporation is an
artificial being created by operation of law. It possesses the right of
succession and such powers, attributes, and properties expressly
authorized by law or incident to its existence. It has a personality
separate and distinct from the persons composing it, as well as from any
other legal entity to which it may be related. Being separate entities, the
property of one cannot be considered the property of the other.

It is a rule that novation by substitution of debtor must always be


made with the consent of the creditor. Article 1293 of the Civil Code is
explicit, thus: novation which consists in substituting a new debtor in the
place of the original one, may be made even without the knowledge or
against the will of the latter, but not without the consent of the creditor.
Payment by the new debtor gives him the rights mentioned in Articles
1236 and 1237.

MANUEL A. ECHAVEZ v. DOZEN CONSTRUCTION AND


DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS
OF CEBU CITY
G.R. No. 192916, October 11, 2010

A donation mortis causa must comply with the formalities


prescribed by law for the validity of wills, "otherwise, the donation is void
and would produce no effect." Articles 805 and 806 of the Civil Code
should have been applied.

CALIBRE TRADERS, INC., MARIO SISON SEBASTIAN, AND


MINDA BLANCO SEBASTIAN v. BAYER PHILIPPINES, INC.
G.R. No. 161431, October 13, 2010
To justify a grant of actual or compensatory damages, the amount
of loss must be proved with a reasonable degree of certainty, based upon
competent proof and the best evidence obtainable by the injured party.

PACIFIC REHOUSE CORPORATION, PACIFIC CONCORDE


CORPORATION, MIZPAH HOLDINGS, INC., FORUM HOLDINGS
CORPORATION, AND EAST ASIA OIL COMPANY, INC. v. EIB
SECURITIES, INC.
G.R. No. 184036, October 13, 2010

Article 1881 of the Civil Code provides that "the agent must act
within the scope of his authority." Pursuant to the authority given by the
principal, the agent is granted the right "to affect the legal relations of
his principal by the performance of acts effectuated in accordance with
the principal's manifestation of consent."

ANICETO G. SALUDO, JR. v. SECURITY BANK CORPORATION


G.R. No. 184041, October 13, 2010

Comprehensive or continuing surety agreements are, in fact, quite


commonplace in present day financial and commercial practice. A bank
or financing company which anticipates entering into a series of credit
transactions with a particular company, normally requires the projected
principal debtor to execute a continuing surety agreement along with its
sureties. By executing such an agreement, the principal places itself in a
position to enter into the projected series of transactions with its
creditor; with such suretyship agreement, there would be no need to
execute a separate surety contract or bond for each financing or credit
accommodation extended to the principal debtor.

B.E. SAN DIEGO, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS AND JOVITA


MATIAS
G.R. No. 159230, October 18, 2010

The settled doctrine in property law is that no title to register land


in derogation of that of the registered owner shall be acquired by
prescription or adverse possession.

SPOUSES RAMY AND ZENAIDA PUDADERA v. IRENEO


MAGALLANES AND THE LATE DAISY TERESA CORTEL
MAGALLANES SUBSTITUTED BY HER CHILDREN, NELLY M.
MARQUEZ, ELISEO MAGALLANES AND ANGEL MAGALLANES
G.R. No. 170073, October 18, 2010

One is considered a buyer in bad faith not only when he purchases


real estate with knowledge of a defect or lack of title in his seller but also
when he has knowledge of facts which should have alerted him to
conduct further inquiry or investigation.

PIO MODESTO AND CIRILA RIVERA-MODESTO v. CARLOS


URBINA, SUBSTITUTED BY THE HEIRS OF OLYMPIA MIGUEL
VDA. DE URBINA (SURVIVING SPOUSE) AND CHILDREN,
NAMELY: ESCOLASTICA M. URBINA, ET. AL
G.R. No. 189859, October 18, 2010

Unless a public land is shown to have been reclassified as alienable


or actually alienated by the State to a private person, that piece of land
remains part of the public domain, and its occupation in the concept of
owner, no matter how long, cannot confer ownership or possessory
rights. It is only after the property has been declared alienable and
disposable that private persons can legally claim possessory rights over
it.

ASSET BUILDERS CORPORATION, v. STRONGHOLD INSURANCE


COMPANY, INCORPORATED
G.R. No. 187116, October 18, 2010

As provided in Article 2047, the surety undertakes to be bound


solidarily with the principal obligor. That undertaking makes a surety
agreement an ancillary contract as it presupposes the existence of a
principal contract. Although the contract of a surety is in essence
secondary only to a valid principal obligation, the surety becomes liable
for the debt or duty of another although it possesses no direct or
personal interest over the obligations nor does it receive any benefit
therefrom. Let it be stressed that notwithstanding the fact that the surety
contract is secondary to the principal obligation, the surety assumes
liability as a regular party to the undertaking.

CARMELA BROBIO MANGAHAS v. EUFROCINA A. BROBIO


G.R. No. 183852, October 20, 2010

Contracts are voidable where consent thereto is given through


mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence, or fraud. In determining
WHETHER OR NOT consent is vitiated by any of these circumstances,
courts are given a wide latitude in weighing the facts or circumstances in
a given case and in deciding in favor of what they believe actually
occurred, considering the age, physical infirmity, intelligence,
relationship, and conduct of the parties at the time of the execution of the
contract and subsequent thereto, irrespective of WHETHER OR NOT the
contract is in a public or private writing.

SHINRYO (PHILIPPINES) COMPANY, INC. v. RRN INCORPORATED


G.R. No. 172525, October 20, 2010

Unjust enrichment claims do not lie simply because one party


benefits from the efforts or obligations of others, but instead it must be
shown that a party was unjustly enriched in the sense that the term
unjustly could mean illegally or unlawfully.

DELFIN LAMSIS, MAYNARD MONDIGUING, JOSE VALDEZ, JR.


AND HEIRS OF AGUSTIN KITMA, REPRESENTED BY EUGENE
KITMA v. MARGARITA SEMON DONG-E
G.R. No. 173021, October 20, 2010

There is laches when a party is aware, even in the early stages of


the proceedings, of a possible jurisdictional objection, and has every
opportunity to raise said objection, but fails to do so, even on appeal.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE T. CHING


REPRESENTED BY HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, ANTONIO V. CHING
G.R. No. 186166, October 20, 2010

Applicants for registration of title under Section 14(1) must


sufficiently establish: (1) that the subject land forms part of the
disposable and alienable lands of the public domain; (2) that the
applicant and his predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the same; and (3)
that it is under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or
earlier.

MANUEL ALMAGRO JOINED BY HIS SPOUSE, ELIZABETH


ALMAGRO v. SALVACION C. KWAN, WILLIAM C. KWAN, VICTORIA
C. KWAN, ASSISTED BY HER HUSBAND, JOSE A. ARBAS, AND
CECILIA C. KWAN
G.R. Nos. 175806 and 175810, October 20, 2010

MARGARITA PACHORO, DRONICA ORLINA, PIO TUBAT, JR.,


ANDRES TUBAT, EDUVIGIS KISKIS, ELSA BIALBER, NOELA
TUBAT, ELSA TUBAT, AND ROGELIO DURAN v. WILLIAM C.
KWAN, SALVACION C. KWAN, VICTORIA C. KWAN, ASSISTED BY
HER HUSBAND, JOSE A. ARBAS, AND CECILIA C. KWAN
G.R. No. 175849

To qualify as foreshore land, it must be shown that the land lies


between the high and low water marks and is alternately wet and dry
according to the flow of the tide. The land's proximity to the waters alone
does not automatically make it a foreshore land.

CENTURY SAVINGS BANK, PETITIONER v. SPOUSES DANILO T.


SAMONTE AND ROSALINDA M. SAMONTE
G.R. No. 176212, October 20, 2010
The object of a notice of sale is to inform the public of the nature
and condition of the property to be sold, and of the time, place and terms
of the sale. Notices are given for the purpose of securing bidders and to
prevent a sacrifice of the property. If these objects are attained,
immaterial errors and mistakes will not affect the sufficiency of the
notice; but if mistakes or omissions occur in the notices of sale, which are
calculated to deter or mislead bidders, to depreciate the value of the
property, or to prevent it from bringing a fair price, such mistakes or
omissions will be fatal to the validity of the notice, and also to the sale
made pursuant thereto.

JOSE PONCE DE LEON v. SANTIAGO SYJUCO, INC., DEFENDANT


AND APPELLANT, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK
G. R. No. 3316-Paras, October 26, 2010

Mortgagor has the right to pay the indebtedness at any time within
three years provided that, as in this case, he pays the interest for the
whole term of the mortgage.

SPOUSES ALFREDO and ENCARNACION CHING v. FAMILY


SAVINGS BANK, and SHERIFF OF MANILA
G.R. No. 167835
ALFREDO CHING v. FAMILY SAVINGS BANK and THE SHERIFF OF
MANILA
G.R. No. 188480 November 15, 2010

Title and ownership to the property is consolidated upon the lapse


of the period of redemption. It is automatic upon the failure of the
judgment obligor to exercise his right of redemption within the period
allowed by law. Title may be consolidated in the name of the purchaser
even without a new title issued in his name. The term title as used in
consolidation does not pertain to the certificate of title, or piece of paper,
issued by the Register of Deeds, which is a mere evidence of ownership.
It is synonymous with ownership.

VITARICH CORPORATION v. CHONA LOSIN


G.R. No. 181560 November 15, 2010

Article 1249, paragraph 2 of the Civil Code provides: he delivery of


promissory notes payable to order, or bills of exchange or other
mercantile documents shall produce the effect of payment only when they
have been cashed, or when through the fault of the creditor they have
been impaired.

CONSTANCIA G. TAMAYO, JOCELYN G. TAMAYO, and ARAMIS G.


TAMAYO, collectively known as HEIRS OF CIRILO TAMAYO v.
ROSALIA ABAD SEORA, ROAN ABAD SEORA, and JANETE
ABAD SEORA
G.R. No. 176946 November 15, 2010
The award of damages for loss of earning capacity is concerned
with the determination of losses or damages sustained by respondents, as
dependents and intestate heirs of the deceased. This consists not of the
full amount of his earnings, but of the support which they received or
would have received from him had he not died as a consequence of the
negligent act. Thus, the amount recoverable is not the loss of the
victims entire earnings, but rather the loss of that portion of the
earnings which the beneficiary would have received.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. AVELINO R. DELA PAZ,


ARSENIO R. DELA PAZ, JOSE R. DELA PAZ, and GLICERIO R.
DELA PAZ, represented by JOSE R. DELA PAZ
G.R. No. 171631 November 15, 2010

Under Section 14 (1) of PD 1529, otherwise known as the Property


Registration Decree provides persons that my file an application for
registration WHETHER OR NOT personally or through their duly
authorized representatives, one of which are those who by themselves or
through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and
disposable lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of
ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier.

SPOUSES MARIANO (a.k.a. QUAKY) and EMMA BOLAOS v.


ROSCEF ZUIGA BERNARTE, CLARO ZUIGA, PERFECTO
ZUIGA, and CEFERINA ZUIGA-GARCIA
G.R. No. 180997 November 17, 2010

Under Art. 979. Legitimate children and their descendants succeed


the parents and other ascendants, without distinction as to sex or age,
and even if they should come from different marriages.

Under Art. 980. The children of the deceased shall always inherit
from him in their own right, dividing the inheritance in equal shares.

FILINVEST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. GOLDEN HAVEN


MEMORIAL PARK, INC. G.R. No. 187824

GOLDEN HAVEN MEMORIAL PARK, INC. v. FILINVEST


DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
G.R. No. 188265 November 17, 2010

To prove good faith, the rule is that the buyer of registered land
needs only show that he relied on the title that covers the property. But
this is true only when, at the time of the sale, the buyer was unaware of
any adverse claim to the property. Otherwise, the law requires the buyer
to exercise a higher degree of diligence before proceeding with his
purchase. He must examine not only the certificate of title, but also the
sellers right and capacity to transfer any interest in the property. In
such a situation, the buyer must show that he exercised reasonable
precaution by inquiring beyond the four corners of the title. Failing in
these, he may be deemed a buyer in bad faith.

HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORP., LTD. STAFF


RETIREMENT PLAN, Retirement Trust Fund, Inc.) v. SPOUSES
BIENVENIDO AND EDITHA BROQUEZA,
G.R. No. 178610, November 17, 2010

The enforcement of a loan agreement involves "debtor-creditor


relations founded on contract and does not in any way concern employee
relations. As such it should be enforced through a separate civil action in
the regular courts and not before the Labor Arbiter."

CEBU BIONIC BUILDERS SUPPLY, INC. and LYDIA SIA v.


DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, JOSE TO CHIP,
PATRICIO YAP and ROGER BALILA
G.R. No. 154366, November 17, 2010

In respect of the lease on the foreclosed property, the buyer at the


foreclosure sale merely succeeds to the rights and obligations of the
pledgor-mortgagor subject to the provisions of Article 1676 of the Civil
Code on its possible termination. This article provides that the
purchaser of a piece of land which is under a lease that is not recorded in
the Registry of Property may terminate the lease, save when there is a
stipulation to the contrary in the contract of sale, or when the purchaser
knows of the existence of the lease. In short, the buyer at the
foreclosure sale, as a rule, may terminate an unregistered lease except
when it knows of the existence of the lease.

ASIA UNITED BANK v. GOODLAND COMPANY, INC.


G.R. No. 188051, November 22, 2010

After the consolidation of titles in the buyer's name, for failure of


the mortgagor to redeem, entitlement to a writ of possession becomes a
matter of right. As the confirmed owner, the purchasers right to
possession becomes absolute. There is even no need for him to post a
bond, and it is the ministerial duty of the courts to issue the same upon
proper application and proof of title. To accentuate the writs ministerial
character, the Court has consistently disallowed injunction to prohibit its
issuance despite a pending action for annulment of mortgage or the
foreclosure itself.

CITIBANK, N.A. v. ATTY. ERNESTO S. DINOPOL


G.R. No. 188412 November 22, 2010

The award of moral damages should be granted in reasonable amounts


depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. Moral damages
are meant to compensate the claimant for any physical suffering, mental
anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded
feelings, moral shock, social humiliation and similar injuries unjustly
caused.

As to the award of exemplary damages, the law allows it by way of


example for the public good. The business of banking is impressed with
public interest and great reliance is made on the banks sworn
profession of diligence and meticulousness in giving irreproachable
service.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. WENCESLAO DERI y BENITEZ


G.R. No. 166566 November 23, 2010

If the rape is perpetrated with any of the attending qualifying


circumstances that require the imposition of the death penalty, the civil
indemnity for the victim shall be P75,000.00. In the same vein, the
award of moral damages should be increased from P50,000.00 to
P75,000.00 because the cases remain to be heinous.

LEDESCO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. WORLDWIDE


STANDARD INTERNATIONAL REALTY, INC.
G.R. No. 173339 November 24, 2010

According to the contract executed between the parties,


commission becomes due upon the occurrence of three events: first, the
buyer signs the reservation agreement; second, the buyer pays Ledesco
the amount representing the downpayment; third, the buyer delivers to
Ledesco six (6) postdated checks. To be entitled to the 2% incentive,
there are two additional qualifying circumstances, to wit: (1) that all
three required acts must be completed within a specific reckoning period
(within six (6) months from the signing of the Project and Marketing
Agreement); and (2) that the contract price of such sales totals at least
Php30,000,000.00.

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALFREDO ONG


G.R. No. 190755 November 24, 2010

Art. 1236 provides: the creditor is not bound to accept payment or


performance by a third person who has no interest in the fulfillment of
the obligation, unless there is a stipulation to the contrary. Whoever pays
for another may demand from the debtor what he has paid, except that if
he paid without the knowledge or against the will of the debtor, he can
recover only insofar as the payment has been beneficial to the debtor.

Novation, in its broad concept, may either be extinctive or


modificatory. It is extinctive when an old obligation is terminated by the
creation of a new obligation that takes the place of the former; it is
merely modificatory when the old obligation subsists to the extent it
remains compatible with the amendatory agreement. An extinctive
novation results either by changing the object or principal conditions
(objective or real), or by substituting the person of the debtor or
subrogating a third person in the rights of the creditor (subjective or
personal). Under this mode, novation would have dual functions one to
extinguish an existing obligation, the other to substitute a new one in its
place requiring a conflux of four essential requisites: (1) a previous
valid obligation; (2) an agreement of all parties concerned to a new
contract; (3) the extinguishment of the old obligation; and (4) the birth of
a valid new obligation.

Art. 1293 of the Civil Code states: Novation which consists in


substituting a new debtor in the place of the original one, may be made
even without the knowledge or against the will of the latter, but not
without the consent of the creditor. Payment by the new debtor gives
him rights mentioned in articles 1236 and 1237.

Unjust enrichment exists when a person unjustly retains a benefit


to the loss of another, or when a person retains money or property of
another against the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good
conscience. There is unjust enrichment under Art. 22 of the Civil Code
when (1) a person is unjustly benefited, and (2) such benefit is derived at
the expense of or with damages to another. Additionally, unjust
enrichment has been applied to actions called accion in rem verso. In
order that the accion in rem verso may prosper, the following conditions
must concur: (1) that the defendant has been enriched; (2) that the
plaintiff has suffered a loss; (3) that the enrichment of the defendant is
without just or legal ground; and (4) that the plaintiff has no other action
based on contract, quasi-contract, crime, or quasi-delict. The principle of
unjust enrichment essentially contemplates payment when there is no
duty to pay, and the person who receives the payment has no right to
receive it.

The term forbearance, within the context of usury law, has been
described as a contractual obligation of a lender or creditor to refrain,
during a given period of time, from requiring the borrower or debtor to
repay the loan or debt then due and payable.

HYATT ELEVATORS and ESCALATORS CORPORATION v.


CATHEDRAL HEIGHTS BUILDING COMPLEX ASSOCIATION, INC.
G.R. No. 173881 December 1, 2010

By the contract of sale, one of the contracting parties obligates


himself to transfer the ownership of and deliver a determinate thing, and
the other to pay therefor a price certain in money or its equivalent. The
absence of any of the essential elements will negate the existence of a
perfected contract of sale.

FEDERICO JARANTILLA, JR. v. ANTONIETA JARANTILLA,


BUENAVENTURA REMOTIGUE, SUBSTITUTED BY CYNTHIA
REMOTIGUE, DOROTEO JARANTILLA and TOMAS JARANTILLA
G.R. No. 154486 December 1, 2010

There is a co-ownership when an undivided thing or right belongs


to different persons. It is a partnership when two or more persons bind
themselves to contribute money, property, or industry to a common fund,
with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves.

Article 1769 of the new Civil Code lays down the rule for
determining when a transaction should be deemed a partnership or a co-
ownership. Said article paragraphs 2 and 3, provides; (2) Co-ownership
or co-possession does not itself establish a partnership, WHETHER OR
NOT such co-owners or co-possessors do or do not share any profits
made by the use of the property; (3) The sharing of gross returns does
not of itself establish a partnership, WHETHER OR NOT or not the
persons sharing them have a joint or common right or interest in any
property from which the returns are derived.

Under Article 1767 of the Civil Code, there are two essential
elements in a contract of partnership: (a) an agreement to contribute
money, property or industry to a common fund; and (b) intent to divide
the profits among the contracting parties.

Article 1797 of the Civil Code provides: The losses and profits shall
be distributed in conformity with the agreement. If only the share of
each partner in the profits has been agreed upon, the share of each in the
losses shall be in the same proportion. In the absence of stipulation, the
share of each partner in the profits and losses shall be in proportion to
what he may have contributed, but the industrial partner shall not be
liable for the losses. As for the profits, the industrial partner shall
receive such share as may be just and equitable under the circumstances.
If besides his services he has contributed capital, he shall also receive a
share in the profits in proportion to his capital.

Express trusts are created by the intention of the trustor or of the


parties, while implied trusts come into being by operation of law, either
through implication of an intention to create a trust as a matter of law or
through the imposition of the trust irrespective of, and even contrary to,
any such intention. In turn, implied trusts are either resulting or
constructive trusts. Resulting trusts are based on the equitable doctrine
that valuable consideration and not legal title determines the equitable
title or interest and are presumed always to have been contemplated by
the parties. They arise from the nature or circumstances of the
consideration involved in a transaction whereby one person thereby
becomes invested with legal title but is obligated in equity to hold his
legal title for the benefit of another.
NOEL B. BACCAY v. MARIBEL C. BACCAY and REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 173138 December 1, 2010

Psychological incapacity must be more than just a difficulty, a


refusal, or a neglect in the performance of some marital obligations.
An unsatisfactory marriage is not a null and void marriage.

TRADERS ROYAL BANK v. NORBERTO CASTAARES and


MILAGROS CASTAARES
G.R. No. 172020, December 6, 2010

A "dragnet clause" or "blanket mortgage clause" in American


jurisprudence that would subsume all debts of past and future origins. It
has been held as a valid and legal undertaking, the amounts specified as
consideration in the contracts do not limit the amount for which the
pledge or mortgage stands as security, if from the four corners of the
instrument, the intent to secure future and other indebtedness can be
gathered. A pledge or mortgage given to secure future advancements is a
continuing security and is not discharged by the repayment of the
amount named in the mortgage until the full amount of all advancements
shall have been paid. It operates as a convenience and accommodation to
the borrowers as it makes available additional funds without their having
to execute additional security documents, thereby saving time, travel,
loan closing costs, costs of extra legal services, recording fees, et
cetera. While a real estate mortgage may exceptionally secure future
loans or advancements, these future debts must be sufficiently described
in the mortgage contract. An obligation is not secured by a mortgage
unless it comes fairly within the terms of the mortgage contract.

TRANSCEPT CONSTRUCTION AND MANAGEMENT


PROFESSIONALS, INC. v. TERESA C. AGUILAR
G.R. No. 177556 December 8, 2010

Article 1234 of the Civil Code provides that if the obligation had
been substantially performed in good faith, the obligor may recover as
though there had been a strict and complete fulfillment, less damages
suffered by the obligee.

BANK OF COMMERCE and STEPHEN Z. TAALA v.


SPOUSES ANDRES and ELIZA FLORES
G.R. No. 174006 December 8, 2010

A continuing guaranty is a recognized exception to the rule that an


action to foreclose a mortgage must be limited to the amount mentioned
in the mortgage contract. Under Article 2053 of the Civil Code, a
guaranty may be given to secure even future debts, the amount of which
may not be known at the time the guaranty is executed. This is the basis
for contracts denominated as a continuing guaranty or suretyship. A
continuing guaranty is not limited to a single transaction, but
contemplates a future course of dealing, covering a series of
transactions, generally for an indefinite time or until revoked. It is
prospective in its operation and is generally intended to provide security
with respect to future transactions within certain limits, and
contemplates a succession of liabilities, for which, as they accrue, the
guarantor becomes liable. In other words, a continuing guaranty is one
that covers all transactions, including those arising in the future, which
are within the description or contemplation of the contract of guaranty,
until the expiration or termination thereof.

JOCELYN M. TOLEDO v. MARILOU M. HYDEN


G.R. No. 172139 December 8, 2010

It is true that the imposition of an unconscionable rate of interest


on a money debt is immoral and unjust and the court may come to the aid
of the aggrieved party to that contract. However, before doing so, courts
have to consider the settled principle that the law will not relieve a party
from the effects of an unwise, foolish or disastrous contract if such party
had full awareness of what she was doing.

ENRIQUE AGRAVIADOR y ALUNAN v. ERLINDA AMPARO-


AGRAVIADOR and REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 170729 December 8, 2010

Article 36 of the Family Code contemplates downright incapacity


or inability to assume and fulfill the basic marital obligations, not a mere
refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less, ill will, on the part of the errant
spouse.

ROBERTO D. TUAZON v. LOURDES Q. DEL ROSARIO-SUAREZ,


CATALINA R. SUAREZ-DE LEON, WILFREDO DE LEON, MIGUEL
LUIS S. DE LEON, ROMMEL LEE S. DE LEON, and GUILLERMA L.
SANDICO-SILVA, as attorney-in-fact of the defendants, except
Lourdes Q. Del Rosario-Suarez
G.R. No. 168325 December 8, 2010

In a situation where the lessor makes an offer to sell to the lessee a


certain property at a fixed price within a certain period, and the lessee
fails to accept the offer or to purchase on time, then the lessee loses his
right to buy the property and the owner can validly offer it to another.

FRANCISCO TAYCO, substituted by LUCRESIA TAYCO and NOEL


TAYCO v. HEIRS OF CONCEPCION TAYCO-FLORES, namely:
LUCELI F. DIAZ, RONELE F. BESA, MONELE FLORES, PERLA
FLORES, RUPERTO FLORES, WENCESLAO FLORES, PURISIMA
FLORES, and FELIPE FLORES
G.R. No. 168692 December 13, 2010

Notarization of the deed of extrajudicial settlement has the effect


of making it a public document that can bind third parties. However, this
formal requirement appears to be superseded by the substantive
provision of the Civil Code that states: Every act which is intended to put
an end to indivision among co-heirs and legatees or devisees is deemed
to be a partition, although it should purport to be a sale, an exchange, a
compromise, or any other transaction.

ROXAS & COMPANY, INC. v.


DAMBA-NFSW and the DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM
G.R. No. 149548

DAMAYAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWANG BUKID SA ASYENDA


ROXAS-NATIONAL FEDERATION OF SUGAR WORKERS (DAMBA-
NFSW) v. SECRETARY OF THE DEPT. OF AGRARIAN REFORM,
ROXAS & Co., INC. AND/OR ATTY. MARIANO AMPIL
G.R. No. 167505

KATIPUNAN NG MGA MAGBUBUKID SA HACIENDA ROXAS, INC.


(KAMAHARI), ET. AL v. SECRETARY OF THE DEPT. OF AGRARIAN
REFORM, ROXAS & Co., INC.
G.R. No. 167540

DEPARTMENT OF LAND REFORM, FORMERLY DEPARTMENT OF


AGRARIAN REFORM (DAR) v. ROXAS & CO, INC.
G.R. No. 167543

ROXAS & CO., INC. v. DAMBA-NFSW


G.R. No. 167845

DAMBA-NFSW REPRESENTED BY LAURO V. MARTIN v. ROXAS &


CO., INC.
G.R. No. 169163

DAMBA-NFSW v. ROXAS & CO., INC.


G.R. No. 179650 December 14, 2010

There is no need for the publication and filing of the said DAR
Memorandum Circular with the ONAR as it is merely an administrative
interpretation. Interpretative rule is promulgated by the administrative
agency to interpret, clarify or explain statutory regulations under which
the administrative body operates. The purpose or objective of an
interpretative rule is merely to construe the statute being administered.
It purports to do no more than interpret the statute.

RENATO REYES, represented by RAMON REYES v.


LEOPOLDO BARRIOS, substituted by LUCIA MANALUS-BARRIOS
G.R. No. 172841 December 15, 2010
It was improper for the DARAB to order the issuance of the
Emancipation Patent in favor of respondent without the required
supporting documents and without following the requisite procedure
before an Emancipation Patent may be validly issued.

PCI LEASING AND FINANCE, INC. v. TROJAN METAL


INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED, WALFRIDO DIZON, ELIZABETH
DIZON, and JOHN DOE
G.R. No. 176381 December 15, 2010

In a true financial leasing, a finance company purchases on behalf


of a cash-strapped lessee the equipment the latter wants to buy but, due
to financial limitations, is incapable of doing so. The finance company
then leases the equipment to the lessee in exchange for the latters
periodic payment of a fixed amount of rental.

HEIRS OF DOMINGO VALIENTES v. HON. REINERIO (ABRAHAM)


B. RAMAS, Acting Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 29, 9th Judicial
Region, San Miguel, Zamboanga del Sur and VILMA V. MINOR
G.R. No. 157852 December 15, 2010

Reconveyance is a legal remedy granted to a landowner whose


property has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in anothers
name, which must be filed within ten years from the issuance of the title
since such issuance operates as a constructive notice. Where a party has
neglected to assert his rights over a property in question for an
unreasonably long period, he is estopped from questioning the validity of
another persons title to the property. Long inaction and passivity in
asserting ones rights over a disputed property precludes him from
recovering said property.

SEALOADER SHIPPING CORPORATION v. GRAND CEMENT


MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, JOYCE LAUNCH & TUG CO.,
INC., ROMULO DIANTAN & JOHNNY PONCE
G.R. No. 167363

TAIHEIYO CEMENT PHILIPPINES, INC. (Formerly Grand Cement


Manufacturing Corporation) v. SEALOADER SHIPPING
CORPORATION, JOYCE LAUNCH & TUG CO., INC., ROMULO
DIANTAN & JOHNNY PONCE
G.R. No. 177466 December 15, 2010

The doctrine of last clear chance states that where both parties are
negligent but the negligent act of one is appreciably later than that of the
other, or where it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence
caused the loss, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the
loss but failed to do so, is chargeable with the loss. Stated differently, the
antecedent negligence of plaintiff does not preclude him from recovering
damages caused by the supervening negligence of defendant, who had
the last fair chance to prevent the impending harm by the exercise of due
diligence.

Negligence is defined as the omission to do something which a


reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily
regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of
something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.

Contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the injured party,


contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls
below the standard to which he is required to conform for his own
protection.

AIR FRANCE v. BONIFACIO H. GILLEGO, substituted by his


surviving heirs represented by Dolores P. Gillego
G.R. No. 165266 December 15, 2010

A business intended to serve the travelling public primarily, a


contract of carriage is imbued with public interest. The law governing
common carriers consequently imposes an exacting standard. Article
1735 of the Civil Code provides that in case of lost or damaged goods,
common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted
negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence
as required by Article 1733. Thus, in an action based on a breach of
contract of carriage, the aggrieved party does not have to prove that the
common carrier was at fault or was negligent. All that he has to prove is
the existence of the contract and the fact of its non-performance by the
carrier.

AMELIA P. ARELLANO, represented by her duly appointed


guardians, AGNES P. ARELLANO and NONA P. ARELLANO v.
FRANCISCO PASCUAL and MIGUEL PASCUAL
G.R. No. 189776 December 15, 2010

The term collation has two distinct concepts: first, it is a


mere mathematical operation by the addition of the value of
donations made by the testator to the value of the hereditary
estate; and second, it is the return to the hereditary estate of
property disposed of by lucrative title by the testator during his
lifetime. The purposes of collation are to secure equality among the
compulsory heirs in so far as is possible, and to determine the free
portion, after finding the legitime, so that inofficious donations may
be reduced.

PCI LEASING AND FINANCE, INC. v. TROJAN METAL INDUSTRIES


INCORPORATED, WALFRIDO DIZON, ELIZABETH DIZON, and
JOHN DOE
G.R. No. 176381 , December 15, 2010
In a true financial leasing, whether under RA 5980 or RA 8556, a
finance company purchases on behalf of a cash-strapped lessee the
equipment the latter wants to buy but, due to financial limitations, is
incapable of doing so. The finance company then leases the equipment to
the lessee in exchange for the latters periodic payment of a fixed
amount of rental. In this case, however, TMI already owned the subject
equipment before it transacted with PCILF. Therefore, the transaction
between the parties in this case cannot be deemed to be in the nature of
a financial leasing as defined by law but a simple loan secured by the
various equipment owned by TMI.

JOSE MARQUES, ET AL. v. FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST


COMPANY, ET AL. / FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, ET
AL. v. JOSE MARQUES, ET AL.
G.R. No. 171379/G.R. No. 171419, January 10, 2011

Estoppel by silence arises where a person, who by force of


circumstances is obliged to another to speak, refrains from doing so and
thereby induces the other to believe in the existence of a state of facts in
reliance on which he acts to his prejudice. Silence may support an
estoppel whether the failure to speak is intentional or negligent.

LOADMASTERS CUSTOMS SERVICES, INC. v. GLODEL


BROKERAGE CORPORATION and R&B INSURANCE
CORPORATION
G.R. No. 179446, January 10, 2011.

By the contract of agency a person binds himself to render some


service or to do something in representation or on behalf of another, with
the consent or authority of the latter. The elements of a contract of
agency are: (1) consent, express or implied, of the parties to establish the
relationship; (2) the object is the execution of a juridical act in relation to
a third person; (3) the agent acts as a representative and not for himself;
(4) the agent acts within the scope of his authority.

Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, whenever an employees


negligence causes damage or injury to another, there instantly arises a
presumption that the employer failed to exercise diligentissimi patris
families in the selection or supervision of its employees. To avoid liability
for a quasi-delict committed by its employee, an employer must overcome
the presumption by presenting convincing proof that he exercised the
care and diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and
supervision of his employee.
DURBAN APARTMENTS CORPORATION, doing business under the
name and style of City Garden Hotel v. PIONEER INSURANCE AND
SURETY CORPORATION
G.R. No. 179419, January 12, 2011.

A deposit is constituted from the moment a person receives a thing


belonging to another, with the obligation of safely keeping it and
returning the same. If the safekeeping of the thing delivered is not the
principal purpose of the contract, there is no deposit but some other
contract.

Attorneys fees may be awarded when a party is compelled to


litigate or incur expenses to protect its interest,] or when the court
deems it just and equitable.

HEIRS OF SANTIAGO C. DIVINAGRACIA v. HON. J. CEDRICK O.


RUIZ, Presiding Judge, Branch 39, Regional Trial Court, Iloilo
City; GERRY D. SUMACULUB, as Clerk of Court of the Regional
Trial Court; BOMBO RADYO HOLDINGS, INC., and ROGELIO M.
FLORETE, SR.
G.R. No. 172508, January 12, 2011

The execution of any award for moral and exemplary damages is


dependent on the outcome of the main case. Unlike actual damages for
which the petitioners may clearly be held liable if they breach a specific
contract and the amounts of which are fixed and certain, liabilities with
respect to moral and exemplary damages, as well as the exact amounts,
remain uncertain and indefinite pending resolution by the Intermediate
Appellate Court and eventually the Supreme Court.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROGELIO DOLORIDO y


ESTRADA
G.R. No. 191721, January 12, 2011.

When death occurs due to a crime, the following damages may be


awarded: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2)
actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary
damages; and (5) temperate damages.

LETICIA TAN, MYRNA MEDINA, MARILOU SPOONER,


ROSALINDA TAN, and MARY JANE TAN, MARY LYN TAN,
CELEDONIO TAN, JR., MARY JOY TAN, and MARK ALLAN TAN,
represented herein by their mother v. LETICIA TAN
G.R. No. 190521, January 12, 2011.
Actual damages, to be recoverable, must not only be capable of
proof, but must actually be proved with a reasonable degree of certainty.
To justify an award of actual damages, there must be competent proof of
the actual amount of loss, credence can be given only to claims which are
duly supported by receipts.

As a rule, documentary evidence should be presented to


substantiate the claim for loss of earning capacity. By way of exception,
damages for loss of earning capacity may be awarded despite the
absence of documentary evidence when: (1) the deceased is self-
employed and earning less than the minimum wage under current labor
laws, in which case, judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in the
deceased's line of work, no documentary evidence is available; or (2) the
deceased is employed as a daily wage worker earning less than the
minimum wage under current labor laws.

Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed by way of example


or correction for the public good, in addition to moral, temperate,
liquidated or compensatory damages. In quasi-delicts, exemplary
damages may be granted if the defendant acted with gross negligence.

LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK (BANK) v. ANGELES CATHERINE


ENRIQUEZ
G.R. No. 168646, January 12, 2011

DELTA DEVELOPMENT and MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. v.


ANGELES CATHERINE ENRIQUEZ and LUZON DEVELOPMENT
BANK
G.R. No. 168666

A contract to sell is one where the prospective seller reserves the


transfer of title to the prospective buyer until the happening of an event,
such as full payment of the purchase price. What the seller obliges
himself to do is to sell the subject property only when the entire amount
of the purchase price has already been delivered to him.

A dacion en pago is governed by the law of sales. Contracts of sale


come with warranties, either express or implied under Article 1547 et
seq. of the Civil Code.

BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC. v. GOLDEN POWER DIESEL


SALES CENTREN, INC., ET AL.
G.R. No. 176019. January 12, 2011

A purchaser in a public auction sale of a foreclosed property is


entitled to a writ of possession and, upon an ex parte petition of
the purchaser, it is ministerial upon the trial court to issue the writ of
possession in favor of the purchaser. However, when the foreclosed
property is in the possession of a third party holding the same adversely
to the judgment obligor, the issuance by the trial court of a writ of
possession in favor of the purchaser of said real property ceases to be
ministerial and may no longer be done ex parte. The procedure is for the
trial court to order a hearing to determine the nature of the adverse
possession. For the exception to apply, however, the property need not
only be possessed by a third party, but also held by the third
party adversely to the judgment obligor.

A pending action for annulment of mortgage or foreclosure sale


does not stay the issuance of the writ of possession. The trial court,
where the application for a writ of possession is filed, does not need to
look into the validity of the mortgage or the manner of its
foreclosure. The purchaser is entitled to a writ of possession without
prejudice to the outcome of the pending annulment case.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CARLOS R. VEGA, MARCOS R.


VEGA, ROGELIO R. VEGA, LUBIN R. VEGA, HEIRS OF GLORIA R.
VEGA, NAMELY: FRACISCO L. YAP, MA. WINONA Y. RODRIGUEZ,
MA. WENDELYN V. YAP and FRANCISCO V. YAP, JR.
G. R. No. 177790, January 17, 2011.

Applicants for registration of title must prove the following: (1)


that the subject land forms part of the disposable and alienable lands of
the public domain; and (2) that they have been in open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the land under a
bona fide claim of ownership since 12 June 1945 or earlier. Presently,
aside from a CENRO certification, an application for original registration
of title over a parcel of land must also be accompanied by a copy of the
original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as a
true copy by the legal custodian of the official records in order to
establish that the land indeed is alienable and disposable. The Court,
however, has nonetheless recognized and affirmed applications for land
registration on other substantial and convincing evidence duly presented
without any opposition from the LRA or the DENR on the ground of
substantial compliance.

ROSALINO L. MARABLE v. MYRNA F. MARABL


G.R. No. 178741, January 17, 2011

In cases of annulment of marriage, the psychological illness and its


root cause must be proven to exist from the inception of the marriage.
The root cause of said psychological incapacity must be sufficiently
established and supported by factual bases linked to said illness. It bears
stressing that psychological incapacity must be more than just a
"difficulty," "refusal" or "neglect" in the performance of some marital
obligations. Rather, it is essential that the concerned party was incapable
of doing so, due to some psychological illness existing at the time of the
celebration of the marriage.

SOLEDAD DALTON v. FGR REALTY and DEVELOPMENT


CORPORATION, FELIX NG, NENITA NG, and FLORA R. DAYRIT or
FLORA REGNER
G.R. No. 172577, January 19, 2011
Consignation is the act of depositing the thing due with the court
or judicial authorities whenever the creditor cannot accept or refuses to
accept payment and generally requires a prior tender of payment. In
consignation, the giving of notice to the persons interested in the
performance of the obligation is mandatory. Failure to notify the persons
interested in the performance of the obligation will render the
consignation void.

ALAIN M. DIO v. MA. CARIDAD L. DIO


G.R. No. 178044, January 19, 2011

The Property Relations of parties in a void marriage during the


period of cohabitation is governed by either Article 147 or Article 148 of
the Family Code. The rules on co-ownership apply and the properties of
the spouses should be liquidated in accordance with the Civil Code
provisions on co-ownership and not the Rule on Declaration of Absolute
Nullity of Null Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages.

METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. SPOUSES EDMUND


MIRANDA and JULIE MIRANDA
G.R. No. 187917. January 19, 2011

It has been our consistent ruling that the question of compliance


or non-compliance with notice and publication requirements of an
extrajudicial foreclosure sale is a factual issue, and the resolution thereof
by the trial court is generally binding on this Court. The matter of
sufficiency of posting and publication of a notice of foreclosure sale need
not be resolved by this Court, especially when the findings of the RTC
were sustained by the CA. Well-established is the rule that factual
findings of the CA are conclusive on the parties and carry even more
weight when the said court affirms the factual findings of the trial court.

GONZALO VILLANUEVA, represented by his heirs v.


SPOUSES FROILAN and LEONILA BRANOCO
G.R. No. 172804, January 24, 2011.

A property already irrevocably donated cannot be made subject of


a subsequent sale by the same donor. Accordingly, the buyer in the later
transaction acquired no right over the property.

The 10 year ordinary prescriptive period to acquire title through


possession of real property in the concept of an owner requires
uninterrupted possession coupled with just title and good faith. There is
just title when the adverse claimant came into possession of the property
through one of the modes recognized by law for the acquisition of
ownership or other real rights, but the grantor was not the owner or
could not transmit any right. Good faith, on the other hand, consists in
the reasonable belief that the person from whom the possessor received
the thing was the owner thereof, and could transmit his ownership.
Lacking good faith possession, ones only other recourse to maintain his
claim of ownership by prescription is to show open, continuous and
adverse possession of the Property for 30 years.

CYNTHIA E. YAMBAO v.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES and PATRICIO E. YAMBAO
G.R. No. 184063, January 24, 2011

Article 36 of the Family Code


contemplates incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume
basic marital obligations and not merely difficulty, refusal, or neglect in
the performance of marital obligations or ill will. This incapacity consists
of the following: (a) a true inability to commit oneself to the essentials of
marriage; (b) this inability to commit oneself must refer to the essential
obligations of marriage: the conjugal act, the community of life and love,
the rendering of mutual help, the procreation and education of offspring;
and (c) the inability must be tantamount to a psychological
abnormality. It is not enough to prove that a spouse failed to meet his
responsibility and duty as a married person; it is essential that he must
be shown to be incapable of doing so due to some psychological illness.

IN RE: IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO APPROVE THE


WILL OF RUPERTA PALAGANAS WITH PRAYER FOR THE
APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR, MANUEL MIGUEL
PALAGANAS and BENJAMIN GREGORIO
PALAGANAS v. ERNESTO PALAGANAS
G.R. No. 169144, January 26, 2011

Article 816 of the Civil Code states that the will of an alien who is
abroad produces effect in the Philippines if made in accordance with the
formalities prescribed by the law of the place where he resides, or
according to the formalities observed in his country.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HEMIANO DE JESUS and


RODELO MORALES
G.R. No. 186528, January 26, 2011.

Moral damages must be awarded in cases of murder and homicide,


without need of allegation and proof other than the death of the victim.
Temperate or moderate damages, which are more than nominal but less
than compensatory damages, may be recovered when the court finds that
some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot, from the
nature of the case, be proved with certainty. Exemplary damages as a
part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed
with one or more aggravating circumstances. Such damages are
separate and distinct from fines and shall be paid to the offended party.
AQUINAS SCHOOL v. SPS. JOSE INTON and MA. VICTORIA S.
INTON, on their behalf and on behalf of their minor child, JOSE
LUIS S. INTON, and SR. MARGARITA YAMYAMIN, OP
G.R. No. 184202, January 26, 2011

For an employer to be held liable under Article 2180 of the Civil


Code for the liability of its supposed employee, the employer-employee
relationship between them should first be established.

JOSE REYNALDO B. OCHOSA v. BONA J. ALANO and REPUBLIC OF


THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 167459, January 26, 2011.

Psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b)


juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. The incapacity must be grave
or serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the
ordinary duties required in marriage; it must be rooted in the history of
the party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may
emerge only after marriage; and it must be incurable or, even if it were
otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved.

INTERNATIONAL FREEPORT TRADERS, INC. (IFTI) v.


DANZAS INTERCONTINENTAL, INC.
G.R. No. 181833, January 26, 2011.

Every contract has the elements of (1) consent of the contracting


parties; (2) object certain which is the subject matter of the contract; and
(3) cause of the obligation which is established. A contract is perfected by
mere consent, which is manifested by the meeting of the offer and the
acceptance upon the thing and the cause which are to constitute the
contract.

Generally, contracts undergo three distinct stages: (1) preparation


or negotiation; (2) perfection; and (3) consummation. Negotiation begins
from the time the prospective contracting parties manifest their interest
in the contract and ends at the moment of agreement of the parties. The
perfection or birth of the contract takes place when the parties agree
upon the essential elements of the contract. The last stage is the
consummation of the contract where the parties fulfill or perform the
terms they agreed on, culminating in its extinguishment.

HEIRS OF RAMON C. GAITE, CYNTHIA GOROSTIZA GAITE and


RHOGEN BUILDERS v. THE PLAZA, INC. and FGU INSURANCE
CORPORATION
G.R. No. 177685, January 26, 2011

Reciprocal obligations are those which arise from the same cause,
and in which each party is a debtor and a creditor of the other, such that
the obligation of one is dependent upon the obligation of the other. They
are to be performed simultaneously such that the performance of one is
conditioned upon the simultaneous fulfillment of the other.
Under the principle of quantum meruit, a contractor is allowed to
recover the reasonable value of the thing or services rendered despite
the lack of a written contract, in order to avoid unjust enrichment.

SPS. IRENEO T. FERNANDO (substituted by their heirs, Ronaldo


M. Fernando, Concordia Fernando-Jayme, Esmeralda M. Fernando,
Antonette M. Fernando-Regondola, Ferdinand M. Fernando, and
Jean Marie Fernando-Cansanay), AND MONSERRAT MAGSALIN
FERNANDO v. MARCELINO T. FERNANDO
G.R. No. 191889, January 31, 2011

Where a deed is declared null and void by reason of the forgery of


the signature of one of the parties, it conveys no title; and under Article
1410 of the Civil Code, said deed is subject to attack anytime. The
property registered by virtue of said deed is deemed to be simply held in
trust for the real owner by the person in whose name it is registered.

PEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINES v. AVELINO FELAN


G.R. No. 176631, February 2, 2011.

When either one of the qualifying circumstances of relationship


and minority is omitted or lacking, that which is pleaded in the
information and proved by the evidence may be considered as an
aggravating circumstance. Thus, conformably with Article 2230 of the
Civil Code, which provides that in criminal offenses, exemplary damages
as a part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was
committed with one or more aggravating circumstance, exemplary
damages should be awarded.

MARGARITA F. CASTRO v. NAPOLEON A. MONSOD


G.R. No. 183719, February 2, 2011.

Article 684 of the Civil Code provides that no proprietor shall make
such excavations upon his land as to deprive any adjacent land or
building of sufficient lateral or subjacent support. An owner, by virtue of
his surface right, may make excavations on his land, but his right is
subject to the limitation that he shall not deprive any adjacent land or
building of sufficient lateral or subjacent support. Between two adjacent
landowners, each has an absolute property right to have his land laterally
supported by the soil of his neighbor, and if either, in excavating on his
own premises, he so disturbs the lateral support of his neighbors land as
to cause it, or, in its natural state, by the pressure of its own weight, to
fall away or slide from its position, the one so excavating is liable.

IMMACULATE CONCEPTION ACADEMY (ICA) and the late DR.


PAULO C. CAMPOS substituted by his heirs, DR. JOSE PAULO E.
CAMPOS, ATTY. PAULO E. CAMPOS, JR. and DR. ENRIQUE E.
CAMPOS v. AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE, INC. (AMA)
G.R. No. 173575, February 2, 2011.
Article 1660 of the Civil Code provides that "If a dwelling place or
any other building intended for human habitation is in such a condition
that its use brings imminent and serious danger to life or health, the
lessee may terminate the lease at once by notifying the lessor, even if at
the time the contract was perfected the former knew of the dangerous
condition or waived the right to rescind the lease on account of this
condition." Said provision is evidently intended to protect human lives.
However, it assumes that the defects were irremediable and that the
parties had no agreement for rectifying them.

MANUEL CATINDIG, represented by his legal representative


EMILIANO CATINDIG-RODRIGO v. AURORA IRENE VDA. DE
MENESES

SILVINO ROXAS, SR., represented by FELICISIMA VILLAFUERTE


ROXAS v. COURT OF APPEALS and MENDOZA, JJ. AURORA IRENE
VDA. DE MENESES
G.R. No. 165851, G.R. No. 168875, February 2, 2011

Where the deed of sale states that the purchase price has been
paid but in fact has never been paid, the deed of sale is null and void ab
initio for lack of consideration. Under Article 1471 of the Civil Code, if
the price is simulated, the sale is void.

As against the registered owners and the holder of an unregistered


deed of sale, it is the former who has a better right to possess. The
certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and
incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose name
appears therein. It is conclusive evidence with respect to the ownership
of the land described therein.

SPOUSES LUIGI M. GUANIO and ANNA HERNANDEZ-GUANIO v.


MAKATI SHANGRI-LA HOTEL and RESORT, INC.
G.R. No. 190601, February 7, 2011.

The doctrine of proximate cause is applicable only in actions for


quasi-delicts, not in actions involving breach of contract. The doctrine is
a device for imputing liability to a person where there is no relation
between him and another party.

Breach of contract is defined as the failure without legal reason to


comply with the terms of a contract. It is also defined as the failure,
without legal excuse, to perform any promise which forms the whole or
part of the contract.

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BEN P. MEDRANO


and PRIVATIZATION MANAGEMENT OFFICE [PMO]
G.R. No. 167004, February 7, 2011.
Under Article 1475 of the Civil Code, a contract of sale is perfected
the moment there is a meeting of the minds on the thing which is the
object of the contract and on the price. As a rule, a contract is perfected
upon the meeting of the minds of the two parties, from the moment that
there is a meeting of the offer and the acceptance upon the thing and the
cause that constitute the contract. The law requires that the offer must
be certain and the acceptance absolute and unqualified.

Article 2208 of the Civil Code allows attorney's fees to be awarded


by a court when its claimant is compelled to litigate with third persons or
to incur expenses to protect his interest by reason of an unjustified act or
omission on the part of the party from whom it is sought.

DOLORITA C. BEATINGO v. LILIA BU GASIS


G.R. No. 179641, February 9, 2011.

In a double sale, where the two sales concerning a property were


not duly registered with the Registry of Property, whoever was in
possession of said property had the better right.

In a sale of a property, the execution of a public instrument gives


rise only to a prima facie presumption of delivery. It is deemed negated
by the failure of the vendee to take actual possession of the land sold.

EMILIANA G. PEA, AMELIA C. MAR, and CARMEN REYES v.


SPOUSES ARMANDO TOLENTINO AND LETICIA TOLENTINO
G.R. No. 155227-28, February 9, 2011.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CANDIDO, DEMETILA, JESUS,
ANGELITO, and TERESITA, all surnamed VERGEL DE DIOS
G.R. No. 170459, February 9, 2011.

The reconstitution of a certificate of title denotes restoration in the


original form and condition of a lost or destroyed instrument attesting
the title of a person to a piece of land. The purpose of the reconstitution
of title is to have, after observing the procedures prescribed by law, the
title reproduced in exactly the same way it has been when the loss or
destruction occurred.

SAMUEL U. LEE and PAULINE LEE and ASIATRUST


DEVELOPMENT BANK, INC. v. BANGKOK BANK PUBLIC
COMPANY, LIMITED
G.R. No. 173349, February 9, 2011

Under Article 1387 of the Civil Code, alienations by onerous title


are also presumed fraudulent when made by persons against whom some
judgment has been rendered in any instance or some writ of attachment
has been issued. However, the presumption of fraud does not apply to
registered lands if the judgment or attachment made is not also
registered.
Alienation, connotes transfer of the property and possession of
lands, tenements, or other things, from one person to another. This term
is applied to absolute conveyances of real property and must involve a
complete transfer from one person to another. A mortgage does not
contemplate a transfer or an absolute conveyance of a real property. It is
merely a lien that neither creates a title nor an estate.

The rights of the first mortgage creditor or mortgagee over the


mortgaged properties are superior to those of a subsequent attaching
creditor and other junior mortgagees.

OCEANEERING CONTRACTORS (PHILS), INC. v. NESTOR N.


BARRETTO, doing business as N.N.B. LIGHTERAGE
G.R. No. 184215. February 9, 2011

The rule is long and well settled that there must be pleading and
proof of actual damages suffered for the same to be recovered. In
addition to the fact that the amount of loss must be capable of proof, it
must also be actually proven with a reasonable degree of certainty,
premised upon competent proof or the best evidence obtainable.

CAROLINA HERNANDEZ NIEVERA, ET AL. v. WILFREDO


HERNANDEZ, ET AL.
G.R. No. 171165, February 14, 2011

Thus, it becomes clear that Demetrios special power of attorney


to sell is sufficient to enable him to make a binding commitment under
the DAC in behalf of Carolina and Margarita. In particular, it does
include the authority to extinguish PMRDCs obligation under the MOA
to deliver option money and agree to a more flexible term by agreeing
instead to receive shares of stock in lieu thereof and in consideration of
the assignment and conveyance of the properties to the Asset Pool.
Indeed, the terms of his special power of attorney allow much leeway to
accommodate not only the terms of the MOA but also those of the
subsequent agreement in the DAC which, in this case, necessarily and
consequently has resulted in a novation of PMRDCs integral obligations.

INSURANCE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS CORPORATION v.


SPOUSES VIDAL S. GREGORIO and JULITA GREGORIO
G.R. No. 174104, February 14, 2011

Under the provisions of Article 1146 of the Civil Code, actions


upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff or upon a quasi-delict must be
instituted within four years from the time the cause of action accrued. In
the instant case, the Court agrees with petitioner that the reckoning
period for prescription of petitioner's action should be from the time of
actual discovery of the fraud in 1995. Hence, petitioner's suit for
damages, filed on February 20, 1996, is well within the four-year
prescriptive period.

Neither may the principle of laches apply in the present case. The
essence of laches or stale demands is the failure or neglect for an
unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do that which, by
exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier, thus,
giving rise to a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has
abandoned or declined to assert it. It would be the height of injustice if
respondents would be allowed to go scot-free simply because petitioner
relied in good faith on the former's false representations.

REVELINA LIMSON v. WACK WACK CONDOMINIUM


CORPORATION
G.R. No. 188802. February 14, 2011

CAROLINA HERNANDEZ-NIEVERA, DEMETRIO P. HERNANDEZ,


JR., and MARGARITA H. MALVAR v. WILFREDO HERNANDEZ,
HOME INSURANCE and GUARANTY CORPORATION (HIGC),
PROJECT MOVERS REALTY and DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
(PMRDC), MARIO P. VILLAMOR and LAND BANK
OF THE PHILIPPINES (LBP)
G.R. No. 171165, February 14, 2011

There are two ways which could indicate the presence of novation
and thereby produce the effect of extinguishing an obligation by another
which substitutes the same. The first is when novation has been
explicitly stated and declared in unequivocal terms. The second is when
the old and the new obligations are incompatible on every point. The test
of incompatibility is WHETHER OR NOT the two obligations can stand
together, each one having its independent existence. If they cannot, they
are incompatible, and the latter obligation novates the first. Corollarily,
changes that breed incompatibility must be essential in nature and not
merely accidental. The incompatibility must take place in any of the
essential elements of the obligation such as its object, cause or principal
conditions thereof; otherwise, the change would be merely modificatory
in nature and insufficient to extinguish the original obligation.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROBERTO LOPEZ y CABAL


G.R. No. 188902, February 16, 2011

The rule is that documentary evidence should be presented to


substantiate a claim for loss of earning capacity.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PORFERIO MASAGCA, JR. y


PADILLA
G.R. No. 184922, February 23, 2011

The Court affirms the award of civil indemnity made by the trial
court for each count of rape. Civil indemnity is mandatory when rape is
found to have been committed. Based on prevailing jurisprudence, we
affirm the award of P75,000.00 to the rape victim as civil indemnity for
each count. Moral damages are awarded to rape victims without need of
proof other than the fact of rape, on the assumption that the victim
suffered moral injuries from the experience she underwent.

SPS. MOISES and CLEMENCIA ANDRADA v. PILHINO SALES


CORPORATION, represented by its Branch Manager, JOJO S. SAET
G.R. No. 156448, February 23, 2011

Article 21 of the Civil Code, in conjunction with Article 19 of the


Civil Code, is part of the cause of action known in this jurisdiction as
abuse of rights. The elements of abuse of rights are: (a) there is a legal
right or duty; (b) exercised in bad faith; and (c) for the sole intent of
prejudicing or injuring another.In the instant case, Pilhino had acted in
good faith in bringing Civil Case No. 21,898-93 to annul the deed of sale
involving the Hino truck executed by Jose Andrada, Jr. in favor of Moises
Andrada, considering that Pilhino had believed that the sale in favor of
defendants-appellants had been resorted to so that Jose Andrada might
evade his obligations. Verily, the petitioners did not prove the
concurrence of the elements of abuse of rights.

It is well accepted in this jurisdiction that no premium should be


placed on the right to litigate and that not every winning party is entitled
to an automatic grant of attorneys fees. Herein, the element of bad faith
on the part of Pilhino in commencing and prosecuting Civil Case No.
21,898-93, which was necessary to predicate the lawful grant of
attorneys fees based on Article 2208 (4) of the Civil Code, was not
established. Hence, petitioners are not entitled to attorneys fees.

VICENTE YU CHANG AND SOLEDAD YU CHANG v. REPUBLIC OF


THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 171726, February 23, 2011.

In order that an application for registration of title may be granted,


they must first establish the following: (1) that the subject land forms
part of the disposable and alienable lands of the public domain and (2)
that they have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation of the same under a bona fide claim of
ownership, since June 12, 1945, or earlier. Applicants must overcome the
presumption that the land they are applying for is part of the public
domain and that they have an interest therein sufficient to warrant
registration in their names arising from an imperfect title.

SUPREME TRANSLINER, INC., MOISES C. ALVAREZ v. BPI FAMILY


SAVINGS BANK, INC. / BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC. v.
SUPREME TRANSLINER INC., MOISES C. ALVAREZ AND PAULITA
S. ALVARES
G.R. No. 165617/G.R. No. 165837. February 25, 2011
If mortgagors exercised their right of redemption before the
expiration of the statutory one-year period, the mortgagee is not liable to
pay the capital gains tax due on the extrajudicial foreclosure sale.

SPS. VICENTE DIONISIO and ANITA DIONISIO v. WILFREDO


LINSANGAN
G.R. No. 178159, March 2, 2011

An action is for unlawful detainer if the complaint sufficiently


alleges the following: (1) initially, the defendant has possession of
property by contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff; (2) eventually,
however, such possession became illegal upon plaintiffs notice to
defendant, terminating the latters right of possession; (3) still, the
defendant remains in possession, depriving the plaintiff of the enjoyment
of his property; and (4) within a year from plaintiffs last demand that
defendant vacate the property, the plaintiff files a complaint for
defendants ejectment. If the defendant had possession of the land upon
mere tolerance of the owner, such tolerance must be present at the
beginning of defendants possession.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. TEODORO P. RIZALVO, JR.


G.R. No. 172011, March 7, 2011

Under Section 14 (1), applicants for registration of title must


sufficiently establish first, that the subject land forms part of the
disposable and alienable lands of the public domain; second, that the
applicant and his predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the same; and
third, that it is under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945,
or earlier.

It is jurisprudentially clear that the thirty (30)-year period of


prescription for purposes of acquiring ownership and registration of
public land under Section 14 (2) of P.D. No. 1529 only begins from the
moment the State expressly declares that the public dominion property is
no longer intended for public service or the development of the national
wealth or that the property has been converted into patrimonial.

SPOUSES FERNANDO and ANGELINA EDRALIN v. PHILIPPINE


VETERANS BANK
G.R. No. 168523, March 9, 2011

During the period of redemption, the mortgagee is entitled to a


writ of possession upon depositing the approved bond. When the
redemption period expires without the mortgagor exercising his right of
redemption, the mortgagor is deemed to have lost all interest over the
foreclosed property, and the purchaser acquires absolute ownership of
the property. The issuance by the RTC of a writ of possession in favor of
the respondent in this case is proper. We have consistently held that the
duty of the trial court to grant a writ of possession in such instances is
ministerial, and the court may not exercise discretion or judgment. Thus,
"the remedy of mandamus lies to compel the performance of [this]
ministerial duty."

The elements of pactum commissorium, which enable the


mortgagee to acquire ownership of the mortgaged property without the
need of any foreclosure proceedings, are: (1) there should be a property
mortgaged by way of security for the payment of the principal obligation,
and (2) there should be a stipulation for automatic appropriation by the
creditor of the thing mortgaged in case of non-payment of the principal
obligation within the stipulated period. In the instant case, the second
element is missing to characterize the Deed of Sale as a form of pactum
commissorium. Veterans Bank did not, upon the petitioners default,
automatically acquire or appropriate the mortgaged property for itself.
That Veterans Bank went through all the stages of extrajudicial
foreclosure indicates that there was no pactum commissorium.

The Court has held before that the purchasers right "to request
for the issuance of the writ of possession of the land never prescribes."
"The right to possess a property merely follows the right of ownership,"
and it would be illogical to hold that a person having ownership of a
parcel of land is barred from seeking possession thereof.

PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK v. RAMON VALENZUELA


G.R. No. 163530, March 9, 2011

While Section 108 of PD No. 1529 authorizes a person in interest


to ask the court for any erasure, alteration, or amendment of a certificate
of title or of any memorandum appearing therein, the prevailing rule is
that proceedings thereunder are summary in nature, contemplating
corrections or insertions of mistakes which are only clerical but certainly
not controversial issues. Relief under the said legal provision can only be
granted if there is unanimity among the parties, or that there is no
adverse claim or serious objection on the part of any party in interest.
In the present case, there is no question that there is a serious objection
and an adverse claim on the part of an interested party as shown by
respondent's opposition and motion to dismiss the petition for correction
of entry filed by petitioner. Thus, petitioner may not avail of the remedy
provided for under Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529.

CORNELIA M. HERNANDEZ v. CECILIO F. HERNANDEZ


G.R. No. 158576, March 9, 2011

Quitclaims are also contracts and can be voided if there was fraud
or intimidation that leads to lack of consent. The preparation by Cecilio of
the receipt and quitclaim document which he asked Cornelia to sign,
indicate that even Cecilio doubted that he could validly claim 83.07% of
the price of Cornelias land. Based on the attending circumstances, the
receipt and quitclaim document is an act of fraud perpetuated by Cecilio.
Very clearly, both the service contract and the later receipt and quitclaim
document, the first vitiated by mistake and the second being fraudulent,
are void.

Cecilio breached an obligation that is neither a loan nor


forbearance of money. The decision of the lower court ordering Cecilio to
pay the amount of P6,189,417.60 to Cornelia at 12% per annum until
fully paid should be modified to 6% per annum from the time of the filing
of the complaint up to the date of the decision, and at 12% per annum
from finality until fully paid

FILIPINAS SYNTHETIC FIBER CORPORATION v. WILFREDO DE


LOS SANTOS, et al
G.R. No. 152033, March 16, 2011

Under the New Civil Code, unless there is proof to the contrary, it
is presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at
the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation.
Apparently, in the present case, Mejia's violation of the traffic rules does
not erase the presumption that he was the one negligent at the time of
the collision. The allowed rate of speed for Mejia's vehicle was 50
kilometers per hour, while the records show that he was driving at the
speed of 70 kilometers per hour. The Court is then convinced that
defendant Mejia was running real fast along EDSA when he saw a vehicle
on the opposite side suddenly turn left towards White Plains.

Under Article 2180 of the New Civil Code, when an injury is


caused by the negligence of the employee, there instantly arises a
presumption of law that there was negligence on the part of the master
or employer either in the selection of the servant or employee, or in
supervision over him after selection or both. The liability of the employer
under Article 2180 is direct and immediate; it is not conditioned upon
prior recourse against the negligent employee and a prior showing of the
insolvency of such employee. In view of the absence of sufficient proof of
its exercise of due diligence, Filsyn cannot escape its solidary liability as
the owner of the wayward bus and the employer of the negligent driver of
the wayward bus.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JUANITO MANIMTIM, et al.


G.R. No. 169599, March 16, 2011

Based on these legal parameters, applicants for registration of title


under Section 14(1) must sufficiently establish: (1) that the subject land
forms part of the disposable and alienable lands of the public domain; (2)
that the applicant and his predecessors-in-interest have been in open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the
same; and (3) that it is under a bona fide claim of ownership since June
12, 1945, or earlier. In the case at bench, the respondents failed to
establish that the subject lots were disposable and alienable lands.
Likewise, the records failed to show that the respondents by themselves
or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, exclusive,
continuous, and notorious possession and occupation of the subject lands,
under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier.

Well settled is the rule that tax declarations and receipts are not
conclusive evidence of ownership or of the right to possess land when not
supported by any other evidence. The fact that the disputed property may
have been declared for taxation purposes in the names of the applicants
for registration or of their predecessors-in-interest does not necessarily
prove ownership. They are merely indicia of a claim of ownership.

VENANCIO GIVERO, et. alv. MAXIMO GIVERO and LORETO


GIVERO
G.R. No. 157476, March 16, 2011

The fact that it was Severina who actually conveyed the properties
to the said heirs of Rufino does not in anyway contradict the fact that the
partition was actually made by Teodorico prior to his demise. The basis of
their ownership to the property is indubitably the right vested on their
said predecessor-in-interest at the time of Teodoricos death. The
existence of the Deed of Donation is evidently a mere surplusage which
does not affect the right of Rufinos heirs to the property.

UNION LEAF TOBACCO CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS


PRESIDENT MR. HILARION P. UY v. REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 185683, March 16, 2011

Advance Plans and Consolidated Plans are hardly the competent


pieces of evidence that the law requires. The notation by a geodetic
engineer on the survey plans that properties are alienable and disposable
does not suffice to prove these lands classification. The applicant for
registration must present a copy of the original classification approved by
the DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of
the official records. These facts must be established to prove that the
land is alienable and disposable.

METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. MARINA B.


CUSTODIO
G.R. No. 173780, March 21, 2011

The Court is not sufficiently convinced that petitioner Metrobank


has introduced a preponderance of circumstantial evidence to show that
respondent Custodio was liable for the missing bundles of cash worth
PhP600,000. There is nothing on record that will show that there were
any missing bundles of one-thousand-peso and five-hundred-peso bills
when respondent Custodio turned over the funds to the cash custodian,
Ms. Marinel Castro. Further, considering the failure of the cash custodian
and the security guard to abide by the procedural safeguards, petitioner
bank is now left to find other evidence to determine the person liable for
the cash shortage.
BETTY B. LACBAYAN v. BAYANI S. SAMOY, JR.
G.R. No. 165427, March 21, 2011

The determination as to the existence of co-ownership is necessary


in the resolution of an action for partition. As the Court held in the case
of Municipality of Bian v. Garcia, the first phase of a partition and/or
accounting suit is taken up with the determination of WHETHER OR NOT
or not a co-ownership in fact exists, and a partition is proper (i.e., not
otherwise legally proscribed) and may be made by voluntary agreement
of all the parties interested in the property.

There is no dispute that a Torrens certificate of title cannot be


collaterally attacked, but that rule is not material to the case at bar. What
cannot be collaterally attacked is the certificate of title and not the title
itself. Title as a concept of ownership should not be confused with the
certificate of title as evidence of such ownership although both are
interchangeably used. Moreover, placing a parcel of land under the
mantle of the Torrens system does not mean that ownership thereof can
no longer be disputed. Ownership is different from a certificate of title,
the latter only serving as the best proof of ownership over a piece of land.
The certificate cannot always be considered as conclusive evidence of
ownership.

RURAL BANK OF TOBOSO, INC. (now UCPB Savings Bank) v.


JEAN VENIEGAS AGTOTO
G.R. No. 175697, March 23, 2011
JEAN VENIEGAS AGTOTO v. RURAL BANK OF TOBOSO, INC. and
ANTONIO ARBIS
G.R. No. 176103

The foreclosure sale covering the land was valid, notwithstanding


the chattel mortgage that covered the P69,432.00 portion of the loan of
P130,500.00. The chattel mortgage was a contract distinct from the real
estate mortgage, which latter mortgage covered the separate amount of
P61,068.00. Thus, the Bank had no right to include in the foreclosure of
the land the portion of the loan separately secured by the chattel
mortgage.

Forbearance of money refers to the obligation of the creditor to


desist for a fixed period from requiring the debtor to repay the debt then
due and for which 12% per annum is imposed as interest rate. Such
interest should, however, be computed only from the time the CA
rendered its decision on October 27, 2005 when it determined with
reasonable certainty the amount of the surplus proceeds the Bank has to
return to Agtoto.
STAR TWO (SPV-AMC), INC. v. HOWARD KO, MIN MIN SEE KO,
JIMMY ONG, and GRACE NG ONG
G.R. No. 185454, March 23, 2011

Respondents acted as sureties under the Comprehensive Surety


Agreement to secure the obligations of Jianshe to RCBC. A contract of
suretyship is an agreement whereby a party, called the surety, guarantees
the performance by another party, called the principal or obligor, of an
obligation or undertaking in favor of another party, called the obligee.
Pursuant to Article 2054 of the Civil Code that "a guarantor or surety
may bind himself for less, but not for more than the principal debtor, both
as regards the amount and the onerous nature of the conditions,"
respondents limited their liability to P50 M, which is less than Jianshes
liability to RCBC. Howard Ko then complied with his obligations and
made payments to RCBC through the different modes.

JOSEFA S. ABALOS* AND THE DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE


PHILIPPINES v. SPS. LOMANTONG DARAPA and Sinab Dimakuta
G.R. No. 164693, March 23, 2011

The land covered by TCT No. T-1,997 was not among the
properties, the spouses mortgaged with the DBP in 1962. As such, the
foreclosure made by DBP over the subject land was null and void.

The DBPs annotation that the property originally covered by Tax


Declaration No. A-148 is now covered by TCT No. T-1,997 is neither the
deed nor the instrument referred to by Sections 60 and 61 of the above
quoted law and such annotation will in no way change the fact that the
two documents refer to different lands: one, which was indeed a subject
of the mortgage contract; and two, which Dimakuta had delivered to DBP
in 1970 supposedly for another loan, but, which was, however,
disapproved.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RUEL VELARDE alias DOLOY


BELARDE
G.R. No. 182550, March 23, 2011

Civil indemnity is mandatory when rape is found to have been


committed. Moral damages are awarded to rape victims without need of
proof other than the fact of rape, on the assumption that the victim
suffered moral injuries from the experience she underwent. The award of
exemplary damages is justified under Article 2229 of the Civil Code to set
a public example and serve as a deterrent against elders who abuse and
corrupt the youth.

ANITA MONASTERIO-PE and the SPOUSES ROMULO TAN and


EDITHA PE-TAN v. JOSE JUAN TONG, herein represented by his
Attorney-in-Fact, JOSE Y. ONG,
G.R. No. 151369, March 23, 2011
Article 1498 of the Civil Code provides that when the sale is made
through a public instrument, the execution thereof shall be equivalent to
the delivery of the thing which is the object of the contract, if from the
deed the contrary does not appear or cannot clearly be inferred. In the
instant case, petitioners failed to present any evidence to show that they
had no intention of delivering the subject lots to respondent when they
executed the said deed of sale. Hence, petitioners' execution of the deed
of sale is tantamount to a delivery of the subject lots to respondent.

ROSA DELOS REYES v. SPOUSES FRANCISCO ODONES and


ARWENIA ODONES, et al
G.R. No. 178096, March 23, 2011

In forcible entry cases, the prescriptive period is counted from the


date of defendants actual entry into the property; whereas, in unlawful
detainer cases, it is counted from the date of the last demand to vacate.
Hence, to determine WHETHER OR NOT the case was filed on time,
there is a necessity to ascertain WHETHER OR NOT the complaint is one
for forcible entry or for unlawful detainer; and since the main distinction
between the two actions is when and how defendant entered the
property, the determinative facts should be alleged in the complaint.

