You are on page 1of 21

OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS: CASE DIGESTS FOR FINAL EXAMS by ERNIE Y.

GULTIANO

GENERAL PROVISIONS ON CONTRACTS
RULING: (1) No. There is no proof that a contract was
ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORP. v. COURT OF perfected in the said meeting. Lopez’ testimony
APPEALS, about the contract being written in a napkin is not
301 SCRA 592 corroborated because the napkin was never
produced in court. Further, there is no meeting of the
FACTS: In 1992, ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, minds because Del Rosario’s offer was of 104 films for
through its vice president Charo Santos-Concio, P60 million was not accepted. And that the alleged
requested Viva Production, Inc. to allow ABS-CBN to counter-offer made by Lopez on the same day was
air at least 14 films produced by Viva. Pursuant to this not also accepted because there’s no proof of such.
request, a meeting was held between Viva’s The counter offer can only be deemed to have
representative (Vicente Del Rosario) and ABS-CBN’s been made days after the April 2 meeting when
Eugenio Lopez (General Manager) and Santos- Santos-Concio sent a letter to Del Rosario containing
Concio was held on April 2, 1992. During the meeting the counter-offer. Regardless, there was no showing
Del Rosario proposed a film package which will allow that Del Rosario accepted. But even if he did
ABS-CBN to air 104 Viva films for P60 million. Later, accept, such acceptance will not bloom into a
Santos-Concio, in a letter to Del Rosario, proposed a perfected contract because Del Rosario has no
counterproposal of 53 films (including the 14 films authority to do so.
initially requested) for P35 million. Del Rosario
presented the counter offer to Viva’s Board of As a rule, corporate powers, such as the power; to
Directors but the Board rejected the counter offer. enter into contracts; are exercised by the Board of
Several negotiations were subsequently made but Directors. But this power may be delegated to a
on April 29, 1992, Viva made an agreement with corporate committee, a corporate officer or
Republic Broadcasting Corporation (referred to as corporate manager. Such a delegation must be
RBS – or GMA 7) which gave exclusive rights to RBS to clear and specific. In the case at bar, there was no
air 104 Viva films including the 14 films initially such delegation to Del Rosario. The fact that he has
requested by ABS-CBN. to present the counteroffer to the Board of Directors
of Viva is proof that the contract must be accepted
ABS-CBN now filed a complaint for specific first by the Viva’s Board. Hence, even if Del Rosario
performance against Viva as it alleged that there is accepted the counter-offer, it did not result to a
already a perfected contract between Viva and contract because it will not bind Viva sans
ABS-CBN in the April 2, 1992 meeting. Lopez testified authorization.
that Del Rosario agreed to the counterproposal and
he (Lopez) even put the agreement in a napkin (2) No. The award of moral damages cannot be
which was signed and given to Del Rosario. ABS-CBN granted in favor of a corporation because, being an
also filed an injunction against RBS to enjoin the latter artificial person and having existence only in legal
from airing the films. The injunction was granted. RBS contemplation, it has no feelings, no emotions, no
now filed a countersuit with a prayer for moral senses. It cannot, therefore, experience physical
damages as it claimed that its reputation was suffering and mental anguish, which call be
debased when they failed to air the shows that they experienced only by one having a nervous system.
promised to their viewers. RBS relied on the ruling in No moral damages can be awarded to a juridical
People vs Manero and Mambulao Lumber vs PNB person. The statement in the case of People vs
which states that a corporation may recover moral Manero and Mambulao Lumber vs PNB is a mere
damages if it “has a good reputation that is obiter dictum hence it is not binding as a
debased, resulting in social humiliation”. The trial jurisprudence.
court ruled in favor of Viva and RBS. The Court of
Appeals affirmed the trial court.

ISSUES: (1) Whether a contract was perfected in the MONTINOLA v. VICTORIAS MILLING CO.
April 2, 1992 meeting between the representatives of 54 Phil. 782
the two corporations. (2) Whether a corporation, like
RBS, is entitled to an award of moral damages upon FACTS: The petitioners Victorias Planters Association,
grounds of debased reputation. Inc. and North Negros Planters Association, Inc. are

1

OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS: CASE DIGESTS FOR FINAL EXAMS by ERNIE Y. GULTIANO

non-stock corporations and are composed of sugar during said period, does not mean that the
cane planters having been established as the happening of any of those events stops the running
representative entities of the numerous sugar cane of the period agreed upon. It only relieves the parties
planters in the districts of Victorias, Manapla and from the fulfillment of their respective obligations
Cadiz. The sugar cane productions were milled by during that time. To require the planters to deliver the
the respondent corporation. Petitioners are the ones sugar cane which they failed to deliver during the
in charge of taking up with the respondent four years of the Japanese occupation and the two
corporation problems which may come up. At years after liberation when the mill was being rebuilt
various dates, the sugarcane planters executed is to demand from the obligors the fulfillment of an
identical milling contracts setting forth the terms and obligation which was impossible of performance at
conditions which the sugar central “North Negros the time it became due. Nemo tenetur ad
Sugar Co. Inc.” would mill the sugar produced by the impossibilia
sugar cane planters. Because of the Japanese
occupation, the North Negros Sugar Co., Inc. did not
reconstruct its destroyed central and it had made
arrangements with the respondent Victorias Milling ROSENSTOCK v. BURKE
Co., Inc. for said respondent corporation to mill the 46 Phil. 217
sugarcane produced by the planters of Manapla
and Cadiz holding milling contracts with it. When the FACTS: Defendant wrote a letter to the offeror: "In
planters-members of the North Negros Planters connecton with the yacht Bronzewing, I am in
Association, Inc. considered that the stipulated 30- positon and am willing to entertain the purchase of
year period of their milling contracts had already it under the following terms."
expired and terminated and the planters-members
of the Victorias Planters Association, Inc. likewise ISSUE: Was there an offer here that was certain
considered the stipulated30-year period of their which, if accepted, could compel the writer to really
milling contracts as having likewise expired and buy the yacht?
terminated. Respondent has refused to accept the
fact that the 30-year period has expired. They RULING: No, because here the offer was neither
contend that the 30 years stipulated in the contracts definite nor certain. Said the Supreme Court: “To
referred to 30 years of milling – not 30 years in time. convey the idea of a resolution to purchase, a man
They contend that as there was no milling during 4 of ordinary intelligence and common culture would
years of the recent war and 2 years of use these clear and simple words: ‘I offer to
reconstruction, 6 years of service still has to be purchase,’ I want to purchase,’ ‘I am in position to
rendered by petitioners. purchase…’ It must be presumed that a man in his
transactions in good faith used the best means of
ISSUE: Whether the respondent is correct. expressing his mind that his intelligence and culture
so permit as to convey and exteriorize his will
RULING: The trial court rendered judgment, which faithfully and unequivocally. The word ‘entertain’
the Supreme Court affirmed. The reason the planters applied to an act does not mean the resolution to
failed to deliver the sugar cane was the war or a perform said act. It was not a definite or certain offer,
fortuitous event. The appellant ceased to run its mill but a mere invitation to a proposal being made to
due to the same cause. Fortuitous event relieves the him, which might be accepted by him or not.”
obligor from fulfilling a contractual obligation. The
fact that the contracts make reference to "first Note: If two are offered, but they are independent
milling" does not make the period of thirty years one of each other (such as a sale of a parcel of land, and
of thirty milling years. The seventh paragraph of the lease of an automobile), acceptance of one
Annex "C", not found in the earlier contracts does not imply acceptance of the other. BUT if one
(Annexes "A", "B", and "B-1"), quoted by the appellant contract depends upon another, like a contract of
in its brief, where the parties stipulated that in the loan provided it is secured by a contract or
event of flood, typhoon, earthquake, or other mortgage, it is essential that there be an agreement
force majeure on BOTH transactions. Otherwise, there can be as yet
, war, insurrection, civil commotion, organized strike, no meeting of the minds.
etc., the contract shall be deemed suspended

