MARY ANN C.

ISANAN Exec-1 March 25, 2017

1. Yes. Even though in Paragraph 11 of the Chattel Mortgage

Contract stated that the Mortgagor will be liable to pay the
damages in case of delay, it is also stated in Article 1170 that those
who in the performance of their obligation are guilty of delay are
liable for damages. The delay in performance, however, must be
either malicious or negligent. In the case at bar, the Mortgagee was
negligent thus delay in performance took effect. Therefore, the
mortgagee or drafter of the contract should be held liable for
damages.

2. No. The rule enunciated by the petitioners does not apply neither
the exceptions stated since the boundaries were not clear and
definite. Instead, it was general and vague.

3. In the Civil Code, conveyance should be interpreted in the “least

transmission of right” wherein in the case at bar, it was clearly
stated in the Bill of Assignments that Francisco was still the owner
of the trademark and formula of the MAFRAN sauce and only the
right to use the formula of MAFRAN sauce. Thus, showing an
example of “least transmission of right”. Therefore, the
respondents are entitled to rescind the Bill of Assignment.

4. Since in the subsidiary character of the action for rescission in

Article 1383 of the Civil Code of the Philippines applies to
contracts enumerated in Article 1381 wherein in the case at bar, it
does not qualify to any contracts mentioned in the latter.
Therefore, Article 1191 is the applicable provision which states
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. 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. The court shall decree the rescission
claimed, unless there be just cause authorizing the fixing of a period.”

5. The applicable provision to this case at bar is Article 1191 of the

Civil Code of the Philippines. Respondent Palao has the right to
rescind the contract for the reason that the Petitioner Iringan, did
 not comply his obligations as to what was agreed upon in the
stipulations mentioned in the Deed of Sale.

6. Yes. The applicable provision for the case of Rivera v. del Rosario,
G.R. No. 144934, January 15, 2004 is Article 1191 of the Civil Code
of the Philippines since the contract does not qualify to rescissible
contracts enumerated in Article 1381 of the same Book.

7. No. Because as stated in Article 1385 of the Civil Code of the

Philippines, rescission creates the obligation to return the things
which were the object of the contract, together with their fruits,
and the price with its interest. Thus, the buyer (Equatorial) should
return not just only the land and building sold, but also the rental
payments paid if any.
MARY ANN C. ISANAN Exec-1 March 26, 2017

1. The petition is without merit. Since respondent Far East

Chemco, purchased the vessels at his own risk, the assumed
risk only pertained to the possibility of the sale being
rescinded. It is erroneous to let the respondent pay the
petitioner the value of the vessels or to order to return such
without the sale first being rescinded. Moreover, the vessels
were no longer owned by the respondent.

2. The Deed of Donation entered was not in fraud. However, the

requisites to apply accion pauliana is not present in this case at
bar. Petitioner failed to prove any of the circumstances
enumerated in Article 1387 par. 3 or any other circumstance
from which fraud can be inferred. Accordingly, since the four
requirements for the rescission of a gratuitous contract are not
present. Therefore, petitioners’ action must fail.

3. The contention made by the petitioner failed to disclose any

sufficient reason for the reversal of the finding. The case at bar
presents all the badges of fraud enumerated in Article 1381. The
sale in the form in which it was made leaves the creditors
substantially without recourse. The property of the company is
gone, as well as its income, the business is in the risk of fail, the
property is being dissipated, and is depreciating in value. As a
result, even if the claims of the creditors should live twelve
years and the creditors themselves wait that long, it more than
likely that nothing would be found to satisfy their claim at the
end of the long wait.

4. The conveyance was founded with valuable consideration; it

does not negate the presumption of fraud under Article 1387.
We must take into consideration it should be bona fide as well.
As to the case at bar, the presumption that there is fraud in the
conveyance has not yet overcome. The transcation was made at
the time when the father was insolvent and had no properties
to pay off his creditors. Therefore, it is of no consequence if the
son had given valuable consideration for the conveyance. Even
though the petitioner did not avail of redemption under Rule
39 of the Rules of Court, it should be clear that the bank is not
 limited to the procedure outline in Rule 39. Instead, under
Article 1387, it is clearly stated that the conveyances made by
the debtor to defraud his creditor may be rescinded. Thus,
giving a favorable decision to the petitioner making the petition
granted, the decision reversed and set aside.

5. The petition was meritous because it was merely a nominal

party to present case and that is the principal concerns are
being ventilated in another case.

6. The sale made by Gimena to spouses Eduardo and Hermogena

Felipe was a voidable contract because the sale of the land
without the consent of her husband. Legal provisions
supporting contracts entered by a spouse without the consent
of the other when such consent is required are annullable at his
instance during the marriage and within ten years from the
transaction questioned.

7. It is true that the transaction entered by a party who is

incapable of consent is voidable; however, it is valid until
annulled. As to the case at bar, the redemption made by
petitioners has never been annulled thus, making it valid.

8. The appellate court erred when they nullified the contract of

sale between Malabanan and Senolos. In the instant petitions,
the petitioners have the right to assail both annulment of the
deed of sale and grant an amount for “moral, exemplary, and
actual damages” to the respondent. Respondent Gaw Ching,
being a stranger to the contract of sale of a piece of land
between petitioners Malabanan and Senolo does not fall within
the possible exception recognized in the case of Ibanez v. Hong
Kong & Shanghai Bank.

9. The contract was voidable for the reason that respondents

Erlinda and Florencia were minors upon the execution of the
contract. However, even if it was true, the conclusion is
irresistible that the sale was merely voidable because the
 execution of the document was not controverted by the
plaintiff. Moreover, the vendees are minor making the contract
annullable by them.

10. NO ANSWER.