ROLANDO T. CATUNGAL, et al v. ANGEL S. RODRIGUEZ


G.R. No. 146839, March 23, 2011

Art. 1182 of the Civil Code provides: When the fulfilment of the
condition depends upon the sole will of the debtor, the conditional
obligation shall be void. If it depends upon chance or upon the will of a
third person, the obligation shall take effect in conformity with the
provisions of this Code.

This Court has distinguished between a condition imposed on the


perfection of a contract and a condition imposed merely on the
performance of an obligation. While failure to comply with the first
condition results in the failure of a contract, failure to comply with the
second merely gives the other party the option to either refuse to
proceed with the sale or to waive the condition.

Article 1545 of the Civil Code on sales provides: Where the


obligation of either party to a contract of sale is subject to any condition
which is not performed, such party may refuse to proceed with the
contract or he may waive performance of the condition x x x.

Article 1374 of the Civil Code provides that "[t]he various


stipulations of a contract shall be interpreted together, attributing to the
doubtful ones that sense which may result from all of them taken jointly."
The same Code further sets down the rule that "[i]f some stipulation of
any contract should admit of several meanings, it shall be understood as
bearing that import which is most adequate to render it effectual."
GRANDTEQ INDUSTRIAL STEEL PRODUCTS, INC., et al v.
ANNALIZA M. ESTRELLA
G.R. No. 192416, March 23, 2011

A corporation, being a juridical entity, may act only through its


directors, officers and employees. Obligations incurred by them, acting as
such corporate agents, are not theirs but the direct accountabilities of
the corporation they represent. True, solidary liabilities may at times be
incurred but only when exceptional circumstances warrant such as,
generally, in the following cases: (1) When directors and trustees or, in
appropriate cases, the officers of a corporation (a) vote for or assent to
patently unlawful acts of the corporation; (b) act in bad faith or with
gross negligence in directing the corporate affairs.

In the instant case, there is no indication that Estrellas dismissal


was effected with malice or bad faith on the part of Grandteqs officers.
Their liability for Estrellas illegal dismissal, the consequential monetary
award arising from such dismissal and the other money claims awarded
in the LAs decision, as correctly affirmed by the CA, could thus only be
joint, not solidary.

SPOUSES HERMES P. OCHOA and ARACELI D. OCHOA v. CHINA


BANKING CORPORATION
G.R. No. 192877. March 23, 2011

The exclusive venue of Makati City, as stipulated by the parties and


sanctioned by Section 4, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, cannot be made to
apply to the Petition for Extrajudicial Foreclosure filed by respondent
bank because the provisions of Rule 4 pertain to venue of actions, which
an extrajudicial foreclosure is not.

ESTRELLITA JULIANO-LLAVE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,


HAJA PUTRI ZORAYDA A. TAMANO and ADIB AHMAD A. TAMANO
G.R. No. 169766, March 30, 2011

The marriage between the late Sen. Tamano and Zorayda was
celebrated in 1958, solemnized under civil and Muslim rites. The only law
in force governing marriage relationships between Muslims and non-
Muslims alike was the Civil Code of 1950, under the provisions of which
only one marriage can exist at any given time. Sen. Tamanos prior
marriage to Zorayda has been severed by way of divorce under PD 1083,
the law that codified Muslim personal laws. However, PD 1083 cannot
benefit Estrellita. In view of Sen. Tamanos prior marriage which
subsisted at the time Estrellita married him, their subsequent marriage is
correctly adjudged by the CA as void ab initio.

Zorayda and Adib, as the injured parties, have the legal


personalities to file the declaration of nullity of marriage. A.M. No. 02-11-
10-SC, which limits to only the husband or the wife the filing of a petition
for nullity is prospective in application and does not shut out the prior
spouse from filing suit if the ground is a bigamous subsequent marriage.

LOTTO RESTAURANT CORPORATION v. BPI FAMILY SAVINGS


BANK, INC.
G.R. No. 177260, March 30, 2011

The Court has previously upheld as valid the proviso in loans that
the interest rate would be made to depend on the prevailing market rate.
Such provision does not signify an automatic increase in the interest. It
simply means that the bank may adjust the interest according to the
prevailing market rate. This may result to either an increase or a
decrease in the interest.

The Court held in Equitable PCI Bank, Inc. v. OJ-Mark Trading,


Inc. that foreclosure is but a necessary consequence of non-payment of
mortgage indebtedness. The creditor-mortgagee has the right to
foreclose the mortgage, sell the property, and apply the proceeds of the
sale to the satisfaction of the unpaid loan. The records show that Lotto
defaulted in its obligation when it unjustifiably stopped paying its
amortizations after the first year. Consequently, there is no question that
BPI (which succeeded DBS) had a clear right to foreclose on Lottos
collateral.

RICHARD JUAN v. GABRIEL YAP, SR.


G.R. No. 182177, March 30, 2011

Under the general principles on trust, equity converts the holder of


property right as trustee for the benefit of another if the circumstances of
its acquisition makes the holder ineligible in x x x good conscience to
hold and enjoy it. This Court recognized unconventional implied trusts
in contracts involving the purchase of housing units by officers of
tenants associations in breach of their obligations, the partitioning of
realty contrary to the terms of a compromise agreement, and the
execution of a sales contract indicating a buyer distinct from the provider
of the purchase money. In all these cases, the formal holders of title were
deemed trustees obliged to transfer title to the beneficiaries in whose
favor the trusts were deemed created. We see no reason to bar the
recognition of the same obligation in a mortgage contract meeting the
standards for the creation of an implied trust.

MARIA LOURDES TAMANI, CONCEPCION TAMANI, ESTRELLA


TAMANI, TERESITA TAMANI, AZUCENA SOLEDAD, DOLORES
GUERRERO, CRISTINA TUGADE DAMIETA MANSAANG, MANUEL
TAMANI, VALERIANA CASTRO, AURORA SANTIAGO and ROSARIO
CASTILLO v. ROMAN SALVADOR and FILOMENA BRAVO
G.R. No. 171497 April 4, 2011
A purchaser in good faith is one who buys the property of another,
without notice that some other person has a right to, or interest in, such
property, and pays the full and fair price for it at the time of such
purchase or before he has notice of the claim or interest of some other
persons in the property. He buys the property with the belief that the
person from whom he receives the thing was the owner and could convey
title to the property. He cannot close his eyes to facts that should put a
reasonable man on his guard and still claim he acted in good faith.

LAND BANK OF THEPHILIPPINES v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN


REFORM and METRACO TELE-HYGIENIC SERVICES
CORPORATION
G.R. No. 171840 April 4, 2011

We must stress, at this juncture, that the taking of private lands


under the agrarian reform program partakes of the nature of an
expropriation proceeding. In a number of cases, we have stated that just
compensation in expropriation proceedings represents the full and fair
equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator. The
measure is not the takers gain, but the owners loss. To compensate is
to render something which is equal in value to that taken or received.

DOMINGO CARABEO s. SPOUSES NORBERTO and SUSAN


DINGCO
G.R. No. 190823 April 4, 2011

The requirement that a sale must have for its object a determinate
thing is satisfied as long as, at the time the contract is entered into, the
object of the sale is capable of being made determinate without the
necessity of a new or further agreement between the parties.

RICARDO B. BANGAYAN v.
RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION AND PHILIP
SARIA
G.R. No. 149193 April 4, 2011

The mere absence of notarization does not necessarily render the


Surety Agreement invalid. Notarization of a private document converts
the document into a public one, renders it admissible in court without
further proof of its authenticity, and is entitled to full faith and credit
upon its face. However, the irregular notarization or, for that matter,
the lack of notarization does not necessarily affect the validity of the
contract reflected in the document.

Under Articles 2199 and 2200 of the Civil Code, actual or


compensatory damages are those awarded in satisfaction of or in
recompense for loss or injury sustained. They proceed from a sense of
natural justice and are designed to repair the wrong that has been done.
RODOLFO N. REGALA v. FEDERICO P. CARIN
G.R. No. 188715 April 6, 2011

In prayers for moral damages, however, recovery is more an


exception rather than the rule. Moral damages are not meant to be
punitive but are designed to compensate and alleviate the physical
suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation,
wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar harm
unjustly caused to a person. To be entitled to such an award, the
claimant must satisfactorily prove that he has suffered damages and that
the injury causing it has sprung from any of the cases listed in Articles
2219 and 2220 of the Civil Code. Moreover, the damages must be shown
to be the proximate result of a wrongful act or omission. The claimant
must thus establish the factual basis of the damages and its causal tie
with the acts of the defendant.

JOE A. ROS and ESTRELLA AGUETE v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL


BANK - LAOAG BRANCH
G.R. No. 170166 April 6, 2011

The husband cannot alienate or encumber any conjugal real


property without the consent, express or implied, of the wife. Should the
husband do so, then the contract is voidable.

If the husband himself is the principal obligor in the contract, i.e.,


he directly received the money and services to be used in or for his own
business or his own profession, that contract falls within the term
obligations for the benefit of the conjugal partnership. Here, no actual
benefit may be proved. It is enough that the benefit to the family is
apparent at the signing of the contract. From the very nature of the
contract of loan or services, the family stands to benefit from the loan
facility or services to be rendered to the business or profession of the
husband. It is immaterial, if in the end, his business or profession fails or
does not succeed. Simply stated, where the husband contracts
obligations on behalf of the family business, the law presumes, and
rightly so, that such obligation will redound to the benefit of the conjugal
partnership.

ENRICO SANTOS v. NATIONAL STATISTICS OFFICE


G.R. No. 171129 April 6, 2011

The rule on estoppel against tenants is subject to a qualification. It


does not apply if the landlords title has expired, or has been conveyed to
another, or has been defeated by a title paramount, subsequent to the
commencement of lessor-lessee relationship. In other words, if there was
a change in the nature of the title of the landlord during the subsistence
of the lease, then the presumption does not apply. Otherwise, if the
nature of the landlords title remains as it was during the
commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant, then estoppel lies
against the tenant.
ELENITA M. DEWARA, represented by her Attorney-in-Fact,
FERDINAND MAGALLANES v. SPOUSES RONNIE AND GINA
LAMELA and STENILE ALVERO
G.R. No. 179010 April 11, 2011

All property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal


partnership, unless it be proved that it pertains exclusively to the
husband or to the wife. Registration in the name of the husband or the
wife alone does not destroy this presumption. The separation-in-fact
between the husband and the wife without judicial approval shall not
affect the conjugal partnership. The lot retains its conjugal
nature. Moreover, the presumption of conjugal ownership applies even
when the manner in which the property was acquired does not appear.
The use of the conjugal funds is not an essential requirement for the
presumption to arise.

Gross inadequacy of the price does not affect a contract of sale,


except as it may indicate a defect in the consent, or that the parties really
intended a donation or some other act or contract.

Under Art. 163, the payment of debts contracted by the husband or


the wife before the marriage shall not be charged to the conjugal
partnership. Neither shall the fines and pecuniary indemnities imposed
upon them be charged to the partnership. However, the payment of debts
contracted by the husband or the wife before the marriage, and that
of fines and indemnities imposed upon them, may be enforced against the
partnership assets after the responsibilities enumerated in Article 161
have been covered, if the spouse who is bound should have no exclusive
property or if it should be insufficient; but at the time of the liquidation of
the partnership such spouse shall be charged for what has been paid for
the purposes above-mentioned.

SERVILLANO E. ABAD v. OSCAR C. FARRALES AND DAISY C.


FARRALES-VILLAMAYOR
G.R. No. 178635, April 11, 2011

Possession in forcible entry cases means nothing more than


physical possession or possession de facto, not legal possession in the
sense contemplated in civil law. Only prior physical possession, not title,
is the issue.

JOSE MIGUEL ANTON v. SPOUSES ERNESTO OLIVA AND


CORAZON OLIVA AS SUBSTITUTED BY HER LEGAL HEIRS,
NAMELY: GRAZIELA MARIE COLLANTES, GRETEL ELAINE DING,
GLADYS MIRIAM OLIVA, GEOFFREY JOSEPH OLIVA AND
GLYNNIS CARMEN CALPOTURA
G.R. No. 182563, April 11, 2011

Since the Olivas were mere creditors, not partners, they had no
right to demand that the Antons make an accounting of the money loaned
out to them. Still, the Olivas were entitled to know from the Antons how
much net profits the three stores were making annually since the Olivas
were entitled to certain percentages of those profits.

CRISPIN DICHOSO, JR., EVELYN DICHOSO VALDEZ, AND


ROSEMARIE DICHOSO PE BENITO v. PATROCINIO L. MARCOS
G.R. No. 180282, April 11, 2011

To be entitled to an easement of right of way, the following


requisites should be met: (1) The dominant estate is surrounded by other
immovables and has no adequate outlet to a public highway; (2) There is
payment of proper indemnity; (3) The isolation is not due to the acts of
the proprietor of the dominant estate; and (4)The right of way claimed is
at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate; and insofar as
consistent with this rule, where the distance from the dominant estate to
a public highway may be the shortest.

ARTURO SARTE FLORES v. SPOUSES ENRICO L. LINDO, JR.


and EDNA C. LINDO
G.R. No. 183984, April 13, 2011

A mortgage-creditor has a single cause of action against a


mortgagor-debtor, that is, to recover the debt. The mortgage-creditor has
the option of either filing a personal action for collection of sum of money
or instituting a real action to foreclose on the mortgage security. An
election of the first bars recourse to the second, otherwise there would
be multiplicity of suits in which the debtor would be tossed from one
venue to another depending on the location of the mortgaged properties
and the residence of the parties.

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. MERELO B. AZNAR; MATIAS B.


AZNAR III; JOSE L. AZNAR (deceased), represented by his heirs;
RAMON A. BARCENILLA; ROSARIO T. BARCENILLA; JOSE B.
ENAD (deceased), represented by his heirs; and RICARDO
GABUYA (deceased), represented by his heirs.
G.R. No. 171805

MERELO B. AZNAR and MATIAS B. AZNAR III v. PHILIPPINE


NATIONAL BANK
G.R. No. 172021 May 30, 2011

Trust is the right to the beneficial enjoyment of property, the legal


title to which is vested in another. It is a fiduciary relationship that
obliges the trustee to deal with the property for the benefit of the
beneficiary. Trust relations between parties may either be express or
implied. An express trust is created by the intention of the trustor or of
the parties. An implied trust comes into being by operation of law.
Express trusts, sometimes referred to as direct trusts, are intentionally
created by the direct and positive acts of the settlor or the trustor - by
some writing, deed, or will or oral declaration. It is created not
necessarily by some written words, but by the direct and positive acts of
the parties. This is in consonance with Article 1444 of the Civil Code,
which states that no particular words are required for the creation of an
express trust, it being sufficient that a trust is clearly intended. In other
words, the creation of an express trust must be manifested with
reasonable certainty and cannot be inferred from loose and vague
declarations or from ambiguous circumstances susceptible of other
interpretations.

ESTATE OF PASTOR M. SAMSON, represented by his heir


ROLANDO B. SAMSON v. MERCEDES R. SUSANO and NORBERTO
R. SUSANO
G.R. No. 179024

JULIAN C. CHAN v. MERCEDES R. SUSANO and NORBERTO R.


SUSANO
G.R. No. 179086 May 30, 2011

For a tenancy relationship to exist between the parties, the


following essential elements must be shown: (1) the parties are the
landowner and the tenant; (2) the subject matter is agricultural land; (3)
there is consent between the parties; (4) the purpose is agricultural
production; (5) there is personal cultivation by the tenant; and (6) there
is sharing of the harvests between the parties. The presence of all of
these elements must be proved by substantial evidence.

VALLACAR TRANSIT, INC. v. JOCELYN CATUBIG


G.R. No. 175512 May 30, 2011

The presumption that employers are negligent under Article 2180


of the Civil Code flows from the negligence of their employees. Having
adjudged that the immediate and proximate cause of the collision
resulting in Catubigs death was his own negligence, and there was no
fault or negligence on Cabanillas part, then such presumption of fault or
negligence on the part of petitioner, as Cabanillas employer, does not
even arise. Thus, it is not even necessary to delve into the defense of
petitioner that it exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision
of Cabanilla as its employee driver.

HEIRS OF FELICIDAD VDA. DE DELA CRUZ v. HEIRS OF PEDRO T.


FAJARDO
G.R. No. 184966 May 30, 2011

A compromise agreement is final and executory. Such a final and


executory judgment cannot be modified or amended. If an amendment is
to be made, it may consist only of supplying an omission, or striking out a
superfluity or interpreting an ambiguous phrase therein in relation to the
body of the decision which gives it life.

ROSALIA N. ESPINO v. SPOUSES SHARON SAMPANI BULUT and


CELEBI BULUT
G.R. No. 183811 May 30, 2011
The certificate of title, by itself, does not vest ownership; it is
merely an evidence of title over a particular property.

In order that moral damages may be awarded, there must be


pleading and proof of moral suffering, mental anguish, fright and the like.
While respondents alleged sleepless nights and mental anguish in their
petition for relief, they failed to prove them during the trial. Mere
allegations do not suffice. They must be substantiated.

An award of attorneys fees is an exception and there must be


some compelling legal reason to bring the case within the exception and
justify the award.

PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK v. SPOUSES ALFREDO M. CASTILLO


AND ELIZABETH C. CASTILLO, and SPOUSES ROMEO B. CAPATI
and AQUILINA M. LOBO
G.R. No. 193178 May 30, 2011

The unilateral determination and imposition of the increased rates


is violative of the principle of mutuality of contracts under Article 1308 of
the Civil Code, which provides that the contract must bind both
contracting parties; its validity or compliance cannot be left to the will of
one of them. A perusal of the Promissory Note will readily show that the
increase or decrease of interest rates hinges solely on the discretion of
petitioner. It does not require the conformity of the maker before a new
interest rate could be enforced. Any contract which appears to be
heavily weighed in favor of one of the parties so as to lead to an
unconscionable result, thus partaking of the nature of a contract of
adhesion, is void. Any stipulation regarding the validity or compliance of
the contract left solely to the will of one of the parties is likewise invalid.

Moral damages are not recoverable simply because a contract has


been breached. They are recoverable only if the party from whom it is
claimed acted fraudulently or in bad faith or in wanton disregard of his
contractual obligations. The breach must be wanton, reckless, malicious
or in bad faith, and oppressive or abusive. Likewise, a breach of contract
may give rise to exemplary damages only if the guilty party acted in a
fraudulent or malevolent manner.

MILA A. REYES v. VICTORIA T. TUPARAN


G.R. No. 188064 June 1, 2011

A Contract to Sell may not be considered as a Contract of Sale


because the first essential element is lacking. In a contract to sell, the
prospective seller explicitly reserves the transfer of title to the
prospective buyer, meaning, the prospective seller does not as yet agree
or consent to transfer ownership of the property subject of the contract
to sell until the happening of an event, which for present purposes we
shall take as the full payment of the purchase price. What the seller
agrees or obliges himself to do is to fulfill his promise to sell the subject
property when the entire amount of the purchase price is delivered to
him. In other words, the full payment of the purchase price partakes of a
suspensive condition, the non-fulfillment of which prevents the obligation
to sell from arising and, thus, ownership is retained by the prospective
seller without further remedies by the prospective buyer.

AURORA L. TECSON, SPOUSES JOSE L. TECSON and LEONILA


TECSON v. MINERVA, MARIA, FRANCISCO, AGUSTINA, JOSE,
ROMUALDO, ELIZABETH and VICTOR, all surnamed FAUSTO, and
ISABEL VDA. DE FAUSTO
G.R. No. 180683 June 1, 2011

Under Article 485, the portions belonging to the co-owners in the


co-ownership shall be presumed equal, unless the contrary is proved.

DANILO A. AURELIO v. VIDA MA. CORAZON P. AURELIO


G.R. No. 175367 June 6, 2011

Each case involving the application of Article 36 must be treated


distinctly and judged not on the basis of a priori assumptions,
predilections or generalizations but according to its own attendant facts.
Courts should interpret the provision on a case-to-case basis, guided by
experience, the findings of experts and researchers in psychological
disciplines, and by decisions of church tribunals.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NESTOR GALANG


G.R. No. 168335 June 6, 2011

Psychological incapacity must be more than just a "difficulty,"


"refusal" or "neglect" in the performance of some marital obligations. It
is not enough to prove that a spouse failed to meet his responsibility
and duty as a married person; it is essential that he or she must be
shown to be incapable of doing so because of some psychological, not
physical, illness. In other words, proof of a natal or supervening disabling
factor in the person an adverse integral element in the personality
structure that effectively incapacitates the person from really accepting
and thereby complying with the obligations essential to marriage had to
be shown. A cause has to be shown and linked with the manifestations of
the psychological incapacity.

JAPRL DEVELOPMENT CORP., PETER RAFAEL C. LIMSON AND


JOSE UY AROLLADO v. SECURITY BANK CORPORATION
G.R. NO. 190107 JUNE 6, 2011

A creditor can demand payment from the surety solidarily liable


with the corporation seeking rehabilitation, it being not included in the
list of stayed claims.

DR. RUBI LI v. SPOUSES REYNALDO and LINA SOLIMAN, as


parents/heirs of deceased Angelica Soliman
G.R. No. 165279 June 7, 2011
There are four essential elements a plaintiff must prove in a
malpractice action based upon the doctrine of informed consent: (1) the
physician had a duty to disclose material risks; (2) he failed to disclose or
inadequately disclosed those risks; (3) as a direct and proximate result of
the failure to disclose, the patient consented to treatment she otherwise
would not have consented to; and (4) plaintiff was injured by the
proposed treatment. The gravamen in an informed consent case
requires the plaintiff to point to significant undisclosed information
relating to the treatment which would have altered her decision to
undergo it.

NATIVIDAD STA. ANA VICTORIA v. REPUBLIC OF THE


PHILIPPINES
G.R. NO. 179673 JUNE 8, 2011

Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree has three


requisites for registration of title: (a) that the property in question is
alienable and disposable land of the public domain; (b) that the
applicants by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have
been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and
occupation; and (c) that such possession is under a bona fide claim of
ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier.

SPOUSES JUANITO MAHUSAY and FRANCISCA MAHUSAY v. B.E.


SAN DIEGO, INC.
G.R. No. 179675 June 8, 2011

The instant case is a sale of real property where the purchase price
is not paid in full. The unpaid sellers remedy is either an action to
collect the balance or to rescind the contract within the time allowed by
law. Since rescission is no longer an option considering that petitioners
have been in possession of the properties for a considerable period of
time, substantial justice dictates that respondent be entitled to receive
the unpaid balance of the purchase price, plus legal interest thereon.

FELICIANO GAITERO and NELIA GAITERO v.


GENEROSO ALMERIA and TERESITA ALMERIA
G.R. No. 181812 June 8, 2011

Possession is an essential attribute of ownership. Necessarily,


whoever owns the property has the right to possess it. Here, between the
Almerias registered title of ownership and Gaiteros verbal claim to the
same, the formers title is far superior.
SIME DARBY PILIPINAS, INC. v. GOODYEAR PHILIPPINES, INC.
and MACGRAPHICS CARRANZ INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
G.R. No. 182148

GOODYEAR PHILIPPINES, INC. v. SIME DARBY PILIPINAS, INC.


and MACGRAPHICS CARRANZ INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
G.R. No. 183210 June 8, 2011

In an assignment of a lease, there is a novation by the substitution


of the person of one of the parties the lessee. The personality of the
lessee, who dissociates from the lease, disappears. Thereafter, a new
juridical relation arises between the two persons who remain the lessor
and the assignee who is converted into the new lessee. The objective of
the law in prohibiting the assignment of the lease without the lessors
consent is to protect the owner or lessor of the leased property.

The award of attorney's fees is the exception rather than the rule,
and it must have some factual, legal and equitable bases. Nevertheless,
Art. 2208 of the Civil Code authorizes an award of attorney's fees and
expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, when as in this case the
plaintiff's act or omission has compelled the defendant to litigate and to
incur expenses of litigation to protect her interest, and where the Court
deems it just and equitable that attorney's fees and expenses of litigation
should be recovered.

PHIL-VILLE DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING CORPORATION v.


MAXIMO BONIFACIO, CEFERINO R. BONIFACIO, APOLONIO B.
TAN, BENITA B. CAINA, CRISPINA B.PASCUAL, ROSALIA B. DE
GRACIA, TERESITA S. DORONIA, CHRISTINA GOCO AND
ARSENIO C. BONIFACIO, in their capacity as the surviving heirs of
the late ELEUTERIA RIVERA VDA. DE BONIFACIO
G.R. No. 167391 June 8, 2011

In order that an action for quieting of title may prosper, two


requisites must concur: (1) the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or
equitable title or interest in the real property subject of the action; and
(2) the deed, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding claimed to be casting
cloud on his title must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative
despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy.

PHILIPPINE REALTY AND HOLDINGS CORPORATION v. LEY


CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
G. R. No. 165548

LEY CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v.


PHILIPPINE REALTY AND HOLDINGS CORPORATION
G. R. No. 167879 June 13, 2011

In order for novation to take place, the concurrence of the


following requisites is indispensable: 1. there must be a previous valid
obligation; 2. the parties concerned must agree to a new contract; 3. the
old contract must be extinguished; 4; there must be a valid new contract.

Under Article 1174 of the Civil Code, to exempt the obligor from
liability for a breach of an obligation due to an act of God or force
majeure, the following must concur: (a) the cause of the breach of the
obligation must be independent of the will of the debtor; (b) the event
must be either unforseeable or unavoidable; (c) the event must be such
as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a
normal manner; and (d) the debtor must be free from any participation
in, or aggravation of the injury to the creditor

ARMANDO V. ALANO [Deceased], Substituted by Elena Alano-


Torres v.
PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK, as Successor-in-Interest of
MAUNLAD SAVINGS and LOAN ASSOCIATION, INC.
G.R. No. 171628 June 13, 2011

The general rule that a mortgagee need not look beyond the title
does not apply to banks and other financial institutions as greater care
and due diligence is required of them. Imbued with public interest, they
are expected to be more cautious than ordinary individuals. Thus,
before approving a loan, the standard practice for banks and other
financial institutions is to conduct an ocular inspection of the property
offered to be mortgaged and verify the genuineness of the title to
determine the real owner or owners thereof. Failure to do so makes them
mortgagees in bad faith.

STA. LUCIA REALTY & DEVELOPMENT, INC. v. CITY OF PASIG,


Respondent, MUNICIPALITY OF CAINTA, PROVINCE OF RIZAL
G.R. No. 166838 June 15, 2011

Precisely because territorial jurisdiction is an issue raised in the


pending civil case, until and unless such issue is resolved with finality, to
define the territorial jurisdiction of the proposed barangays would only
be an exercise in futility. Not only that, we would be paving the way for
potentially ultra vires acts of such barangays.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by theCHIEF OF


THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE v. THI THU THUY T. DE
GUZMAN

G.R. No. 175021 June 15, 2011

Payment made by the debtor to the person of the creditor or to one


authorized by him or by the law to receive it extinguishes the obligation.
When payment is made to the wrong party, however, the obligation is not
extinguished as to the creditor who is without fault or negligence even if
the debtor acted in utmost good faith and by mistake as to the person of
the creditor or through error induced by fraud of a third person.
COUNTRY BANKERS INSURANCE CORPORATION v. ANTONIO
LAGMAN
G.R. No. 165487 July 13, 2011

Novation is the extinguishment of an obligation by the substitution


or change of the obligation by a subsequent one which extinguishes or
modifies the first, either by changing the object or principal conditions,
or by substituting another in place of the debtor, or by subrogating a
third person in the rights of the creditor. For novation to take place, the
following requisites must concur: 1) There must be a previous valid
obligation; 2) The parties concerned must agree to a new contract; 3) The
old contract must be extinguished; and 4) There must be a valid new
contract.

VICELET LALICON and VICELEN LALICON v. NATIONAL


HOUSING AUTHORITY
G.R. No. 185440 July 13, 2011

An action for rescission can proceed from either Article 1191 or


Article 1381. It has been held that Article 1191 speaks of rescission in
reciprocal obligations within the context of Article 1124 of the Old Civil
Code which uses the term resolution. Resolution applies only to
reciprocal obligations such that a breach on the part of one party
constitutes an implied resolutory condition which entitles the other party
to rescission. Resolution grants the injured party the option to pursue, as
principal actions, either a rescission or specific performance of the
obligation, with payment of damages in either case. Rescission under
Article 1381, on the other hand, was taken from Article 1291 of the Old
Civil Code, which is a subsidiary action, not based on a partys breach of
obligation. The four-year prescriptive period provided in Article 1389
applies to rescissions under Article 1381.

THE HEIRS OF THE LATE RUBEN REINOSO, SR., represented by


Ruben Reinoso Jr. v. COURT OF APPEALS, PONCIANO TAPALES,
JOSE GUBALLA, and FILWRITERS GUARANTY ASSURANCE
CORPORATION,
G.R. No. 116121, July 18, 2011
Liability of employer; Existence of employee negligence
creates presumption of negligence in the selection of the
employee by the employer - Whenever an employees negligence
causes damage or injury to another, there instantly arises a presumption
juris tantum that the employer failed to exercise diligentissimi patris
families in the selection or supervision of his employee.
DATU KIRAM SAMPACO, substituted by HADJI SORAYA S.
MACABANDO v. HADJI SERAD MINGCA LANTUD
G.R. No. 163551, July 18, 2011

Action to recover ownership; requisites - Under Article 434 of


the Civil Code, to successfully maintain an action to recover the
ownership of a real property, the person who claims a better right to it
must prove two (2) things: first, the identity of the land claimed; and
second, his title thereto.
GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION v. SPS. LIBRADO RAMOS and
REMEDIOS RAMOS
G.R. No. 193723, July 20, 2011

Default; requisites - There are three requisites necessary for a


finding of default. First, the obligation is demandable and liquidated;
second, the debtor delays performance; and third, the creditor judicially
or extrajudicially requires the debtors performance.

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. F.F. CRUZ and CO., INC.


G.R. No. 173259, July 25, 2011

Negligence; proportional liability of bank and depositor - As


between a bank and its depositor, where the banks negligence is the
proximate cause of the loss and the depositor is guilty of contributory
negligence, the greater proportion of the loss shall be borne by the
bank.

SPOUSES FRANCISCO D. YAP and WHELMA S. YAP v. SPOUSES


ZOSIMO DY, SR. and NATIVIDAD CHIU DY, SPOUSES MARCELINO
MAXINO and REMEDIOS L. MAXINO, PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF
NEGROS ORIENTAL and DUMAGUETE RURAL BANK, INC. /
DUMAGUETE RURAL BANK, INC. (DRBI) herein represented by
Mr. William D.S. Dichoso v. SPOUSES ZOSIMO DY, SR. and
NATIVIDAD CHIU DY, SPOUSES MARCELINO MAXINO and
REMEDIOS MAXINO, and SPOUSES FRANCISCO D. YAP and
WHELMA S. YAP
G.R. No. 171868 / G.R. No. 171991, July 27, 2011
Redemption; vendee has the right to redeem - The right of
PWHAS to redeem the subject properties finds support in Section 6 of Act
3135 itself which gives not only the mortgagor-debtor the right to
redeem, but also his successors-in-interest. As vendee of the subject
properties, PWHAS qualifies as such a successor-in-interest of the
spouses Litonjua.
Redemption; piecemeal redemption is valid - Nothing in the
law prohibits the piecemeal redemption of properties sold at one
foreclosure proceeding. In fact, in several early cases decided by this
Court, the right of the mortgagor or redemptioner to redeem one or some
of the foreclosed properties was recognized.

Land Titles and Deeds; Purchaser In Good Faith: A purchaser


in good faith is one who buys the property of another without notice that
some other person has a right to or interest in such property, and pays 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. It is a well-settled rule that a
purchaser cannot close his eyes to Facts which should put a reasonable
man upon his guard, and then claim that he acted in good faith under the
belief that there was no defect in the title of the vendor.

Article 1544, New Civil Code; Presumption of Good Faith:


Since the petitioners never alleged that the National Airports
Corporation acted with bad faith when it registered the lots in its name,
the presumption of good faith prevails. Consequently, the National
Airports Corporation, being a registrant in good faith, is recognized as
the rightful owner of the lots in question, and the registration of the
properties in its name cut off any and all prior liens, interests and
encumbrances, including the alleged prior sale to Cobarde, that were not
recorded on the titles.

JESUS M. MONTEMAYOR v. VICENTE D. MILLORA


G.R. No. 168251 July 27, 2011

A debt is liquidated when its existence and amount are


determined. It is not necessary that it be admitted by the debtor. Nor is
it necessary that the credit appear in a final judgment in order that it can
be considered as liquidated; it is enough that its exact amount is known.
And a debt is considered liquidated, not only when it is expressed already
in definite figures which do not require verification, but also when the
determination of the exact amount depends only on a simple arithmetical
operation.

When the defendant, who has an unliquidated claim, sets it


up by way of counterclaim, and a judgment is rendered liquidating
such claim, it can be compensated against the plaintiffs claim
from the moment it is liquidated by judgment. Compensation takes
place only if both obligations are liquidated.

RCJ BUS LINES, INCORPORATED v. STANDARD INSURANCE


COMPANY, INCORPORATED
G.R. No. 193629, August 17, 2011

Liability of Registered Owner of a Vehicle: The registered


owner of a vehicle should be primarily responsible to the public for
injuries caused while the vehicle is in use. The main aim of motor vehicle
registration is to identify the owner so that if any accident happens, or
that any damage or injury is caused by the vehicle on the public
highways, responsibility therefor can be fixed on a definite individual, the
registered owner.

Negligence: Article 2180 of the Civil Code, in relation to Article


2176, makes the employer vicariously liable for the acts of its employees.
When the employee causes damage due to his own negligence while
performing his own duties, there arises the juristantum presumption that
the employer is negligent, rebuttable only by proof of observance of the
diligence of a good father of a family.
MA. ANA M. TAMONTE and EDILBERTO A. TAMONTE v.
HONGKONG and SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD., et al.
G.R. No. 166970, August 17, 2011

Foreclosure of Mortgages Pending Illegal Dismissal


Case:Petitioners were already in default in the payment of their loan
obligations; thus, foreclosure of the mortgage property was resorted to
by respondents. Respondents were only enforcing the civil obligation of
petitioners under their mortgage contract. There is no labor aspect
involved in the enforcement of petitioners' obligation.

After petitioners failed to pay upon demand, the civil obligation of


the petitioners under the mortgage contract must be enforced to protect
HSBC SRP's interest in the housing loan. The dismissal of petitioners'
complaint for the annulment of the foreclosure proceedings is, therefore,
valid and proper.
SPOUSES NELSON R. VILLANUEVA and MYRA P. VILLANUEVA v.
THE COURT OF APPEALS, et al.
G.R. No. 163433, August 22, 2011

Contractual Stipulations; 24% Per Annum Interest Rate;


Legality: The question now is whether the 24% per annum interest rate
is unreasonable under the circumstances obtaining in the present case.
The SC ruled in the negative. In Spouses Zacarias Bacolor and Catherine
Bacolor v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank, Dagupan City
Branch, the SC held that the interest rate of 24% per annum on a loan
of P244,000.00, agreed upon by the parties, may not be considered as
unconscionable and excessive.

6% Per Annum Penalty Charge; Legality: The SC also upheld


the validity of the 6% per annum penalty charge. In Development Bank of
the Philippines v. Family Foods Manufacturing Co., Ltd., the SC,
sustained the validity of an 8% per annum penalty charge on separate
loans of P500,000.00 and P440,000.00, In a similar manner, herein
petitioners bound themselves to pay the stipulated penalty charge of 6%
per annum "of the principal amount of loan as penalty for inexcusable
neglect to pay any amount of t[he] loan when due." Since petitioners
failed to present evidence that their failure to perform their obligation
was due to either force majeure or the acts of respondent Bank or to any
justifiable or excusable cause, they are obliged to pay the penalty charge
as agreed upon.
NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. HEIRS OF MACABANGKIT
SANGKAY
G.R. No. 165828, August 24, 2011

Action for Just Compensation vis--vis Action for Damages:


The two actions are radically different in nature and purpose. The action
to recover just compensation is based on the Constitution while the
action for damages is predicated on statutory enactments. Indeed, the
former arises from the exercise by the State of its power of eminent
domain against private property for public use, but the latter emanates
from the transgression of a right. The fact that the owner rather than the
expropriator brings the former does not change the essential nature of
the suit as an inverse condemnation, for the suit is not based on tort, but
on the constitutional prohibition against the taking of property without
just compensation.