2

sent Isidra Cojuangco a missive with three postal money In pushing the appeal to final conclusion. promisor would be placed in a position where he would always lose without anything to gain. The appellant's failure to act on the offer before the judgment was FACTS: On October 29." Nevertheless. 270 served as basis for the creation of legal relations.OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS: CASE DIGESTS FOR FINAL EXAMS by ERNIE Y. This was the least she was entitled to.28 in Attorney Lontok came to this court with a motion to cash. acceptance in order to conclude the Cojuangco's counsel. the reason which rejected by Mrs. who told she had not induced the appellee to make her proposition had any agreement with his client. In addition. date of the brief of the defendant herein until the "promisors would be tied to their promises indefinitely entry of judgment. 481 may be inferred from circumstances. the orders for P800. Marcelino Lontok. being the order the appellee to comply with the offer she had amount which the court below had found to be due made in her brief. Atty." The substantial variance between the amount in the The lower court declared that "the statement offer and the amount tendered not only made the contained in the brief of the defendant herein and purported acceptance inoperative but "put an end footnoted in the decision of the Supreme Court to the negotiations without forming a contract unless (was) a promise on the part of the defendant herein the party making the offer agreed to the suggested to resell the land in question to the plaintiff herein. Again. who has represented the herein appellant. payment of P800 fell short of the appellee's requirement." modification. Vicente Arias. entered was an implied rejection of said offer. Granting that the appellant acted on time. makes no reference in her brief to her former contention that this action is res adjudicata. and transmitting to him for that be accepted within a reasonable time. it came too late. enclosing the same money orders for P800 correspond with the terms and conditions of the and P708. GULTIANO BATANGAN v. Atty. FACTS: Defendant. on his behalf and that of his co- owners. giving him an option to lease the building was tardy. The The question of the conclusiveness of our resolution promisee could wait until judgment is rendered and referred to is not pressed in this appeal. A compromise has your agreement. That motion was "rejected" in a her. 205 to 221 accepted by the appellant. ARIAS property constituted a formal offer that could have 43 Phil. stating that he was remitting that appellant made it clear that he was not interested in amount in behalf of his client "in accordance with his creditor's liberal concession." and promising to pay the balance for its purpose the avoidance or termination of a law "at the shortest possible time." The amount was suit. refused." and that the acceptance and would not be able to dispose of the property having been made after the judgment had been involved" in the promise or offer. ceased to exist. the appellee happened to be more onerous to him. Antonio Lucero. it found that "the time for him (Batangan) to accept the promise was from the Otherwise. And purpose a tentative contract in writing containing 3 . judgment. The appellee wanted P1. on Carriedo Street. who. in agreement must in every respect meet and Manila. she did not even include any resolution for having been filed after the entry of interest. wrote a letter to the plaintiff. as the trial judge aptly observed. With the rendition of judgment. Apparently accepted the offer of compromise if the judgment abandoning her plea in this regard. Mamerto RULING: We are of the opinion that the acceptance Laudico.30 in paper money. the rendered. 1943. Cojuangco.508. Lontok sent a letter through a messenger to Mrs. owned the building Nos. And she seems to take for granted that the signification in her brief of her willingness to allow the repurchase of the LAUDICO v. with his ISSUE: Whether the appellee's offer has been duly codefendants. In her proposition. An offer of compromise settlement must to a third person. COJUANGCO acceptance or rejection of an offer of compromise 78 Phil. This tender was also offer. Atty.

entitled since there may be no valid contract without a “Option to Purchase.00. Mr. for his promise and may. constitutes a binding contract of sale. of the certified by the latter court to the Supreme Court Civil Code. Rigos was. of that counsel. as the party desiring to elapsed. (77 Corpus Juris Secundum p. . he RULING: Option without consideration is a mere had the right to do so. which is the essence the option was not supported by a sufficient of the contract. withdrawing the offer. pleadings. Rigos to the Court of Appeals. M. 44 Phil. the offer was then can be taken for granted that the option contract lacking. 1919. if none there was before (arts. there was consideration. Arias Ecija and commenced against the latter the present on March 6. as the offer was not then which is not binding until accepted. were 11 February 1964. Mrs. it is a mere offer of a contract of sale. advising him that all his action. on the other. Laudico. 652.00. defendants be compelled to execute the contract likewise. an offer to sell. were added to those originally contained in the Inasmuch as several tenders of payment of the sum tentative contract. Severina Rigos executed an instrument. and of the acceptance the offeror had knowledge before said offer was withdrawn. his accepted barrios of Abar and Sibot. as amended and supplemented. RIGOS both acts — the offer and the acceptance — could 45 SCRA 368 at all events have generated a contract. at least.. GULTIANO the conditions upon which the proposed lease two (2) years from said date with the understanding should be made. the latter is not yet bound by it and ISSUE: Whether the contract is valid and binding. as attorney’s of lease of the building.OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS: CASE DIGESTS FOR FINAL EXAMS by ERNIE Y. 331.) It could have a binding effect. But it was. after the filing of defendant’s accepted. lower court rendered judgment for Sanchez.510. offerer. Laudico. of the nature of an offer province of Nueva Ecija. of P1. ordering Mrs. 4 . Mr.00.. which is not binding until received notice of the acceptance. a parcel of land situated in the Pending notice of its withdrawal. it withdrawn. municipality of San Jose. and when the latter was made and See also 27 Ruling Case Law 339 and cases cited. at 11. for specific performance and damages. it no longer had any effect. the sum of P1. the promisor is not bound by promised and committed .” whereby Mrs. promise partakes. Fred. Arias. fees. Mr. Zayco vs. Serra. sentenced to pay P200. the requested on certain points in order to make them former deposited said amount with the CFI Nueva clear. consideration. an acceptance by letter does not have upon the ground that it involves a question purely of any effect until it comes to the knowledge of the law. inasmuch as he had not yet offer of a contract of sale. no acceptance. when Mr. written a letter to the plaintiff. the appeal by Mrs. results in a perfected described in TCT NT-12528 of said province. which was accepted by latter. in his favor. If the option is given without a notice of the acceptance was received by Mr. On propositions.m. withdraw it. Later Mr. on 12 March 1963. Rigos. can still withdraw the offer.53 p. and more particularly to sell which. If. . propositions were made and explanations were rejected by Mrs. While there was an offer. Arias wrote Mr. under article 1262. was not valid for lack of consideration. within contract of sale. the same having already been acceptance is made before a withdrawal. On one hand. and. if accepted.25 in the morning. accordingly. Therefore. that said option shall be deemed “terminated and plaintiff. There was no meeting of the minds. It is admitted that this letter was received answer. Laudico presented his co. Rigos “agreed. however. on 28 February 1964.) In other words. assisted by their respective by Mr. other conditions buy the property” within the stipulated period. jointly moved for a judgment on the day. made by Sanchez within said period. withdrawing the offer to lease the building. the ISSUE: Whether the plaintiff in this action is that the requisite deed of conveyance. in existence. Hence. and the costs. both parties. finally wrote a letter to Mr. Mr. Consequently. 1254 and 1262 of the Civil FACTS: On 3 April 1961. before he learns of the acceptance. Arias by special delivery at 2. Laudico. counter. paragraph 2. cause or consideration. Rigos to accept the sum judicially consigned by him and to execute.510. And when the accepted. Nicolas Sanchez and Code. in turn. Harden. to sell” to Sanchez. On that same day. even though through offer and acceptance. the Arias had. The concurrence of SANCHEZ v. however. Accordingly. which case was the RULING: No.” if “Sanchez shall fail to exercise his right to lease the building.

and cannot be denied or Espiritu) for P2.000. and to act upon such belief. GULTIANO CONSENT obligations. Apparently however. BAMBALAN v. Later. Par. and are near the adult age. Wenceslao disproved as against the person relying thereon.OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS: CASE DIGESTS FOR FINAL EXAMS by ERNIE Y. A. Bambalan’s first cedula to acknowledge the who have passed the ages of puberty and document. ISSUE: Whether the agreement between Luis and Muerong and Maramba forced Bambalan. who was Domingo et al in May 1910 is valid despite the at that time. children. Domingo Mercado. she died and the land was left annulment. A the lot. and do Doctrine laid down in the case of Mercado vs.00. as when the latter arise from his acts or from property relations. during the lifetime of Margarita in 1894. intentionally with Domingo and Josefa whereby the two. to sell their land as payment for minority of the latter party. he sale and the loan previously entered into by their cannot. In the same agreement.00. It is 51 Phil. Par. Sec 68. 37 Also. while and deliberately led another to believe a particular purporting to be of legal age. the siblings declaration. But later. because being a deaf-mute. *** This is in accordance with the provisions of the law on estoppel. not exempt the incapacitated person from certain Espiritu is not applicable to this case.. that loan was increased to P600. Rule 123. cannot be permitted to agreed that for and in consideration of the amount falsify it. Through estoppel. a minor. but said that he was forced because they were threatening his mother RULING: The courts laid down that such sale of real with imprisonment.00. of P400. Calcotura died leaving Bambalan as the sole heir of his estate. prodigality and civil-interdiction he was a minor at the time of execution. when the contract was husband. because the 5 .. MARAMBA Luis later died and he was substituted by Jose. act or omission. Maramba in 1915. and that the minors pretended that they had already ISSUE: Whether sale of the land to Maramaba and reached their majority. she executed a deed of sale transferring Art 1431 of Civil Code. they are transferring the remainder 29% (covering 6 cavanes of seeds) to Luis. Article 38. Muerong is valid. had a hard time making ends meet for his family and so he took out a loan from Luis in the amount of This is also in accordance with the provisions of Rule P375. Bambalan signed. Josefa Mercado and 3 other siblings. 19 and 18 FACTS: Bambalan’s parents Paula Prado and her first years of age respectively. the siblings contested the said agreement. the loan. sec 68. in any litigation arising out of such parents with Luis. 417 the contention of Domingo et al that the agreement is void because they were only minors. The are mere restrictions on the capacity to act. these minors cannot be permitted afterwards to excuse themselves from compliance with the FACTS: Margarita Espiritu was the owner of a 48. ESPIRITU 37 Phil. adolescence. MERCADO v. such as easements. In 1922. In 1897.” Whenever a party has. Isidro Bambalan Y Calcotura received a entered into in May 1910 (21 being the age of loan from Genoveva Muerong and German minority at that time). Muerong and Maramba bought estate was still valid since it was executed by minors. This is in accordance with the provisions to her husband (Wenceslao Mercado) and her of the law on estoppels. The loan was secured by the remainder of 123. After her death. Luis entered into a notarized agreement his own declaration. an about 71% of her land (covering 15 cavanes of admission or representation is rendered conclusive seeds) to her brother Luis Espiritu (father of Jose upon the person making it. obligation assumed by them or seek their hectare land. acknowledged the thing to be true. Minority. act or omission. by In May 1910.00. the state of RULING: The sale is void as to the plaintiff. insanity or imbecility.

