Civil Law - Cruz

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.
FORMALITIES OF A
DONATION INTER VIVOS
A. For movable property (Art. 748 NCC)
1. may be made orally or in writing;
2. oral donation requires
simultaneous delivery of the
thing or of the document
representing the right donated;
3. donation AND acceptance must
be in writing if the value of the
property exceeds
ex P 5,000.00;
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
B. For immovable property (Art. 749 NCC)
1. donation must be in a public

instrument, specifying therein
the property donated and the
value of the charges which
the donee must satisfy;
2. acceptance may be in same
deed or in a separate public
document;
3. if in a separate document,
donor shall be notified thereof
in an authentic form and this
step shall be noted in both
instruments.
CARINAN vs. SPS. CUETO, GR 198636, 10/8/14
Roberto Sps. Gavino

Jose Esperanza
Ventura (+) & Carmela paid a total of
P1,300,680.37
Jazer Cueto for unpaid
payment by monthly
DOA w/TOR & failed to pay
Gavino was amortizations,
AOO over a monthly
a DONATION transfer of
180 sq.m. lot amortizations.
to her title & house
w/TCT in the
renovation;
name of GSIS
TCT in
Esperanza’s
name was
surrendered
to them.
VILLANUEVA vs. SPOUSES BRANOCO,

GR 172804, Jan. 24, 2011
Alvegia Rodrigo
Casimiro Eufracia
Vere Rodriguez
DOS-Aug. ‘70 DOD-May 3, 1965
Gonzalo Sps. Branoco

3,492 sq.m.
Villanueva
lot located DOS-July ‘83
in Leyte DOS-July ‘71
DEED OF DONATION
3 May 1965
I, DONOR, XXX due to love & affection, devise a lot to

DONEE, her heirs, successors & assigns; lot is now in the
possession of DONEE since May 21, 1962 in the concept of
an owner; ownership shall be vested on DONEE upon my
demise; if DONEE predeceases me, the said lot shall
not be reverted to DONOR but will be inherited by
DONEE’s heirs.
Sgd. ______________
DONOR
I accept the land & I will give ½
of its produce to DONOR
during her lifetime.
Sgd. ______________
DONEE
_______________ _______________
Witness # 1 Witness # 2
This is a donation inter vivos.
The donor stipulated that “if the Donee predeaceases

me, the property will not be reverted to the Donor, but
will be inherited by the donee’s heirs,” signalling the
irrevocabillity of the passage of title to the donee’s
estate, waiving donor’s right to reclaim title. This transfer
of title was perfected the moment she learned of the
donee’s acceptance of the disposition which, being
reflected in the Deed, took place on the day of its
execution on 3 May 1965. The donee’s acceptance
underscores its essence as a gift in presenti, NOT in
futuro, as only donations inter vivos need acceptance by
the recipient.
DEL ROSARIO vs. FERRER, GR 187056,

September 20, 2010
DONATION MORTIS CAUSA
“IT IS OUR WILL THAT:
Our property in Pandacan be divided equally
among Asuncion, Emiliano & Jarabini; this DMC
shall be irrevocable and shall be respected by the
s.s.; Jarabini & Emiliano will continue to occupy
the portions now occupied by them; anyone of the
s.s. reserves the right, ownership, possession,
adm. of this property; this DMC shall be operative
& effective upon the death of DONORS.”
Sgd. ______________
DONORS
1.______________
Accepted:
Sgd. 2.______________ DONEES
3.______________
The express "irrevocability" of the

donation is the "distinctive standard that
makes the document a donation inter
vivos." Here, the donors plainly said that it is
"our will that this Donation Mortis Causa shall
be irrevocable and shall be respected by the
surviving spouse." The intent to make the
donation inter vivos becomes even clearer by
the proviso that the surviving donor shall
respect the irrevocability of the
donation. Consequently, the donation was in
reality a donation inter vivos.
SPS. SICAD vs. CA, GR 125888, 8/13/1998

DEED OF DONATION INTER VIVOS
I, ____________, donate this lot to my grandchildren
___________________; this donation to take effect 10 years
after my death; my grandchildren shall not sell or
encumber this lot within 10 years after my death.
Signed:
Accepted: Donor
donees
TAN QUETO vs. POMBUENA

GR No. 35648, Feb. 2, 1987
An oral donation of land is VOID: it

cannot be considered a valid donation inter
vivos because it was not executed in a
public instrument; it cannot also be a valid
donation mortis causa because it did not
comply with the formalities of a will.
ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP

OF MANILA vs CA, GR Nos. 77425
& 77450, June 19, 1991
Donation of a parcel of
land was subject to a
resolutory condition that
property should not be sold
within 100 years from the
execution of the Deed of
Donation, violation of
which would render the
donation ipso facto null
and void.
ARCABA vs. TABANCURA Vda. DE

BATOCAEL, GR 146683, 11/22/2001
Cirila Francisco Zosima
(34 yrs. old) 75 yrs old (+1991) (+)
418 sq.m. lot w/house
DEED OF DONATION
In consideration of the faithful services rendered
to me by Cirila Arcaba for over 10 years, I donate to
her 150 sq.m. lot with the house erected thereon.
Francisco Comille
Accepted: Donor
Cirila Arcaba
Cirila admitted that she and Francisco

resided under one roof for a long time. It is
very possible that the two consummated their
relationship, since Cirila gave Francisco
therapeutic massage and they slept in the
same bedroom. Their public conduct
indicated that theirs was not just a
relationship of caregiver and patient, but
that of exclusive partners akin to husband
and wife, hence the inescapable
conclusion is that the donation made by
Francisco in favor of Cirila is VOID under
Article 87 of the Family Code.
WILLS AND
SUCCESSION
Art. 774. SUCCESSION
ART.777. TRANSMISSION OF
SUCCESSIONAL RIGHTS
FERRER vs. SPS. DIAZ, G.R. 165300,

April 23, 2010
Q: Is a waiver of hereditary rights in favor of another

person executed by a future heir while the parents are
still alive valid? Is an adverse claim annotated on the
title of a lot based on such waiver likewise valid and
effective as to bind the subsequent owners and hold
them liable to the claimant?
A: For the inheritance to be considered “future”, the succession

must not have been opened at the time of the contract. At
the time of the execution of Reina’s waiver of hereditary rights,
succession to either of her parents’ properties has not yet been
opened since both of them are still living, hence, Reina’s waiver is
NOT VALID. As no right or interest flows from Reina’s invalid
waiver, petitioner’s adverse claim is without any basis and
must be adjudged INVALID and INEFFECTIVE and perforce
be CANCELLED.
In Re Petition For Probate of Last Will and

Testament of Basilio Santiago, GR 179859,
Aug. 9, 2010
Basilio Santiago
(+ 9/16/73)
(1)Bibiana (+) (2) Irene (+) (3) Cecilia

1. Irene (+) 5 children 2 children
2. Martha (+) + +
Ma. Pilar Clemente
6 children
“4. ALL my properties, I bequeath to my heirs,

as follows:
e). H & L in Manila shall be transferred in the
names of Ma. Pilar and Clemente NOT as
inheritance but only so they can
ADMINISTER the same; x x x said H & L
shall have NO OWNER so it can be forever
used by anyone of my descendants who
want to study in Manila or nearby cities;
This provision in the will is NOT VALID. It is

contrary to public policy. When a will provides for
indivision of property, it is subject to the
statutory limitation that the prohibition to
partition such property can only last for 20 years.
ARTICLE 799 NCC. SOUND MIND

BALTAZAR vs. LAXA,
GR 174489, April 7, 2012
The state of being forgetful does not necessarily
make a person mentally unsound so as to render her
unfit to execute a valid will. Under Art. 799 NCC, to
be of sound mind, it is enough that the testator,
at the time of making the will, knows the nature
of the estate to be disposed of, the proper objects
of her bounty, and the character of the
testamentary act. A testator is presumed to be of
sound mind at the time of the execution of her will and
the burden is on the oppositor to prove otherwise.
(Art. 800 NCC).
EXTRINSIC VALIDITY
OF WILLS (As To Time): ART. 795 NCC
EXTRINSIC VALIDITY
OF WILLS (As To Place): ART. 17(1) NCC
Arts. 815, 816, 817, 818, 819 NCC
INTRINSIC VALIDITY
OF WILLS (As To Place): ART. 16(2) NCC
INTRINSIC VALIDITY
OF WILLS (As To Time): ART. 2263 NCC
ARTS. 804/805/806.
FORMALITIES OF A
NOTARIAL WILL
1.Attestation Clause:
a). Attestation Clause did
not contain the statement
that “the 3 credible
witnesses signed the will
in the presence of the T
and of one another”
(CANEDA vs. CA, 222
SCRA 781, MAY 28, 1983).
b). Attestation Clause

did not contain the
statement that “the T
signed the will in the
presence of the 3
credible witnesses”
(GIL vs. MURCIANO, 88
PHIL 260).
2. AZUELA vs. CA AND CASTILLO,

GR No. 122880, April 12, 2006
LWT
I,
3
1. to be buried at North Cemetery, La Loma;
2. Devising 2 lots to my nephew Felix Azuela;

2
3. Appointing Vart Pague, executor of my will

without bond.
1
Signed June 10, 1981 in Manila.