Acquisition of Easements: The manner in which the easement


was created by petitioner, however, violates the due process rights of
respondents as it was without notice and indemnity to them and did not
go through proper expropriation proceedings. Petitioner could have, at
any time, validly exercised the power of eminent domain to acquire the
easement over respondents property as this power encompasses not
only the taking or appropriation of title to and possession of the
expropriated property but likewise covers even the imposition of a mere
burden upon the owner of the condemned property.

Power of Eminent Domain; What Constitutes Taking of


Private Property for Public Use: It is settled that the taking of private
property for public use, to be compensable, need not be an actual
physical taking or appropriation. Indeed, the expropriators action may
be short of acquisition of title, physical possession, or occupancy but may
still amount to a taking.Compensable taking includes destruction,
restriction, diminution, or interruption of the rights of ownership or of
the common and necessary use and enjoyment of the property in a lawful
manner, lessening or destroying its value.It is neither necessary that the
owner be wholly deprived of the use of his property,nor material whether
the property is removed from the possession of the owner, or in any
respect changes hands.

RAMON ARANDA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES


G.R. No. 172331, August 24, 2011

To prove that the land subject of an application for registration is


alienable, an applicant must establish the existence of a positive act of
the government such as a presidential proclamation or an executive
order; an administrative action; investigation reports of Bureau of Lands
investigators; and a legislative act or a statute. The applicant may also
secure a certification from the Government that the lands applied for are
alienable and disposable.

A person who seeks the registration of title to a piece of land on


the basis of possession by himself and his predecessors-in-interest must
prove his claim by clear and convincing evidence, i.e., he must prove his
title and should not rely on the absence or weakness of the evidence of
the oppositors.

ALBERT TISON and CLAUDIO L. JABON v. SPS. GREGORIO


POMASIN and CONSORCIA PONCE POMASIN, DIANNE POMASIN
PAGUNSAN, CYNTHIA POMASIN, SONIA PEROL, ANTONIO
SESISTA, GINA SESISTA, and REYNALDO SESISTA
G.R. No. 173180, August 24, 2011

To sustain a claim based on quasi-delict, the following requisites


must concur: (a) damage suffered by the plaintiff; (b) fault or negligence
of defendant; and (c) connection of cause and effect between the fault or
negligence of defendant and the damage incurred by the plaintiff.
RENE ANTONIO v. GREGORIO MANAHAN
G.R. No. 176091, August 24, 2011

The rule is settled that failure to pay the lease rentals must be
willful and deliberate in order to be considered as ground for
dispossession of an agricultural tenant.

WILFRIED ERDENBERGER v. JOHN V. AQUINO, CLERK OF COURT


RTC, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, OLONGAPO CITY
A.M. No.P-10-2739. August 24, 2011

The time-honored precept is that after the consolidation of titles in


the buyers name, for failure of the mortgagor to redeem, the writ of
possession becomes a matter of right. Its issuance to a purchaser in an
extrajudicial foreclosure is merely a ministerial function which cannot be
enjoined or stayed, even by an action for annulment of the mortgage or
the foreclosure sale itself.

POWER SECTOR ASSETS AND LIABILITIES MANAGEMENT


CORPORATION v. POZZOLANIC PHILIPPINESINCORPORATED
G.R. No. 183789, August 24, 2011

Public bidding is the established procedure in the grant of


government contracts. The award of public contracts through public
bidding is a matter of public policy. The right of first refusal of
respondent being invalid, it follows that it has no binding effect. It does
not create an obligation on the part of petitioner to acknowledge the
same

DCD CONSTRUCTION, INC. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES


G.R. No. 179978, August 31, 2011

Open and continuous possession; definition - Taken together


with the words open, continuous, exclusive and notorious, the word
occupation serves to highlight the fact that for an applicant to qualify, his
possession must not be a mere fiction. Actual possession of a land
consists in the manifestation of acts of dominion over it of such a nature
as a party would naturally exercise over his own property.

ANTONIO FRANCISCO, substituted by his heirs: NELIA E.S.


FRANCISCO, EMILIA F. BERTIZ, REBECCA E.S. FRANCISCO,
ANTONIO E.S. FRANCISCO, JR., SOCORRO F. FONTANILLA, and
JOVITO E.S. FRANCISCO v. CHEMICAL BULK CARRIERS,
INCORPORATED
G.R. No. 193577, September 7, 2011

Due diligence; diligence required of a blind person -


However, one who is physically disabled is required to use the same
degree of care that a reasonably careful person who has the same
physical disability would use. Physical handicaps and infirmities, such as
blindness or deafness, are treated as part of the circumstances under
which a reasonable person must act. Thus, the standard of conduct for a
blind person becomes that of a reasonable person who is blind.
Estoppel; exception to mere stepping into the shoes of the
transferor - The general principle is that a seller without title cannot
transfer a better title than he has. Only the owner of the goods or one
authorized by the owner to sell can transfer title to the buyer. Therefore,
a person can sell only what he owns or is authorized to sell and the buyer
can, as a consequence, acquire no more than what the seller can legally
transfer. The exception from the general principle is the doctrine of
estoppel where the owner of the goods is precluded from denying the
sellers authority to sell. But in order that there may be estoppel, the
owner must, by word or conduct, have caused or allowed it to appear that
title or authority to sell is with the seller and the buyer must have been
misled to his damage.

THE HEIRS OF PROTACIO GO, SR. and MARTA BAROLA, namely:


LEONOR, SIMPLICIO, PROTACIO, JR., ANTONIO, BEVERLY ANN
LORRAINNE, TITA, CONSOLACION, LEONORA and ASUNCION, all
surnamed GO, represented by LEONORA B. GO v. ESTER L.
SERVACIO and RITO B. GO
G.R. No. 157537, September 7, 2011

Conjugal property; Marriages prior to the effectivity of the


family code requires liquidation - The disposition by sale of a portion
of the conjugal property by the surviving spouse without the prior
liquidation mandated by Article 130 of the Family Code is not necessarily
void if said portion has not yet been allocated by judicial or extrajudicial
partition to another heir of the deceased spouse. At any rate, the
requirement of prior liquidation does not prejudice vested rights.

UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SPOUSES RODOLFO T. TIU


AND VICTORIA N. TIU
G.R. Nos. 173090-91, September 7, 2011

Fiduciary duty of banks; sudden restructuring entails bad


faith - The banks have a fiduciary duty to their clients and to the Filipino
people to be transparent in their dealings and to make sure that the
latters interest are not prejudiced by the formers interest. Article 1339
of the New Civil Code provides that the failure to disclose facts, when
there is a duty to reveal them, as when the parties are bound by
confidential relations, constitutes fraud. Undoubtedly, the banks and their
clients are bound by confidential relations. The almost perfect timing of
the banks in convincing their clients to shift to dollar loans just when the
Asian financial crisis struck indicates that the banks not only failed to
disclose facts to their clients of the looming crisis, but also suggests of
the insidious design to take advantage of these undisclosed facts.

ELENA JANE DUARTE v. MIGUEL SAMUEL A.E. DURAN


G.R. No. 173038, September 14, 2011

Preponderance of evidence; definition - Preponderance of


evidence only requires that evidence be greater or more convincing than
the opposing evidence.

Perfection of a contract of sale; when - A contract of sale is


perfected the moment the parties agree upon the object of the sale, the
price, and the terms of payment. Once perfected, the parties are bound
by it whether the contract is verbal or in writing because no form is
required.

Statute of Frauds applies only to executory, and not to completed,


executed or partially executed contracts.

JOSE FERNANDO, JR., ET AL. v. LEON ACUA, ET AL.


G.R. No. 161030, September 14, 2011

Torrens System; Principles of Indefeasibility and


Imprescriptibility of Titles; Exception: The SC had recognized the
jurisprudential thread regarding the exception to the foregoing doctrine
that while it is true that a Torrens title is indefeasible and
imprescriptible, the registered landowner may lose his right to recover
possession of his registered property by reason of laches. In view of
respondents decades long possession and/or ownership of their
respective lots by virtue of a court judgment and the erstwhile registered
owners inaction and neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained
length of time in pursuing the recovery of the land, assuming they
retained any right to recover the same, it is clear that respondents
possession may no longer be disturbed. The right of the registered
owners as well as their successors-in-interest to recover possession of the
property is already a stale demand and, thus, is barred by laches.

Same; Action for Reconveyance; Prescriptive Periods: The


SC did not subscribe to petitioners argument that whatever rights or
claims respondents may have under the November 29, 1929 Decision has
prescribed for their purported failure to fully execute the same. An action
for reconveyance of registered land based on implied trust prescribes in
ten (10) years, the point of reference being the date of registration of the
deed or the date of the issuance of the certificate of title over the
property. However, the SC has ruled that the ten-year prescriptive period
applies only when the person enforcing the trust is not in possession of
the property. If a person claiming to be its owner is in actual possession
of the property, the right to seek reconveyance, which in effect seeks to
quiet title to the property, does not prescribe.
Same; Regalian Doctrine; Rivers and Their Natural Beds as
Properties of Public Dominion: From the transcripts of the
proceedings, the parties could not agree how Sapang Bayan came about.
Whether it was a gradual deposit received from the river current or a
dried-up creek bed connected to the main river could not be ascertained.
Even assuming that Sapang Bayan was a dried-up creek bed, under
Article 420, paragraph 1and Article 502, paragraph 1 of the Civil Code,
rivers and their natural beds are property of public dominion. In the
absence of any provision of law vesting ownership of the dried-up river
bed in some other person, it must continue to belong to the State.

F&E DE CASTRO CORPORATION, ET AL. v. ERNESTO G. OLASO


and AMPARO M. OLASO
G.R. No. 183349, September 14, 2011

Prejudicial Question: A stay in the proceedings in Civil Case No.


SPL-0991 in order to give way to the proceedings in Civil Case No. SPL-
0356 is not judicious as there is no prejudicial question.

Same: First, the subject matter or res involved in Civil Case No.
SPL-0991 is different from those in Civil Case No. SPL-0356. F&E
Corporation seeks to recover subdivision lots located in Phase 1 and 1-A
of Forfoms subdivision while the Olasos seek to recover their fully paid
lot in Phase VI of the same subdivision. Second, the parties in both cases
are different. The litigation in Civil Case No. SPL-0356 is between the
developer, F&E Corporation, and the subdivision owner, Forfom, while
the parties in the proceedings in Civil Case No. SPL-0991 are F&E
Corporation, as annotator of the Notice of LisPendens and the Olasos, as
fully paid lot buyers. Third, the prayers are different. In Civil Case No.
SPL-0991, the Olasos want to cancel the annotation of the Notice of
LisPendens stamped on their certificate of title over the piece of property
described as Lot 10, Block 30, Phase VI of the Villa Olympia Subdivision,
which they bought from Forfom. In Civil Case No. SPL-0356, the prayer
was for the delivery of the certificates of title over 37 lots situated in
Phase 1 and 1-A of the same subdivision and the payment of a sum of
money and damages. For said reasons, the proceedings in Civil Case No.
SPL-0991 can continue independently of Civil Case No. SPL-0356.

HEIRS OF POLICRONIO M. URETA, SR., ET AL. v. HEIRS OF


LIBERATO M. URETA, ET AL.
G.R. No. 165748, September 14, 2011;

and

HEIRS OF LIBERATO M. URETA, ET AL. v. HEIRS OF POLICRONIO


M. URETA, SR, ET AL.
G.R. No. 165930, September 14, 2011;

Contracts; Deed of Sale; Absolute Simulation: Lacking,


therefore, in an absolutely simulated contract is consent which is
essential to a valid and enforceable contract. Thus, where a person, in
order to place his property beyond the reach of his creditors, simulates a
transfer of it to another, he does not really intend to divest himself of his
title and control of the property; hence, the deed of transfer is but a
sham. Similarly, in this case, Alfonso simulated a transfer to Policronio
purely for taxation purposes, without intending to transfer ownership
over the subject lands.

Same; Same; Absence of or Lack of Adequate Consideration;


Effect of: It is well-settled in a long line of cases that where a deed of
sale states that the purchase price has been paid but in fact has never
been paid, the deed of sale is null and void for lack of
consideration. Thus, although the contract states that the purchase price
of 2,000.00 was paid by Policronio to Alfonso for the subject properties,
it has been proven that such was never in fact paid as there was no
money involved. It must, therefore, follow that the Deed of Sale is void
for lack of consideration. Given that the Deed of Sale is void, it is
unnecessary to discuss the issue on the inadequacy of consideration.

Same; Null and Void Contracts; Persons With the Right to


Set Up Nullity: The right to set up the nullity of a void or non-existent
contract is not limited to the parties, as in the case of annullable or
voidable contracts; it is extended to third persons who are directly
affected by the contract. Thus, where a contract is absolutely simulated,
even third persons who may be prejudiced thereby may set up its
inexistence.

Same; Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition; Estoppel: The SC


concluded that the allegation of Conrados vitiated consent and lack of
authority to sign in behalf of his co-heirs was a mere afterthought on the
part of the Heirs of Policronio. It appears that the Heirs of Policronio
were not only aware of the existence of the Deed of Extra-Judicial
Partition but had, in fact, given Conrado authority to sign in their behalf.
They are now estopped from questioning its legality, and the Deed of
Extra-Judicial Partition is valid, binding, and enforceable against them.
VALERIO E. KALAW v. MA. ELENA FERNANDEZ
G.R. No. 166357, September 19, 2011

"The burden of proving psychological incapacity is on the plaintiff.


The plaintiff must prove that the incapacitated party, based on his or her
actions or behavior, suffers a serious psychological disorder that
completely disables him or her from understanding and discharging the
essential obligations of the marital state. The psychological problem must
be grave, must have existed at the time of marriage, and must be
incurable."

PEDRO ANGELES , Represented by ADELINA T. ANGELES,


Attorney-in Fact v. ESTELITA B. PASCUAL, MARIA THERESA
PASCUAL, NERISSA PASCUAL, IMELDA PASCUAL, MA. LAARNI
PASCUAL and EDWIN PASCUAL
G.R. No. 157150, September 21, 2011

"The land being the principal and the building the accessory,
preference is given to Pascual as the owner of the land to make the
choice as between appropriating the building or obliging Angeles as the
builder to pay the value of the land."
JOSEFINA P. REALUBIT v. PROSENCIO D. JASO and EDENG. JASO
G.R. No. 178782. September 21, 2011

Generally understood to mean an organization formed for some


temporary purpose, a joint venture is likened to a particular partnership
or one which has for its object determinate things, their use or fruits, or
a specific undertaking, or the exercise of a profession or vocation. The
rule is settled that joint ventures are governed by the law on
partnerships which are, in turn, based on mutual agency or delectus
personae.

PHILIPPINE EXPORT AND FOREIGN LOAN GUARANTEE


CORPORATION (now TRADE AND INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES) v. AMALGAMATED
MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, FELIMON
R. CUEVAS, AND JOSE A. SADDUL, JR.
G.R. No. 177729, September 28, 2011

"In contracts, the law empowers the courts to reduce interest rates
and penalty charges that are iniquitous, unconscionable and exorbitant.
Whether an interest rate or penalty charge is reasonable or excessive is
addressed to the sound discretion of the courts. In determining what is
iniquitous and unconscionable, courts must consider the circumstances
of the case."

"The 10-year prescriptive period to recover a deficiency claim


starts to run upon the foreclosure of the property mortgaged."

THE LAW FIRM OF RAYMUNDO A. ARMOVIT, v. COURT OF


APPEALS AND BENGSON COMMERCIAL BUILDING, INC.
G.R. No. 154559, October 5, 2011

It is clear that the statement in the body of our 1991 Decision


(that "we do not find Atty. Armovit's claim for `twenty percent of all
recoveries' to be unreasonable") is not an order which can be the
subject of execution. Neither can the Court ascertain from the
body of the Decision an inevitable conclusion clearly showing a
mistake in the dispositive portion.
HEIRS OF ANTONIO FERAREN, REPRESENTED BY ANTONIO
FERAREN, JR., et al. v. COURT OF APPEALS (FORMER 12TH
DIVISION) AND CECILIA TADIAR,
G.R. No. 159328, October 5, 2011

Under Article 1678, the lessor has the option of paying one-half of
the value of the improvements that the lessee made in good faith, which
are suitable to the use for which the lease is intended, and which have
not altered the form and substance of the land. On the other hand, the
lessee may remove the improvements should the lessor refuse to
reimburse.

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. TRAVERSE


DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND CENTRAL SURETY
AND INSURANCE COMPANY
G.R. No. 169293, October 5, 2011

The award of attorney's fees is the exception rather than the rule
and the court must state explicitly the legal reason for such award. They
are not to be awarded every time a party wins a suit. The power of the
court to award attorney's fees under Article 2208 demands factual, legal,
and equitable justification. Even when a claimant is compelled to litigate
with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his rights, still,
attorney's fees may not be awarded where no sufficient showing of bad
faith could be reflected in a party's persistence in a case other than an
erroneous conviction of the righteousness of his cause.

ALCATEL PHILIPPINES, INC., v I.M. BONGAR & CO., INC. AND


STRONGHOLD INSURANCE CO., INC.,
G.R. No. 182946, October 5, 2011

Although attorneys fees are not allowed in the absence of


stipulation, the court can award the same when the defendants act or
omission has compelled the plaintiff to incur expenses to protect his
interest or where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in
refusing to satisfy the plaintiffs plainly valid, just, and demandable
claim.
CONTINENTAL CEMENT CORPORATION, v. ASEA BROWN
BOVERI, INC., BBC BROWN BOVERI, CORP., AND TORD B.
ERIKSON
G.R. No. 171660, October 17, 2011

Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an


adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as
he has duly proved. Such compensation is referred to as actual or
compensatory damages.

URBAN BANK, INC v. MAGDALENO M. PEA


G.R. No. 145817, October 19, 2011

DELFIN C. GONZALEZ, JR., BENJAMIN L. DE LEON, and ERIC L.


LEE v. MAGDALENO M. PEA
G.R. No. 145822, October 19, 2011

MAGDALENO M. PEA v. URBAN BANK, INC., TEODORO


BORLONGAN, DELFIN C. GONZALEZ, JR., BENJAMIN L. DE LEON,
P. SIERVO H. DIZON, ERIC L. LEE, BEN T. LIM, JR., CORAZON
BEJASA, & ARTURO MANUEL, JR.
G.R. No. 162562, October 19, 2011

In a contract of agency, agents bind themselves to render some


service or to do something in representation or on behalf of the principal,
with the consent or authority of the latter. The basis of the civil law
relationship of agency is representation, the elements of which include
the following: (a) the relationship is established by the parties consent,
express or implied; (b) the object is the execution of a juridical act in
relation to a third person; (c) agents act as representatives and not for
themselves; and (d) agents act within the scope of their authority.

REPUBLIC FLOUR MILLS CORPORATION v. FORBES FACTORS,


INC.
G.R. No. 152313, October 19, 2011

Subrogation is either "legal" or "conventional." Legal subrogation


is an equitable doctrine and arises by operation of the law, without any
agreement to that effect executed between the parties; conventional
subrogation rests on a contract, arising where "an agreement is made
that the person paying the debt shall be subrogated to the rights and
remedies of the original creditor.

ESTRELLA TIONGCO YARED (Deceased) substituted by CARMEN


M. TIONGCO a.k.a. CARMEN MATILDE B. TIONGCO v. JOSE B.
TIONGCO and ANTONIO G. DORONILA, JR.
G.R. No. 161360, October 19, 2011

One who is in actual possession of a piece of land claiming to be


owner thereof may wait until his possession is disturbed or his title is
attacked before taking steps to vindicate his right, the reason for the rule
being, that undisturbed possession gives him a continuing right to seek
the aid of a court of equity to ascertain and determine the nature of the
adverse claim of a third party and its effect on his own title, which right
can be claimed only by one who has possession. Hence, prescription
cannot be invoked in an action for reconveyance when the plaintiff is in
possession of the land to be reconveyed.

EMERITA M. DE GUZMAN v. ANTONIO M. TUMOLVA


G.R. No. 188072, October 19, 2011

In determining actual damages, one cannot rely on mere


assertions, speculations, conjectures or guesswork, but must depend on
competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable regarding specific
facts that could afford some basis for measuring compensatory or actual
damages.

When pecuniary loss has been suffered but the amount cannot,
from the nature of the case, be proven with certainty, temperate damages
may be recovered. Temperate damages may be allowed in cases where
from the nature of the case, definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be
adduced, although the court is convinced that the aggrieved party
suffered some pecuniary loss.

LINA CALILAP-ASMERON v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE


PHILIPPINES, PABLO CRUZ, TRINIDAD CABANTOG, ENI S.P.
ATIENZA and EMERENCIANA CABANTOG,
G.R. No. 157330, November 23, 2011

The validity of the stipulation in the contract providing for


automatic rescission upon non-payment cannot be doubted.

JOSE TEOFILO MERCADO v. VALLEY MOUNTAIN MINES


EXPLORATION, INC.
G.R. No. 141019, November 23, 2011

A CENRO certification, an application for original registration of


title over a parcel of land must be accompanied by a copy of the original
classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as a true
copy by the legal custodian of the official records in order to establish
that the land indeed is alienable and disposable.

VICENTE MANZANO, JR., v. MARCELINO GARCIA


G.R. No. 179323, November 28, 2011

The absence of the essential [requisites] of consent and cause or


consideration renders the contract inexistent.
PACIFICO M. VALIAO, for himself and in behalf of his co-heirs
LODOVICO, RICARDO, BIENVENIDO, all Surnamed VALIAO and
NEMESIO M. GRANDEA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
MACARIO ZAFRA, and MANUEL YUSAY
G.R. No. 170757, November 28, 2011

Under the Regalian doctrine, which is embodied in our


Constitution, all lands of the public domain belong to the State. All lands
not appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to
belong to the State. Accordingly, public lands not shown to have been
reclassified or released as alienable agricultural land or alienated to a
private person by the State remain part of the inalienable public domain.
Unless public land is shown to have been reclassified as alienable or
disposable to a private person by the State, it remains part of the
inalienable public domain.

There must be a positive act declaring land of the public domain


as alienable and disposable.

SPOUSES RICARDO HIPOLITO, JR. and LIZA HIPOLITO v.


CARLOTA BALDE CINCO and ATTY. CARLOS CINCO
G.R. No. 174143, November 28, 2011

When any building or structure is found or declared to be


dangerous or ruinous, the Building Official shall order its repair, vacation
or demolition depending upon the degree of danger to life, health, or
safety.

RAMON S. CHING AND PO WING PROPERTIES, INC., v. HON.


JANSEN R. RODRIGUEZ, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the
Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 6, JOSEPH CHENG, JAIME
CHENG, MERCEDES IGNE AND LUCINA SANTOS, substituted by
her son, EDUARDO S. BALAJADIA
G.R. No. 192828, November 28, 2011

When there is no will or any instrument supposedly effecting the


disposition of a decedents estate, there is no disinheritance which will
call for the probate court's exercise of its limited jurisdiction.

BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc. v. Ma.Arlyn T. Avenido&Pacifico A.


Avenido,
G.R. No. 175816. December 07, 2011

While Act No. 3135, as amended, does not discuss the


mortgagees right to recover the deficiency, neither does it contain any
provision expressly or impliedly prohibiting recovery.

SPOUSES FERNANDO and LOURDES VILORIA v. CONTINENTAL


AIRLINES, INC.
G.R. No. 188288, January 16, 2012
The essential elements of agency are: (1) there is consent, express
or implied of the parties to establish the relationship; (2) the object is the
execution of a juridical act in relation to a third person; (3) the agent acts
as a representative and not for himself, and (4) the agent acts within the
scope of his authority. All the elements of an agency exist in this case.
The first and second elements are present as CAI does not deny that it
concluded an agreement with Holiday Travel, whereby Holiday Travel
would enter into contracts of carriage with third persons on CAIs behalf.
The third element is also present as it is undisputed that Holiday Travel
merely acted in a representative capacity and it is CAI and not Holiday
Travel who is bound by the contracts of carriage entered into by Holiday
Travel on its behalf. The fourth element is also present considering that
CAI has not made any allegation that Holiday Travel exceeded the
authority that was granted to it.

Under Article 1338 of the Civil Code, there is fraud when, through
insidious words or machinations of one of the contracting parties, the
other is induced to enter into a contract which, without them, he would
not have agreed to. In order that fraud may vitiate consent, it must be the
causal (dolo causante), not merely the incidental (dolo incidente),
inducement to the making of the contract. In this case, the Court finds
that the fraud alleged by Spouses Viloria has not been satisfactorily
established as causal in nature to warrant the annulment of the subject
contracts. In fact, Spouses Viloria failed to prove by clear and convincing
evidence that Magers statement was fraudulent.

SPOUSES ARACELI OLIVA-DE MESA and ERNESTO S. DE MESA v.


SPOUSES CLAUDIO D. ACERO, JR. and MA. RUFINA D. ACERO, et
al
G.R. No. 185064, January 16, 2012

Despite the fact that the subject property is a family home and,
thus, should have been exempt from execution, we nevertheless rule that
the CA did not err in dismissing the petitioners complaint for
nullification of TCT No. T-221755 (M). We agree with the CA that the
petitioners should have asserted the subject property being a family
home and its being exempted from execution at the time it was levied or
within a reasonable time thereafter. Having failed to set up and prove to
the sheriff the supposed exemption of the subject property before the
sale thereof at public auction, the petitioners now are barred from raising
the same. Since the exemption under Article 153 of the Family Code is a
personal right, it is incumbent upon the petitioners to invoke and prove
the same within the prescribed period and it is not the sheriffs duty to
presume or raise the status of the subject property as a family home.
PETRON CORPORATION v. SPOUSES CESAR JOVERO and ERMA F.
CUDILLA, et al
G.R. No. 151038, January 18, 2012

There are four (4) persons who are liable to pay damages to
respondents. The latter may proceed against any one of the solidary
debtors or some or all of them simultaneously, pursuant to Article 1216 of
the Civil Code. These solidary debtors are petitioner Petron, the hauler
Villaruz, the operator Dortina Uy and the dealer Rubin Uy. To determine
the liability of each defendant to one another, the amount of damages
shall be divided by four, representing the share of each defendant.

STARBRIGHT SALES ENTERPRISES, INC. v. PHILIPPINE REALTY


CORPORATION,
MSGR. DOMINGO A. CIRILOS, et al
G.R. No. 177936, January 18, 2012

A subjective novation results through substitution of the person of


the debtor or through subrogation of a third person to the rights of the
creditor. To accomplish a subjective novation through change in the
person of the debtor, the old debtor needs to be expressly released from
the obligation and the third person or new debtor needs to assume his
place in the relation.

The proposed substitution of Licup by SSE opened the negotiation


stage for a new contract of sale as between SSE and the owners. The
succeeding exchange of letters between Mr. Stephen Cu, SSEs
representative, and Msgr. Cirilos attests to an unfinished negotiation.
Msgr. Cirilos referred to his discussion with SSE regarding the purchase
as a pending transaction. Cu, on the other hand, regarded SSEs first
letter to Msgr. Cirilos as an updated proposal. This proposal took up
two issues: which party would undertake to evict the occupants on the
property and how much must the consideration be for the property.
These are clear indications that there was no meeting of the minds
between the parties. As it turned out, the parties reached no consensus
regarding these issues, thus producing no perfected sale between them.
The P100,000.00 that was given to Msgr. Cirilos as deposit cannot be
considered as earnest money. Where the parties merely exchanged offers
and counter-offers, no contract is perfected since they did not yet give
their consent to such offers. Earnest money applies to a perfected sale.

RUBEN C. CORPUZ, represented by Attorney-in-Fact Wenifreda C.


Agullana v. Sps. HILARION AGUSTIN and JUSTA AGUSTIN
G.R. No. 183822, January 18, 2012

One of the three kinds of action for the recovery of possession of


real property is accion interdictal, or an ejectment proceeding which may
be either that for forcible entry (detentacion) or unlawful detainer
(desahucio). In ejectment proceedings, the courts resolve the basic
question of who is entitled to physical possession of the premises,
possession referring to possession de facto, and not possession de jure.
Where the parties to an ejectment case raise the issue of ownership, the
courts may pass upon that issue to determine who between the parties
has the better right to possess the property. However, where the issue of
ownership is inseparably linked to that of possession, adjudication of the
ownership issue is not final and binding, but only for the purpose of
resolving the issue of possession.

The lower courts and the appellate court consistently found that
possession of the disputed properties by respondents was in the nature of
ownership, and not by mere tolerance of the elder Corpuz. In fact, they
have been in continuous, open and notorious possession of the property
for more than 30 years up to this day. The petitioner has not established
when respondents possession of the properties became unlawful a
requisite for a valid cause of action in an unlawful detainer case.

VIRGINIA A. ZAMORA v. JOSE ARMANDO L. EDUQUE, et al


G.R. No. 174005, January 25, 2012

East Asia had a fiduciary obligation to Virginia Zamora., both as


middleman or dealer of commercial papers and custodian of the same for
the latters account. For simultaneously acting as middleman or dealer
and custodian, East Asia was obliged to turn over to its client the
proceeds of the matured commercial papers and deliver the outstanding
ones to it together with accrued interests.

ORIX METRO LEASING AND FINANCE CORPORATION v. MINORS:


DENNIS, MYLENE, MELANIE and MARIKRIS, all surnamed
MANGALINAO y DIZON, et al
G.R. No. 174089

SONNY LI and ANTONIO DE LOS SANTOS v. MINORS: DENNIS,


MYLENE, MELANIE and MARIKRIS, all surnamed MANGALINAO y
DIZON, et al
G.R. No. 174266, January 25, 2012

With regard to actual damages, one is entitled to an adequate


compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly
proved.

Temperate damages, under Article 222456 of the Civil Code, is


given in the absence of competent proof on the actual damages suffered.
In the past, we awarded temperate damages in lieu of actual damages
for loss of earning capacity where earning capacity is plainly established
but no evidence was presented to support the allegation of the injured
partys actual income.

Moral damages, it must be stressed, are not intended to enrich


plaintiff at the expense of the defendant. They are awarded to enable the
injured party to obtain means, diversions, or amusements that will serve
to alleviate the moral suffering he/she had undergone due to the other
partys culpable action and must, perforce, be proportional to the
suffering inflicted.

In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be granted if the


defendant acted with gross negligence. It is given by way of example or
correction for the public good. Before the court may consider such
award, the plaintiff must show his entitlement first to moral, temperate,
or compensatory damages, which the respondents have.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the NATIONAL


IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION (NIA) v. RURAL BANK OF
KABACAN, INC., et al
G. R. No. 185124, January 25, 2012

In expropriation proceedings, just compensation is defined as the


full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the
expropriator. The measure is not the taker's gain, but the owner's loss.
The word just is used to intensify the meaning of the word
compensation and to convey thereby the idea that the equivalent to be
rendered for the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full and
ample. The constitutional limitation of just compensation is considered
to be a sum equivalent to the market value of the property, broadly
defined as the price fixed by the seller in open market in the usual and
ordinary course of legal action and competition; or the fair value of the
property; as between one who receives and one who desires to sell it,
fixed at the time of the actual taking by the government. In the context of
expropriation proceedings, the soil has no value separate from that of the
expropriated land. Just compensation ordinarily refers to the value of the
land to compensate for what the owner actually loses. Such value could
only be that which prevailed at the time of the taking.

It should be noted that eminent domain cases involve the


expenditure of public funds. In this kind of proceeding, we require trial
courts to be more circumspect in their evaluation of the just
compensation to be awarded to the owner of the expropriated property.
The law imposes certain legal requirements in order for a conveyance of
real property to be valid. In order for the reconveyance of real property
to be valid, the conveyance must be embodied in a public document and
registered in the office of the Register of Deeds where the property is
situated.

CRISANTA ALCARAZ MIGUEL v. JERRY D. MONTANEZ


G.R. No. 191336, January 25, 2012

In the instant case, the respondent did not comply with the terms
and conditions of the Kasunduang Pag-aayos. Such non-compliance may
be construed as repudiation because it denotes that the respondent did
not intend to be bound by the terms thereof, thereby negating the very
purpose for which it was executed. Perforce, the petitioner has the option
either to enforce the Kasunduang Pag-aayos, or to regard it as rescinded
and insist upon his original demand, in accordance with the provision of
Article 2041 of the Civil Code. Having instituted an action for collection
of sum of money, the petitioner obviously chose to rescind the
Kasunduang Pag-aayos.

CRESENCIO C. MILLA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and


MARKET PURSUITS, INC. represented by CARLO V. LOPEZ
G.R. No. 188726, January 25, 2012

Even in Civil Law the acceptance of partial payments, without


further change in the original relation between the complainant and the
accused, cannot produce novation. For the latter to exist, there must be
proof of intent to extinguish the original relationship, and such intent
cannot be inferred from the mere acceptance of payments on account of
what is totally due. Much less can it be said that the acceptance of partial
satisfaction can effect the nullification of a criminal liability that is fully
matured, and already in the process of enforcement.

In the case at bar, the acceptance by MPI of the Equitable PCI


checks tendered by Milla could not have novated the original transaction,
as the checks were only intended to secure the return of the P2 million
the former had already given him.

DURAWOOD CONSTRUCTION AND LUMBER SUPPLY, INC. v.


CANDICE S. BONA
G.R. No. 179884, January 25, 2012

The entry of instruments in the Primary Entry Book is equivalent to


registration despite the failure to annotate said instruments in the
corresponding certificates of title. However, for the entry of instruments
in the Primary Entry Book to be equivalent to registration, certain
requirements have to be met. There is still a need to comply with all that
is required for entry and registration, including the payment of
prescribed fees. In this case, since there was still no compliance of all
that is required x x x for purposes of entry and annotation of the Deed of
Sale as of June 25, 2004, we are constrained to rule that the registration
of the Notice of Levy on Attachment on June 17, 2004 should take
precedence over the former. Considering that the Notice of Levy on
Attachment was deemed registered earlier than the Deed of Sale, the
TCT issued pursuant to the latter should contain the annotation of the
Attachment.

FONTANA RESORT AND COUNTRY CLUB, INC. AND RN


DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. SPOUSES ROY S. TAN AND SUSAN C.
TAN
G.R. No. 154670, January 30, 2012

Under Article 1330, fraud refers to dolo causante or causal fraud,


in which, prior to or simultaneous with the execution of a contract, one
party secures the consent of the other by using deception, without which
such consent would not have been given. Simply stated, the fraud must
be the determining cause of the contract, or must have caused the
consent to be given.

The general rule is that he who alleges fraud or mistake in a


transaction must substantiate his allegation as the presumption is that a
person takes ordinary care for his concerns and that private dealings
have been entered into fairly and regularly. One who alleges defect or
lack of valid consent to a contract by reason of fraud or undue influence
must establish by full, clear and convincing evidence such specific acts
that vitiated a partys consent, otherwise, the latters presumed consent
to the contract prevails.

JUAN GALOPE v. CRESENCIA BUGARIN, REPRESENTED BY


CELSO RABANG
G.R. No. 185669, February 01, 2012

The essential elements of an agricultural tenancy relationship are:


(1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee;
(2) the subject matter of the relationship is agricultural land; (3) there is
consent between the parties to the relationship; (4) the purpose of the
relationship is to bring about agricultural production; (5) there is
personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and
(6) the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or
agricultural lessee.

An agricultural leasehold relation is not determined by the explicit


provisions of a written contract alone. Section 5 of Republic Act No.
3844, otherwise known as the Agricultural Land Reform Code, recognizes
that an agricultural leasehold relation may exist upon an oral agreement.

BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS (BPI), AS SUCCESSOR-IN-


INTEREST OF FAR EAST BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. CYNTHIA L.
REYES
G.R. No. 182769, February 01, 2012

A creditor is not precluded from recovering any unpaid balance on


the principal obligation if the extrajudicial foreclosure sale of the
property subject of the real estate mortgage results in a deficiency and
regardless if the mortgaged property was bought at a lower price than its
market value. Hence, where the foreclosed property was sold to the
creditor at a public auction, the highest bidding price of which was only
19% of the market value, the creditor may still recover the deficiency
from the debtor.

CELERINO E. MERCADO v. BELEN ESPINOCILLA and FERDINAND


ESPINOCILLA
G.R. No. 184109, February 01, 2012

Prescription, as a mode of acquiring ownership and other real


rights over immovable property, is concerned with lapse of time in the
manner and under conditions laid down by law, namely, that the
possession should be in the concept of an owner, public, peaceful,
uninterrupted, and adverse. Acquisitive prescription of real rights may
be ordinary or extraordinary. Ordinary acquisitive prescription requires
possession in good faith and with just title for 10 years. In extraordinary
prescription, ownership and other real rights over immovable property
are acquired through uninterrupted adverse possession for 30 years
without need of title or of good faith.

In a constructive trust, there is neither a promise nor any fiduciary


relation to speak of and the so-called trustee neither accepts any trust
nor intends holding the property for the beneficiary. The relation of
trustee and cestui que trust does not in fact exist, and the holding of a
constructive trust is for the trustee himself, and therefore, at all times
adverse. Prescription may supervene even if the trustee does not
repudiate the relationship.

LEONCIO C. OLIVEROS, represented by his heirs, MOISES DE LA


CRUZ, AND THE HEIRS OF LUCIO DELA CRUZ, represented by
Felix Dela Cruz v. BERSAMIN, SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, THE
REGISTER OF DEEDS OF CALOOCAN CITY, and THE REGISTER
OF DEEDS OF VALENZUELA, METRO MANILA
G.R. No. 173531, February 01, 2012

The principle that the earlier title prevails over a subsequent one
applies when there are two apparently valid titles over a single property.
The existence of the earlier valid title renders the subsequent title void
because a single property cannot be registered twice. A certificate is not
conclusive evidence of title if it is shown that the same land had already
been registered and an earlier certificate for the same is in existence.
Clearly, a mere allegation of an earlier title will not suffice.

An action or proceeding is deemed an attack on a title when the


object of the action is to nullify the title, and thus challenge the judgment
pursuant to which the title was decreed. The attack is direct when the
object of the action is to annul or set aside such judgment, or to enjoin its
enforcement. On the other hand, it is indirect or collateral when, in an
action or proceeding to obtain a different relief, an attack on the
judgment is nevertheless made as an incident thereof.

NANCY T. LORZANO v. JUAN TABAYAG, JR.


G.R. No. 189647, February 06, 2012

Moral damages are not intended to enrich the complainant at the


expense of the defendant. Rather, these are awarded only to enable the
injured party to obtain means, diversions or amusements that will
serve to alleviate the moral suffering that resulted by reason of the
defendants culpable action. The purpose of such damages is essentially
indemnity or reparation, not punishment or correction. In other words,
the award thereof is aimed at a restoration within the limits of the
possible, of the spiritual status quo ante; therefore, it must always
reasonably approximate the extent of injury and be proportional to the
wrong committed.

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. SPOUSES ROGELIO AND


EVELYN ROQUE
G.R. No. 193346, February 06, 2012

The grounds for the proper annulment of the foreclosure sale are:
(1) that there was fraud, collusion, accident, mutual mistake, breach of
trust or misconduct by the purchaser; (2) that the sale had not been fairly
and regularly conducted; or (3) that the price was inadequate and the
inadequacy was so great as to shock the conscience of the court. Hence,
where the case does not fall into any of the grounds, the validity of the
foreclosure must be upheld.

MEROPE ENRIQUEZ VDA. DE CATALAN v. LOUELLA A. CATALAN-


LEE
G. R. No. 183622, February 08, 2012

Owing to the nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of the


Civil Code, only Philippine nationals are covered by the policy against
absolute divorces, the same being considered contrary to our concept of
public policy and morality. However, aliens may obtain divorces abroad,
which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid
according to their national law. Nonetheless, the fact of divorce must still
first be proven. The best evidence of a judgment is the judgment itself.

ANTONIA R. DELA PEA AND ALVIN JOHN B. DELA PEA v.


GEMMA REMILYN C. AVILA AND FAR EAST BANK & TRUST CO.
G.R. No. 187490, February 08, 2012

Pursuant to Article 160 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, all


property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal
partnership, unless it be proved that it pertains exclusively to the
husband or to the wife. Proof of acquisition during the marriage is an
essential condition for the operation of the presumption in favor of the
conjugal partnership. Hence, where it was not sufficiently proven that the
subject property was acquired during the marriage between Antonia and
Antegono, the presumption of conjugality does not operate. The fact that
the property was registered in the name of "Antonia R. Dela Pea, of
legal age, Filipino, married to Antegono A. Dela Pea" does not mean it is
a conjugal property. the phrase "married to" is merely descriptive of the
civil status of the wife and cannot be interpreted to mean that the
husband is also a registered owner.

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS v. RONALDO


E. QUIWA, doing business under the name R.E.Q.
CONSTRUCTION, EFREN N. RIGOR, doing business under the
name CHIARA CONSTRUCTION, ROMEO R. DIMATULAC, doing
business under the name ARDY CONSTRUCTION, and
FELICITAS C. SUMERA, doing business
under the name F.C.S. CONSTRUCTION,
G.R. No. 183444, February 08, 2012

The clean hands doctrine provides that a litigant may be denied


relief by a court of equity on the ground that his conduct has been
inequitable, unfair and dishonest, or fraudulent, or deceitful as to the
controversy in issue. However, fraud is never presumed but must be
established by clear and convincing evidence. Hence, where the
petitioner failed to prove that omissions of respondents, such as their
failure to comply with the legal requirements concerning government
contracts and in ascertaining the extent of authority of the public official
with whom they contracted, amounted to fraud, the doctrine cannot
apply.

C.F. SHARP & CO. INC. and JOHN J. ROCHA v. PIONEER


INSURANCE & SURETY CORPORATION, WILFREDO C. AGUSTIN
and HERNANDO G. MINIMO
G.R. No. 179469, February 15, 2012

Contracts undergo three distinct stages, to wit: negotiation;


perfection or birth; and consummation. Negotiation begins from the time
the prospective contracting parties manifest their interest in the contract
and ends at the moment of agreement of the parties. Perfection or birth
of the contract takes place when the parties agree upon the essential
elements of the contract. Consummation occurs when the parties fulfill or
perform the terms agreed upon in the contract, culminating in the
extinguishment thereof.

The commencement of an employer-employee relationship must be


treated separately from the perfection of an employment contract.
Despite the fact that the employer-employee relationship has not
commenced due to the failure to deploy respondents in this case,
respondents are entitled to rights arising from the perfected Contract of
Employment, such as the right to demand performance by C.F. Sharp of
its obligation under the contract.

ROGELIO J. JAKOSALEM and GODOFREDO B. DULFO v. ROBERTO


S. BARANGAN
G.R. No. 175025, February 15, 2012

Article 434 of the Civil Code provides that [i]n an action to


recover, the property must be identified, and the plaintiff must rely on the
strength of his title and not on the weakness of the defendants claim.
In other words, in order to recover possession, a person must prove (1)
the identity of the land claimed, and (2) his title.
Jurisprudence consistently holds that prescription and laches can
not apply to registered land covered by the Torrens system because
under the Property Registration Decree, no title to registered land in
derogation to that of the registered owner shall be acquired by
prescription or adverse possession.

SPOUSES ROMAN A. PASCUAL and MERCEDITA R. PASCUAL,


FRANCISCO A. PASCUAL, et. al v. SPOUSES ANTONIO
BALLESTEROS and LORENZA MELCHOR-BALLESTEROS
G.R. No. 186269, February 15, 2012

Article 1623. The right of legal pre-emption or redemption shall


not be exercised except within thirty days from the notice in writing by
the prospective vendor, or by the vendor, as the case may be. The deed of
sale shall not be recorded in the Registry of Property, unless
accompanied by an affidavit of the vendor that he has given written
notice thereof to all possible redemptioners.

Here, it is undisputed that the respondents did not receive a


written notice of the sale in favor of the petitioners. Accordingly, the 30-
day period stated under Article 1623 of the Civil Code within which to
exercise their right of redemption has not begun to run. Consequently,
the respondents may still redeem from the petitioners the portion of the
subject property that was sold to the latter.

DR. EMMANUEL JARCIA, JR. AND DR. MARILOU BASTAN v.


PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 187926, February 15, 2012

The requisites for the application of the doctrine of res ipsa


loquitur are: (1) the accident was of a kind which does not ordinarily
occur unless someone is negligent; (2) the instrumentality or agency
which caused the injury was under the exclusive control of the person in
charge; and (3) the injury suffered must not have been due to any
voluntary action or contribution of the person injured. Hence, where the
circumstances that caused a patients injury and the series of tests that
were supposed to be undergone by him to determine the extent of the
injury suffered were not under the exclusive control of the physicians in
question, the latter cannot be made liable under the aforementioned
doctrine.

Moral damages are not punitive in nature, but are designed to


compensate and alleviate in some way the physical suffering, mental
anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded
feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury unjustly
inflicted on a person. Intended for the restoration of the psychological or
emotional status quo ante, the award of moral damages is designed to
compensate emotional injury suffered, not to impose a penalty on the
wrongdoer. Exemplary damages, on the other hand, may be imposed by
way of example or correction for the public good.
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS CORPORATION, JAPHET
ESTRANAS AND BEN SAGA v. PURIFICACION VIZCARA, MARIVIC
VIZCARA, CRESENCIA A. NATIVIDAD, HECTOR VIZCARA, JOEL
VIZCARA AND DOMINADOR ANTONIO
G.R. No. 190022, February 15, 2012

Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being


fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or
negligence, if there was no pre-existing contractual relation between the
parties, is called quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this
chapter. Hence, where a common carrier fell short of the diligence
expected of it, taking into consideration the nature of its business, to
forestall any untoward incident, it should be held liable for negligence.

Contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the injured party,


contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls
below the standard which he is required to conform for his own
protection. However, where one had no reason to anticipate the
impending danger while crossing the railroad tracks precisely because of
the lack of installed reliable and adequate safety devices along the
crossing, contributory negligence cannot be attributed to said driver.

The doctrine of last clear chance provides that where both parties
are negligent but the negligent act of one is appreciably later in point of
time than that of the other, or where it is impossible to determine whose
fault or negligence brought about the occurrence of the incident, the one
who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm but
failed to do so, is chargeable with the consequences arising therefrom.
Hence, where between the parties involved, only one was negligence,
said doctrine should not be made to apply.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EAST SILVERLANE REALTY


DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
G.R. No. 186961, February 20, 2012

The respondent cannot register the subject property in its name on


the basis of either Section 14 (1) or Section 14 (2) of P.D. No. 1529. It was
not established by the required quantum of evidence that the respondent
and its predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous, exclusive
and notorious possession of the subject property for the prescribed
statutory period. Section 14 (1) and Section 14 (2) of P.D. No. 1529 are
clearly different. Section 14 (1) covers alienable and disposable land
while Section 14 (2) covers private property. The distinction between
the two provisions lies with the inapplicability of prescription to alienable
and disposable lands.
SPOUSES JOSE and MILAGROS VILLACERAN and FAR EAST
BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. JOSEPHINE DE GUZMAN
G.R. No. 169055, February 22, 2012

The primary consideration in determining the true nature of a


contract is the intention of the parties. If the words of a contract appear
to contravene the evident intention of the parties, the latter shall prevail.
Such intention is determined not only from the express terms of their
agreement, but also from the contemporaneous and subsequent acts of
the parties. In the case at bar, there is a relative simulation of contract as
the Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 19, 1996 executed by De Guzman in
favor of petitioners did not reflect the true intention of the parties.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LUCIA M. GOMEZ


G. R. No. 189021, February 22, 2012

Public Land Act requires that the applicant must prove (a) that the
land is alienable public land; and (b) that the open, continuous, exclusive
and notorious possession and occupation of the land must have been
either since time immemorial or for the period prescribed in the Public
Land Act.

The Certification was inadequate to prove that the land was


alienable and disposable. Further, it is not enough for the PENRO or
CENRO to certify that a land is alienable and disposable. The applicant
for land registration must prove that the DENR Secretary had approved
the land classification and released the land of the public domain as
alienable and disposable, and that the land subject of the application for
registration falls within the approved area per verification through
survey by the PENRO or CENRO.

TEEKAY SHIPPING PHILS., INC. and/or TEEKAY SHIPPING


CANADA v.
RAMIER C. CONCHA
G.R. No. 185463, February 22, 2012

It is a principle in American jurisprudence which, undoubtedly, is


well-recognized in this jurisdiction that ones employment, profession,
trade or calling is a property right, and the wrongful interference
therewith is an actionable wrong. The right is considered to be property
within the protection of a constitutional guaranty of due process of law.
Clearly then, when one is arbitrarily and unjustly deprived of his job or
means of livelihood, the action instituted to contest the legality of ones
dismissal from employment constitutes, in essence, an action predicated
upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff, as contemplated under Art.
1146 of the New Civil Code, which must be brought within four (4) years.

PHILIPPINE CHARTER INSURANCE CORPORATION v. CENTRAL


COLLEGES OF THE PHILIPPINES and DYNAMIC PLANNERS AND
CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
G.R. Nos. 180631-33, February 22, 2012
The civil law concept of delay or default commences from the time
the obligor demands, judicially or extrajudicially, the fulfillment of the
obligation from the obligee. Hence, DPCC incurred delay from the time
CCP called its attention that it had breached the contract and
extrajudicially demanded the fulfillment of its commitment against the
bonds.

Upon notice of default of obligor DPCC, PCICs liability, as surety,


was already attached. A surety under Article 2047 of the New Civil Code
solidarily binds itself with the principal debtor to assure the fulfillment of
the obligation. If a person binds himself solidarily with the principal
debtor, the provisions of Section 4, Chapter 3, Title I of this Book shall be
observed. In such case the contract is called a suretyship. Having acted
as a surety, PCIC is duty bound to perform what it has guaranteed on its
surety and performance bonds, all of which are callable on demand,
occasioned by its principals default.

PHILAM INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. and AMERICAN HOME


INSURANCE CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, and D.M. CONSUNJI INC.
G.R. No. 165413, February 22, 2012

Negligence is the want of care required by the circumstances. It is


a conduct that involves an unreasonably great risk of causing damage; or,
more fully, a conduct that falls below the standard established by law for
the protection of others against unreasonably great risk of harm. In the
instant case, since Philam failed to convince us of actions that would lay
the blame on DMCI, this Court agrees with the CA that DMCI exercised
the necessary care and precaution in lifting the genset.

In this case, res ipsa loquitur is not applicable, since there is direct
evidence on the issue of diligence or lack thereof pertaining to the lifting
of the genset. The doctrine is not a rule of substantive law, but merely a
mode of proof or a mere procedural convenience. In any event, res ipsa
loquitur merely provides a rebuttable presumption of negligence. On this,
we have already pointed out that the evidence does not prove negligence
on the part of DMCI, and that due diligence on its part has been
established.

CHINA BANKING CORP. v. QBRO FISHING ENTERPRISES, INC.


G.R. NO. 184556, FEBRUARY 22, 2012
It has been held that third persons who are not parties to the
principal obligation may secure the latter by pledging or mortgaging
their own property.

MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY v. AVIA


FILIPINAS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
G.R. No. 180168, February 27, 2012
Article 1374 of the Civil Code clearly provides that [t]he various
stipulations of a contract shall be interpreted together, attributing to the
doubtful ones that sense which may result from all of them taken jointly.
Indeed, in construing a contract, the provisions thereof should not be
read in isolation, but in relation to each other and in their entirety so as
to render them effective, having in mind the intention of the parties and
the purpose to be achieved. In other words, the stipulations in a contract
and other contract documents should be interpreted together with the
end in view of giving effect to all.

In the instant case, there is no showing that respondent gave his


acquiescence to the said amendment or modification of the contract. The
fact that respondent subsequently settled the said bill proves that he
acceded to the increase in rental fee. However, the same may not be said
with respect to the questioned rental fees sought to be recovered by
petitioner between September 1991 and September 1994 because no bill
was made and forwarded to respondent on the basis of which it could
have given or withheld its conformity thereto.

TUNA PROCESSING, INC. v. PHILIPPINE KINGFORD, INC.


G.R. No. 185582, February 29, 2012

Indeed, it is in the best interest of justice that in the


enforecement of a foreign arbitral award, we deny availment by the
losing party of the rule that bars foreign corporations not licensed to do
business in the Philippines from maintaining a suit in our courts.
When a party enters into a contract containing a foreign arbitration
clause and, as in this case, in fact submits itself to arbitration, it
becomes bound by the contract, by the arbitration and by the result of
arbitration, conceding thereby the capacity of the other party to enter
into the contract, participate in the arbitration and cause the
implementation of the result.

CRESENCIO BAO AND HEIRS OF THE DECEASED AMANCIO


ASUMBRADO v. BACHELOR EXPRESS, INC./ CERES LINER, INC.
AND WENIFREDO SALVANA
G.R. No. 191703, March 12, 2012

Gross negligence is one that is characterized by the want of even


slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty
to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally with a conscious
indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected.

PAULITA EDITH SERRA v. NELFA T. MUMAR


G.R. No. 193861, March 14, 2012

Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, employers are liable for the
damages caused by their employees acting within the scope of their
assigned tasks. Whenever an employees negligence causes damage or
injury to another, there instantly arises a presumption that the employer
failed to exercise the due diligence of a good father of the family in the
selection or supervision of its employees. The liability of the employer is
direct or immediate. It is not conditioned upon prior recourse against the
negligent employee and a prior showing of insolvency of such employee.

Damages for loss of earning capacity is in the nature of actual


damages, which as a rule must be duly proven, by documentary evidence,
not merely by the self-serving testimony of the widow. By way of
exception, damages for loss of earning capacity may be awarded despite
the absence of documentary evidence when (1) the deceased is self-
employed earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws,
and judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in the deceaseds line of
work no documentary evidence is available; or (2) the deceased is
employed as a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage
under current labor laws.

MCA-MBF COUNTDOWN CARDS PHILIPPINES INC., AMABLE R.


AGUILUZ V, AMABLE C. AGUILUZ IX, CIELO C. AGUILUZ,
ALBERTO L. BUENVIAJE, VICENTE ACSAY AND MCA HOLDINGS
AND MANAGEMENT CORPORATION v. MBF CARD
INTERNATIONAL LIMITED AND MBF DISCOUNT CARD LIMITED
G.R. No. 173586, March 14, 2012

While the absence of a written agreement does not necessarily


negate the perfection of a contract, nevertheless, this very lack of a
written contract constitutes convincing circumstantial proof that said
parties were indeed in the process of negotiating the contract's terms.
When there is as of yet no meeting of the minds as to the subject matter
or the cause or consideration of the contract being negotiated, the same
cannot be considered to have been perfected.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE v. ERLAND


SABADLAB Y BAYQUEL, ACCUSED-APPELLANT
G.R. No. 175924, March 14, 2012

The ordinary or qualifying nature of an aggravating circumstance


is a distinction that should only be of consequence to the criminal, rather
than to the civil, liability of the offender. In fine, relative to the civil
aspect of the case, an aggravating circumstance, WHETHER OR NOT
ordinary or qualifying, should entitle the offended party to an award of
exemplary damages within the unbridled meaning of Article 2230 of the
Civil Code.

F.F. CRUZ & CO., INC. (FFCCI) v. HR CONSTRUCTION CORP.


(HRCC)
G.R. No. 187521, March 14, 2012

Waiver is defined as a voluntary and intentional relinquishment or


abandonment of a known existing legal right, advantage, benefit, claim or
privilege, which except for such waiver the party would have enjoyed.

Under Article 1191 of the Civil Code, the power to rescind


obligations is implied in reciprocal ones, in case one of the obligors
should not comply with what is incumbent upon him. The injured party
may choose between the fulfillment and the rescission of the obligation,
with the payment of damages in either case. He may also seek rescission,
even after he has chosen fulfillment, if the latter should become
impossible.

MARITER MENDOZA v. ADRIANO CASUMPANG, JENNIFER


ADRIANE AND JOHN ANDRE, ALL SURNAMED CASUMPANG
G.R. No. 197987, March 19, 2012

An operation requiring the placing of sponges in the incision is not


complete until the sponges are properly removed, and it is settled that
the leaving of sponges or other foreign substances in the wound after the
incision has been closed is at least prima facie negligence by the
operating surgeon. For this reason, exemplary damages under Article
2229 of the Civil Code should be awarded.

SPOUSES JESSE CACHOPERO AND BEMA CACHOPERO v.


RACHEL CELESTIAL
G.R. No. 146754, March 21, 2012

A compromise once approved by final orders of the court has the


force of res judicata between the parties and should not be disturbed
except for vices of consent or forgery. Hence, 'a decision on a
compromise agreement is final and executory.' Such agreement has the
force of law and is conclusive on the parties. It transcends its identity as
a mere contract binding only upon the parties thereto, as it becomes a
judgment that is subject to execution in accordance with the Rules.
Judges therefore have the ministerial and mandatory duty to implement
and enforce it.

R.S. TOMAS, INC. v. RIZAL CEMENT COMPANY, INC.


G.R. No. 173155, March 21, 2012

Breach of contract is defined as the failure without legal reason to


comply with the terms of a contract. It is also defined as the failure,
without legal excuse, to perform any promise which forms the whole or
part of the contract. Hence, where there was not only delay but non-
completion of the projects undertaken by petitioner without justifiable
ground, undoubtedly, petitioner is guilty of breach of contract. This gives
respondent the right to terminate the contract by serving petitioner a
written notice.

THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, represented by the Archbishop


of Caceres, v. REGINO PANTE
G.R. No. 174118 April 11, 2012
Not every mistake renders a contract voidable. Under Article 1331
in order that mistake may invalidate consent, it should refer to the
substance of the thing which is the object of the contract, or to those
conditions which have principally moved one or both parties to enter into
the contract. Mistake as to the identity or qualifications of one of the
parties will vitiate consent only when such identity or qualifications have
been the principal cause of the contract. A simple mistake of account
shall give rise to its correction.

Under Article 1544. If the same thing should have been sold to
different vendees, the ownership shall be transferred to the person who
may have first taken possession thereof in good faith, if it should be
movable property. Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall
belong to the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the
Registry of Property. Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall
pertain to the person who in good faith was first in the possession; and,
in the absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title,
provided there is good faith.

ANTONIO B. BALTAZAR, SEBASTIAN M. BALTAZAR, ANTONIO L.


MANGALINDAN,
ROSIE M. MATEO, NENITA A. PACHECO, VIRGILIO REGALA, JR.,
and RAFAEL TITCO v. LORENZO LAXA
G.R. No. 174489, April 11, 2012

Due execution of the will or its extrinsic validity pertains to WHETHER


OR NOT the testator, being of sound mind, freely executed the will in
accordance with the formalities prescribed by law.

The law presumes that every person is of sound mind, in the absence of
proof to the contrary. The burden of proof that the testator was not of sound
mind at the time of making his dispositions is on the person who opposes the
probate of the will; but if the testator, one month, or less, before making his
will was publicly known to be insane, the person who maintains the validity of
the will must prove that the testator made it during a lucid interval. In
connection to this, the state of being forgetful does not necessarily make a
person mentally unsound so as to render him unfit to execute a Will.
Forgetfulness is not equivalent to being of unsound mind.

HEIRS OF BIENVENIDO AND ARACELI TANYAG v. SALOME E.


GABRIEL, NESTOR R. GABRIEL, LUZ GABRIEL-ARNEDO married
to ARTURO ARNEDO, NORA GABRIEL-CALINGO married to FELIX
CALINGO, PILAR M. MENDIOLA, MINERVA GABRIEL-NATIVIDAD
married to EUSTAQUIO NATIVIDAD, and ERLINDA VELASQUEZ
married to HERMINIO VELASQUEZ
G.R. No. 175763, April 11, 2012

An action for annulment of title or reconveyance based on fraud is


imprescriptible where the plaintiff is in possession of the property subject
of the acts. However, for such an action to prosper, this Court has held
that the party seeking reconveyance must prove by clear and convincing
evidence his title to the property and the fact of fraud.
Acquisitive prescription is a mode of acquiring ownership by a
possessor through the requisite lapse of time. In order to ripen into
ownership, possession must be in the concept of an owner, public,
peaceful and uninterrupted. The party who asserts ownership by adverse
possession must prove the presence of the essential elements of
acquisitive prescription.

Under Article 434 of the Civil Code, to successfully maintain an


action to recover the ownership of a real property, the person who claims a
better right to it must prove 2 things: first, the identity of the land claimed;
and second, his title thereto. In regard to the first requisite, the person
must first fix the identity of the land he is claiming by describing the
location, area and boundaries thereof.

ESTELITA VILLAMAR v. BALBINO MANGAOIL


G.R. No. 188661, April 11, 2012

Article 1191 of the NCC is clear that the power to rescind


obligations is implied in reciprocal ones, in case one of the obligors
should not comply with what is incumbent upon him. This remains true
notwithstanding the absence of express stipulations in the agreement
indicating the consequences of breaches which the parties may commit.
To hold otherwise would render Article 1191 of the NCC as useless.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SANDIGANBAYAN


G.R. No. 166859, April 12, 2011

The thrust of the Republic that the funds were borrowed or lent
might even preclude any consequent trust implication. In a contract of
loan, one of the parties (creditor) delivers money or other consumable
thing to another (debtor) on the condition that the same amount of the
same kind and quality shall be paid. Owing to the consumable nature of
the thing loaned, the resulting duty of the borrower in a contract of loan
is to pay, not to return, to the creditor or lender the very thing loaned.
This explains why the ownership of the thing loaned is transferred to the
debtor upon perfection of the contract. Ownership of the thing loaned
having transferred, the debtor enjoys all the rights conferred to an owner
of property, including the right to use and enjoy (jus utendi), to consume
the thing by its use (jus abutendi), and to dispose (jus disponendi),
subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. Evidently, the
resulting relationship between a creditor and debtor in a contract of loan
cannot be characterized as fiduciary.

RE: COMPLAINT OF CONCERNED MEMBERS OF CHINESE


GROCERS ASSOCIATION AGAINST JUSTICE SOCORRO B. INTING
OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
A.M. OCA IPI No. 10-177-CA-J, April 12, 2011
Sec. 109 of P.D. 1529 allows a person who is not the owner of the
property to file the petition for a new duplicate certificate, provided the
person has interest in the property. In the instant case, dela Cruz is a
person in interest to the subject property given the fact that he had what
appeared to be a validly notarized Deed of Absolute Sale over the subject
property in his favor. As a public document, the subject Deed of Absolute
Sale has in its favor the presumption of regularity. To contradict it, one
must present evidence that is clear and convincing; otherwise, the
document should be upheld. However, no one from CGA appeared during
the proceedings to oppose dela Cruzs petition or to bring to Justice
Intings attention the fact that Ang Bio was already dead at the time the
deed of sale was allegedly executed.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. AIDA MARQUEZ


G.R. No. 181440, April 13, 2011

The crime of kidnapping and failure to return a minor under Article


270 of the Revised Penal Code is clearly analogous to illegal and arbitrary
detention or arrest, thereby justifying the award of moral damages.

Article 2221. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a


right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the
defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of
indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him.

JEAN TAN, ROSELLER C. ANACINTO, CARLO LOILO ESPINEDA


and DAISY ALIADO MANAOIS, represented in this act by their
Attorney-in-Fact, MA. WILHELMINA E. TOBIAS v. REPUBLIC OF
THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 193443 April 16, 2012

Section 14 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 (P.D. No. 1529)


specifies those who are qualified to register their incomplete title over an
alienable and disposable public land under the Torrens system. Section
14 states: The following persons may file in the proper Court of First
Instance an application for registration of title to land, WHETHER OR
NOT personally or through their authorized representatives: (1) Those
who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in
open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of
alienable and disposable lands of the public domain under a bona fide
claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier; (2) Those who have
acquired ownership of private lands by prescription under the provision
of existing laws; (3) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands
or abandoned river beds by right of accession or accretion under the
existing laws; and (4) Those who have acquired ownership of land in any
other manner provided for by law.

Section 14(1) covers "alienable and disposable lands" while


Section 14(2) covers "private property". Thus, for ones possession and
occupation of an alienable and disposable public land to give rise to an
imperfect title, the same should have commenced on June 12, 1945 or
earlier. On the other, for one to claim that his possession and occupation
of private property has ripened to imperfect title, the same should have
been for the prescriptive period provided under the Civil Code. Without
need for an extensive extrapolation, the private property contemplated in
Section 14(2) is patrimonial property as defined in Article 421 in relation
to Articles 420 and 422 of the Civil Code.

Possession and occupation of an alienable and disposable public


land for the periods provided under the Civil Code will not convert it to
patrimonial or private property. There must be an express declaration
that the property is no longer intended for public service or the
development of national wealth. In the absence thereof, the property
remains to be alienable and disposable and may not be acquired by
prescription under Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529. Nonetheless, Article
422 of the Civil Code states that "property of public dominion, when no
longer intended for public use or for public service, shall form part of the
patrimonial property of the State." It is this provision that controls how
public dominion property may be converted into patrimonial property
susceptible to acquisition by prescription. After all, Article 420 (2) makes
clear that those property "which belong to the State, without being for
public use, and are intended for some public service or for the
development of the national wealth" are public dominion property. For as
long as the property belongs to the State, although already classified as
alienable or disposable, it remains property of the public dominion if
when it is "intended for some public service or for the development of the
national wealth".

PHILIPPINE CHARTER INSURANCE CORPORATION v.


PETROLEUM DISTRIBUTORS & SERVICE CORPORATION
G.R. No. 180898 April 18, 2012

Article 2226 of the Civil Code allows the parties to a contract to


stipulate on liquidated damages to be paid in case of breach. It is
attached to an obligation in order to insure performance and has a
double function: (1) to provide for liquidated damages, and (2) to
strengthen the coercive force of the obligation by the threat of greater
responsibility in the event of breach. As a general rule, contracts
constitute the law between the parties, and they are bound by its
stipulations. For as long as they are not contrary to law, morals, good
customs, public order, or public policy, the contracting parties may
establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may
deem convenient.

A contract of suretyship is an agreement whereby a party, called


the surety, guarantees the performance by another party, called the
principal or obligor, of an obligation or undertaking in favor of another
party, called the obligee. Although the contract of a surety is secondary
only to a valid principal obligation, the surety becomes liable for the debt
or duty of another although it possesses no direct or personal interest
over the obligations nor does it receive any benefit therefrom.
A surety agreement has two types of relationship: (1) the principal
relationship between the obligee and the obligor; and (2) the accessory
surety relationship between the principal and the surety. The obligee
accepts the suretys solidary undertaking to pay if the obligor does not
pay. Such acceptance, however, does not change in any material way the
obligees relationship with the principal obligor. Neither does it make the
surety an active party in the principal obligor-obligee relationship. It
follows, therefore, that the acceptance does not give the surety the right
to intervene in the principal contract. The suretys role arises only upon
the obligors default, at which time, it can be directly held liable by the
obligee for payment as a solidary obligor.

Furthermore, in order that an obligation may be extinguished by


another which substitutes the same, it is imperative that it be so declared
in unequivocal terms, or that the old and new obligation be in every point
incompatible with each other. Novation of a contract is never presumed.
In the absence of an express agreement, novation takes place only when
the old and the new obligations are incompatible on every point.

HERMOJINA ESTORES v. SPOUSES ARTURO and LAURA


SUPANGAN
G.R. No. 175139 April 18, 2012

Article 2210 of the Civil Code expressly provides that interest


may, in the discretion of the court, be allowed upon damages awarded for
breach of contract.

JOSE ABELGAS, JR. and LETECIA JUSAYAN DE ABELGAS v.


SERVILLANO COMIA, RURAL BANK OF SOCORRO INC. And
RURAL BANK OF PINAMALAYAN, INC.
G. R. No. 163125 April 18, 2012

Section 118 of CA 141 requires that before the five year


prohibition applies, there should be an alienation or encumbrance of the
land acquired under free patent or homestead.

OSCAR DEL CARMEN, JR. v. GERONIMO BACOY, Guardian and


representing the children, namely: MARY MARJORIE B.
MONSALUD, ERIC B. MONSALUD, METZIE ANN B. MONSALUD,
KAREEN B. MONSALUD, LEONARDO B. MONSALUD, JR., and
CRISTINA B. MONSALUD
G.R. No. 173870 April 25, 2012

Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, where the thing that
caused the injury complained of is shown to be under the management of
the defendant or his servants; and the accident, in the ordinary course of
things, would not happen if those who had management or control used
proper care, it affords reasonable evidence in the absence of a
sufficient, reasonable and logical explanation by defendant that the
accident arose from or was caused by the defendants want of care.
INSULAR INVESTMENT AND TRUST CORPORATION v. CAPITAL
ONE EQUITIES CORP. (now known as CAPITAL ONE HOLDINGS
CORP.) and PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK
G.R. No. 183308 April 25, 2012

Because the words of the documents in question are clear and


readily understandable by any ordinary reader, there is no need for the
interpretation or construction thereof. Such is the mandate of the Civil
Code of the Philippines which provides that: Art. 1370. If the terms of a
contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the
contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulation shall control

Under Art. 1278: Compensation shall take place when two


persons, in their own right, are creditors and debtors of each
other. Furthermore, in order that compensation may be proper, it is
necessary: (1) That each one of the obligors be bound principally, and
that he be at the same time a principal creditor of the other; (2) That
both debts consist in a sum of money, or if the things due are
consumable, they be of the same kind, and also of the same quality if the
latter has been stated; (3) That the two debts be due; (4) That they be
liquidated and demandable; (5) That over neither of them there be any
retention or controversy, commenced by third persons and communicated
in due time to the debtor. Lastly, when all the requisites mentioned in
Article 1279 are present, compensation takes effect by operation of law,
and extinguishes both debts to the concurrent amount, even though the
creditors and debtors are not aware of the compensation.

SPOUSES NICANOR MAGNO and CARIDAD MAGNO v. HEIRS OF


PABLO PARULAN, represented by EMILIANO PARULAN,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, BALIUAG, BULACAN,
OFFICE OF THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF GUIGUINTO, BULACAN
G. R. No. 183916 April 25, 2012

Under DAR Administrative Order No. 02, Series of


1994, emancipation patents may be cancelled by the PARAD or the
DARAB for violations of agrarian laws, rules and regulations. The same
administrative order further states that administrative corrections may
include non-identification of spouse, correction of civil status, corrections
of technical descriptions and other matters related to agrarian reform;
and that the DARABs decision may include cancellation of registered
EP/CLOA, reimbursement of lease rental as amortization to ARBs,
reallocation of the land to qualified beneficiary, perpetual disqualification
to become an ARB, and other ancillary matters related to the cancellation
of the EP or CLOA.

PHILTRANCO SERVICE ENTERPRISES, INC. v. FELIX PARAS AND


INLAND TRAILWAYS, INC., AND HON. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 161909 April 25, 2012

In an action for breach of contract of carriage commenced by a


passenger against his common carrier, the plaintiff can recover damages
from a third-party defendant brought into the suit by the common carrier
upon a claim based on tort or quasi-delict. The liability of the third-party
defendant is independent from the liability of the common carrier to the
passenger.