No. RULING: Ramon Alcantara in his minority may not be Civil Code. (2) Insane or demented persons. L-12471 On August 27. After Gaw Chiao responded to the letter. Action was denied and Sia Suan. Civil Code. yet he summons the courts to annul the sale because he executed it while still a minor. (2) Those where the consent is vitiated by mistake. and do not exempt the incapacitated person from certain obligations. as when the latter arise from ISSUE: Whether the Deed of Sale executed on August his acts or from property relations. the contract was given a binding effect. voidable or annullable. The Manila court of first instance and ratifying the sale.000 + 2% On August 8. 1390. the state of being a deaf-mute. which reversed the interdiction are mere restrictions on the capacity to decision of the CFI of Laguna. Article 38. a deed of sale was executed by Rufino Alcantara and his sons Damaso Alcantara and Ramon Alcantara conveying to Sia Suan five parcels of land to petitioner Sia Suan.000 in Japanese war notes and in Ramon Alcantara was a minor and accordingly consideration thereof. even though there may and that although the choice to disaffirm will not by have been no damage to the contracting parties: itself avoid the contract until the courts adjudge the agreement to be invalid. such as 31.00 + 2% per annum in legal currency of the Philippines 2 years after the cessation of the war. Ramon brought the case to CA. with costs against the appellee. undue influence or fraud. The letter written by him informing the appellants of his minority Civil Code. Abrille sued them in Alcantara went to the office of Gaw Chiao’s counsel March 1949. 1931. 1327. Ramon Because they have no paid. DE VILLA ABRILLE G. FACTS: Rosario Braganza and her sons loaned from attorney of Ramon Alcantara. Minority. an action was instituted by interest. giving consent to a contract. and deaf-mutes The SC ruled that Ramon is not allowed to annul such who do not know how to write. ground of his minority at the time of sale. because he already ratified it.OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS: CASE DIGESTS FOR FINAL EXAMS by ERNIE Y. The following cannot give allowed to execute the deed of sale but with his act consent to a contract: of ratification. Ramon Alcantara received from CA held the family solidarily liable to pay according Gaw Chiao the sum of P500 as payment for the sold to the contract they signed. The appealed decision of the Court of SIA SUAN v. praying for consideration of the minority of Ramon Alcantara in the Court of First Instance of the Braganza sons when they signed the contract. 1931. intimidation. Ramon Alcantara. Gaw Chiao (husband of Sia Suan) received a letter from Francisco Alfonso. easements. Art. Ramon may have executed his acts in bad faith for violence. insanity or imbecility. Ramon’s father Notes: and brother. P10. prodigality and civil. Nicolas and Antonio Azores were absolved. FACTS: On August 3. 1940. BRAGANZA v. said notice shielded (1) Those where one of the parties is incapable of Ramón from laches and consequent estoppels. (1263a) deed. The following contracts are constituted an effective disaffirmance of the sale. The family petitioned to parcels of land. 669 absolved from the complaint. Art. informing him that De Villa Abrille P70. GULTIANO plaintiff did not pretend to be of age. act. and the Laguna for the annulment of the deed of sale on the defendant knew him as a minor. Gaw Chiao. review the decision of the CA whereby they were ordered to solidarily pay De Villa Abrille P10. 1931 is null and void.R. (1) Unemancipated minors. ALCANTARA Appeals is hereby reversed and the appellants 85 Phil. he earned money from Gaw Chiao as a result of the sale and its ratification. 6 . promised in writing to pay him disavowing the contract.

Civil Code). by means of which defendant made himself the owner of the properties in question is not the instrument of debt VICES OF CONSENT which Andrea Dumasug had signed. of plaintiff’s opposition and protests. RULING: Yes. in which he alleged that because it goes to the very substance of the thing about the month of November. loan they have signed.000. 1912. pueblo of Argao. though not bound by the provisions of the animal and lands. In this case Andrea defendant had told her the truth and that said Dumasug affixed her thumb mark on the document document referred to the expenses incurred by that presented to her believing that it was a deed of defendant. the area and boundaries of which are RULING: The SC found that Rosario will still be liable to specified in the complaint. It has been held that his prayed the court to render judgment by declaring mere silence when making a contract as to his age null and void and of no value whatever the alleged does not constitute a fraud which can be made the contract of purchase and sale of the carabao and basis of an action of deceit. If the and aided by defendant. by reason of such sustained previous sources in Jurisprudence – “in acts. she would neither have an engagement on plaintiff’s part to pay defendant accepted nor authenticated it by her mark. and notified plaintiff that pay her share in the contract because the minority she had conveyed to him by absolute sale said of her sons does not release her from liability. up to the date of However. they shall make restitution ISSUE: Whether the instrument of purchase and sale to the extent that they may have profited by the of two parcels of land and a plow carabao is null money received. that in spite ordered to pay 1/3 of P10. 1340 states that addition to the costs of the suit.” the two parcels of land described in the complaint. likewise belonging to her. situated in the barrio of Katang. defendant had caused loss and damage to order to hold the infant liable. even if the written contract is unenforceable because of their non-age. continued to hold possession thereof of the CA which found them similarly liable due to and to enjoy the products of the lands and of the their failure to disclose their minority. and. are still liable to pay the actual amount of P1. besides. and if it is the same one its contents were not duly and faithfully DUMASUG v. the error plaintiff. which is and void. for. which when converted to Philippine money is equivalent to P1. who were 16 and 18 possession of a carabao belonging to plaintiff and respectively. who does not know how to write. Art.000 for the loss and damage caused her. 1911.666. to order defendant to restore to plaintiff said work The boys. In 34 Phil. 252 either case. the fraud must be plaintiff in the sum of P1. are to be bound by the contract of also of two parcels of land.67. the consent said to have been given by Andrea Dumasug in said document Exhibit 1 is null FACTS: On June 17. This may affixing her mark thereto.OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS: CASE DIGESTS FOR FINAL EXAMS by ERNIE Y. MODELO explained to plaintiff in the act of its execution. She is parcels of land and the plow carabao.66.000 + 2% interest. in they have profited from the loan.166. The SC labor of the carabao. a certain sum of money as expresses occasioned the latter by reason of a lawsuit in which plaintiff This case is an example of Mistake of Fact which is Dumasug was one of the parties and was protected Mistake as to the Nature of the Contract. In this case. signed by or mistake goes to the essence thereof. perfectly evident that the document Exhibit 1. it is null and void. then. counsel for Andrea and void. 2/3 of P70. GULTIANO ISSUE: Whether the boys. that this document. This error invalidates the contract. defendant took possession of said property and. mistake refers to the nature of the contract. 1265 and Dumasug filed a written complaint in the Court of 1266. but that three months after the mortgaged and not a deed of sale therefore her execution of said document. persuaded plaintiff to sign a document by falsely had the maker thereof truly understood the contents and maliciously making her believe that it contained of said document. First Instance of Cebu. Cebu. and that. with her sons. as it was given by mistake (arts. the SC reversed the decision the complaint. P46. believing in good faith that invalidate the contract. defendant which was the subject matter of said contract. 7 . to pay her the sum contract. defendant took consent vitiated the contract. It is. Said counsel therefore actual and not constructive.00.

and 22 centares. and bind himself to purchase the aforesaid parcel of land in the sum of P55. Purchase of land he gave a chattel mortgage on certain apparatus of Mr. RULING: The Court held that Leocadio Joaquin is liable for the two promissory notes and a mortgage The competent court declared the deed of sale deed executed in favor of O. absolved the defendant from paying P25. which was found to contain only 18 hectares. plus P105 for the realized 800 piculs and 23 cates of the centrifugal expenses of collection. 8 . he paid by paying 30 thousand at the signing of the had instructed the defendant to acquire the said document. plaintiff paid Occidental Negros. the plaintiff executed an instrument whereby 1920. he signed and forwarded to the received under the contract. among other things. the void for the reason that it had been executed by the total value of which is 55 thousand.000 of the for the manufacture of Aerated Water. they had in mind chiefly the area Court of First Instance of Manila against the and quality of the land.” In accordance Macario Vito. The price is to be plaintiff by mistake.000 piculs. for the manufacture of aerated water as security for Jalandoni. GULTIANO JOAQUIN v. with its that the said mortgage deed was entirely null and corresponding crop.OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS: CASE DIGESTS FOR FINAL EXAMS by ERNIE Y. alleging that on July 1. Luis Asiain and his wife Maria Cadenas. filed a written complaint in the there in question.000 upon certain conditions The court rendered the judgment absolving the specified in a memorandum signed by the parties defendant O. milled valid. sugar.000 record shows it to have been duly proven that on and ordered the parties to return what they had April 15. the defendant answered the above complaint. Supreme Court. containing 25 hectares more or less of the payment in two installments of the sum of P525. named the Nippon Bazar. 858 45 Phil. 296 FACTS: On July 30. the judgment was affirmed on the Mitsumine. the subject of the contract. land bounded by property of the purchaser. which is in the hands of Attorneys Padilla & Treñas. and 25 thousand within one year with machine at the request of the plaintiff's client. 1914. by B. FACTS: The parties agreed upon the sale of the land in his own behalf. And after he had secured from Asiain the certificate of title. MITSUMINE ASIAN v. manufacture of aerated waters. O. which was an ground that both parties had acted by a mutual order to procure a complete machine for the mistake. defendant. denying all the allegations therein “(1) That Luis Asiain does hereby promise and bind contained except those that were expressly himself to sell to Benjamin Jalandoni a parcel of and admitted in his answer and that after the defendant of the hacienda “Maria” of the aforesaid Luis Asiain. estimated at 2. 1914. Mitsumine from the complaint. defendant P200 on account and agreed to pay the balance of P525 in two installments by signing two “(2) That Benjamin Jalandoni does hereby promise promissory notes and a mortgage deed. Attorney Leocadio Joaquin. was executed in the City of Iloilo.” decreeing that the mortgage executed by the plaintiff Leocadio Joaquin to the defendant was Jalandoni then took possession of the land.000 leaving an unpaid balance of P25. purchase price of P55. Mitsumine. inasmuch as in May. the following: On August 20. had ordered the machine from Japan and delivered situated in the municipality of La Carlota. interest at the rate of 10 per cent. Province of it to the plaintiff to his entire satisfaction. Mitsumine as the void. P. the parties stipulating among other things.000 stipulated in the contract. as will be seen from the letter of Asiain dated May 6. from which he defendant the sum of P525. JALANDONI 34 Phil. ISSUE: Whether the seller and buyer misrepresented each other or committed an error. promissory notes and a mortgage deed executed in 54 centares. and ordering the plaintiff to pay to the the cane at La Carlota Central. Upon appeal to the commercial establishment of the defendant. Jalandoni had paid favor of O. in which. Mitsumine for the purchase of a machine P30. 1914.I. he had a surveyor measure the ISSUE: Whether Leocadio Joaquin is liable for the two land. 1914. 1914. Asiain sued to recover the balance from Jalandoni. and that the latter was responsible for with the foregoing memorandum the deed of sale the payment of the said P525.