Eugenia E. Igsolo
T
ATTESTATION CLAUSE
3 This document, consisting of ______ pages,

including this last page x x x
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
2
Signed and notarized by me this 10th day of

June 1981 in Manila.
Petronio Y. Bautista
1
Notary Public
Until Dec. 31, 1981
PTR
Doc. No. 1232 TAN
Page No. 86
Book No. 43
Series of 1981
A will whose attestation clause does

not contain the number of pages upon
which the will is written is fatally defective.
A will whose attestation clause is not signed
by the instrumental witnesses is also fatally
defective. A will which contains a mere
jurat and not an acknowledgment is,
likewise, fatally defective. Anyone of these
defects is sufficient to deny probate. A
notarial will with all these three defects is
just aching for judicial rejection.
3. Attestation Clause not

signed by T.
(ABANGAN vs. ABANGAN,
40 PHIL 476).
4. Attestation Clause not signed

by 1 witness.
(CAGRO vs. CAGRO, 92 PHIL
1032)
5. Attestation Clause in a
language not known to T.
6. Attestation Clause in a
language not known to
attesting witnesses.
7. Attestation Clause did not
include the number of pages
of a will.
(SINGSON vs. FLORENTINO, 92 PHIL 161)
(TABOADA vs. ROSAL, 203 PHIL 572)
8. Decedent’s alleged will was

written entirely in English but
the T knew no other language
except the Igorrote dialect
with a smattering of Ilokano.
(ACOP vs. PIRASO, 52 PHIL 660)
9. 5-paged will, 1 page of which

was not signed by 1 witness at
L-hand margin.
(ICASIANO vs. ICASIANO,
11 SCRA 423)
10. 6-paged will, the first 5 pages

were signed at the L-hand
margin by the T but not by the
three(3) attesting witnesses.
(IN RE WILL OF PRIETO,
46 PHIL 700)
11. 1-paged will not signed by T and
3 attesting witnesses at L-hand
margin.
(ABANGAN vs. ABANGAN,
40 PHIL 476)
12. 2-paged will, the first page of which

was not signed by the T at the L-hand
margin.
LWT
AC
1 .
2 .
3 .
ACK
D ___
P ___
B ___
Page [1] S ___ Page [2]
(ESTATE OF TAMPOY vs. ALBERASTINE,

107 PHIL 100)
13. Marginal signatures of T and 3

witnesses were placed on R
margin instead of L.
LWT
T
AC
1
1 .
2 .
3 .
ACK
2
3
D ___
P ___
B ___
Page [1] S ___ Page [2]
(AVERA vs. GARCIA, 42 PHIL 145)

14. Testator’s name was written for

the testator, in his presence and
at his express direction, by one
of the 3 credible witnesses.
15. T’s signature is located below the

signature of the Notary Public in
the acknowledgment.
LWT AC
1 _______
2 _______
3 _______
ACK
D ___
P ___
T
B ___
S ___
[1] [2]
16. True test of “signing in the

presence” of T and 3 witnesses.
(JABONETA vs. GUSTILO, 5 PHIL 541)

17. CRUZ vs. VILLASOR, 54 SCRA 31

NOVEMBER 26, 1973
Notarial will was executed by T. One of

the 3 attesting witnesses was the
Notary Public before whom the will
was acknowledged and subscribed. Is
the will valid or void?
ECHAVEZ vs. Dozen Construction & Dev.

Corp. et. al., GR 192916, Oct. 11, 2010
The attestation clause and an acknowledgment

CANNOT be merged in one statement. An
acknowledgment is made by one executing a deed,
declaring before a competent officer that the deed or act
is his own. The attestation of a will refers to the act of
the witnesses who certify to the execution of the
instrument before them and to the manner of its
execution. An attestation must state all the details the
3rd paragraph of Article 805 NCC requires.
Art. 810 - 814.