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. SPOUSES CHEAH CHEE CHONG


and OFELIA CAMACHO CHEAH
G.R. No. 170865
SPOUSES CHEAH CHEE CHONG and OFELIA CAMACHO CHEAH v.
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK
G.R. No. 170892 April 25, 2012

Under Art. 2154: If something is received when there is no right to


demand it, and it was unduly delivered through mistake, the obligation to
return it arises. The indispensable requisites of the juridical relation
known as solutio indebiti, are, (a) that he who paid was not under
obligation to do so; and (b) that the payment was made by reason of an
essential mistake of fact.

ARMANDO ALILING v. JOSE B. FELICIANO, et al


G.R. No. 185829, April 25, 2012

Moral damages are awarded if the following elements exist in the


case: (1) an injury clearly sustained by the claimant; (2) a culpable act or
omission factually established; (3) a wrongful act or omission by the
defendant as the proximate cause of the injury sustained by the claimant;
and (4) the award of damages predicated on any of the cases stated
Article 2219 of the Civil Code. In addition, the person claiming moral
damages must prove the existence of bad faith by clear and convincing
evidence for the law always presumes good faith.

Aliling has failed to overcome such burden to prove bad faith on


the part of WWWEC. Aliling has not presented any clear and convincing
evidence to show bad faith. The fact that he was illegally dismissed is
insufficient to prove bad faith. Hence, he is not entitled to moral and
exemplary damages.

PHILIP L. GO, PACIFICO Q. LIM, ET AL. V.DISTINCTION


PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
G.R. No. 194024, April 25, 2012.

The HLURB is given awide latitude in characterizing or


categorizing acts which may constitute unsound business practice or
breach of contractual obligations in the real estate trade. This grant of
expansive jurisdiction to the HLURB does not mean, however, that all
cases involving subdivision lots or condominium units automatically fall
under its jurisdiction. An intra-corporate controversy may exist between
a condominium corporation and its members-unit owners

ANICETO BANGIS substituted by his heirs v. HEIRS OF SERAFIN


AND SALUD ADOLFO
G.R. No. 190875 June 13, 2012

For the contract of antichresis to be valid, Article 2134 of the Civil


Code requires that "the amount of the principal and of the interest shall
be specified in writing; otherwise the contract of antichresis shall be
void."

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HEIRS OF DOROTEO


MONTOYA, represented by BUENAVENTURA MONTOYA,
G.R. No. 195137 June 13, 2012

Under Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529: One of those persons that
may file in the proper Court of First Instance an application for
registration of title to land, WHETHER OR NOT personally or through
their duly authorized representatives are those who by themselves or
through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession of alienable and disposable lands of
the public domain since June 12, 1945, or earlier.

LOMISES ALUDOS, deceased, substituted by FLORA ALUDOS v.


JOHNNY M. SUERTE
G.R. No. 165285 June 18, 2012

As contemplated in Article 1602, in relation with Article 1604, of


the Civil Code. An equitable mortgage has been defined as one which
although lacking in some formality, or form or words, or other requisites
demanded by a statute, nevertheless reveals the intention of the parties
to charge real property as security for a debt, there being no
impossibility nor anything contrary to law in this intent.

MARCOS V. PRIETO v. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS (Former


Ninth Division), HON. ROSE MARY R. MOLINA-ALIM, In Her
Capacity as Pairing Judge of Branch 67 of the RTC, First Judicial
Region, Bauang, La Union, FAR EAST BANK & TRUST
COMPANY, now the BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS,
through ATTY. EDILBERTO B. TENEFRANCIA, and SPOUSES
ANTONIO and MONETTE PRIETO
G.R. No. 158597 June 18, 2012

Ratification or confirmation may validate an act done in behalf of


another without authority from the latter. The effect is as if the latter did
the act himself.

In agency, ratification is the adoption or confirmation by one


person of an act performed on his behalf by another without authority.
The substance of ratification is the confirmation after the act, amounting
to a substitute for a prior authority.

COUNTRY BANKERS INSURANCE CORPORATION v. KEPPEL


CEBU SHIPYARD, UNIMARINE SHIPPING LINES, INC., PAUL
RODRIGUEZ, PETER RODRIGUEZ, ALBERT HONTANOSAS, and
BETHOVEN QUINAIN
G.R. No. 166044 June 18, 2012

In a contract of agency, a person, the agent, binds himself to


represent another, the principal, with the latters consent or
authority. Thus, agency is based on representation, where the agent acts
for and in behalf of the principal on matters within the scope of the
authority conferred upon him. Such acts have the same legal effect as if
they were personally done by the principal. By this legal fiction of
representation, the actual or legal absence of the principal is converted
into his legal or juridical presence.

FRANCISCO RABAT, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK


G.R. No. 158755. June 18, 2012

Inadequacy of the bid price at a forced sale, unlike that in an


ordinary sale, is immaterial and does not nullify the sale.

FILCAR TRANSPORT SERVICES v. JOSE A. ESPINAS


G.R. No. 174156 June 20, 2012

As a general rule, one is only responsible for his own act or


omission. Thus, a person will generally be held liable only for the torts
committed by himself and not by another. This general rule is laid down
in Article 2176 of the Civil Code, which provides to wit: Whoever by act
or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is
obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is
no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-
delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.

One exception is an employer who is made vicariously liable for the


tort committed by his employee. Article 2180 of the Civil Code states: The
obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for ones own
acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is
responsible. Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their
employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their
assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business
or industry. The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when
the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence
of a good father of a family to prevent damage. Under Article 2176, in
relation with Article 2180, of the Civil Code, an action predicated on an
employees act or omission may be instituted against the employer who
is held liable for the negligent act or omission committed by his
employee.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO,
JR., JUAN PONCE ENRILE, MARIA CLARA LOBREGAT, JOSE
ELEAZAR, JR., JOSE CONCEPCION, ROLANDO P. DELA CUESTA,
EMMANUEL M. ALMEDA, HERMENEGILDO C. ZAYCO, NARCISO
M. PINEDA, IAKI R. MENDEZONA, DANILO S. URSUA,
TEODORO D. REGALA, VICTOR P. LAZATIN, ELEAZAR B. REYES,
EDUARDO U. ESCUETA, LEO J. PALMA, DOUGLAS LU YM,
SIGFREDO VELOSO and JAIME GANDIAGA
G.R. No. 139930 June 26, 2012

R.A. 3019 being a special law, the 10-year prescriptive period


should be computed in accordance with Section 2 of Act 3326, which
provides: Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the commission
of the violation of the law, and if the same be not known at the time, from
the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceedings for its
investigation and punishment.

RGM INDUSTRIES, INC. v. UNITED PACIFIC CAPITAL


CORPORATION
G.R. No. 194781 June 27, 2012

Stipulated interest rates are illegal if they are unconscionable and


courts are allowed to temper interest rates when necessary. In exercising
this vested power to determine what is iniquitous and unconscionable,
the Court must consider the circumstances of each case. What may be
iniquitous and unconscionable in one case, may be just in another.

NANCY L. TY v. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS and MORTGAGE BANK


G.R. No. 188302 June 27, 2012

Where the purchase is made in violation of an existing statute and


in evasion of its express provision, no trust can result in favor of the party
who is guilty of the fraud

PABLO P. GARCIA v. YOLANDA VALDEZ VILLAR


G.R. No. 158891 June 27, 2012

Under Article 2130 of the Civil Code, a stipulation forbidding the


owner from alienating the immovable mortgaged shall be void.

Under Article 2088 of the Civil Code, the creditor cannot


appropriate the things given by way of pledge or mortgage, or dispose of
them. Any stipulation to the contrary is null and void.

Under Article 2087 of the Civil Code, it is also of the essence of


these contracts that when the principal obligation becomes due, the
things in which the pledge or mortgage consists may be alienated for the
payment to the creditor.

A mortgage is a real right, which follows the property, even after


subsequent transfers by the mortgagor. A registered mortgage lien is
considered inseparable from the property inasmuch as it is a right
in rem. The sale or transfer of the mortgaged property cannot affect or
release the mortgage; thus the purchaser or transferee is necessarily
bound to acknowledge and respect the encumbrance. In fact, under
Article 2129 of the Civil Code, the mortgage on the property may still be
foreclosed despite the transfer, Under Art. 2129: The creditor may claim
from a third person in possession of the mortgaged property, the payment
of the part of the credit secured by the property which said third person
possesses, in terms and with the formalities which the law establishes.

Novation which consists in substituting a new debtor in the place


of the original one, may be made even without the knowledge or against
the will of the latter, but not without the consent of the creditor. Payment
by the new debtor gives him the rights mentioned in articles 1236 and
1237.

SPS. AMBROSIO DECALENG (substituted by his heirs) and JULIA


WANAY DECALENG v. BISHOP OF THE MISSIONARY DISTRICT
OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS OF PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL
CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.

PATRICIO OBONAN BANIAGA, et al. v. PHILIPPINE EPISCOPAL


CHURCH, represented by RT. REV. ROBERT O. LONGID
G.R. No. 171209 June 27, 2012

An accion reinvindicatoria is an action to recover ownership over


real property. Article 434 of the New Civil Code provides that to
successfully maintain an action to recover the ownership of a real
property, the person who claims a better right to it must prove two
things: first, the identity of the land claimed by describing the location,
area, and boundaries thereof; and second, his title thereto.

HEIRS OF SERVANDO FRANCO v. SPOUSES VERONICA AND


DANILO GONZALES
G.R. No. 159709 June 27, 2012

There is novation when there is an irreconcilable incompatibility


between the old and the new obligations. There is no novation in case of
only slight modifications; hence, the old obligation prevails.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. METRO INDEX REALTY AND


DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
G.R. No. 198585, JULY 2, 2012

It is not the notorious, exclusive and uninterrupted possession


and occupation of an alienable and disposable public land for the
mandated periods that converts it to patrimonial. The indispensability of
an official declaration that the property is now held by the State in its
private capacity or placed within the commerce of man for prescription
to have any effect against the State cannot be overemphasized.
It must be underscored that the law speaks of "possession and
occupation." Since these words are separated by the conjunction and, the
clear intention of the law is not to make one synonymous with the other.
When, therefore, the law adds the word occupation, it seeks to delimit
the all-encompassing effect of constructive possession.

SUBIC BAY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY v. COURT OF APPEALS


and SUBIC INTERNATIONAL HOTEL CORPORATION
G.R. NO. 192885, JULY 4, 2012

Even logic dictates that before anyone is entitled to collect


service fees, one must have actually rendered a service. In the instant
case, petitioner SBMA, not having provided the services that would
require the payment of service fees as stipulated in the Lease
Development Agreement, is not entitled to collect the same.

BRIGIDO B. QUIAO v. RITA C. QUIAO, et al.


G.R. NO. 176556, JULY 4, 2012

A vested right is one whose existence, effectivity and extent do


not depend upon events foreign to the will of the holder, or to the
exercise of which no obstacle exists, and which is immediate and perfect
in itself and not dependent upon a contingency. While one may not be
deprived of his vested right, he may lose the same if there is due
process and such deprivation is founded in law and jurisprudence. Here,
petitioner's claim of a vested right has no basis considering that under
Article 176 of the Civil Code, his share of the conjugal partnership profits
may be forfeited if he is the guilty party in a legal separation case.

EMETERIA LIWAG v. HAPPY GLEN LOOP HOMEOWNERS


ASSOCIATION, INC.
G. R. NO. 189755, JULY 4, 2012

Easements or servitudes are encumbrances imposed upon an


immovable for the benefit of another immovable belonging to a different
owner, for the benefit of a community, or for the benefit of one or more
persons to whom the encumbered estate does not belong. The law
provides that easements may be continuous or discontinuous and
apparent or non-apparent. The water facility is an encumbrance on Lot
11, Block 5 of the subdivision for the benefit of the community. It is
continuous and apparent, because it is used incessantly without human
intervention, and because it is continually kept in view by the overhead
water tank, which reveals its use to the public.

ENGR. EMELYNE P. CAYETANO-ABANO, et al. v. COLEGIO DE SAN


JUAN DE LETRAN-CALAMBA
G.R. No. 179545, July 11, 2012.
Generally, the punch list includes those items that restrict the
final completion of the project. Clearly, by its very nature, unless and
until the items in a punch list are completed and/or corrected,
accomplishment on a project can never be considered 100%. Given the
many defects and unfinished works on the building subject of this case,
the items in the punch list submitted are definitely not in the nature of
mere finishing touches.

NATIONAL SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY OF THE BAHA'IS OF THE


PHILIPPINES v. ALFREDO S. PASCUAL
G.R. No. 169272, July 11, 2012

The decisions and orders of administrative agencies, such as the


Bureau of Lands, rendered pursuant to their quasi-judicial authority,
upon finality, have the force and binding effect of a final judgment within
the purview of the doctrine of res judicata. The petitioners status as
possessor and owner of the lots had been decided upon in the final and
executory December 4, 1985 decision of the Bureau of Lands, which the
DENR Secretary and the OP affirmed on appeal. Thus, the petitioner is
not entitled to the possession and ownership of the lots.

VIRGILIO S. DAVID v. MISAMIS OCCIDENTAL II ELECTRIC


COOPERATIVE, INC.
G.R. No. 194785, JULY 11, 2012

The elements of a contract of sale are: a) Consent or meeting of


the minds, that is, consent to transfer ownership in exchange for the
price; b) Determinate subject matter; and c) Price certain in money or its
equivalent. It is the absence of the first element which distinguishes a
contract of sale from that of a contract to sell. The delivery made by
David to William Lines, Inc., as evidenced by the Bill of Lading, was
deemed to be a delivery to MOELCI. David was authorized to send the
power transformer to the buyer pursuant to their agreement. When David
sent the item through the carrier, it amounted to a delivery to MOELCI.

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. SPS. FLORIMON V. ILETO et


al.
G.R. No. 169957, JULY 11, 2012

DANILO BRILLO et al. v. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION


G.R. No. 171558, JULY 11, 2012

When a compromise agreement is given judicial approval, it


becomes more than a contract binding upon the parties. Having been
sanctioned by the court, it is a determination of the controversy and has
the force and effect of a judgment. It is immediately executory and not
appealable, except for vices of consent, forgery, fraud, misrepresentation
and coercion.

An easement of a right of way transmits no rights except the


easement itself, and respondent retains full ownership of the property.
However, considering the nature and the effect of the installation power
lines, the limitations on the use of the land for an indefinite period would
deprive respondent of normal use of the property. For this reason, the
latter is entitled to payment of a just compensation, which must be
neither more nor less than the monetary equivalent of the land.

PHILIPPINE CHARITY SWEEPSTAKES OFFICE (PCSO) v. NEW


DAGUPAN METRO GAS CORPORATION
G.R. No. 173171, JULY 11, 2012

The stipulation extending the coverage of a mortgage to advances


or loans other than those already obtained or specified in the contract is
valid and has been commonly referred to as a "blanket mortgage" or
"dragnet" clause. A mortgage that provides for a dragnet clause is in the
nature of a continuing guaranty and constitutes an exception to the rule
than an action to foreclose a mortgage must be limited to the amount
mentioned in the mortgage contract. Its validity is anchored on Article
2053 of the Civil Code and is not limited to a single transaction, but
contemplates a future course of dealing, covering a series of
transactions, generally for an indefinite time or until revoked. It is
prospective in its operation and is generally intended to provide security
with respect to future transactions within certain limits, and
contemplates a succession of liabilities, for which, as they accrue, the
guarantor becomes liable. Hence, where the subject mortgage is not in
the nature of a continuing guaranty and given the automatic termination
thereof, PCSO cannot claim that Galangs ticket purchases in 1992 are
also secured. From the time the amount of P450,000.00 was fully settled,
the subject mortgage had already been cancelled such that Galangs
subsequent ticket purchases are unsecured. Simply put, PCSO had
nothing to register, much less, foreclose.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DOMINGO ESPINOSA


G.R. No. 171514, JULY 18, 2012

For one to invoke Section 48(b) and claim an imperfect title over
an alienable and disposable land of the public domain on the basis of a
thirty (30)-year possession and occupation, it must be demonstrated that
such possession and occupation commenced on January 24, 1947 and the
thirty (30)-year period was completed prior to the effectivity of P.D. No.
1073.

SANTIAGO V. SOQUILLO v. JORGE P. TORTOLA


G.R. No. 192450, JULY 23, 2012

As a general rule, a purchaser may rely on what appears on the


face of a certificate of title. An exception to this rule is when there exist
important facts that would create suspicion in an otherwise reasonable
man and spur him to go beyond the present title and to investigate those
that preceded it. One who falls within the exception can neither be
denominated an innocent purchaser for value nor a purchaser in good
faith; hence, does not merit the protection of the law. In this case,
petitioner Soquillo was not a purchaser in good faith. He and the heirs of
Coloso, Jr. who were his predecessors-in-interest, knew about the sale
made to Tortola and the possession of the disputed property by
Villaflores. Besides, Tortola registered the sale, albeit with much delay, in
2002. As of the time Tortola's complaint was filed, no registration was
effected by Soquillo.

Asia Trust Development Bank v. Carmelo H. Tuble


G.R. No 183987, July 25, 2012

The right of redemption of foreclosed properties was a statutory


privilege. Redemption is by force of law, and the purchaser at public
auction is bound to accept it. Thus, it is the law that provides the terms of
the right; the mortgagee cannot dictate them.

GOLDLOOP PROPERTIES INC. v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE


INSURANCE SYSTEM
G.R. No. 171076, AUGUST 1, 2012

Parties may validly stipulate the unilateral rescission of a


contract. Hence, where pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement
executed by the parties, one of the grounds under which GSIS may
validly rescind the MOA is if at any given time, Goldloop commits any
breach of its obligations and commitments thereunder, and Goldloop still
failed to pay the installments due from it, GSIS may unilaterally rescind
the contract.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARLON MEDIDA


G.R. No. 195097. August 13, 2012
All lands not appearing to be clearly within private ownership are
presumed to belong to the State. To overcome this presumption,
incontrovertible evidence must be presented to establish that the land
subject of the application for registration of title is alienable or
disposable. The applicant must prove that there was a positive act of the
government making such land alienable and disposable. Hence, where
the evidence presented are mere survey plans prepared by a geodetic
engineer, although approved by the DENR-Land Management Bureau,
such is inadequate proof as to the alienable and disposable character of
the lands and are hardly incontrovertible. The survey plans refer only to
the technical correctness of the survey plotted and has nothing to do
whatsoever with the nature and character of the property surveyed.

LILIA B. ADA, LUZ B. ADANZA, FLORA C. BAYLON, REMO


BAYLON, JOSE BAYLON, ERIC BAYLON, FLORENTINO BAYLON,
and MA. RUBY BAYLON v. FLORANTE BAYLON
G.R. No. 182435. August 13, 2012

Under Article 1381(4) of the Civil Code, contracts which are


rescissible due to fraud or bad faith include those which involve things
under litigation, if they have been entered into by the defendant without
the knowledge and approval of the litigants or of competent judicial
authority. Such kind of disposition tends to render inutile the courts
impending disposition in such case and is unmistakably and irrefutably
indicative of bad faith. Hence, where the two parcels of land subject of a
complaint for partition were donated inter vivos by the alleged owner
without the knowledge of the court or of the other litigants, the
conveyance may be rescinded and such right to ask for the rescission of
the contract under Article 1381(4) is generally not contingent upon the
final determination of the ownership of the thing subject of litigation.

CHARLES GOTARDO v. DIVINA BULING


G.R. No. 165166, August 15, 2012

In an action for filiation, a prima facie case exists if a woman


declares supported by corroborative proof that she had sexual
relations with the putative father. The burden of evidence then shifts to
the putative father. The two affirmative defenses available to the putative
father are: (1) incapability of sexual relations with the mother due to
physical absence or impotency; or (2) that the mother had sexual
relations with other men at the time of conception. Failure to allege and
prove such defenses, as in this case where the putative father failed to
substantiate his allegations of infidelity and insinuations of promiscuity
against the mother, the prima facie case should be maintained. As such,
filiation is beyond question, and support follows as a matter of obligation;
a parent is obliged to support his child, whether legitimate or
illegitimate.

MANUEL D. YNGSON, JR., in his capacity as the Liquidator of


ARCAM & COMPANY, INC. v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK
G.R. No. 171132. August 15, 2012

The court has already settled and upheld the right of the secured
creditor to foreclose the mortgages in its favor during the liquidation of a
debtor corporation.

NUMERIANO P. ABOBON v. FELICITAS ABATA ABOBON and


GELIMA ABATA ABOBON
G.R. No. 155830, August 15, 2012

A certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and


incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose name
appears therein. This reliance on the certificate of title rests on the
doctrine of indefeasibility of the land title. It is only when the acquisition
of the title is attended with fraud or bad faith that the doctrine of
indefeasibility finds no application. Hence, where there is an issue as to
who has the better right of possession over a parcel of land between one
who has no title and one who has such, the latter has the preferential
right to the possession of the land in question. Also, it should be noted
that in order for one to properly assail the validity of a TCT, he must
himself bring an action for that purpose.
UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MAUNLAD HOMES, INC.,
and all other persons or entities claiming rights under it.
G.R. No. 190071, August 15, 2012

In a contract to sell, the full payment of the purchase price is a


positive suspensive condition whose non-fulfillment is not a breach of
contract, but merely an event that prevents the seller from conveying
title to the purchaser. The non-payment of the purchase price renders the
contract to sell ineffective and without force and effect. Hence, where a
buyer in a contract to sell withholds the installment payments, such
rendered the contract ineffective and without force and effect, and
ultimately deprived itself of the right to continue possessing Maunlad
Shopping Mall. Also, as in any unlawful detainer case, Maunlad Homes
claim of ownership of the property does not divest MeTC of its
jurisdiction over the action. MeTC may preliminarily resolve the issue of
ownership to determine the issue of possession, although such
preliminary resolution is merely provisional and is binding only with
respect to the issue of possession.

SPOUSES TEODORO and NANETTE PERENA v. SPOUSES TERESITA PHILIPPINE


NICOLAS and L. ZARATE, NATIONAL RAILWAYS, and the COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 157917, August 29, 2012

Defendants may be held jointly and severally liable for damages


in favor of the plaintiff despite the fact that the basis of the latters right
to relief against the former is distinct in each case. Hence, in an action
for damages against a school service on the ground of breach of contract
of carriage and against the PNR based on quasi-delict, they could be held
jointly and severally liable by virtue of their respective negligence
combining to cause the death of a student.

Loss of earning capacity is a compensation awarded not for loss of


time or earnings but for loss of the deceaseds power or ability to earn
money. Hence, where a student with no history of earnings died because
of a vehicular accident, his heirs may still be awarded an amount
corresponding to loss of earning capacity.

MAKATI SHANGRI-LA HOTEL AND RESORT, INC. v. ELLEN


JOHANNE HARPER, JONATHAN CHRISTOPHER HARPER, and
RIGOBERTO GILLERA
G.R. No. 189998, August 29, 2012

Negligence is defined as the omission to do something which a


reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily
regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of
something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. The test in
determining whether there is negligence on the part of the parties in a
given situation is: Did defendant, in doing the alleged negligent act, use
that reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent person
would have used in the same situation? If not, the person is guilty of
negligence. Hence, where a five-star hotel continued with its practice of
providing only one security guard per three to four floors despite the
recommendation of it chief security officer that the ideal-set up for an
effective security should be one guard for every floor considering that the
hotel is L-shaped and the ends of the hallways cannot be seen, and as a
result of which failed to prevent the foreseeable crime of murder of one
of its guests, it is guilty of negligence under Art. 2176 of the Civil Code.

JOSE I. MEDINA v. COURT OF APPEALS and HEIRS OF THE LATE


ABUNDIO CASTAARES, Represented by ANDRES CASTAARES
G.R. No. 137582, August 29, 2012

Where a property is part of the estate that has not been fully
settled and partitioned, the heirs right of ownership over said property
is merely inchoate. This means that the impending heir has yet no
absolute dominion over any specific property in the decedents estate
that could be specifically levied upon and sold at public auction. Any
encumbrance of attachment over the heirs interests in the estate,
therefore, remains a mere probability, and cannot summarily be satisfied
without the final distribution of the properties in the estate. Hence,
where a portion of a parcel of land was sold at a public auction to satisfy
the writ of execution issued by the court but such land was later on found
to be part of the estate that has not been partitioned, said sale is void.
The highest bidder in the public auction does not become the absolute
owner of the property notwithstanding his possession of a tax declaration
over said property. A tax declaration by itself is not sufficient to prove
ownership.

METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. SERVANDO


ARGUELLES (Deceased) & CLAUDIO ARGUELLES, et al.
G.R. No. 176984, August 29, 2012

Absence of receipts of is not conclusive of as to the non-payment


of installments in a contract of sale as long as other pieces of
circumstantial evidence are presented to show that such installments
were indeed fact made. Hence, where the buyers of a parcel of land
were not able to present receipts covering their installments, the
Supreme Court found that such payment may be assumed to have been
made from the fact that said buyers were subsequently found in
possession of a deed of sale that the sellers executed in their favor. In
addition, the sellers gave up possession of their owners duplicate copy
of the title and this subsequently found its way into the hands of the
buyers. They were even successful in registering the title to the land in
their names, whose presumed validity was not overcome by the sellers.

JUAN B. BANEZ, JR. v. HON. CRISANTO C. CONCEPCION AS


PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE RTC-BULACAN, MALOLOS CITY, AND
THE ESTATE OF THE LATE RODRIGO GOMEZ, REPRESENTED BY
ITS ADMINISTRATRIX, TSUI YUK YING
G.R. No. 159508, August 29, 2012
Article 1144 of the Civil Code requires that an action to revive a
judgment must be brought before it is barred by prescription, which was
ten years from the accrual of the right of action. An allegation of
prescription, can effectively be used in a motion to dismiss only when the
complaint on its face shows that indeed the action has already
prescribed, otherwise, the issue of prescription is one involving
evidentiary matters requiring a full blown trial on the merits and cannot
be determined in a mere motion to dismiss. Hence, where the defense of
prescription could not be determined in the hearing of the petitioners
motion to dismiss considering that the complaint did not show on its face
that the period to bring the action to revive had already lapsed, the issue
of prescription became one involving evidentiary matters requiring a full
blown trial on the merits.

LEONARDO NOTARTE, GUILLERMO NOTARTE, REGALADO


NOTARTE AND HEIRS OF FELIPE NOTARTE v. GODOFREDO
NOTARTE
G.R. No. 180614, August 29, 2012

Under Article 1082 of the Civil Code, every act which is intended
to put an end to indivision among co-heirs is deemed to be a partition
even though it should purport to be a sale, an exchange, or any other
transaction. Partition may thus be inferred from circumstances
sufficiently strong to support the presumption. Hence, where the original
registered owners had either mortgaged or sold their respective shares,
in whole or in part, and the said owners successors-in-interest
eventually took possession of the respective portions acquired by them
beginning 1951 or thereabouts, introducing improvements and exercising
acts of ownership thereon, property is deemed partitioned. That their
respective shares of the original registered owners were merely
designated orally is immaterial.

JESUS VIRTUCIO, represented by ABDON VIRTUCIO v. JOSE


ALEGARBES
G.R. No. 187451, 29 August 2012

Law and jurisprudence dictate that only a judicial summons can


effectively toll the period for acquisitive prescription. When no action is
filed, then there is no occasion to issue a judicial summons against the
respondents. The period of acquisitive prescription continues to run.
Hence, where what was filed by the party in possession of the property
was merely a protest against the homestead application of the adverse
party, such protest did not interrupt the 30-year period of acquisitive
prescription. Even the decision resulting from such protest cannot
effectively toll the running of the period of acquisitive prescription. In
such an instance, no civil interruption can take place.

PACIFIC OCEAN MANNING, INC. and CELTIC PACIFIC SHIP


MANAGEMENT CO., LTD. v. BENJAMIN D. PENALES
G.R. No. 162809, September 5, 2012
Under Article 2208 of the Civil Code, attorneys fees can be
recovered "when the defendants act or omission has compelled the
plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his
interest." Hence, where a party did not give the adverse party ample time
to assess and evaluate his monetary claims before filing the case, the
former is not entitled to attorneys fees.

MAGDIWANG REALTY CORPORATION, RENATO P. DRAGON AND


ESPERANZA TOLENTINO v. THE MANILA BANKING
CORPORATION, SUBSTITUTED BY FIRST
SOVEREIGN ASSET MANAGEMENT (SPV-AMC), INC.
G.R. NO. 195592, SEPTEMBER 5, 2012
Under Article 1155 of the New Civil Code (NCC) which provides
that the prescription of actions is interrupted when: (1) they are filed
before the court; (2) there is a written extrajudicial demand by the
creditors; and (3) there is any written acknowledgment of the debt by the
debtor. Hence, where several letters were exchanged between the
parties, the ten (10)-year prescriptive period to file an action based on
the subject promissory notes was interrupted.

Article 2208(2) of the NCC allows the grant of attorneys fees


when the defendants act or omission compelled the plaintiff to litigate
or to incur expenses to protect its interest. Considering the
circumstances that led to the filing of the complaint in court, and the
clear refusal of the petitioners to satisfy their existing debt to the bank
despite the long period of time and the accommodations granted to it by
the respondent to enable them to satisfy their obligations, the respondent
was clearly compelled by the petitioners' acts to litigate for the
protection of the bank's interests, making the award of attorney's fees
proper.

PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK v. JULIE CHANDUMAL


G.R. NO. 195619, SEPTEMBER 5, 2012

R.A. No. 6552 recognizes the right of the seller to cancel the contract
but any such cancellation must be done in conformity with the
requirements therein prescribed. In addition to the notarial act of
rescission, the seller is required to refund to the buyer the cash
surrender value of the payments on the property. The actual cancellation
of the contract can only be deemed to take place upon the expiry of a
thirty (30)-day period following the receipt by the buyer of the notice of
cancellation or demand for rescission by a notarial act and the full
payment of the cash surrender value.
PARK HOTEL, J's PLAYHOUSE BURGOS CORP., INC., AND/OR
GREGG HARBUTT, GENERAL MANAGER, ATTY. ROBERTO
ENRIQUEZ, PRESIDENT, AND BILL PERCY, v. MANOLO SORIANO,
LESTER GONZALES, AND YOLANDA BADILLA,
G.R. NO. 171118 SEPTEMBER 10, 2012

Moral damages may be recovered where the dismissal of the


employee was tainted by bad faith or fraud, or where it constituted an act
oppressive to labor, and done in a manner contrary to morals, good
customs or public policy, while exemplary damages are recoverable only
if the dismissal was done in a wanton, oppressive, or malevolent
manner.

GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS), et al. v.


COMMISSION ON AUDIT (COA), et al.
G.R. No. 162372. September 11, 2012

Based on Article 22 of the Civil Code, there is unjust enrichment


when (1) A person is unjustly benefited; and (2) such benefit is derived at
the expense of or with damages to another. There is no unjust enrichment
when the person who will benefit has a valid claim to such
benefit. Hence, where the payees of retirement benefits granted pursuant
to a retirement plan that is contrary to law and thus void and of no effect,
the enrichment of the payees is without just or legal ground. They
received the disallowed benefits with the mistaken belief that they were
entitled to the same under the retirement plan. As such, under Article
1456 of the Civil Code, the payees are considered as trustees of the
disallowed amounts and are required to account for and return the
same.

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. SPOUSES ALEJANDRO AND


MYRNA REBLANDO
G.R. NO. 194014, SEPTEMBER 12, 2012

Article 2085 of the Civil Code provides that a mortgage contract,


to be valid, must have the following requisites: (a) that it be constituted
to secure the fulfilment of a principal obligation; (b) that the mortgagor
be the absolute owner of the thing mortgaged; and (c) that the persons
constituting the mortgage have free disposal of their property, and in the
absence of free disposal, that they be legally authorized for the purpose.

The practice of obtaining loans, defaulting in payment, and


thereafter contesting the validity of the mortgage after the collateral has
been foreclosed without any meritorious ground should be deterred.
Actions of this kind, bearing a hint of fraud on the part of mortgagors,
should not be tolerated, for they go against the basic principle that no
person shall unjustly enrich himself or herself at the expense of another
and that parties in a juridical relation must act with justice, honesty, and
good faith in dealing with one another.
ZOSIMA IN CORPORATED v. LILIA SALIMBAGAT AND ALL
PERSONS CLAIMING RIGHTS UNDER HER
G.R. NO. 174376, SEPTEMBER 12, 2012

In an unlawful detainer, the defendants possession of the


plaintiffs property is based on the plaintiffs permission expressed
through an express or implied contract between them. The defendants
possession becomes illegal only when the plaintiff demands the return of
the property, either because of the expiration of the right to possess it or
the termination of their contract and the defendant refuses to heed the
demand.

An implied new lease will set in if it is shown that: (a) the term of
the original contract of lease has expired; (b) the lessor has not given the
lessee a notice to vacate; and (c) the lessee continued enjoying the thing
leased for 15 days with the acquiescence of the lessor. This acquiescence
may be inferred from the failure of the lessor to serve notice to vacate
upon the lessee.

KEPPEL CEBU SHIPYARD, INC.v. PIONEER INSURANCE AND


SURETY CORPORATION, AND PIONEER INSURANCE AND
SURETY CORPORATION, PETITIONER, V. KEPPEL CEBU
SHIPYARD, INC.
G.R. NO. 180880-81/G.R. NO. 180896-97. SEPTEMBER 18, 2012

Where the parties being mutually at fault, the degree of causation


may be impossible of rational assessment as there is no scale to
determine how much of the damage is attributable to either party.
Therefore, it is but fair that both should equally shoulder the burden for
their negligence.

Basic is the rule that parties to a contract may establish such


stipulations, clauses, terms, or conditions as they may deem convenient,
provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, and public
policy. While greater vigilance is required in determining the validity of
clauses arising from contracts of adhesion, this does not mean that
contracts of adhesion are not invalid per se.

While contracts of adhesion may be struck down as void and


unenforceable for being subversive of public policy, the same can only be
done when, under the circumstances, the weaker party is imposed upon
in dealing with the dominant bargaining party and is reduced to the
alternative of taking it or leaving it, completely depriving the former of
the opportunity to bargain on equal footing.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EDGARDO LUPAC y FLORES


G.R. NO. 182230, SEPTEMBER 19, 2012

Under the Civil Code, exemplary damages are imposed in a


criminal case as part of the civil liability "when the crime was committed
with one or more aggravating circumstances. Such damages are awarded
"by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to the
moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages."

The term "aggravating circumstances" used by the Civil Code, the law
not having specified otherwise, is to be understood in its broad or generic
sense. The commission of an offense has a two-pronged effect, one on the
public as it breaches the social order and the other upon the private
victim as it causes personal sufferings, each of which is addressed by,
respectively, the prescription of heavier punishment for the accused and
by an award of additional damages to the victim. The increase of the
penalty or a shift to a graver felony underscores the exacerbation of the
offense by the attendance of aggravating circumstances, whether
ordinary or qualifying, in its commission. Unlike the criminal liability
which is basically a State concern, the award of damages, however, is
likewise, if not primarily, intended for the offended party who suffers
thereby. It would make little sense for an award of exemplary damages to
be due the private offended party when the aggravating circumstance is
ordinary but to be withheld when it is qualifying. Withal, the ordinary or
qualifying nature of an aggravating circumstance is a distinction that
should only be of consequence to the criminal, rather than to the civil
liability of the offender. In fine, relative to the civil aspect of the case, an
aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, should entitle
the offended party to an award of exemplary damages within the
unbridled meaning of Article 2230 of the Civil Code.