the defendants are absolved from the of the real intention of the parties. agreed to buy said parcel of land with the understanding that it In their answer to the complaint. the heirs of Atilano II alleging. lots Nos. centrifugal sugar. and which was passed to Ladislao was lot No. 535-E. there having been a meeting of the 535-D and 535-E. covering lot No. 535-E in favor of the sale was lot No. fraud. 535-E in the deed of sale was a simple mistake in the ATILANO v. and it is held that the contract between the parties is valid and binding upon them. The plaintiffs' insistence is quite The vendor undertook to deliver to the vendee a understandable.000 piculs of square-meter area of lot No. 535-C. Atilano II and his children had the land resurveyed so that it could be properly subdivided. Costs against the latter. upon his death. On 1960. 535-E in favor of his brother embody the agreement by reason of mistake. while the defendants. are ordered to land which remained in the possession of Atilano I. On 1959. Inasmuch as the land deed of sale was an involuntary error. The FACTS: In 1916. in whose name the conformably to the real intention of the parties to corresponding certificate was issued. After the subdivision minds of the parties to a contract. they discovered that the land they were The plaintiffs are ordered to execute a deed of actually occupying on the strength of the deed of conveyance of lot No. Atilano I executed a deed of is not expressed in the instrument purporting to sale covering lot No. praying that the plaintiffs believe that Jalandoni was entitled to rescind that be ordered to execute in their favor the contract. the title to this lot possession of their respective properties passed to Ladislao. 535-E. 535-B. B. 535-A. In 1920. upon the strength of of the foregoing allegations the defendants the authorities cited in the opinion of the court. 535 by new Civil Code provides a remedy by means of purchase. Atilano I acquired lot No. namely. in turn. in turn. 535-A and demanded in return the possession of lot 9 . their true intention had been effected. the judgment appealed from is reversed. inasmuch as the vendor did not deliver a corresponding deed of transfer with respect to Lot parcel of land of the area and quality stipulated in No. execute a similar document. 535-A. he had the land subdivided into reformation of the instrument.OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS: CASE DIGESTS FOR FINAL EXAMS by ERNIE Y. This remedy is five parts. exchange. available when. On the basis entitled to rescind the contract. 535-A. 353-A and not lot 535-E. 535-A. the object is lot No. 535-A. and not lot No. inequitable conduct or accident. ISSUE: Whether there has been a valid sale in view Wherefore. Three other portions. or affect the validity and binding effect of the contract between them. the deed of sale executed in 1920 need portions of the land. but the defendants refused to accept the that both parties had acted by a mutual mistake. Therefore. and all they should do is to execute mutual deed of conveyance. Atilano retained for himself the remaining In this case. The parties have retained to lot No. 353-E in favor of the plaintiffs. identified as lots Nos. since lot No. that they offered to surrender to the possession of lot No. inter alia. However. 535-E in the guaranteed by the vendor. 535-A. that the had neither the area nor the quality the vendor had intention of the parties to that sale was to convey the assured the vendee it had. presumably covered by the title no longer be reformed. it is clear the latter was lot correctly identified as lot No. and the latter. 535-E has an area of parcel of land some 25 hectares in area and of such 2. complaint RULING: From the facts and circumstances. The trial court rendered judgment in favor the contract. respectively. The mistake did not vitiate 28 SCRA 231 the consent of the parties. We interposed a counterclaim. the defendants contained that area and was of the quality alleged that the reference to lot No. 535.808 a quality as to be able to produce 2. 535-C. that sale. reversed. ATILANO drafting of the document. were likewise sold to other persons. 535-A and its designation as lot No. Atilano II. The judgment appealed from is of the plaintiffs. GULTIANO RULING: The judgment was affirmed on the ground No. The vendee.612 square meters as compared to the 1. and 535-D.

as he said. exclaiming: "So you mean to fool my daughter!" Previous to February. were sweethearts. Ruiz made the annulment of his marriage with defendant the statement that he could not marry Pelagia contracted on November 14. Pelagia Atienza. He had companions in the house whom he rejected admission to the bar on the ground could have asked for help. and three other persons visited Jose of trouble. we are led to the conclusion 10 . 20 August 1941 marrying Pelagia Atienza. That cannot be true. * * * and where living. As to the promise by Atty. They requested. He had many occasions to escape. only a one-and-a-half- inch knife was found in his possession by the After the baby's birth. 1938. Jose's safe if he went with them. many have been c. he had some fears that he might into wedlock. to have his way. Villavicencio that if he would not marry a.OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS: CASE DIGESTS FOR FINAL EXAMS by ERNIE Y. both single. the unveiled intimidation by Atty. This so outward legal formalities.e. validity of marriage once the formal ceremonies have been completed. Villavicencio that Ruiz would be physically "safe" if he would go with Now. church where the marriage was celebrated in the evening. Jose Ruiz and Pelagia Those present intervened quickly. There was even the policeman. Villavicencio (her upon seeing what they believed to be the beginning cousin-in-law). others. 1938.e. he street. As to the threat to obstruct his admission to the Bar. the threats of the father supported by his Ruiz was practically kidnapped by Pelagia's relatives "balisong". it is apparent that when defendant was invited to go with them Four days later. and the dispute Atienza. c. or constraint from. With his cousin by filing against him for immorality. on November 14. His counsel has 'dramatized the visit of dishonor inflicted upon her family. where Pelagia was a reason for annulling the marriage. From this statement. Manila. the authorities are Alfredo Asuncion. d. it appears that in the Court of First Instance denying plaintiff's demand for course of the conversation during the visit. or made any threat months later she became an unmarried mother. For this reason. all in an effort to cannot infer what appellant’s attorney would maintain the proposition that Jose Ruiz went with cleverly infer. In fact. FACTS: This is an appeal from a decision of the Manila RULING: No. and the "plans" had to be assured by Villavicencio that he would be drawn to force Jose Ruiz into the marriage. license. Loving stopped. 1938. aroused Jose Atienza that he grabbed Ruiz' necktie. and later returned to the same Aglipayan * * *. that Ruiz would not be safe if he them that afternoon "convinced" by the following did not follow them. in Oregon street. we passive and downcast attitude. joined by Pelagia and a man marries under the threat of. GULTIANO RUIZ v. in a moment of But it is not sufficiently established that Jose Atienza weakness. The flare of anger is easily understandable. he would have difficulty b. perhaps too well. b. Ruiz at the boarding house where he lived. i. policeman whom the companions of Ruiz called Pelagia's father Jose Atienza. then proceeded to secure a marriage cannot avoid the marriage on the ground of duress. i. the promise of Atty. with all the because he was already a married man. against the life of Ruiz. and after some discussion. Atty. of immorality. until after the marriage ceremony. ATIENZA ISSUE: Whether Jose Ruiz was intimidated into O. with the result that nine displayed any "balisong". considering that the law presumes strongly the them. Jose Ruiz brought this suit to secure its be subjected to bodily harm in retaliation for the avoidance. he Jose Atienza and companions. From there the party. alleging that he had been forced and marry Pelagia. Villavicencio.G. went to the Aglipayan church at Maria Clara a lawful prosecution for seduction or bastardy.. she allowed him. as when he would take the bar examinations pointed out in appellee's brief. convinced him to marry Pelagia. "arguments": Appellant would make it appear that that afternoon a. As to the first. he went with Jose Atienza and unanimous that it is not such a duress as to constitute companions to Tanduay street. because..