HOLOGRAPHIC
WILLS
AJERO vs. CA, 236 SCRA 488

SEPTEMBER 15, 1994
Probate of the HW was opposed on the

following grounds:
(1) the will and the signature were

not in decedent’s handwriting;
(2) some dispositions were signed

but were not dated by T;
(3) there were alterations and

corrections not signed by T.
The holographic will of testatrix

contained only one provision which
reads:
“I bequeath to my sole heir, Rosa Kalaw
all my properties.”
Signed: Natividad Kalaw

Date : December 24, 1968
KALAW vs. RELOVA, 132 SCRA 237

The holographic will of testatrix

contained only one provision which
reads:
Gregorio
“I bequeath to my sole heir, Rosa Kalaw
all my properties.”
Signed: Natividad Kalaw

Date : December 24, 1968
KALAW vs. RELOVA, 132 SCRA 237

SEANGIO vs. REYES, GR 140371-72, 11/27/06

Segundo Dy Yieng
(+)
1. Alfredo 4. Alberto 6.Victor 9. Betty

2. Virginia 5. Elisa 7. Alfonso 10. James
3. Barbara 8. Shirley
DOCUMENT OF DISINHERITANCE
I, xxx, am disinheriting ALFREDO xxx grossly
disrespectful to me xxx in my presence and in the
presence of his sister VIRGINIA. Xxx borrowed
millions using my name but did not pay China Banking
Corp; xxx pirated clients of Travel Center of the Phil.
which I and my daughter VIRGINIA manage/administer
xxx.
(Signed): Segundo
Sept. 20, 1995
Witness #1 Witness #1 Witness #2

The document, although it may initially come across

as a mere disinheritance instrument, conforms to the
formalities of a holographic will as prescribed by law. It
is written, dated and signed by the hand of the
testator himself. An intent to dispose mortis causa
can be clearly deduced from the terms of the
instrument, and while it does not make an affirmative
disposition of the testator’s property, the disinheritance
of the eldest son, nonetheless, is an act of disposition in
itself. Stated otherwise, the disinheritance results
in the disposition of the testator’s property in
favor of the other heirs who would succeed in the
absence of the eldest son.
ART. 830. REVOCATION

OF WILLS
A. BY IMPLICATION OF LAW
1. T gave a legacy of his 2012
Honda Civic car to X in a
will he executed in 2013. In
2014, T sold the car to A for
P1M. On T’s death in 2015,
will X get the car, the P1M or
nothing?
B. REVOCATION BY AN OVERT ACT
1. Will was thrown into a fire and was

burned despite the efforts of T to
retrieve and save it.
2. Will was thrown into a fire in T’s

garden by T with intention to
revoke but will was not burned
because T’s grandson retrieved it
from the fire.
3. T, with intention to revoke, threw

his will upon the fire. Only the upper
portion of the will was burned and the
entire writing on the will remained
intact.
4. With intention to revoke, T tore

his signature from his will leaving all
the other portions of the will intact
and readable.
C. REVOCATION BY ANOTHER WILL
1. T made a will in 2014. After one

year, he wanted to revoke will #1 so
he made will #2 in 2015. In the
belief that he had already executed
a valid will, he tore will #1. On his
death in 2016, it was discovered
that will #2 was attested by only 2
credible witnesses, hence, the will
was NOT validly made. Can we
consider will #1 validly revoked or
could it still be given effect?
DOCTRINE OF
DEPENDENT RELATIVE
REVOCATION
If T revokes his will with the
present intention of making a new
one and as a substitute, if the new
will is NOT MADE or even if made,it
FAILS to take effect for any reason
whatsoever, it will be presumed that
the T prefers the old will rather than
intestacy.
Where the act of destruction is

connected with the making of
another will so as fairly to raise the
inference that the T meant the
revocation of the 1st will to depend
upon the efficacy and validity of the
2nd will, the revocation shall be
CONDITIONED and DEPENDENT upon
the validity of the 2nd will and if, for
any reason, the 2nd will intended to
be a substitute is INOPERATIVE, the
revocation of the 1st will fails and it
remains in full force and effect.
ART. 837. EXPRESS REVOCATION

WILL #1 WILL #2
LWT LWT
T T
(+2016) 2 credible
A B C X Y Z witnesses
“expressly
revoking will #1” disallowed by
Probate court
2014 2015
DOCTRINE OF DEPENDENT RELATIVE REVOCATION
ART. 837. EXPRESS REVOCATION