DARE ADVENTURE FARM CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS,


HON. AUGUSTINE VESTIL, as Presiding Judge of RTC-CEBU, Br.
56, MANDAUE CITY, SPS. FELIX NG AND NENITA NG, and SPS.
MARTIN T. NG AND AZUCENA S. NG AND
AGRIPINA R. GOC-ONG
G.R. No. 161122, September 24, 2012

A party may vindicate its rights in the property through an action


for quieting of title, a common law remedy designed for the removal of
any cloud upon, or doubt, or uncertainty affecting title to real property.
The action for quieting of title may be brought whenever there is a cloud
on title to real property or any interest in real property by reason of any
instrument, record, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding that is apparently
valid or effective, but is, in truth and in fact, invalid, ineffective, voidable,
or unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title. The other proper
remedy is an action for reconveyance of property. The remedy belongs to
the landowner whose property has been wrongfully or erroneously
registered in another persons name, and such landowner demands the
reconveyance of the property in the proper court of justice.

MILAGROS DE BELEN VDA. DE CABALU, MELITON CABALU, SPS.


ANGELA CABALU AND RODOLFO TALAVERA, AND PATRICIO
ABUS v. SPS. RENATO DOLORES TABU AND LAXAMANA,
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, TARLAC CITY, BRANCH II
G.R. NO. 188417 SEPTEMBER 24, 2012

Under Article 1347 of the Civil Code, "No contract may be entered
into upon future inheritance except in cases expressly authorized by law."
Paragraph 2 of Article 1347, characterizes a contract entered into upon
future inheritance as void. The law applies when the following requisites
concur: (1) the succession has not yet been opened; (2) the object of the
contract forms part of the inheritance; and (3) the promissor has, with
respect to the object, an expectancy of a right which is purely hereditary
in nature.

Contracting parties must be juristic entities at the time of the


consummation of the contract. Stated otherwise, to form a valid and legal
agreement it is necessary that there be a party capable of contracting
and a party capable of being contracted with. Hence, if any one party to a
supposed contract was already dead at the time of its execution, such
contract is undoubtedly simulated and false and, therefore, null and void
by reason of its having been made after the death of the party who
appears as one of the contracting parties therein. The death of a person
terminates contractual capacity.

TOMAS T. TEODORO, FRANCISCO J. TEODORO (SUBSTITUTED


UPON HIS DEATH BY TOMAS T. TEODORO, SALVADORILANO AND
TEODORO EXPLORATION AND MINERAL DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION v. CONTINENTAL CEMENT CORPORATION
G.R. NO. 165355 SEPTEMBER 26, 2012

The settled rule is that "a resort to judicial processes is not, per
se, evidence of ill will upon which a claim for damages may be based," for
the law could not have meant to impose a penalty on the right to litigate.
"Free resort to Courts for redress of wrongs is a matter of public policy.
The law recognizes the right of everyone to sue for that which he
honestly believes to be his right without fear of standing trial for
damages."

DR. PEDRO DENNIS CERENO, AND DR. SANTOS ZAFE v. COURT


OF APPEALS, SPOUSES DIOGENES S. OLAVERE AND FE R.
SERRANO
G.R. NO. 167366 SEPTEMBER 26, 2012

In medical negligence cases, it is settled that the complainant has the


burden of establishing breach of duty on the part of the doctors or
surgeons. It must be proven that such breach of duty has a causal
connection to the resulting death of the patient. A verdict in malpractice
action cannot be based on speculation or conjecture. Causation must be
proven within a reasonable medical probability based upon competent
expert testimony.
LIVING @ SENSE, INC. v. MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.
G.R. NO. 193753 SEPTEMBER 26, 2012

The term "jointly and severally" expresses a solidary obligation


granting petitioner, as creditor, the right to proceed against its debtors.

The nature of the solidary obligation under the surety does not make
one an indispensable party. An indispensable party is a party-in-interest
without whom no final determination can be had of an action, and who
shall be joined mandatorily either as plaintiffs or defendants. The
presence of indispensable parties is necessary to vest the court with
jurisdiction, thus, without their presence to a suit or proceeding, the
judgment of a court cannot attain real finality. The absence of an
indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and
void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but
even as to those present.

R.V. SANTOS COMPANY, INC. v. BELLE CORPORATION


G.R. Nos. 159561-62, OCTOBER 3, 2012

While there was no provision in the Construction Contract expressly


authorizing Belle to secure the services of a third party auditor to
determine the value of the work accomplished by petitioner RVSCI, there
is likewise no provision prohibiting the same. Certainly, RVSCI failed to
point to any contractual stipulation preventing RVSCI to seek expert
opinion regarding the value of RVSCIs accomplishment or the accuracy
of the Progress Billing, whether prior or subsequent to the approval of
such billing.

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. LILIAN S. SORIANO


G.R. No. 164051, OCTOBER 3, 2012

Novation is never presumed, and the animus novandi, whether


totally or partially, must appear by express agreement of the parties, or
by their acts that are too clear and unmistakable. The contracting parties
must incontrovertibly disclose that their object in executing the new
contract is to extinguish the old one. Upon the other hand, no specific
form is required for an implied novation, and all that is prescribed by law
would be an incompatibility between the two contracts. Nonetheless,
both kinds of novation must still be clearly proven. Hence, the
respondents bare assertion that the restructuring was approved by
petitoner cannot equate to a finding of an implied novation which
extinguished formers obligation as entrustee under the trust receipts.

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EMILIANO R. SANTIAGO, JR


G.R. No. 182209, OCTOBER 3, 2012
The interest imposed in case of delay in payments in agrarian
cases is 12% per annum and not 6% as the imposition is in the nature of
damages for delay in payment which in effect makes the obligation on the
part of the government one of forbearance.

ASSOCIATED MARINE OFFICERS AND SEAMEN'S UNION OF THE


PHILIPPINES PTGWO-ITF v. NORIEL DECENA
G.R. No. 178584, OCTOBER 8, 2012

It is basic that a contract is what the law defines it to be, and not what it
is called by the contracting parties. The Shelter Contract Award granted
to respondent expressly stipulates that "upon completion of payment of
the amount of US$28,563 representing the full value of the House and
Lot subject of the Contract Award, the UNION shall execute a Deed of
Transfer and shall cause the issuance of the corresponding Transfer
Certificate of Title in favor of and in the name of the AWARDEE." It
cannot be denied, therefore, that the parties herein entered into a
contract to sell in the guise of a reimbursement scheme requiring
respondent to make monthly reimbursement payments which are, in
actuality, installment payments for the value of the subject house and
lot.

SPOUSES GODFREY and GERARDINA SERFINO v. FAR EAST


BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, INC., now BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS
G.R. No. 171845, OCTOBER 10, 2012

An assignment of credit is an agreement by virtue of which the


owner of a credit, known as the assignor, by a legal cause, such as
sale, dation in payment, exchange or donation, and without the consent
of the debtor, transfers his credit and accessory rights to another, known
as the assignee, who acquires the power to enforce it to the same extent
as the assignor could enforce it against the debtor. It may be in the form
of sale, but at times it may constitute a dation in payment, such as when
a debtor, in order to obtain a release from his debt, assigns to his creditor
a credit he has against a third person." As a dation in payment,
the assignment of credit operates as a mode of extinguishing the
obligation; the delivery and transmission of ownership of a thing (in this
case, the credit due from a third person) by the debtor to the creditor is
accepted as the equivalent of the performance of the obligation. Hence,
where the terms of a compromise judgment did not convey an intent to
equate the assignment of Magdalenas retirement benefits (the credit) as
the equivalent of the payment of the debt due the spouses Serfino (the
obligation). There was actually no assignment of credit; if at all, the
compromise judgment merely identified the fund from which payment for
the judgment debt would be sourced.

As current laws provide, the banks contractual relations are with


its depositor, not with the third party; a bank is under obligation to treat
the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care and always to have in
mind the fiduciary nature of its relationship with them.
MARIETTA N. PORTILLO v. RUDOLF LIETZ, INC., RUDOLF LIETZ
and COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 196539, OCTOBER 10, 2012

The existence of a difference in the nature of the credits that one


has against the other, conversely, the nature of the debt one owes
another, which difference in turn results in the difference of the forum
where the different credits can be enforced, prevents the application of
compensation. To illustrate, the labor tribunal in an employees claim for
unpaid wages is without authority to allow the compensation of such
claims against the post employment claim of the former employer for
breach of a post employment condition. The labor tribunal does not have
jurisdiction over the civil case of breach of contract.

NAPOLEON D. NERI, et al v. HEIRS OF HADJI YUSOP UY AND


JULPHA IBRAHIM UY
G.R. No. 194366, OCTOBER 10, 2012

Under ART. 979, Legitimate children and their descendants


succeed the parents and other ascendants, without distinction as to sex
or age, and even if they should come from different marriages. Under
ART. 980, The children of the deceased shall always inherit from him in
their own right, dividing the inheritance in equal shares. Hence, where
the petitioners were found to be indisputably legitimate children of the
deceased from her first and second marriages with Gonzalo and Enrique,
respectively, consequently, they are entitled to inherit from her in equal
shares, pursuant to Articles 979 and 980 of the Civil Code.

Considering, thus, that the extrajudicial settlement with sale is invalid


and therefore, not binding on Eutropia, Victoria and Douglas, only the
shares of Enrique, Napoleon, Alicia, Visminda and Rosa in the homestead
properties have effectively been disposed in favor of spouses Uy. "A
person can only sell what he owns, or is authorized to sell and the buyer
can as a consequence acquire no more than what the seller can legally
transfer."

RCJ BUS LINES, INCORPORATED v. MASTER TOURS AND TRAVEL


CORPORATION
G.R. No. 177232, OCTOBER 11, 2012

RCJ failed to present any clear proof that it agreed with Master Tours to
abandon the lease of the buses and in its place constitute RCJ as
depositary of the same, providing storage service to Master Tours for a
fee. Further, it did not make sense for Master Tours to pre-terminate its
lease of the junked buses to RCJ, which would earn Master Tours P
600,000.00, in exchange for having to pay RCJ storage fees for keeping
those buses just the same. As already pointed out, the lease already
implied an obligation on RCJs part to safekeep the buses while they
were being rented.
NGEI MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE INC. AND HERNANCITO
RONQUILLO v. FILIPINAS PALMOIL PLANTATION INC. AND
DENNIS VILLAREAL
G.R. No. 184950, OCTOBER 11, 2012

It is basic that a contract is the law between the parties. Obligations


arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting
parties and should be complied with in good faith. Unless the stipulations
in a contract are contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or
public policy, the same are binding as between the parties. Hence, the
petitioners, having freely and willingly entered into the Addendum with
FPPI, cannot and should not now be permitted to renege on their
compliance under it, based on the supposition that its terms are
unconscionable. The contract must bind both contracting parties; its
validity or compliance cannot be left to the will of one of them.

ATLANTIC ERECTORS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS and HERBAL


COVE REALTY CORPORATION
G.R. No. 170732, OCTOBER 11, 2012

The parties to a contract are allowed to stipulate on liquidated


damages to be paid in case of breach. It is attached to an obligation in
order to ensure performance and has a double function: (1) to provide for
liquidated damages, and (2) to strengthen the coercive force of the
obligation by the threat of greater responsibility in the event of breach.
The amount agreed upon answers for damages suffered by the owner due
to delays in the completion of the project. As a pre-condition to such
award, however, there must be proof of the fact of delay in the
performance of the obligation.

As long as the contractor fails to finish the works within the


period agreed upon by the parties without justifiable reason and after the
owner makes a demand, then liability for damages as a consequence of
such default arises.

SPOUSES MINIANO B. DELA CRUZ and LETA L. DELA CRUZ v.


ANA MARIE CONCEPCION
G.R. No. 172825, OCTOBER 11, 2012

In order to extinguish an obligation that consists of payment of a


sum of money, payment should be made to the proper person as set forth
in Article 1240 of the Civil Code. However, where payment of the
remaining balance of P200,000.00 was not made to the creditors
themselves, but to one who was express authorized to receive payment,
payment made to the latter is deemed payment to the creditors.

HEIRS OF DR. MARIO S. INTAC and ANGELINA MENDOZA-INTAC


v. COURT OF APPEALS, et al
G.R. No. 173211, OCTOBER 11, 2012
The primary consideration in determining the true nature of a
contract is the intention of the parties. If the words of a contract appear
to contravene the evident intention of the parties, the latter shall prevail.
Such intention is determined not only from the express terms of their
agreement, but also from the contemporaneous and subsequent acts of
the parties. As heretofore shown, the contemporaneous and subsequent
acts of both parties in this case, point to the fact that the intention of
Ireneo was just to lend the title to the Spouses Intac to enable them to
borrow money and put up a hospital in Sta. Cruz, Laguna. Clearly, the
subject contract was absolutely simulated and, therefore, void.

FILINVEST LAND, INC., et al. v. ABDUL BACKY, et al.


G.R. No. 174715, OCTOBER 11, 2012

The conveyance of a homestead before the expiration of the five-


year prohibitory period following the issuance of the homestead patent is
null and void and cannot be enforced, for it is not within the competence
of any citizen to barter away what public policy by law seeks to
preserve.

FILINVEST LAND, INC., et al. v. ABDUL BACKY, et al.


G.R. No. 174715, OCTOBER 11, 2012

It bears stressing that the law was enacted to give the


homesteader or patentee every chance to preserve for himself and his
family the land that the State had gratuitously given to him as a reward
for his labour in cleaning and cultivating it. Its basic objective, as the
Court had occasion to stress, is to promote public policy that is to provide
home and decent living for destitute, aimed at providing a class of
independent small landholders which is the bulwark of peace and order.
Hence, any act which would have the effect of removing the property
subject of the patent from the hands of a grantee will be struck down for
being violative of the law.

The conveyance of a homestead before the expiration of the five-


year prohibitory period following the issuance of the homestead patent is
null and void and cannot be enforced, for it is not within the competence
of any citizen to barter away what public policy by law seeks to
preserve.

HEIRS OF ALBINA G. AMPIL represented by EXEQUIEL G. AMPIL


v. TERESA MANAHAN and MARIO MANAHAN
G.R. No. 175990, OCTOBER 11, 2012

Well established is the rule that ownership over the land cannot
be acquired by mere occupation. While it is true that tax declarations are
not conclusive evidence of ownership, they, nevertheless, constitute at
least proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property. It
strengthens one's bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership.
The bare allegation that one had been in peaceful and continuous
possession of the lot in question because his predecessor-in-interest had
been in possession thereof in the concept of an owner from time
immemorial, cannot prevail over the tax declarations and other
documentary evidence.

ARTHUR F. MENCHAVEZ v. MARLYN M. BERMUDEZ


G.R. No. 185368, OCTOBER 11, 2012

There is unjust enrichment under Article 22 of the Civil Code


when (1) a person is unjustly benefited; and (2) such benefit is derived at
the expense of or with damages to another. Hence, where the respondent
only entered into the compromise agreement to commit to payment of the
original loan, petitioner cannot separate the two and seek payment of
both, especially as he has already recovered the amount of the original
loan.

ROBERT PASCUA, doing business under the name and style TRI-
WEB CONSTRUCTION v. G & G REAL TV CORPORATION
G.R. No. 196383, OCTOBER 15, 2012

There is unjust enrichment under Article 22 of the Civil Code when


(1) a person is unjustly benefited; and (2) such benefit is derived at the
expense of or with damages to another. Hence, where the petitioner
already completed the construction of the project but the respondent
refuses to pay the contract price due to the delay in terms of completion
of the same, such would constitute unjest enrichment in favor of the
respondent. This is more true where it appears that the respondents
additional works and change order works caused the delay in the
construction of the subject project.

PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. FRANCISCO LAO LIM, et al


G.R. No. 168987, OCTOBER 17, 2012

Where several causes producing an injury are concurrent and


each is an efficient cause without which the injury would not have
happened, the injury may be attributed to all or any of the causes and
recovery may be had against any or all of the responsible persons
although under the circumstances of the case, it may appear that one of
them was more culpable, and that the duty owed by them to the injured
person was not the same. No actor's negligence ceases to be a proximate
cause merely because it does not exceed the negligence of other actors.
Each wrongdoer is responsible for the entire result and is liable as
though his acts were the sole cause of the injury. Hence, since both PAL
and Rainbow Tours and Travel, Inc. acted together in creating the
confusion leading to the erroneous cancellation of aforementioned
respondents' confirmed bookings and the failure to inform respondents of
such fact. As such, they have become joint tortfeasors who are liable
jointly and solidarily for damages awarded to respondents Lao Lim and
Go.
The findings of the lower courts that respondents Francisco Lao
Lim and Henry Go were holding confirmed plane tickets and yet were not
transported by petitioner, are binding on this Court. Having proven the
existence of a contract of carriage between respondents Lao Lim and Go,
and the fact of non-performance by petitioner of its obligation as a
common carrier, it is clear that petitioner breached its contract of
carriage with respondents Lao Lim and Go.

JOHN C. ARROYO, JASMIN ALIPATO, PRIMITIVO BELANDRES, et


al v. ROSAL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC
G.R. No. 175155, OCTOBER 22, 2012

The RHAI was purposely formed to enable the dwellers, including


petitioners, to purchase the lots they were occupying, being the ultimate
beneficiaries of the CMP of the NHMFC. Beneficiaries, however, must
comply with certain requirements and obligations to qualify as
beneficiaries and be entitled to the benefits under the program. Hence,
where the petitioners unreasonably refused to join RHAI and their
negative response to comply with their obligations, such gives RHAI the
power to either expel them or declare them as non-members of the
association. Petitioners cannot now claim that they were denied the right
to own the portions of land they were occupying for their homes under
the CMP.

ARCHBISHOP FERNANDO R. CAPALLA, et al v. THE HONORABLE


COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 201112, October 23, 2012

SOLIDARITY FOR SOVEREIGNITY (S4S) represented by Ma. Linda


Olaguer, et al v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS represented by its
Chairman, Commissioner SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, JR.
G.R. No. 201121

TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, et al v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS


and SMARTMATIC TIM CORPORATION
G.R. No. 201127

TANGGULANG DEMOKRASYA (TAN DEM), INC., et al. v.


COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and SMARTMATIC-TIM
CORPORATION
G.R. No. 201413

Based on the AES Contract, the Court sustained the parties right
to amend the same by extending the option period. Considering that the
performance security had not been released to Smartmatic-TIM, the
contract was still effective which can still be amended by the mutual
agreement of the parties, such amendment being reduced in writing. To
be sure, the option contract is embodied in the AES Contract whereby
the Comelec was given the right to decide whether or not to buy the
subject goods listed therein under the terms and conditions also agreed
upon by the parties.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GLORIA JARALVE substituted
by ALAN JESS JARALVE DOCUMENTO, JR., EDGARDO JARALVE, et
al
G.R. No. 175177, OCTOBER 24, 2012

A CENRO or PENRO Certification is not enough to certify that a


land is alienable and disposable. Further, the subject property is beyond
the authority of the CENRO to certify as alienable and disposable
pursuant to DAO No. 38, series of 1990. Hence, the respondents in this
case failed to prove in accordance with law that the subject property is
within the alienable and disposable portion of the public domain by
merely presenting a CENRO Certificate as evidence.

WESTMONT BANK, formerly ASSOCIATED BANK now UNITED


OVERSEAS BANK PHILIPPINES v. MYRNA DELA ROSA-RAMOS,
DOMINGO TAN and WILLIAM CO
G.R. No. 160260, OCTOBER 24, 2012

The Bank, given the fiduciary nature of its relationship with its
depositors, should have exerted every effort to safeguard and protect the
latters money which was deposited and entrusted with it. Hence, where
respondent was defrauded and lost her money because of the negligence
attributable to the Bank and its employees, the latter must be made
liable. However, while the Bank reneged on its responsibility to Dela
Rosa-Ramos, she is nevertheless equally guilty of contributory
negligence. It has been held that where the bank and a depositor are
equally negligent, they should equally suffer the loss. The two must both
bear the consequences of their mistakes. Thus, the Bank should only pay
50% of the actual damages awarded while Dela Rosa-Ramos should have
to shoulder the remaining 50%.

TOM TAN, ANNIE U. TAN and NATHANIEL TAN v. HEIRS OF


ANTONIO F. YAMSON
G.R. No. 163182, OCTOBER 24, 2012

A plain reading of the Authority to Look for Buyer/Buyers reveals


that nowhere in the said document is it indicated that the sale of all
seven lots was a prerequisite to the payment by petitioners of Yamsons
commission. Since no such stipulation appears, then it would be fair to
conclude that the petitioners had no such intention. Hence, Yamson is
entitled to his commission for the sale of the two lots.

VSD REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. UNIWIDE


SALES, INC. and DOLORES BAELLO TEJADA
G.R. No. 170677, OCTOBER 24, 2012
The rights of a builder in good faith under Article 448 of the Civil
Code, in relation to Article 546 of the same Code, which provides for full
reimbursement of useful improvements and retention of the premises
until reimbursement is made, apply only to a possessor in good faith who
builds on land with the belief that he is the owner thereof. It does not
apply where ones only interest is that of a lessee under a rental
contract.

ANITA A. LEDDA v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS


G.R. No. 200868. November 12, 2012

Clearly, BPI failed to prove Leddas conformity and acceptance of


the stipulations contained in the Terms and Conditions. Therefore, as the
Court held in Alcaraz, the Terms and Conditions do not bind Ledda
without a clear showing that Ledda was aware of and consented to the
provisions of such document.

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE PROBATE OF THE


LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF ENRIQUE S. LOPEZ RICHARD B.
LOPEZ v. DIANA JEANNE LOPEZ, MARYBETH DE LEON and
VICTORIA L. TUAZON
G.R. No. 189984, November 12, 2012

The attestation clause must state the number of pages used upon
which the will is written. The purpose of the law is to safeguard against
possible interpolation or omission of one or some of its pages and prevent
any increase or decrease in the pages. Hence, where the attestation
clause states that last will and testament consists of 7 pages including
the page on which the ratification and acknowledgment are written, but
actually, the will consists of 8 pages including its acknowledgment, such
discrepancy cannot be explained by mere examination of the will itself
but through the presentation of evidence aliunde. Therefore, the
discrepancy cannot be deemed substantial compliance with the
requirements of the law. For this reason, the will must be disallowed.

AURELIA GUA-AN AND SONIA GUA-AN MAMON v. GERTRUDES


QUIRINO, represented by ELMER QUIRINO
G.R. No. 198770, November 12, 2012

Where the deed of conditional sale revealed that the supposed


vendor was given the right to repurchase the subject property even
beyond the 12-year (original and extended) period, allowing in the
meantime the continued possession of the vendee pending payment of
the consideration, the real intention of the parties was not to enter into a
contract of sale but merely to secure the payment of the loan
(consideration) of the vendor. Under these conditions and in accordance
with Article 1602 of the Civil Code, the pacto de retro sale is in reality an
equitable mortgage.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARCIAL MALICDEM y MOLINA
G.R. No. 184601, November 12, 2012

Anent the award of damages, when death occurs due to a crime, the
following may be recovered: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of
the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4)
exemplary damages; (5) attorneys fees and expenses of litigation; and
(6) interest, in proper cases. Civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00
is mandatory and is granted without need of evidence other than the
commission of the crime. Moral damages in the sum of P50,000.00 should
be awarded despite the absence of proof of mental and emotional
suffering of the victims heirs. As borne out by human nature and
experience, a violent death invariably and necessarily brings about
emotional pain and anguish on the part of the victims family. An
aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, should entitle
the offended party to an award of exemplary damages within the
unbridled meaning of Article 2230 of the Civil Code.

ARABELLE J. MENDOZA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES and


DOMINIC C. MENDOZA
G.R. No. 157649, November 12, 2012

Expert opinions of psychologists are not conditions sine qua non


in the granting of petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage. At best,
courts must treat such opinions as decisive but not indispensable
evidence in determining the merits of a given case. In fact, if the totality
of evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological
incapacity, then actual medical or psychological examination of the
person concerned need not be resorted to. However, where the totality of
evidence presented was enough to support a finding of his psychological
incapacity, the actual medical examination of the spouse concerned
cannot be dispensed with.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. THE HON. COURT OF


APPEALS (NINTH DIVISION), AND EDUARDO C. DE QUINTOS,
.JR.
G.R. No. 159594, November 12, 2012

Immaturity alone did not constitute psychological incapacity. To


rule that such immaturity amounted to psychological incapacity, it must
be shown that the immature acts were manifestations of a disordered
personality that made the spouse completely unable to discharge the
essential obligations of the marital state, which inability was merely due
to her youth or immaturity. It is not enough that the respondent, alleged
to be psychologically incapacitated, had difficulty in complying with his
marital obligations, or was unwilling to perform these obligations. Mere
difficulty, refusal or neglect in the performance of marital obligations or
ill will on the part of the spouse is different from incapacity rooted in
some debilitating psychological condition or illness; irreconcilable
differences, sexual infidelity or perversion, emotional immaturity and
irresponsibility and the like, do not by themselves warrant a finding of
psychological incapacity under Article 36, as the same may only be due to
a persons refusal or unwillingness to assume the essential obligations of
marriage.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ARCADIO IVAN A. SANTOS III,


and ARCADIO C. SANTOS, JR.
G.R. No. 160453, November 12, 2012
By law, accretion - the gradual and imperceptible deposit made through
the effects of the current of the water- belongs to the owner of the land
adjacent to the banks of rivers where it forms. The drying up of the river
is not accretion. Hence, the dried-up river bed belongs to the State as
property of public dominion, not to the riparian owner, unless a law vests
the ownership in some other person.

PHILPPINE BANKING CORPORATION v. ARTURO DY, et al.


G.R. No. 183774. November 14, 2012

The diligence with which the law requires the individual or a corporation
at all times to govern a particular conduct varies with the nature of the
situation in which one is placed, and the importance of the act which is to
be performed.

COMMUNITIES CAGAYAN, INC. v. SPOUSES ARSENIO (Deceased)


and ANGELES NANOL AND ANYBODY CLAIMING RIGHTS UNDER
THEM
G.R. No. 176791, November 14, 2012

Under the Maceda Law, before a contract to sell involving a


property can be validly and effectively cancelled, the seller has (1) to
send a notarized notice of cancellation to the buyer AND (2) to refund the
cash surrender value. Thus, the buyer has the right to continue
occupying the property subject of the contract to sell, and may still
reinstate the contract by updating the account during the grace period
and before the actual cancellation of the contract. Hence, where a party
complied only with the first condition but failed to refund the cash
surrender value to the adverse party, the Contract to Sell remains valid
and subsisting and the latter has the right to continue occupying the
subject property.

NESTOR N. PADALHIN and ANNIE PADALHIN v. NELSON D.


LAVINA, Respondent.
G.R. No. 183026, November 14, 2012

There is undoubtedly an abuse of right when it is exercised for


the only purpose of prejudicing or injuring another. When the objective of
the actor is illegitimate, the illicit act cannot be concealed under the
guise of exercising a right. The principle does not permit acts which,
without utility or legitimate purpose cause damage to another, because
they violate the concept of social solidarity which considers law as
rational and just. Hence, where the petitioners surreptitious acts caused
the taking of the pictures of the respondent's residence without the
latter's knowledge and consent, the former violated the New Civil Code
concerning the privacy of one's residence and is therefore liable for
damages.

DIONISIO MANANQUIL, LAUDENCIA MANANQUIL-VILLAMOR,


ESTANISLAO MANANQUIL, and DIANITA MANANQUIL-RABINO,
represented by OTILLO RABINO v. ROBERTO MOICO
G.R. No. 180076, November 21, 2012

For an action to quiet title to prosper, two indispensable


requisites must concur, namely: (1) the plaintiff or complainant has a
legal or an equitable title to or interest in the real property subject of the
action; and (2) the deed, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding claimed to
be casting cloud on his title must be shown to be in fact invalid or
inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy.
Hence, where the petitioners have failed to show any title, award, grant,
document or certification from the NHA or proper government agency
concerning the property allegedly awarded to their predecessor in
interest, they cannot maintain an action for quieting of title involving said
property. Proof of heirship alone does not suffice. The petitioners must
prove to the satisfaction of the courts that they have a right to succeed
their predecessor in interest under the law or terms of the NHA project,
and are not disqualified by non-payment, prohibition, lack of
qualifications, or otherwise.

RUPERTA CANO VDA. DE VIRAY and JESUS CARLO GERARD


VIRAY v. SPOUSES JOSE USI and AMELITA USI
G.R. No. 192486, November 21, 2012

A double sale situation, which would call, if necessary, the


application of Art. 1544 of the Civil Code, arises when the following
requisites concur: (a) The two (or more) sales transactions must
constitute valid sales; (b) The two (or more) sales transactions must
pertain to exactly the same subject matter; (c) The two (or more) buyers
at odds over the rightful ownership of the subject matter must each
represent conflicting interests; and (d) The two (or more) buyers at odds
over the rightful ownership of the subject matter must each have bought
from the very same seller. However, where the second sale is not valid
due to non-existent prestations pursuant to Article 1305, Art. 1544 need
not be applied and the first sale must be upheld.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EDWIN ISLA Y ROSSELL


G.R. No. 199875, November 21, 2012

In order for one to be entitled to actual damages, the claim must


not only be capable of proof, but must actually be proved with a
reasonable degree of certainty. Hence, where the complainant failed to
provide receipts to substantiate her claim for actual damages, the same
cannot be awarded. However, in lieu of such, temperate damages may be
allowed in cases where from the nature of the case, definite proof of
pecuniary loss cannot be adduced, although the court is convinced that
the aggrieved party suffered some pecuniary loss. In consonance with
prevailing jurisprudence on simple rape, exemplary damages are
awarded in order to set a public example and to protect hapless
individuals from sexual molestation.

SPOUSES SOCRATES SY AND CELY SY v. ANDOK'S LITSON


CORPORATION
G.R. No. 192108, November 21, 2012

In case of breach of a contract of lease, the aggrieved party is


given the option to ask for: (1) the rescission of the contract; (2)
rescission and indemnification for damages; or (3) only indemnification
for damages, allowing the contract to remain in force. Hence, where the
lessee had complied with all its obligations under the contract but the
lessor failed to render the premises fit for the use intended and to
maintain the lessee in the peaceful and adequate enjoyment of the lease,
the former is entitled to the remedy of rescission.

JOAQUIN G. CHUNG, JR., PAZ ROYERAZ-SOLER, and MANSUETO


MACEDA v. JACK DANIEL MONDRAGON, (deceased), substituted
by his sisters namely: TEOTIMA M. BOURBON, EMMA M. MILLAN,
EUGENIA M. RAMA and ROSARIO M. CABALLES; CLARINDA
REGIS-SCHMITZ and MARIA LINA MALMISA
G.R. No. 179754, November 21, 2012

In a case for quieting of title, the plaintiff must show that he has a
legal or at least an equitable title over the real property in dispute, and
that some deed or proceeding beclouds its validity or efficacy. Hence,
where the plaintiff is not even named in the Original Certificate of Title
as the registered owner of the subject property, he cannot maintain said
aforementioned action and the same should be dismissed.

SPOUSES EROSTO SANTIAGO and NELSIE SANTIAGO v. MANCER


VILLAMOR, CARLOS VILLAMOR, JOHN VILLAMOR and DOMINGO
VILLAMOR, JR.
G.R. No. 168499, November 26, 2012

Quieting of title is a common law remedy for the removal of any cloud,
doubt or uncertainty affecting title to real property. The plaintiffs must
show not only that there is a cloud or contrary interest over the subject
real property, but that they have a valid title to it. Hence, where the
plaintiff bought a property from the vendor, who was not in possession of
the property at the time of the transaction, the former should have been
wary and should have investigated the rights of the actual possessor. For
failure to do such, the buyer cannot be said to be in good faith and
cannot have any right over the property. Therefore, he cannot maintain
an action for quieting of title.

FIORELLO R. JOSE v. ROBERTO ALFUERTO, ET AL.


G.R. No. 169380, November 26, 2012

Unlawful detainer is a summary action for the recovery of


possession of real property. In unlawful detainer, the possession of the
defendant was originally legal, as his possession was permitted by the
plaintiff on account of an express or implied contract between them.
However, the defendants possession became illegal when the plaintiff
demanded that the defendant vacate the subject property due to the
expiration or termination of the right to possess under the contract, and
the defendant refused to heed such demand. Tolerance or permission
must have been present at the beginning of possession; if the possession
was unlawful from the start, an action for unlawful detainer would not be
the proper remedy and should be dismissed. Hence, where the petitioner
alleged in his complaint that the respondents occupancy was unlawful
from the start and was bereft of contractual or legal basis, an action for
unlawful detainer against the latter cannot be maintained.

SABINIANO DUMAYAG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES


G.R. No. 172778, November 26, 2012

Proximate cause is defined as that cause, which, in natural and


continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause,
produces the injury, and without which the result would not have
occurred. Hence, where the evidence indubitably shows that before the
collision, a passenger bus was cruising along its rightful lane when a
tricycle coming from the opposite direction suddenly swerved and
encroached on its lane, the acts of the driver of the passenger bus,
although found to be negligent, is not the proximate cause of the accident
resulting thereto. But even if not found to be criminally liable, the bus
drivers contributory negligence renders him civilly liable.

PAZ DEL ROSARIO v. FELIX H. LIMCAOCO, Z. ROJAS AND BROS.,


REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, and REGISTER OF DEEDS OF
TAGAYTAY CITY.
G.R. No. 177392, November 26, 2012

Where the land registration court rendered a decision declaring


the registration of the parcel of land in favor of a party and appellate
court thereafter affirmed the registration, and from there, no more
appeal was ever made, such proves the partys ownership of the land.
The fact that no decree has as yet been issued cannot divest him of his
title to and ownership of the land in question. There is nothing in the law
that limits the period within which the court may issue a decree. The
reason is that the judgment is merely declaratory in character and does
not need to be enforced against the adverse party.

EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR. v. REPUBLIC OF THE


PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 180705, November 27, 2012
Under the law, it is presumed that consideration exists and is
lawful unless the debtor proves the contrary. The presumption that a
contract has sufficient consideration cannot be overthrown by the bare
uncorroborated and self-serving assertion that it has no consideration. To
overcome the presumption of consideration, the alleged lack of
consideration must be shown by preponderance of evidence. Hence,
where the evidence presented to prove that there was no sufficient
consideration in a contract entered into between the government and a
private individual concerning the sale of share is inconclusive, the
contract must be upheld as valid.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (Represented by the Social


Security System) v. MARAWI-MARANTAO GENERAL HOSPITAL,
INC. and ATTY. MACAPANTON K. MANGONDATO
G.R. No. 158920, November 28, 2012

The right of legal redemption must be exercised within specified time


limits. However, the statutory period of redemption can be extended by
agreement of the parties. Hence, where the petitioner approved the
proposal of respondent to redeem/repurchase the property despite the
fact that the redemption period has already lapsed, the former is deemed
to have waived, or even agreed to extend, the original limited period of
redemption.

DELIA T. SUTTON v. ROMANITO P. LIM, EFREN C. LIM AND


ALLAN C. LIM, MUNICIPAL AGRARIAN REFROM OFFICER OF
AROROY, MASBATE, PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER
OF MASBATE, AND THE REGISTER
OF DEEDS FOR THE PROVINCE OF MASBATE
G.R. No. 191660, December 3, 2012

Under Section 1, Rule II of the 1994 Department of Agrarian


Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) Rules of Procedure, DARAB may
entertain petitions for cancellation of Certificates of Land Ownership
Award. Its jurisdiction is, however, confined only to agrarian disputes. An
agrarian dispute must be a controversy relating to a tenurial
arrangement over lands devoted to agriculture. Tenurial arrangements
pertain to agreements which set out the rights between a landowner and
a tenant, lessee, farm worker or other agrarian reform beneficiary
involving agricultural land. Hence, where the petitioner has not alleged
any tenurial arrangement between the parties, such negatwe the
existence of any agrarian dispute and consequently, the jurisdiction of the
DARAB. Note that as of July 1, 2009, under R.A. No. 9700, all cases
involving the cancellation of CLOAs and other titles issued under any
agrarian reform program are now within the exclusive and original
jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary.

LORETO BOTE v. SPOUSES ROBERT VELOSO and GLORIA


VELOSO
G.R. No. 194270, DECEMBER 3, 2012
Under Article 527 of the Civil Code, good faith is even always
presumed and upon him who alleges bad faith on the part of a possessor
rests the burden of proof." Thus, in order to refute the spouses Velosos
contention that they are builders in good faith, it is necessary that Bote
present evidence that they acted in bad faith.