but is nevertheless they would repudiate the verbal agreement which overcome by force or intimidation to such an extent plaintiff alleges was attached to that conveyance. of real estate from the plaintiff to one of the and the demand that he pay to secure his defendants and to require that defendant to extrication is not illegal. that is. or to have witnesses present when a verbal agreement is VALES v. He pays for his lack of foresight. gives no consent widow. to refund to the plaintiff a certain voidable. or to exclude from G. be a distinction to be made damages.. condition where “by words and insidious machinations on the part of one of the contracting Indeed. has put him in a nor duress attended the marriage celebration. 1916 the operation of its terms things verbally agreed to be excluded. He relied upon before it can be utilized by the person ceases to exist as an independent entity with asserting its existence. At any rate. disadvantageous position — a position which another may unjustly make use of to his injury. then. referring to "force" or contract which. and is the aunt of the at all. His consent was not obtained by youthful romance. Between the two acts if he did not do so. December 16. without them. defendants of the rents. It is clear that one acts as voluntarily and independently in the eye of the law when he With regard to the Salsipuedes and Padre Faura acts reluctantly and with hesitation as when he acts properties the plaintiff claims that they were spontaneously and joyously. still the evidence does not deceit in any of the transactions. between a case where a person gives his consent reluctantly and even against his good sense and It appears that the defendant Felipa Silvestre is a judgment. For even though appellant has presented his case in the best possible light. acts in conformity with them. and in his place is 11 . Legally speaking he obtained from him and that he was induced to acts as voluntarily and freely when he acts wholly execute conveyances therefor in favor of the against his better sense and judgment as when he defendant Maria Guia Garcia under the threat that. But when his sense. cannot resist. 10028. It was not alleged or proved faculties and judgment. a That fact however must be alleged and proved and disappearance of the personality of the actor. and a payment made recover by good and sufficient conveyance the title pursuant to such demand is not necessarily to such properties. There did not exist warrant a pronouncement that his consent to it was in any one of the transactions complained of a obtained through force or intimidation. and his will rebel and he refuses conveyance of the 22d of March 1909. issues and profits of certain real estate during a certain period. it is ISSUE: Whether it is valid to annul a series of real unnecessary to pass on the effect of this legal estate transactions on the ground of duress. and for P25. and for an accounting by the illegal and of itself is not ground for relief.” intimidation. etc. we may advert to the provision of the parties the other is (was) induced to execute a Marriage Law which. GULTIANO that although plaintiff may not have looked upon in this case and plaintiff does not rely upon it in his the ceremony as the happy culmination of brief in this court. yet appellee's RULING: The same may be said with greater force of attorney has successfully met the issues. in reality. VILLA made. 70 years of age. namely. at least where it does not in legal effect amount to force or violence. and where he. it is not real estate.OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS: CASE DIGESTS FOR FINAL EXAMS by ERNIE Y.R.000 There must. No. does not seem to include mere made. that absolutely to act as requested. that he becomes a mere automation and acts mechanically only. he would not have "violence". the defendants would not there is no difference in law. The failure to reduce a contract to writing. Villa. may place a person in a FACTS: This is an action to set aside certain transfers disadvantageous position with respect to another. upholding a case where a person’s own voluntary act. as where he executes a contract or performs defendant Maria Guia Garcia. the judge's conclusion of fact that neither violence uninfluenced by another. or to record an instrument. a new element enters. While the sum paid by plaintiff for the recovery of certain other demand may be reprehensible morally. reconvey to him the properties described in the judgment. distinction. wife of the an act against his will under a pressure which he defendant Simeon A.

together with all the other acts of demands.800. the one using the the brief of counsel? Summing up the whole case force or the intimidation. his interests would be best But into whichever class it falls the party coerced subserved by paying the additional consideration. by refused to give him credit for the P10. leaving is made.” and the there was no receipt. no writing. is the element relied on. from his point of view. and was still verbal. While his hand signs. as we have seen. in reality and in law. Or. But still the agreement was verbal. consideration of P6. agreement as it stands. did was to refuse to live up to their verbal agreement with the plaintiff unless he gave them an additional From these considerations. with the very persons who had refused of which cases. him.800 for the recovery of the Intimidation resulting from the fear of losing his properties described in the original conveyance property. The verbal agreement to expressly or impliedly. and. were obtained and procured by means of intimidation. there was a grounded fear of suffering an imminent and serious refusal to fulfill and the plaintiff. Again. enunciated: Was there intimidation in this case the will which moves it is another’s. applying the principles already or making use of intimidation. While a contract under the facts as related by plaintiff himself. His judgment operated upon it is. He may do this situation he was before. and he was no better off than before. The defendants having refused to Article 1265 of the Civil Code tells us when duress fulfill the second verbal agreement and having exists: “Consent given by error. it is unenforceable for lack under these facts. Not only this. or deceit shall be void.OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS: CASE DIGESTS FOR FINAL EXAMS by ERNIE Y. Still consent. which he claims he had twice paid for. On the payment of provides: the fourth consideration he secured in black and white the title to the property which had so eluded Violence or intimidation shall annul the obligation. waive his right to annul the But having paid it. nothing but the “intimidation exists when one of the contracting naked word that had twice before been parties is inspired with a reasonable and well. there being only one party. live up to it as thus accepted. even if it should have been employed by a third person who did not take part in the contract.000 paid. to obtain the very injury to his person or thing which had been the subject-matter of these property. He may expressly accept the reconvey. he may He took no receipt showing the purpose of the compromise by paying something to be relieved payment. but he did the same thing a second time. under violence. in order to exact them P15. it has. This time he succeeded. irresistible force is used. without a scrap of paper to show element as one having any influence on the case for it or specify its object. and there are others not now to live up to their original agreement because it was necessary to mention. Plaintiff had his choice. even though it should be found that the execution of the conveyance of the Salsipuedes There is no question of error or violence in this case. He of alleged intimidation must be examined to could refuse to pay again for the right which he had determine within which class it falls. the sum of P10. he found himself in precisely the contract and to recover damages. or in a modified from. if he did not comply with defendants’ remaining unsold.. In any one but. and Padre Faura properties and the payment of the and we have already disposed of that of deceit. it is clear that every case consideration therefor. GULTIANO substituted another — the one exercising the force First.000 on that thereafter. But. it is clear that all that defendants of a second party.” Article 1267 entered into a third agreement under which he paid provides that “violence exists when. then. or he could first class it is not duress in law. he required no writing to protect himself from its effects or to have its terms changed. he from the very trap into which he had once fallen. the situation thus presented and he concluded that.” Article 1268 declares the effect of prior verbal contracts. If it is within the paid for once.000. instead. the plaintiff which militate against his interest. if it falls in the second.. he intimidation. paid a fourth consideration of violence and intimidation on the contract. may accept benefits under the contract. still we believe that the plaintiff would not be entitled to 12 . pay the price asked. and go into court for relief. for the tried time. Or. only one party to out of account the conclusions drawn and stated in it. agreement. he not only made another verbal agreement defense of intimidation and thereby eliminates that but also paid them. It P6. he renounces and waives his verbal. may. repudiated.

on the 13th of the same month he to have renounce the right o interpose the defense returned to the hospital and was treated by the which intimidation originally offered him. but he must be held to have ratified the pyelocystitis and for incipient pulmonary conveyances. 1930. is likewise clear.OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS: CASE DIGESTS FOR FINAL EXAMS by ERNIE Y. the they were fraudulently obtained by the insured. The insured had to answer inquiries as to his state of appealed decision holds that the health of the health and that of his family. Segundina Musñgi and Buenaventura hospital and was treated for the same ailments. The two policies were issued upon applications filed The defendant contended at the outset that the two by the insured on July 20. as the name of the lady physician who treated him. Cruz for peptic Law. the insured had entered the General Hospital not otherwise specially provided for by the Insurance in Manila. 1931. on general rules of the civil law regarding contracts. because the truth was that the the applications. on 61 Phil. practitioner or any other person not named above because the insured was examined by three have you consulted or been treated by. After the death of the insured and as a result of the RULING: On the first point. because the defendant by reason thereof accepted the risk It indisputably appears that between May 13 and 19. constituted fraud. and for physicians of the company and all of them what illness.)" In the first unanimously certified that he was in good health application. and if they were the issuance of the policies. of policies did not create any valid obligation because the same year. had been treated in the General Hospital by a lady That this concealment and the false statements physician for different ailments. Garcia was insured by the WCLIC in ailments. he again entered the sum of P5. The two policies were on the 18th of the same month. the contract of life insurance is governed by the ulcer and chronic catarrhal nasopharyngitis. the latter had suffered from a number of ailments. before answering and signing the omitted the hospital where he was confined as well applications and before the issuance of the policies. which he did voluntarily. on the 20th of the same month he again entered the hospital and was treated by the same doctor for acute tracheo- MUSNGI v. he again entered the valid and subsisting at the time of the death of the hospital and was treated for the same ailments. 864 the 27th of the same month he again entered the same hospital and was treated for the same FACTS: Arsenio T. but the defendant company hospital and was treated by the same doctor for the refused to pay. on January 11. 1931 and October 15. which it would otherwise have flatly refused. respectively. yet he concealed them and insured. same physician for chronic suppurative pyelocystitis and for chronic bronchitis. When 1929. same ailments. bronchitis and chronic suppurative pyelocystitis. or one of the causes.000. and they so positively cause. the insured answered "None". including discovered that the aforementioned answers were incipient pulmonary tuberculosis. and in the and that he could be properly insured. and was treated by Dr. he entered the same hospital and contradicted the most material portions of his was treated by the same physician for chronic testimony. which induced the appear therein. WCLIC in the sum of P10. 1930. insured before the acceptance of his applications In each of the said applications the following and the issuance of the policies could neither be question was asked: "1. These answers of the insured as well as his other statements contained in his applications ISSUE: Whether the two answers given by the insured were one of the causes or considerations for the in his applications are false. on December 11. before subscribing false and fraudulent. GULTIANO recover on the record. and. or ailment? (If none. The insured knew that he defendant to pay the value of the policies. Garcia was again insured by the the hospital and was treated for the same ailments. he again entered the of the two policies. In both applications. second. so state. on insured on December 30. WEST COAST LIFE INSURANCE INC. Garcia demanded upon the WCLIC for the payment finally.000. His acts in general not only August 5. defendant to issue the policies. 1932. The beneficiaries in the 28th of the same month he again entered the said policies. payments. the facts above set out demand made by the beneficiaries upon the leave no room for doubt. and acts referred to and tuberculosis. "No". 13 . What physician or discussed nor questioned by the defendant.