WILL #1 WILL #2
Notarial will Holographic Will

(+2016)
only copy
T T
burned by T
inadvertently
A B C X Y Z
testimonies of
“I am expressly 10 witnesses
revoking will #1”
2014 2015
DOCTRINE OF DEPENDENT RELATIVE REVOCATION
ART. 835. REPUBLICATION

OF WILLS
LWT LWT
WILL VOID AS TO REVOKED WILL

FORM
T T
Express Implied
republication republication
ART. 838. PROBATE OF WILLS

LWT
“xxx this will shall

not be presented
before the courts.”
(TESTATE ESTATE OF PILAPIL,

72 PHIL 546)
In Re: In The Matter of The Petition To Approve

The Will of Ruperta Palaganas, GR 169144,
JAN. 26, 2011
Q: May a will executed by a foreigner abroad be
probated in the Philippines although it has not
been previously probated and allowed in the
country where it was executed?
A: YES. Our laws do not prohibit the probate of wills

executed by foreigners abroad although the same have not as
yet been probated and allowed in the countries of their
execution. A foreign will can be given legal effects in our
jurisdiction. Article 816 NCC states that the will of an
alien who is abroad produces effect in the Philippines if
made in accordance with the formalities prescribed by
the law of the place where he resides, or according to
the formalities observed in his country.
ART. 854 NCC. PRETERITION

1. T has legitimate sons, A and B. A was
instituted as sole and universal heir to an
estate of P1M and a legacy of P100K was
given to T’s friend F.
P1M/2= P500K leg.
T P500K FP
P250K P250K
P200K A B P200K F (P100K)
2. Suppose the legacy given to F was P700K
instead of P100K, what is the effect?
T
P250K A B P250K X
F (P700K) P500K
MORALES vs. OLONDRIZ, et.al., GR 198994, 2/3/16
(+6/9/03)
Alfonso Juan Ana Maria
Francisco Alfonso Alejandro Isabel Angelo

Special Adm.
The will presented by Iris has the following provisions:

1) “Iris Morales shall be the executor hereof;
2) My estate shall be distributed equally among: Iris; my children
Alfonso, Alejandro, Isabel, Angelo and their mother, Ana Maria Ortigas
de Olondriz, Sr. xxx.
Q: Was there preterition in the case at bar?

ART. 856. VOLUNTARY/

COMPULSORY HEIRS WHO
DIE/ARE INCAPACITATED/
RENOUNCE INHERITANCE
VOLUNTARY P9M/2=P4.5M leg. COMPULSORY
HEIR P4.5M FP HEIRS
T (+2015) T (+2015)
X
F (+2014) (+2014) A B C
P1.5M P1.5M P1.5M
P2.25M P2.25M
A
X
P750K X P750K Y
Estate is P10M Estate is P9M
ART. 863. FIDEICOMMISSARY

SUBSTITUTION
T - fideicomitente
A - 1st heir (fiduciary heir)

Only 1 degree preserve & transmit
apart in the property
relationship
B - 2nd heir
(fideicommissary heir)
C
ART. 891. RESERVA TRONCAL

ORIGIN
(ascendant, bro/sis.
where property
came from)
RESERVOR
(ascendant who
acquired property
by operation of
law)
PROPOSITUS
(descendant who acquired
property gratuitously)
RESERVATARIOS
(relatives within the 3rd degree
belonging to the line where
the property comes from.)
MENDOZA, et.al. vs. DELOS SANTOS,

GR 176422, MAR. 20, 2013
Placido Dominga
(+) (+)
Antonio Exequiel Leonor Julia Apolonio Valentin

(+) (+) (+) (+) (+)
1. Maria Remedios
2. Deogrcias Gregoria 1. Juliana
3. Dionicia (+ 1992) 2. Fely
4. Adoracion
3. Mercedes
5. Marcela
4. Elvira
6. Ricardo
5. Fortunato
Lot 1681-B → 7,749 sq.m.
Lot 1684 → 5,667 sq.m.
Lot 1646-B → 880 sq.m.
Juliana Francisco Manuela