WILLEM BEUMER v. AVELINA AMORES


G.R. No. 195670, DECEMBER 3, 2012

Petitioner openly admitted that he "is well aware of the above-


cited constitutional prohibition" and even asseverated that, because of
such prohibition, he and respondent registered the subject properties in
the latters name. Clearly, petitioners actuations showed his palpable
intent to skirt the constitutional prohibition. On the basis of such
admission, the Court finds no reason why it should not apply the Muller
decision and accordingly, deny petitioners claim for reimbursement.

LAGRIMAS DE JESUS ZAMORA v. SPOUSES BEATRIZ ZAMORA


HIDALGO MIRANDA and ARTURO MIRANDA, et al
G.R. No. 162930, DECEMBER 5, 2012

Article 1358 of the Civil Code, which requires the embodiment of


certain contracts in a public instrument, is only for convenience, and
registration of the instrument only adversely affects third parties. Formal
requirements are, therefore, for the benefit of third parties. Non-
compliance therewith does not adversely affect the validity of the
contract nor the contractual rights and obligations of the parties
thereunder.

In the instant case, the trial court dismissed petitioner's


complaint on the ground that the receipt presented is a worthless piece
of paper, which cannot be made the basis of petitioners claim of
ownership over the property as Mr. Arcadio Ramos, an NBI handwriting
expert, established that the signature appearing on the said receipt is not
the signature of respondent Beatriz Miranda.

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SPOUSES ROSA and PEDRO


COSTO
G.R. No. 174647, DECEMBER 5, 2012

The Court has consistently ruled that the ascertainment of just


compensation by the RTC as SAC on the basis of the landholdings
nature, location, market value, assessors value, and the volume and
value of the produce is valid and accords with Section 17 of R.A. No.
6657. The Court has likewise ruled that in appraising just compensation,
the courts must consider, in addition, all the Facts regarding the
condition of the landholding and its surroundings, as well as the
improvements and the capabilities of the landholding.
ALBERT M. CHING and ROMEO J. BAUTISTA v. FELIX M.
BANTOLO, et al
G.R. No. 177086, DECEMBER 5, 2012

Article 2229 of the Civil Code provides that exemplary damages may be
imposed "by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition
to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages." They are,
however, not recoverable as a matter of right. They are awarded only if
the guilty party acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or
malevolent manner. Hence, where revocation of a contract was done by
the respondents in bad faith but not in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless,
oppressive or malevolent manner, petitioners are not entitled to
exemplary damages.

DR. GENEVIEVE L. HUANG v. PHILIPPINE HOTELIERS, INC.,


DUSIT THANI PUBLIC CO., LTD. And FIRST LEPANTO TAISHO
INSURANCE CORPORATION
G.R. No. 180440, December 5, 2012

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies where, (1) the accident
was of such character as to warrant an inference that it would not have
happened except for the defendants negligence; (2) the accident must
have been caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive
management or control of the person charged with the negligence
complained of; and (3) the accident must not have been due to any
voluntary action or contribution on the part of the person injured. Hence,
where the accident would not have happened had the petitioner not lifted
the folding wooden counter top that subsequently fell on top of her head,
the doctrine cannot apply. The folding wooden counter top did not fall on
petitioners head without any human intervention.

ALEJANDRO DINAYUG and ANA DINA YUG v. EUGENIO


UGADDAN, NORBERTO UGADDAN, PEDRO UGADDAN, ANGELINA
UGADDAN, TERESO UGADDAN, DOMINGA UGADDAN, GERONIMA
UGADDAN, and BASILIA LACAMBRA
G.R. No. 181623, December 5, 2012

Section 118 of the Public Land Law provides that No alienation,


transfer, or conveyance of any homestead after five and before twenty-
five years after issuance of title shall be valid without the approval of the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, which approval shall be
denied except on constitutional and legal grounds. This provision is
mandatory. Hence, where the homestead patent grantee sold the subject
property within the five-year period, such contract of sale is void for
being contrary to law. As a void contract, the Absolute Deed of Sale
produces no legal effect whatsoever in accordance with the principle
"quod nullum est nullum producit effectum." A void contract is also not
susceptible of ratification, and the action for the declaration of the
absolute nullity of such a contract is imprescriptible.

EXPRESS INVESTMENTS III PRIVATE LTD. AND EXPORT


DEVELOPMENT CANADA v. DAYAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS,
INC., THE BANK OF NEW YORK, AND ATTY. REMIGIO A. NOVAL
G.R. NOS. 174457-59, December 5, 2012

SC ruled that the non-impairment clause is a limitation on the


exercise of legislative power and not of judicial or quasi-judicial power.
The prohibition embraces enactments of a governmental law-making
body pertaining to its legislative functions. Hence, where a decision of a
rehabilitation court is being assailed, the non-impairment clause cannot
be made to apply.

FIDELIZA J. AGLIBOT v. INGERSOL L. SANTIA


G.R. No. 185945, December 05, 2012

It is settled that the liability of the guarantor is only subsidiary,


and all the properties of the principal debtor must first be exhausted
(benefit of excussion) before the guarantor may be held answerable for
the debt. However, where the supposed guarantor could not present
proof of the contract of guaranty as required under Article 1404 (2) (b) of
the Civil Code, he cannot invoke the benefit of excussion.

SPOUSES CRISANTO ALCAZAR AND SUSANA VILLAMAYOR v.


EVELYN ARANTE
G.R. No. 177042 DECEMBER 10, 2012

The rule is that in order that moral damages may be awarded,


there must be pleading and proof of moral suffering, mental anguish,
fright and the like.

Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example


or correction for the public good, in addition to moral, temperate,
liquidated or compensatory damages. While the amount of the exemplary
damages need not be proved, the plaintiff must show that he is entitled to
moral, temperate or compensatory damages before the court may
consider the question of whether or not exemplary damages should be
awarded.

EFREN PANA v. HEIRS OF JOSE JUANITE, SR. AND JOSE JUANITE,


JR.
G.R. NO. 164201 DECEMBER 10, 2012

The civil indemnity provided in the decision of the murder case


may be enforced against their conjugal assets after the responsibilities
enumerated in Article 121 of the Family Code have been covered. If the
conjugal partnership is insufficient to cover the liabilities under Article
121, the spouses shall be solidarily liable for the unpaid balance with
their separate properties.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, v. CONCEPCION


LORENZO, ORLANDO FONTANILLA, SAMUEL FONTANILLA,
JULIET FONTANILLA, ELIZABETH FONTANILLA, ROSELA
FONTANILLA, RENATO FONTANILLA AND EVELYN FONTANILLA
G.R. NO. 172338 DECEMBER 10, 2012
The relevant law that governs the reconstitution of a lost or
destroyed Torrens certificate of title is Republic Act No. 26. Section 2 of
said statute enumerates the following as valid sources for judicial
reconstitution of title: (a) The owners duplicate of the certificate of title;
(b) The co-owners, mortgagees, or lessees duplicate of the certificate
of title; (c) A certified copy of the certificate of title, previously issued by
the register of deeds or by a legal custodian thereof; (d) An authenticated
copy of the decree of registration or patent, as the case may be, pursuant
to which the original certificate of title was issued; (e) A document, on
file in the Registry of Deeds, by which the property, the description of
which is given in said document, is mortgaged, leased or encumbered, or
an authenticated copy of said document showing that its original had
been registered; and (f) Any other document which, in the judgment of
the court, is sufficient and proper basis for reconstituting the lost or
destroyed certificate of title. As borne out by the records of this case,
respondents were unable to present any of the documents mentioned.

The term "any other document" in paragraph (f) refers to reliable


documents of the kind described in the preceding enumerations and that
the documents referred to in Section 2(f) may be resorted to only in the
absence of the preceding documents in the list. Therefore, the party
praying for the reconstitution of a title must show that he had, in fact,
sought to secure such documents and failed to find them before
presentation of "other documents" as evidence in substitution is
allowed.

GAUDENCIO PACETE v. INOCENCIO ASOTIGUE


G.R. NO. 188575 DECEMBER 10, 2012

Reconveyance is available not only to the legal owner of a


property but also to the person with a better right than the person under
whose name said property was erroneously registered.

An action for reconveyance is an action in personam available to a


person whose property has been wrongfully registered under the Torrens
system in anothers name. Although the decree is recognized as
incontrovertible and no longer open to review, the registered owner is
not necessarily held free from liens. As a remedy, an action for
reconveyance is filed as an ordinary action in the ordinary courts of
justice and not with the land registration court. Reconveyance is always
available as long as the property has not passed to an innocent third
person for value. A notice of lis pendens may thus be annotated on the
certificate of title immediately upon the institution of the action in court.
The notice of lis pendens will avoid transfer to an innocent third person
for value and preserve the claim of the real owner.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CESAR ENCELAN


G.R. NO. 170022, January 9, 2013

Article 36 of the Family Code governs psychological incapacity as


a ground for declaration of nullity of marriage. It provides that "a
marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital
obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity
becomes manifest only after its solemnization." In interpreting this
provision, we have repeatedly stressed that psychological incapacity
contemplates "downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and
to assume the basic marital obligations"; not merely the refusal, neglect
or difficulty, much less ill will, on the part of the errant spouse. The
plaintiff bears the burden of proving the juridical antecedence (i.e., the
existence at the time of the celebration of marriage), gravity and
incurability of the condition of the errant spouse.

In any event, sexual infidelity and abandonment of the conjugal


dwelling, even if true, do not necessarily constitute psychological
incapacity; these are simply grounds for legal separation. To constitute
psychological incapacity, it must be shown that the unfaithfulness and
abandonment are manifestations of a disordered personality that
completely prevented the erring spouse from discharging the essential
marital obligations.

METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. ABSOLUTE


MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
G.R. NO. 170498 JANUARY 9, 2013

A quasi-contract involves a juridical relation that the law creates


on the basis of certain voluntary, unilateral and lawful acts of a person, to
avoid unjust enrichment.

Article 2154 embodies the concept "solutio indebiti" which arises


when something is delivered through mistake to a person who has no
right to demand it. It obligates the latter to return what has been
received through mistake. Solutio indebiti, as defined in Article 2154 of
the Civil Code, has two indispensable requisites: first, that something has
been unduly delivered through mistake; and second, that something was
received when there was no right to demand it.

SPOUSES BENJAMIN C. MAMARIL AND SONIA P. MAMARIL v.


THE BOY SCOUT OF THE PHILIPPINES, AIB SECURITY AGENCY,
INC., CESARIO PEA,* AND VICENTE GADDI
G.R. NO. 179382 JANUARY 14, 2013

Article 20 of the Civil Code provides that every person, who,


contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall
indemnify the latter for the same. Similarly, Article 2176 of the Civil Code
states that whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there
being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such
fault or negligence, if there is no preexisting contractual relation
between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the
provisions of this Code.

Under Article 1311 of the Civil Code contracts take effect only
between the parties, their assigns and heirs, except in case where the
rights and obligations arising from the contract are not transmissible by
their nature, or by stipulation or by provision of law. The heir is not liable
beyond the value of the property he received from the decedent. If a
contract should contain some stipulation in favor of a third person, he
may demand its fulfillment provided he communicated his acceptance to
the obligor before its revocation. A mere incidental benefit or interest of
a person is not sufficient. The contracting parties must have clearly and
deliberately conferred a favor upon a third person. Thus, in order that a
third person benefited by the second paragraph of Article 1311, referred
to as a stipulation pour autrui, may demand its fulfillment, the following
requisites must concur: (1) There is a stipulation in favor of a third
person; (2) The stipulation is a part, not the whole, of the contract; (3)
The contracting parties clearly and deliberately conferred a favor to the
third person - the favor is not merely incidental; (4) The favor is
unconditional and uncompensated; (5) The third person communicated
his or her acceptance of the favor before its revocation; and (6) The
contracting parties do not represent, or are not authorized, by the third
party.

It has been held that the act of parking a vehicle in a garage,


upon payment of a fixed amount, is a lease.

It is axiomatic that actual damages must be proved with


reasonable degree of certainty and a party is entitled only to such
compensation for the pecuniary loss that was duly proven.

MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY (MERALCO) v. ATTY. PABLITO M.


CASTILLO, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE TRADE NAME AND
STYLE OF PERMANENT LIGHT MANUFACTURING ENTERPRISES
AND GUIA S. CASTILLO,
G.R. NO. 182976 JANUARY 14, 2013

Moral damages are awarded to compensate the claimant for


physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched
reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation and similar
injury. Jurisprudence has established the following requisites for the
award of moral damages: (1) there is an injury whether physical, mental
or psychological, which was clearly sustained by the claimant; (2) there is
a culpable act or omission factually established; (3) the wrongful act or
omission of the defendant is the proximate cause of the injury sustained
by the claimant; and (4) the award of damages is predicated on any of the
cases stated in Article 2219 of the Civil Code.

Exemplary damages are imposed by way of example or correction


for the public good. In this case, to serve as an example - that before
disconnection of electric supply can be effected by a public utility, the
requisites of law must be complied with - we sustain the award of
exemplary damages to respondents.

Actual damages are compensation for an injury that will put the
injured party in the position where it was before the injury. They pertain
to such injuries or losses that are actually sustained and susceptible of
measurement. Except as provided by law or by stipulation, a party is
entitled to adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss as is duly
proven. Basic is the rule that to recover actual damages, not only must
the amount of loss be capable of proof; it must also be actually proven
with a reasonable degree of certainty premised upon competent proof or
the best evidence obtainable.

In the absence of competent proof on the amount of actual


damages suffered, a party is entitled to temperate damages. Temperate
or moderate damages, which are more than nominal but less than
compensatory damages, may be recovered when the court finds that
some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot, from the
nature of the case, be proved with certainty. The amount thereof is
usually left to the discretion of the courts but the same should be
reasonable, bearing in mind that temperate damages should be more
than nominal but less than compensatory.

An award of attorneys fees has always been the exception rather


than the rule.Attorneys fees are not awarded every time a party prevails
in a suit. The policy of the Court is that no premium should be placed on
the right to litigate. The trial court must make express findings of fact
and law that bring the suit within the exception. What this demands is
that factual, legal or equitable justifications for the award must be set
forth not only in the fallo but also in the text of the decision, or else, the
award should be thrown out for being speculative and conjectural.

ADVOCATES FOR TRUTH IN LENDING, INC. and EDUARDO B.


OLAGUER v. BANGKO SENTRAL MONETARY BOARD
G.R. No. 192986, January 15, 2013

The power of the CB to effectively suspend the Usury Law


pursuant to P.D. No. 1684 has long been recognized and upheld in many
cases. CB Circular No. 905 "did not repeal nor in anyway amend the
Usury Law but simply suspended the latters effectivity.

Stipulations authorizing iniquitous or unconscionable interests


have been invariably struck down for being contrary to morals, if not
against the law. Indeed, under Article 1409 of the Civil Code, these
contracts are deemed inexistent and void ab initio, and therefore cannot
be ratified, nor may the right to set up their illegality as a defense be
waived. Nonetheless, the nullity of the stipulation of usurious interest
does not affect the lenders right to recover the principal of a loan, nor
affect the other terms thereof.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RAMIL RARUGAL ALIAS "AMAY


BISAYA,"
G.R. NO. 188603 JANUARY 16, 2013

When death occurs due to a crime, the following may be


recovered: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2)
actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary
damages; (5) attorney's fees and expenses of litigation; and (6) interest,
in proper cases.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. AFP RETIREMENT AND
SEPARATION BENEFITS SYSTEM, HEIRS OF CABALO KUSOP AND
ATTY. NILO J. FLAVIANO
G.R. NO. 180463 JANUARY 16, 2013

Any title issued covering non-disposable lots even in the hands of


an alleged innocent purchaser for value shall be cancelled.

THE MANILA INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. SPOUSES ROBERTO


AND AIDA AMURAO
G.R. NO. 179628 JANUARY 16, 2013

"A contract of suretyship is defined as "an agreement whereby a


party, called the surety, guarantees the performance by another party,
called the principal or obligor, of an obligation or undertaking in favor of
a third party, called the obligee. It includes official recognizances,
stipulations, bonds or undertakings issued by any company by virtue of
and under the provisions of Act No. 536, as amended by Act No. 2206."
We have consistently held that a suretys liability is joint and several,
limited to the amount of the bond, and determined strictly by the terms of
contract of suretyship in relation to the principal contract between the
obligor and the obligee. It bears stressing, however, that although the
contract of suretyship is secondary to the principal contract, the suretys
liability to the obligee is nevertheless direct, primary, and absolute.

SPOUSES ALBERTO AND SUSAN CASTRO v. AMPARO


PALENZUELA, FOR HERSELF AND AS AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE OF VIRGINIA ABELLO, GERARDO ANTONIO
ABELLO, ALBERTO DEL ROSARIO, INGEBORG REGINA DEL
ROSARIO, HANS DEL ROSARIO, MARGARET DEL ROSARIO
ISLETA, ENRIQUE PALENZUELA AND CARLOS MIGUEL
PALENZUELA,
G.R. NO. 184698, JANUARY 21, 2013

Bad faith means breach of a known duty through some motive or


interest or ill will. By refusing to honor their solemn obligations under
the lease, and instead unduly profiting from these violations, petitioners
are guilty of bad faith. Moral damages may be awarded when the breach
of contract is attended with bad faith. Exemplary damages may also be
awarded when a wrongful act is accompanied by bad faith or when the
defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or
malevolent manner. And since the award of exemplary damages is proper
in this case, attorneys fees and costs of the suit may also be recovered,
as stipulated in the lease agreement.

SPOUSES ALBERTO AND SUSAN CASTRO v. AMPARO


PALENZUELA, FOR HERSELF AND AS AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE OF VIRGINIA ABELLO, GERARDO ANTONIO
ABELLO, ALBERTO DEL ROSARIO, INGEBORG REGINA DEL
ROSARIO, HANS DEL ROSARIO, MARGARET DEL ROSARIO
ISLETA, ENRIQUE PALENZUELA AND CARLOS MIGUEL
PALENZUELA,
G.R. NO. 184698, JANUARY 21, 2013

Bad faith means breach of a known duty through some motive or


interest or ill will. By refusing to honor their solemn obligations under
the lease, and instead unduly profiting from these violations, petitioners
are guilty of bad faith. Moral damages may be awarded when the breach
of contract is attended with bad faith. Exemplary damages may also be
awarded when a wrongful act is accompanied by bad faith or when the
defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or
malevolent manner. And since the award of exemplary damages is proper
in this case, attorneys fees and costs of the suit may also be recovered,
as stipulated in the lease agreement.

Back rentals are equivalent to a loan or forbearance of money,


and the amount of interest is 12% per annum counted from the time of
extrajudicial demand.

MONDRAGON PERSONAL SALES, INC. v. VICTORIANO S. SOLA,


JR.
G.R. NO. 174882 JANUARY 21, 2013

Compensation is a mode of extinguishing to the concurrent


amount the obligations of persons who in their own right and as
principals are reciprocally debtors and creditors of each other. Legal
compensation takes place by operation of law when all the requisites are
present, as opposed to conventional compensation which takes place
when the parties agree to compensate their mutual obligations even in
the absence of some requisites. Legal compensation requires the
concurrence of the following conditions: (1) That each one of the obligors
be bound principally, and that he be at the same time a principal creditor
of the other; (2) That both debts consist in a sum of money, or if the
things due are consumable, they be of the same kind, and also of the
same quality if the latter has been stated; (3) That the two debts be due;
(4) That they be liquidated and demandable; (5) That over neither of
them there be any retention or controversy, commenced by third persons
and communicated in due time to the debtor.

JUANITA ERMITAO v. LAILANIE M. PAGLAS


G.R. No. 174436 , January 23, 2013

It is settled that during the period of redemption, it cannot be said


that the mortgagor is no longer the owner of the foreclosed property,
since the rule up to now is that the right of a purchaser at a foreclosure
sale is merely inchoate until after the period of redemption has expired
without the right being exercised. The title to land sold under mortgage
foreclosure remains in the mortgagor or his grantee until the expiration
of the redemption period and conveyance by the master's deed. Indeed,
the rule has always been that it is only upon the expiration of the
redemption period, without the judgment debtor having made use of his
right of redemption, that the ownership of the land sold becomes
consolidated in the purchaser.
Act. No. 3135, as amended, allows the purchaser at the foreclosure
sale to take possession of the property only upon the filing of a bond, in
an amount equivalent to the use of the property for a period of twelve
(12) months, to indemnify the mortgagor in case it be shown that the sale
was made in violation of the mortgage or without complying with the
requirements of the law.

The mortgagor as owner is entitled not only to the possession of


the disputed house and lot but also to the rents, earnings and income
derived therefrom.

HEIRS OF FAUSTO C. IGNACIO, namely MARFEL D. IGNACIO-


MANALO, MILFA D. IGNACIO-MANALO AND FAUSTINO D.
IGNACIO v. HOME BANKERS SAVINGS AND TRUST COMPANY,
SPOUSES PHILLIP AND THELMA RODRIGUEZ, CATHERINE,
REYNOLD & JEANETTE, ALL SURNAMED ZUNIGA,
G.R. NO. 177783 JANUARY 23, 2013

A contract of sale is consensual in nature and is perfected upon


mere meeting of the minds. When there is merely an offer by one party
without acceptance of the other, there is no contract. When the contract
of sale is not perfected, it cannot, as an independent source of obligation,
serve as a binding juridical relation between the parties.

Consent is manifested by the meeting of the offer and the


acceptance upon the thing and the cause which are to constitute the
contract. The offer must be certain and the acceptance absolute. A
qualified acceptance constitutes a counter-offer. If the acceptance of the
offer was not absolute, such acceptance is insufficient to generate
consent that would perfect a contract. The acceptance must be identical
in all respects with that of the offer so as to produce consent or meeting
of the minds. Where a party sets a different purchase price than the
amount of the offer, such acceptance was qualified which can be at most
considered as a counter-offer; a perfected contract would have arisen
only if the other party had accepted this counter-offer.

SYED AZHAR ABBAS v. GLORIA GOO ABBAS


G.R. NO. 183896 JANUARY 30, 2013

The certification of the Local Civil Registrar that their office had
no record of a marriage license was adequate to prove the non-issuance
of said license. The presumed validity of the marriage of the parties had
been overcome, and that it became the burden of the party alleging a
valid marriage to prove that the marriage was valid, and that the
required marriage license had been secured.

JOSEPH GOYANKO, JR., AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF


JOSEPH GOYANKO, SR. v. UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK,
MANGO AVENUE BRANCH
G.R. NO. 179096, FEBRUARY 06, 2013

A trust, either express or implied, is the fiduciary relationship


between one person having an equitable ownership of property and
another person owning the legal title to such property, the equitable
ownership of the former entitling him to the performance of certain
duties and the exercise of certain powers by the latter. Express or direct
trusts are created by the direct and positive acts of the trustor or of the
parties. No written words are required to create an express trust. This is
clear from Article 1444 of the Civil Code, but, the creation of an express
trust must be firmly shown; it cannot be assumed from loose and vague
declarations or circumstances capable of other interpretations.

The requirements before an express trust will be recognized are


as follows: a competent trustor and trustee, an ascertainable trust, and
sufficiently certain beneficiaries. each of the above elements is required
to be established, and, if any one of them is missing, it is fatal to the
trusts. Furthermore, there must be a present and complete disposition of
the trust property, notwithstanding that the enjoyment in the beneficiary
will take place in the future. It is essential, too, that the purpose be an
active one to prevent trust from being executed into a legal estate or
interest, and one that is not in contravention of some prohibition of
statute or rule of public policy. There must also be some power of
administration other than a mere duty to perform a contract although the
contract is for a third-party beneficiary. A declaration of terms is
essential, and these must be stated with reasonable certainty in order
that the trustee may administer, and that the court, if called upon so to
do, may enforce, the trust.

SPOUSES QUIRINO V. DELA CRUZ AND GLORIA DELA CRUZ v.


PLANTERS PRODUCTS, INC.
G.R. NO. 158649, FEBRUARY 18, 2013

If the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the
intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulations
shall control. In determining their intention, their contemporaneous and
subsequent acts shall be principally considered.

LICOMCEN, INC. v. ENGR. SALVADOR ABAINZA, DOING


BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE "ADS INDUSTRIAL
EQUIPMENT"
G.R. NO. 199781 FEBRUARY 18, 2013

Art. 1724. The contractor who undertakes to build a structure or


any other work for a stipulated price, in conformity with plans and
specifications agreed upon with the landowner, can neither withdraw
from the contract nor demand an increase in the price on account of the
higher cost of labor or materials, save when there has been a change in
the plans and specifications, provided: (1) Such change has been
authorized by the proprietor in writing; and (2) The additional price to be
paid to the contractor has been determined in writing by both parties.

TEODORO A. REYES v. ETTORE ROSSI


G.R. No. 159823, February 18, 2013

A prejudicial question is one that arises in a case, the resolution


of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein, and the
cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. The prejudicial
question must be determinative of the case before the court but the
jurisdiction to try and resolve the question must be lodged in another
court or tribunal. It is a question based on a fact distinct and separate
from the crime but so intimately connected with it that it determines the
guilt or innocence of the accused, and for it to suspend the criminal
action, it must appear not only that said case involves Facts intimately
related to those upon which the criminal prosecution would be based but
also that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil case,
the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined. It
comes into play generally in a situation where a civil action and a
criminal action are both pending and there exists in the former an issue
which must be preemptively resolved before the criminal action may
proceed, because howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is
resolved would be determinative juris et de jure of the guilt or innocence
of the accused in the criminal case.

NICOLAS P. DIEGO v. RODOLFO P. DIEGO and EDUARDO P. DIEGO


G.R. No. 179965, February 20, 2013

A contract to sell is one where the prospective seller reserves the


transfer of title to the prospective buyer until the happening of an event,
such as full payment of the purchase price. What the seller obliges
himself to do is to sell the subject property only when the entire amount
of the purchase price has already been delivered to him. In other words,
the full payment of the purchase price partakes of a suspensive condition,
the non-fulfillment of which prevents the obligation to sell from arising
and thus, ownership is retained by the prospective seller without further
remedies by the prospective buyer. It does not, by itself, transfer
ownership to the buyer.

PADILLA MERCADO, ZULUETA MERCADO, BONIFACIA MERCADO,


DAMIAN MERCADO AND EMMANUEL MERCADO BASCUG v.
SPOUSES AGUEDO ESPINA AND LOURDES ESPINA
G.R. No. 173987, February 25, 2013

One who deals with property registered under the Torrens System
need not go beyond the same, but only has to rely on the title.

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BARBARA SAMPAGA


POBLETE
G.R. No. 196577, February 25, 2013

Where the mortgagee acted with haste in granting the mortgage


loan and did not ascertain the ownership of the land being mortgaged, as
well as the authority of the supposed agent executing the mortgage, it
cannot be considered an innocent mortgagee.

SPOUSES NILO RAMOS AND ELIADORA RAMOS v. RAUL OBISPO


AND FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST CO.
G.R. No. 193804, February 27, 2013
The accommodation mortgagor, ordinarily, is not himself a
recipient of the loan, otherwise that would be contrary to his designation
as such. We have held that it is not always necessary that the
accommodation mortgagor be apprised beforehand of the entire amount
of the loan nor should it first be determined before the execution of the
Special Power of Attorney in favor of the debtor. This is especially true
when the words used by the parties indicate that the mortgage serves as
a continuing security for credit obtained as well as future loan
availments.

SPOUSES ALFONSO AND MARIA ANGELES CUSI v. LILIA V.


DOMINGO
G.R. NO. 195825, February 27, 2013

RAMONA LIZA L. DE VERA v. LILIA V. DOMINGO


and SPOUSES RADELIA AND ALFRED SY
G.R. NO. 195871, February 27, 2013

Good faith is the honest intention to abstain from taking


unconscientious advantage of another. It means the freedom from
knowledge and circumstances which ought to put a person on inquiry.
Given this notion of good faith, therefore, a purchaser in good faith is one
who buys the property of another without notice that some other person
has a right to, or interest in, such property and pays full and fair price for
the same.

Under the Torrens system of land registration, the registered


owner of realty cannot be deprived of her property through fraud, unless
a transferee acquires the property as an innocent purchaser for value. A
transferee who acquires the property covered by a reissued owners
copy of the certificate of title without taking the ordinary precautions of
honest persons in doing business and examining the records of the
proper Registry of Deeds, or who fails to pay the full market value of the
property is not considered an innocent purchaser for value.

ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE


ISLANDS
G.R. No. 188363, February 27, 2013

A collecting bank is guilty of contributory negligence when it


accepted for deposit a post-dated check notwithstanding that said check
had been cleared by the drawee bank, which failed to return the check
within the 24-hour reglementary period.

MERCY VDA. DE ROXAS, represented by ARLENE C. ROXAS-CRUZ,


in her capacity as substitute appellant-petitioner v. OUR LADYS
FOUNDATION, INC.
G.R. No. 182378. March 6, 2013
Although the provisions of the Civil Code do not explicitly state the
reckoning period for valuing the property, Ballatan v. Court of
Appeals already specifies that in the event that the seller elects to sell the
lot, "the price must be fixed at the prevailing market value at the time of
payment."

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARTIN T. NG


G.R. NO. 182449, March 6, 2013

In a judicial confirmation of title under original registration


proceedings, applicants may obtain the registration of title to land upon a
showing that they or their predecessors-in-interest have been in (1) open,
continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of (2)
agricultural lands of the public domain, (3) under a bona fide claim of
acquisition or ownership, (4) for at least 30 years immediately preceding
the filing of the application for confirmation of title, except when
prevented by war or force majeure. The burden of proof in land
registration cases rests on applicants who must show clear, positive and
convincing evidence that their alleged possession and occupation were of
the nature and duration required by law.

Possession is acquired in any of the following ways: (1) by the


material occupation of the thing; (2) by the exercise of a right; (3) by the
fact that the property is subject to the action of our will; and (4) by the
proper acts and legal formalities established for acquiring the right.

Possession is open when it is patent, visible, apparent, notorious


and not clandestine. It is continuous when uninterrupted, unbroken and
not intermittent or occasional; exclusive when the adverse possessor can
show exclusive dominion over the land and an appropriation of it to his
own use and benefit; and notorious when it is so conspicuous that it is
generally known and talked of by the public or the people in the
neighborhood.

While tax declarations and realty tax payments on property are


not conclusive evidence of ownership, they are nevertheless good indicia
of possession in the concept of owner, for no one in the right frame of
mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in ones actual or
at least constructive possession. The voluntary declaration of a piece of
property for taxation purposes is an announcement of ones claim
against the State and all other interested parties. In fact, these
documents already constitute prima facie evidence of possession.
Moreover, if the holders of the land present a deed of conveyance in their
favor from its former owner to support their claim of ownership, the
declaration of ownership and tax receipts relative to the property may be
used to prove their good faith in occupying and possessing it.
Additionally, when considered with actual possession of the property, tax
receipts constitute evidence of great value in support of the claim of title
of ownership by prescription.
ROBERN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and RODOLFO M.
BERNARDO, JR. v. PEOPLES LANDLESS ASSOCIATION
REPRESENTED BY FLORIDA RAMOS and NARDO LABORA
G.R. NO. 173622, March 11, 2013

A contract of sale is perfected at the moment there is a meeting


of minds upon the thing which is the object of the contract and upon the
price. Thus, for a contract of sale to be valid, all of the following essential
elements must concur: a) consent or meeting of the minds; b)
determinate subject matter; and c) price certain in money or its
equivalent.

Contracts undergo three stages: a) negotiation which begins from


the time the prospective contracting parties indicate interest in the
contract and ends at the moment of their agreement; b) perfection or
birth, which takes place when the parties agree upon all the essential
elements of the contract; and c) consummation, which occurs when the
parties fulfill or perform the terms agreed upon, culminating in the
extinguishment thereof.

RODOLFO G. CRUZ and ESPERANZA IBIAS v. ATTY. DELFIN


GRUSPE
G.R. No. 191431, March 13, 2013

Contracts are obligatory no matter what their forms may be,


whenever the essential requisites for their validity are present. In
determining whether a document is an affidavit or a contract, the Court
looks beyond the title of the document, since the denomination or title
given by the parties in their document is not conclusive of the nature of
its contents. In the construction or interpretation of an instrument, the
intention of the parties is primordial and is to be pursued. If the terms of
the document are clear and leave no doubt on the intention of the
contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulations shall control. If
the words appear to be contrary to the parties evident intention, the
latter shall prevail over the former.

ROGELIO DANTIS v. JULIO MAGHINANG, JR.


G.R. No. 191696 April 10, 2013

By the contract of sale, one of the contracting parties obligates


himself to transfer the ownership of, and to deliver, a determinate thing,
and the other to pay therefor a price certain in money or its equivalent. A
contract of sale is a consensual contract and, thus, is perfected by mere
consent which is manifested by the meeting of the offer and the
acceptance upon the thing and the cause which are to constitute the
contract. Until the contract of sale is perfected, it cannot, as an
independent source of obligation, serve as a binding juridical relation
between the parties. The essential elements of a contract of sale are: a)
consent or meeting of the minds, that is, consent to transfer ownership in
exchange for the price; b) determinate subject matter; and c) price
certain in money or its equivalent. The absence of any of the essential
elements shall negate the existence of a perfected contract of sale.
INTERNATIONAL HOTEL CORPORATION v. FRANCISCO B.
JOAQUIN, JR. and RAFAEL SUAREZ
G.R. No. 158361 April 10, 2013

To avoid unjust enrichment to a party from resulting out of a


substantially performed contract, the principle of quantum meruit may be
used to determine his compensation in the absence of a written
agreement for that purpose. The principle of quantum meruit justifies the
payment of the reasonable value of the services rendered by him.

SPOUSES OSCAR and THELMA CACAYORIN v. ARMED FORCES


AND POLICE MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSOCIATION, INC.
G.R. No. 171298 April 15, 2013

Consignation is necessarily judicial. Article 1258 of the Civil Code


specifically provides that consignation shall be made by depositing the
thing or things due at the disposal of judicial authority. The said provision
clearly precludes consignation in venues other than the courts.

REY CASTIGADOR CATEDRILLA v. MARIO and MARGIE1 LAURON


G.R. No. 179011 April 15, 2013

Art. 2041 of the Civil Code, provides: If one of the parties fails or
refuses to abide by the compromise, the other party may either enforce
the compromise or regard it as rescinded and insist upon his original
demand.

SPS. ESMERALDO D. V ALLIDO and ARSENIA M. V ALLIDO, rep.


by ATTY. SERGIO C. SUMAYOD v. SPS. ELMER PONO and JULIET
PONO, and PURIFICACION CERNAPONG and SPS. MARIANITO
PONO and ESPERANZA MEROPONO
G.R. No. 200173 April 15, 2013

The purpose of the registration is to give notice to third persons.


And, privies are not third persons. The vendor's heirs are his privies.
Against them, failure to register will not vitiate or annul the vendee's
right of ownership conferred by such unregistered deed of sale.

EVANGELINE RIVERA-CALINGASAN and E. RICAL ENTERPRISES


v. WILFREDO RIVERA, substituted by MA. LYDIA S. RlVERA,
FREIDA LEAH S. RIVERA and WILFREDO S. RIVERA, .JR.
G.R. No.171555 April 17, 2013

Possession in ejectment cases "means nothing more than actual


physical possession, not legal possession in the sense contemplated in
civil law." In a forcible entry case, "prior physical possession is the
primary consideration." "A party who can prove prior possession can
recover such possession even against the owner himself. Whatever may
be the character of his possession, if he has in his favor prior possession
in time, he has the security that entitles him to remain on the property
until a person with a better right lawfully ejects him." "The party in
peaceable, quiet possession shall not be thrown out by a strong hand,
violence, or terror."