Governor of the considerations of the policies. For the second offer. 947.400 out of the 42. instead of or falsity of the answers become the determining seeing Jones. ISSUE: Was there fraud in effecting the purchase of defendant. If the policy was procured by fraudulent employed Sloan. consent and a definite object. Development Company Limited (Philippine Sugar Estates). Chapter IV. sale was subsequently executed. that the statement of a false consideration shall the US Government wanted to secure title over the render the contract void. Repide became the owner of 30. GULTIANO Article 1261 of the Civil Code provides that there is likewise elected by the board as the agent and no contract unless there should be. The Law of Insurance. of the Dominican lands. May 3. not one word of the facts affecting should communicate it to the assured. the truth her agent. F.219. During the knowledge of a fact material to the risk. employed Kauffman who later on factor. Repide.043. was the majority stockholder and one of Strong’s shares? the five directors of Philippine Sugar Estates. the insurance would never have been granted. Jones.OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS: CASE DIGESTS FOR FINAL EXAMS by ERNIE Y. insurance under the Insurance Act is a Repide rejected the offer. the contract of insurance Strong. After the sale of Dominican lands and after the purchase of the 800 shares of Strong. This sale volume 3. the "concealment". REPIDE 41 Phil. As the majority stockholder of Philippine Sugar Estates and without One ground for the rescission of a contract of prior consultation with the other stockholders.47. a broker. it is purchase of the Dominican lands. in addition to administrator general of such company. a consideration for the obligation established. is found the following: transaction increased the value of the shares of stocks originally owned by Strong from 16. And article 1276 provides The factual backdrop being during US occupation. The first void and did not give rise to any right to recover their offer of the Governor was to purchase the subject value or amount. good faith and fair dealing requires that he stock of Strong. lands in the amount of $6. These shares were owned by Mrs. Stuart Jones (Jones). during which evident that the insurance contracts were null and Repide represented Philippine Sugar Estates. STRONG AND STRONG v. 1909 Strong filed a complaint for the recovery of her 800 shares. To accomplish this objective. facts been disclosed by the assured.535. The two answers being one friar lands. He was 14 . the negotiations for the purchase of the Dominican lands were concluded and a contract of In Joyce. Eleanor evidence conclusively shows that the answers to Strong (Strong) which were then in the possession of questions concerning diseases were untrue. Jones sold the 800 shares of Strong for 16.030 shares of Philippine Sugar Estates. neglect to communicate that which a party knows and ought to communicate". to purchase the shares of representations. second edition. She argued that her agent Jones had no FACTS: Among the lands comprising the friar lands authority to sell her shares and that Repide are the Dominican lands. For this sale transaction a check existent. Repide took steps to purchase the 800 shares of stock of Philippine Sugar In an action on a life insurance policy where the Estates.000. It can fairly be assumed that had the true of one Rueda Ramos was issued. but he the value of this stock was made known to her nor designedly and intentionally withholds the same.256 US currency.” her agent. and it for the Philippines entered into negotiations for the appearing that they are false and fraudulent. Appellant argues that While negotiations for the second offer were the alleged concealment was immaterial and ongoing and while still holding out for a higher price insufficient to avoid the policy. the only valuable asset fraudulently concealed the facts affecting their owned by the corporation Philippine Sugar Estates value. Later on. Francisco Gutierrez Repide (Repide).000 apparently set forth therein was never legally Mexican currency. which in section 25 is defined as "A purchase price was increased to $7. and negotiations regarding the purchase of the shares of honesty.000 "Concealment exists where the assured has Mexican currency to 76.

The franchise. Under these intention to give up the franchise. The whole transaction gives conclusive easily have ascertained its status by applying at the evidence of the overwhelming influence Repide office of the Public Utility Commissioner.400. GULTIANO RULING: Yes. 381 faith. While on 1913 to substantially as the agent of the shareholders of 1914. 1922. During negotiations which finally led to the sale of the March 20.50 from plaintiff.57.400. 1921. Repide employed an agent to to operate the company pursuant to a special purchase the stock of Strong. formation of the contract or operate to discharge the parties from this agreement. it should be emphasized that the state and probable result of the negotiations and to contract in making mention of the property. acting in good 45 Phil. the obtain a lower price for the shares of Strong. questions relative to the negotiations for the sale of The defendant asked for a dismissal action and an Dominican lands and actual misrepresentations allowance of P12.OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS: CASE DIGESTS FOR FINAL EXAMS by ERNIE Y. The rights of this of the shares in the company. it became the duty of Repide. Tayabas the facts upon which liability is asserted. and was. the sale of the Dominican lands as the administrator was not determining cause of purchase. Tuason permitted circumstances. He was the negotiator for the property was sold to Gregorio Marquez. the sale of the Dominican lands to the government he announced to the Public Utility Commissioner his and of the probable purchase price. directors of Philippine Sugar Estates was but one of owner of the electric light plant of Lucena. Consolidated company’s lands at a price which greatly enhanced Electric Light Plant. regarding that subject. He was not agreed to franchised with Tuason and to pay only a director. Indeed.501. he continued negotiations for inventory of the property. deceitful machinations to obtain the purchase without giving any information whatever as to the RULING: No.1919. the more easily was he able to avoid in CFI Manila against Crisanto Marquez for P37. once in possession by Tuason. By rescission of the contract. Because of such Company passed to Crisanto Marquez at sheriff’s ownership and agency. therefore. concealed his own license which was to continue until they obtained a identity and his knowledge of the state of new franchised granted by Republic Utility negotiations and their probable result. Marquez. MARQUEZ case. 15 . Marquez. The 1st purchase of the stock. Tuason conceive purchase of the stock. The plaintiff filed complain such means. to state the facts before making the purchase of Strong’s shares. prior to the accomplishment of the contract. administrator general of the installment was paid subsequent to the sixty-day company with large powers and engaged in the period. He was the only one who knew of the probability of 1921. P2. With the factual circumstances of this TUASON v. 2nd installment has not been paid.654.400 within the sixty shares of its stock. no one knew as well as he sale on September 10. P12. This damages due to honorable disclosure of fact move of Repide was a studied and intentional pertaining to the renovation of plant as a requisite omission to be characterized as part of the after the franchise has been granted. The Commissioner with certain conditions amounting to concealment of his identity while procuring the the renovation of the entire plant. After Electric Light Company merely renewed a previous the purchase of stock. The the value of the stock. 1921 to July 19. the general and eventually entered into a contract of franchise was then in force and either party could sale.000 within a year. for the purchase money. by his agent. at the time of the days and remainder. but he owned three-fourths of the Marquez a total of P14. Crisanto C. He kept up the concealment as long as he could by giving the check of a third ISSUE: Whether the defendant is liable for the person Rueda Ramos. disgusted with the business result on February 28. a franchise for thirty-five years was granted the Philippine Sugar Estates by reason of his ownership Lucena Electric Company. That Repide was one of the FACTS: On March 5. brother of sale of the Dominican lands and was acting Crisanto Marquez at P5. was in itself the idea of bringing active against Marques for strong evidence of fraud on the part of Repide. The had in the negotiations and it is clear that the final innocent non-disclosure of a fact does not affect the consummation was in his hands at all times. became does about the exact condition of the negotiations.

The opposition claimed that ISSUE: Is the plaintiff obliged to return to the Eulalio had no right to sell Maximo’s share of the defendant the products to the lands that the plaintiff land. should be absolved from this counterclaim. Eulalio and conveyed to Borja in fee simple. result. GULTIANO RESCISSIBLE CONTRACTS formalities. subscribed in Addison. but in the absence of the with law in the cases expressly fixed thereby. However. land in question. A partnership was then created between the Eulalio and his son Maximo. As a registry of deeds but no entries have been made. the lands were forfeited AQUINO v. L-12457. ADDISON be brought home to third persons dealing with the G. The property regime of the to be binding to third persons. such partnership must be in Belisario conveyed the two parcels of land to a accordance with the formalities of the Code of certain Jose Castillo. No. A surviving rescission mentioned in the contract is not the husband may form a partnership with the heirs of the rescission referred to in this article 1295. Borja now P10. and the same was presented to the consider the previous contract as rescinded.000). reserving the right to repurchase. By virtue of this contract lands were sold to McClure. reserving the right to Commerce. who had no knowledge of the common ownership. the law that requires that the partnership between with their fruits and the price with interest. In effect. The defendant. wherein he execution sales were fatally defective for want of demanded of the defendant the payment of the sufficient publication of the notices of sale. TANEDO and confiscated for non-payment of taxes. the On March 30. said parcels of land (P45. January 22. a deed of sale of two parcels The defendant only paid the plaintiff the P2. After the death his wife. the plaintiff returned to the defendant the The attached lands were thereafter sold to the lands. collected during his possession? ISSUE: Whether Borja can demand registration of the RULING: We are of the opinion that the plaintiff land in his name. executed in P12. favor of the plaintiff another document in which he acknowledges that he owes the plaintiff the sum of Eulalio. At public auction. and for Ferrer’s spouses was that of community of property. the plaintiff took possession of the lands purchased. RULING: Yes. After some time. knowledge of the existence of the new partnership or community of property must at least BORJA v. agreed to and Eulalio. Subsequently. the sheriff’s Court of First Instance of Tarlac. He was married to Paula Ira. against the opposition of the heirs of Maximo. but such fact does not Thus. favor of Basilio Borja. on his part. 1917. but it 16 .R. still this fact was which prescribes that the rescission obliges the return unknown to Borja. but the sale was not recorded. It was ruled that there is nothing in of the things which were the objects of the contract. G.000.000 in of land in question.R. Article 1295 deceased wife for the management and control of refers to contract that are rescindible in accordance the community property. accordance with the contract. Said order and notice were served upon Maximo Later the plaintiff and the defendant.OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS: CASE DIGESTS FOR FINAL EXAMS by ERNIE Y. L-18010 June 21. But the them be in writing for it to be valid. Eulalio argument to be valid. the Supreme Court held that for the partnership appear in the records.000. without Maximo’s permission. the whole property was repurchase. No. between Eulalio and Maximo. instead of judgment creditor. 1992 surviving husband in regard to the community real property in order to bind them by the community FACTS: Eulalio Belisario acquired the two parcels of agreement. McClure. there may have been a partnership The defendant invokes article 1295 of the Civil code. seeks registration of the land. Maximo Belisario occupied and administered the two parcels of land in common. 1919 A civil case was filed and order of attachment was FACTS: Aquino purchased from Tanedo several issued against the lands. whose son was Maximo Belisario. Addison purchased the land at plaintiff filed against the defendant an action in the the sheriff’s execution sale. represented by Addison. represented by returning the price received by him.

interest on the P10. (2) Whether which he received from the plaintiff as [a part of] the the sale was fraudulent. The vendee of himself to return to the defendant the fruits of the said sale was a son of Tomas Oria y Balbas and a land that the plaintiff collected during his possession. was P274. 000. 2) transfer was made while purchase and sale was dissolved and the lands were the suit against him (Tomas Oria y Balbas) was returned by him. The bank upon their steamship Serpantes and which the subject of this agreement wanted to get the hacienda from litigation. provisions and not by article 1295. was in good faith. Since the business of Faustino did not do into a contract with the herein plaintiff for the well and he did not even pay his loan to the bank. Before the institution of her sister Nable Jose. 763 FACTS: Gutierrez Hermanos filed an action for FACTS: Lichauco Corporation is the owner of recovery of a sum of money against Oria Hermanos Hacienda Sevitana and Sapangbalen. Stockholders & Co. members of the Company dissolved their Asia Baking Corporation amounting to P70. it should be understood that the plaintiff.242. or by application of the other legal Company. the fruits which he collected from these assets of Oria Hermanos & Co.The bound himself subsequent to the rescission. his possession. badges of fraud. took possession of the same the contracting parties. 3) sale by insolvent debtor. L-7003 51 Phil. 6) the sale own (art. When the Trail Court resolved the action for Faustino. and in fact did pay. to Manuel Oria y Gonzales as pay. Tomas Oria save their farm of sugarcane because of business y Balbas acting in behalf of his co-owners entered troubles. interest during the same time. recovery filed by Gutierrez Hermanos and jugdment was in his favor.000. reciprocally. MCMICKING ASIA BANKING CORPORATION v. NABLE JOSE G. However. Faustino contracted a loan to the suits. On this been fraud prejudicing creditors: 1) consideration of account. and its effects claimed that he is the owner of the steamer by virtue should be determined by the agreement made by of the selling of all the properties of the said the parties. the sheriff demanded to Tomas Oria Without the knowledge of her sister Nable Jose that y Balbas to make payment but the latter said there Faustino contracted an agreement concerning the 17 .R. 5) transfer of all properties. nor bind mentioned which said three brothers together himself to pay. price of the land. this provision should be applied to the the property. The case at bar shows every one of the instant case.. Civil Code) and he is not obliged to was made between father and son. plaintiff is a young man of 25 years old and has no property before the said selling. In the absence of any failure of the vendee to take exclusive possession of covenant. on RULING: At the time of said sale the value of the his part. 4) evidence of in good faith. plaintiff could not have bound partners themselves. 7) and the return them to the defendant. owned and among Faustino for recovery of P146. until the contract of conveyance is fictitious. The court had laid But the plaintiff held the lands by reason of his having down the rules in determining whether a there has purchased them from the defendant. the fruits collected by him become his insolvency.000 against the creditors of the company. GULTIANO does not refer to contracts that are rescinded by were no funds to pay the same. ISSUES: (1) Whether there was a valid sale between The defendant argues that as he bound himself to Oria Hermanos & Co.11 due and owing the goods stated on that instrument was the it to Lichauco Corporation.00 to relations and entered into a liquidation.OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS: CASE DIGESTS FOR FINAL EXAMS by ERNIE Y. and herein plaintiff filed an action for recovery of the said corporation were Faustino Lichauco and also for the same defendant. It is simply another contract and announced it for public auction. purpose of transferring and selling all the property Asia Banking Corporation filed a complaint against which the Oria Hermanos & Co. also bound himself to return. nephew of the other two persons heretofore inasmuch as the defendant did not pay. No. 451. as stated by the lands. ORIA V. as he constituted all of the members of said company. The sheriff then mutual consent and for the mutual convenience of levied on the steamer. As such possessor pending. Herein plaintiff for the dissolution of a previous one.

but defendants for no justifiable reason fail. 1983. it is apparent in the face of the Complaint on the mortgage immediately when it fell due that the plaintiffs failed to comply with the instead of waiting all these years while trying to enforce the wrong remedy. maybe dispose in consideration of its value. petitioners filed their answer obligation. the vendor obligates himself to transfer the ownership of and to SURIA v. accepted the mortgage as security for the On November 14. we note that they of a parcel of land situated at Barrio San Antonio. hence the rescission was also owned by her. Considering the lower purchasing value of complaint. the latter have 12. 1981. 1983. February 24. have fully complied with their part of the reciprocal San Pedro. February of the petitioners’ promise to pay on installment basis 7. The property and his possessions will not be permitted to ISSUE: Whether the seller can resort to the remedy of alienate because under Article 1382 of NCC any rescission under Article 1191. 1975. denominated as DEED OF SALE WITH MORTGAGE. plaintiffs being the owners respondents’ own arguments. payments made because of insolvency is invalid under some circumstances. becomes a subsidiary one which by law is available 1975) was made all the others remaining unsettled to only in the absence of any other legal remedy. 1984. with herein defendants. 18 . secondly that. IAC deliver a determinate thing to the buyer. The petitioners’ breach of obligations is not with respect to the perfected contract of sale but in the The defendants violated the terms and conditions of obligations created by the mortgage contract. March 13. ISSUE: Whether the agreement between Faustino on August 6. private-respondents all the outstanding balance under the Deed of Sale with Mortgage. who in turn. amounting to P70. By the contract of sale. They could have foreclosed remedy. and April the sum they owe the respondents. 1984. petitioners formerly offered to pay and Asia Banking Corporation was valid. On November 26. 1458. 1984. In the meantime. null and void. However. illegal. because Faustino owed the bank was rejected by private respondents on August 7. private-respondents filed their opposition to the above motion. a true copy of said contract. 151 SCRA 661 is obligated to pay a price certain in money or its equivalent (Art. RULING: There is no dispute that the parties entered into a contract of sale as distinguished from a contract to sell.OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS: CASE DIGESTS FOR FINAL EXAMS by ERNIE Y. 1982. the remedy of rescission is not a installments and in fact only one installment due in principal action retaliatory in character but July 1975 (paid very late in the month of September. 1983. the contract by failing to pay the stipulated Under Article 1883. and invalid. the entitled to the subsidiary remedy of rescission respondents are correct in stating they have suffered because of the presence of remedy of foreclosure in losses. From the FACTS: On March 31.00 the property denied the motion to dismiss. entered into a contract obligation. The relationship between the parties is no longer one Repeated verbal and written demands were made of buyer and seller because the contract of sale has by plaintiff upon the defendants for the payment of been perfected and consummated. 1983. The petitioners have offered to pay the past due On July 16. the present time. some of said written demands of a mortgagor and a mortgagee. On July 26. Civil Code). In consideration having been made on September 24. in her favor as the sole and exclusive owner of the property. GULTIANO hacienda. which offer RULING: No. 1984. the respondent-Court hacienda was about P400. they are also to blame for trusting the Deed of Sale with Mortgage. A certificate of registry was issued ineffective. persons who could not or would not comply with assuming arguendo that rescission were a proper their obligations in time.000. Laguna. she questioned it since the property was requirements of law. alleging that: That plaintiffs are not the peso in terms of prices of real estate today. petitioners filed a motion to dismiss accounts.000.00 only and the value of the 1984. with counterclaim. It is already one the installments.

and are effective and obligatory the rescission of sale plus damages. Voidable or annullable On May 28. and binding. owner of certain real estate in San Sebastian cost.000 after the property had been registered in THE ESTATE OF PEDRO C. Fernando Hermosa moral damages and P500 as attorney’s fees and Sr. GULTIANO FACTS: On December 19. In the instant grandfather.000.R.1947. it had the effect of transferring rendered judgment dismissing it but ordering the ownership of the subject property to Pedro. However. there is no showing that the contract of sale payment of the balance of P60. 169681.00. Intestate proceedings were instituted in CFI of Samar for settlement of his estate and his ISSUE: Whether the action of rescission of the daughter Luz Hermosa was appointed administratrix. Luz Hermosa renewed negotiation of the sale of the We entertain a different opinion considering that the property to Alfonso Zobel and agreed that the sale plaintiff did not take part in the sale and so he was price would be P20. in CFI of Samar asking for specific performance or valid. Governor. was Section 2196 of the Revised Administrative Code. November 5.00. are existent. even if be granted that the plaintiff has permission from the court to sell the property located sufficient legal ground to ask for the rescission of the in Spain with a conformity of her co-heir Fernando sale. It appears that he became of age on January 7. Fernando Hermosa Jr. Governor of a contract entered into by a municipality which falls under the provisions of Luz Hermosa died and Fernando Hermosa Jr. since the contract was never The court found complaint unmeritorious and annulled or set aside. the fact remains that his right of action has Hermosa Jr. GONZALES v. contract of sale by the plaintiff is enforceable. not aware of the circumstances under which it was carried out. No. before they are set aside.000. 1948. in his capacity between the parties. He demanded from Zobel the case. the price of appear in the document and he brought this action P80. and this happened more than four years later carry on negotiation with prospective buyers.00. fixed at P80. died. 2009 On April 27. did not wish to have negotiation with heirs. 19 . On January 14.000. the administratrix requested RULING: No. action for rescission Luz and Fernando agreed to have the property prescribes in four years from removal of one’s ceded and adjudicated to one of them who may incapacity. 1947. Spain. or more than four but. filed action contracts. the subject contract should be considered voidable. Luz Hermosa executed the VOIDABLE CONTRACTS necessary deed of sale with the remaining balance of P5. appointed as administrator of the estate of his late such contract is considered voidable. he was of the belief that the In order to protect the investment of the buyer. the remainder was in effect paid by Zobel to Luz Hermosa to complete the Pending approval or disapproval by the Provincial transaction. GONZALES AND HEIRS OF the name of the vendor. Zobel refused to Marikina was ever acted upon by the Provincial accede his demand.000 as it was made to agreed to state in the deed of sale. So. THE HEIRS OF MARCOS PEREZ G. already prescribed. Having plaintiff to pay the defendant of the sum of P1.. as Judicial Administrator. 1948 and he only brought the Alfonso Zobel was approached to buy the property presentation on May 28. In the present case.000 as it was entered into between Pedro and the Municipality of indicated in the deed of sale. Under Article 1389 of NCC. PEDRO C. problem arose in connection with in the belief that defendant has not paid the the tax that may be made to pay if the price were balance of P60. 1954. years after the he attained the age of majority.000. it was real consideration was P80. Pedro. 1954. 1944. ago.000. it was agreed to reduce it to P60. On December 10.OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS: CASE DIGESTS FOR FINAL EXAMS by ERNIE Y. Apparently.000 as lawfully acquired ownership of Lots A and C. Hence.

LOPEZ entice petitioner into entering the contract of barter. including the opportunity required in Article 1584 of the Civil Code subject property which comprises a portion of Lot C. March 2. 37 Phil. complained that the earrings were fake. By taking the jewelry outside the bank. undue influence or fraud. DE VILLA ABRILLE 105 Phil. Belarmino. February 26. respectively. of the jewelry or its being switched with an inferior nodded and took the earrings. upon the ISSUE: Whether the sale should be nullified on the actual and constructive delivery thereof. 20 . a banker and a jeweler. they are bound by the contract unless petitioner. Two hours after. its nonpayment by Dr. contracting parties are: (1) those where one of the parties is incapable of giving consent to a contract. See also MERCADO v.000 and a diamond earring jewelry was not the one he intended in exchange for owned by the latter. contract of sale being absolute in nature. Said ground of fraud. This gains credence when it is borne in mind that he himself had earlier delivered the Tanay property FACTS: Gregorio Fule. Cruz is not a there are reasons or circumstances that warrant its sufficient cause to invalidate the contract or bar the nullification. Fule that now bound him and Dr. COURT OF APPEALS more consistent with his exercise of ownership over G. Cruz got the after that supervening period within which anything earrings from her safety deposit box and handed it could have happened. 1926 It was in fact petitioner who resorted to machinations to convince Dr. Being consensual. petitioner was afforded the reasonable these parcels of land or parts thereof.00 forming meeting of the minds between petitioner and Dr. ESPIRTU. and value of the thing he had taken preclude its return Dr. are bare of any evidence manifesting that private respondents employed such insidious words or machinations to TORRES & LOPEZ DE BUENO v. GR No. petitioner executed an act which was FULE v.OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS: CASE DIGESTS FOR FINAL EXAMS by ERNIE Y. 1998 it. single. a contract of sale has vendor has the right to unilaterally resolve the the force of law between the contracting parties contract the moment the buyer fails to pay within a and they are expected to abide in good faith by fixed period. The nature and went to the bank with Dichoso and Mendoza. 25. when asked if those were alright. Cruz to exchange her jewelry for the FACTS: Tomas Rodriguez y Lopez. however. Cruz. Cruz arrived shortly thereafter. to Dr. their respective contractual commitments. February. He filed a complaint to declare the sale null and void on the Ownership over the parcel of land and the pair of ground of fraud and deceit. Cruz by affixing his signature to the contract of offered to sell his parcel of land to Dr. died on Tanay property. could not sever the juridical tie prepared by Atty. GULTIANO in turn. transfer of ownership and possession of the things exchanged considering the fact that their contract Contracts that are voidable or annullable. had the full capacity to transfer ownership of Furthermore. Dr. within which to examine the jewelry as he in fact accepted them when asked by Dr. 24569. That after two hours he later claimed that the exchange for P40. 456 mistake. No. emerald-cut diamond earrings had been transferred to Dr. Cruz and petitioner. The records.000. Fule kind. violence. intimidation. On the same day. even is silent as to when it becomes due and though there may have been no damage to the demandable. A deed of absolute sale was his Tanay property. It is evident from the facts of the case that there was a While it is true that the amount of P40. As such. Cruz in sale. 1924 leaving all his estate to VL. not excluding the alteration to Fule who. part of the consideration was still payable to Cruz. title passed to the vendee upon delivery of the thing sold RULING: A contract of sale is perfected at the since there was no stipulation in the contract that moment there is a meeting of the minds upon the title to the property sold has been reserved in the thing which is the object of the contract and upon seller until full payment of the price or that the the price.R. Cruz if he was satisfied with the same. 215 and and (2) those where the consent is vitiated by BRAGANZA V. 112212.

Lopez and his daughter Luz Rodriguez to sign by stating that such document Lopez de Bueno. Drs. Rodriguez voluntary named Vicente F. Calderon. 634[4]). Trial Judge entertained the idea of he was about to sign was in connection with a preconceived plans but the witnesses in the signing complaint against Castito. Delos Angeles. (2) Whether there Undue influence. Code of Civil procedure prescribes a requisite that the testator be of “sound mind”. Such was also when those seeking to overthrow the will have contested by Margarita Lopez on the following clearly established the charge of mental incapacity grounds: that the courts will intervene to set aside a testamentary document. a. Rodriguez designated Vicente Lopez as administrator of his property due to his The capacity to comprehend the nature of the feeble health. such was questioned by Margarita transaction in which the testator is engaged at the Lopez. sec. 1923. Art. Dr. are men of standing (Judge Mine. Calderon. a sound mind is a disposing mind. the signature of Rodriguez was obtained through of all his relatives Tomas Rodriguez reposed the most fraud and deceit. the manner in which the instrument will distribute his and Lopez has procured Judge Maximino Mina. (Drs. ISSUES: (1) Whether Rodriguez has testamentary capacity to consider the will valid. and Mr. to recollect the property to be disposed of and Rodriguez’s guardian. There is every indication that c. Though there was conflict of medical opinions on the soundness of mind of the testator. GULTIANO On August 10. and to comprehend Tomas Rodriguez voiced out the need to form a will. The CFI of Manila recognized Lopez as time. is against the will from fear the desire of peace or from other feeling which is unable to resist. became his guardian. may be defined as was undue influence in the procurement of the that which compelled the testator to do that which signature of Rodriguez in the will. Boanan one of the witnesses of the signing of the Herrara. Rodriguez has testamentary capacity to constitute a will. (Luz Lopez allegedly deceived confidence in Vicente F. proved. that testator lacked mental capacity because at that time he had senile dementia and was (2) No. Domingo. that undue influence had been exercised by the Lopez as his administrator. one of the executors named in the The presumption is that every adult is sane. Legarda). will) One of the grounds for disallowing a will is that it was Trial Court denied legalization of the will on the procured by undue and improper pressure and ground of lack of mental capacity at the signing of influence on the art of the beneficiary or some other the will by the testator.. One of the grounds of disallowing a will is if the testator is insane or otherwise incapable of the execution. Tietze and Burke certified that Rodriguez was of unsound mind and is diagnosed of senile dementia). person for his benefit (Code of Civil Procedure. RULING: (1) Yes. Manuel Torres. as witnessed by Dr.OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS: CASE DIGESTS FOR FINAL EXAMS by ERNIE Y. De Asis. With such the Court has adopted a definition of Testamentary Capacity as: 21 . 1265 of CC. b. It is only will. The latter subsequently persons benefited. property among the objects of his bounty. Theory of undue influence is rejected as not under guardianship. Herrera claimed that testator had full understanding of the acts he was performing and that they were witnesses in the said signing of the will. the persons who would naturally be supposed to have claims upon the testator. asked the will to be allowed.