(+1889) (1914)
Segunda Alfeo Jose

(+1890)
2 parcels of land
NIEVA vs. ALCALA, 41 PHIL 915

Jerico Jojo Victor
Roberto Princess Mark

(+) (+ intestate) (+ intestate)
e)
Onofre Pepito
ID of lot worth (+ intestate)
P3M
Q: Who among the 3 ascendants is

entitled to the lot? (2016 bar exam)
ART. 874.
CONDITION NOT TO
MARRY
1. LWT 2. LWT 3. LWT

“I institute my “I institute my “I leave to my
friend X as sole husband X as beloved wife all
heir to my estate sole heir to my my properties
of P10M on the estate of P10M worth P10M and
condition she on the condition she shall not
shall not marry he shall not remarry.”
A.” remarry.”
T T T
Art. 874. CONDITION NOT TO MARRY
In her will, the wife stated:

“1. I hereby order that all
real estate which may belong
to me shall pass to my
husband;
2. That my said husband

shall not leave my brothers
after my death, and that he
shall not marry anymore; xxx ;
MORENTE vs. DELA SANTA,

9 PHIL 387)
LEGITIMES and FREE PORTION
F M
P T S P1.5M leg. (FP)

P300K
P150K P300K P300K P300K

P150KX Y A B C (adopted
child)
(Illegitimate) (legitimate) P1.5M leg. each
P750K leg. each (FP)
Total = P1.5M leg. (FP) P9M/2= P4.5M leg.
NHE is P9M P4.5M FP
ARTICLE 915.
DISINHERITANCE
ART. 918.
INEFFECTIVE
DISINHERITANCE
COMBINATION PRETERITION
AND DISINHERITANCE
1. A, B and C are T’s legitimate children. T
instituted A as sole heir, completely
omitted B from inheritance and
disinherited C for having been found
guilty of an attempt against T’s life.
Distribute T’s estate of P900K.
T
A B C
P450K P450K 0
2. Same facts as #1 but the

disinheritance of C was because he
immediately married X right after he
graduated from FEU with a degree
of Bachelor of Laws. Distribute T’s
estate of P900K.
P900K/2= P450K leg.
P450K FP
T
A B C
P150K P150K P150K
P225K P225K
3. T’s legitimate children are X, Y and Z.

T disinherited all of them: X, for no
reason whatsoever; Y, for not taking
care of him when T was hospitalized
at St. Luke’s hospital and Z for living
the life of a male prostitute. T’s
estate is P900K.
P900K/2= P450K leg.
P450K FP
T
X Y Z
P225K P225K 0
P225K P225K
ART. 922 NCC. RECONCILIATION

T’s will reads: “I disinherit my son X
for trying to kill me.” X was convicted and
served his prison term. When he was
released from Muntinlupa, X stayed with his
father in his father’s house until T’s death.
T never changed his will (where the
disinheritance was made). T did not also
execute any document condoning X’s
offense. Will X inherit from T?
ART. 923 NCC.

T’s estate is P1M; A and B are sons
of T; C is the son of A; B was instituted
as heir and A was disinherited in the will
for his unjust refusal to support T during
T’s lifetime. Distribute T’s estate.
T P1M/2= P500K leg.
P500K FP
X leg. A
P250K B P250K leg.
P500K FP
C
P250K
250K lleg.
REPRESENTATION OR ACCRETION
D’s estate is P900K; A, B, C are
children of D who died with a revoked
will;
D
a. predecease
R
b. incapacity
c. repudiation
A P300K B C
P300K P300K
A P150K
P150K X Y P150K
ART. 969. REPUDIATION OF

INHERITANCE
D
Estate = P1.2M
A B C
W X Y Z
1. A, B, C repudiated inheritance.
2. Only C repudiated inheritance.
3. A, B, C predeceased D.
4. A predeceased D.
ARTS. 976/977.
Estate of A = P10M
D (+2016)
Estate of D = P20M
X
P10M P10M
(+2014) A B
P10M X Y - repudiated his inheritance

P5M from A.
P5M
Z
ART. 992. IRON CURTAIN/

BARRIER
X
A B
(leg.) (ill.)
If A dies without any descendant

and with B as only surviving relative,
will B inherit from A?
Arado Heirs, et.al. vs. Alcoran, et.al., GR 163362,

July 8, 2015
(2 lots) (8 lots)
4 siblings Joaquina Raymundo
(+1981) (+1939)
nephews/
nieces
Florencia 3 siblings
Francisca Nicolas
(+1954) (+1960)
(1). Anacleto’s BC and Page 53, Book 4,

Register No. 214 of the Register of Births of
the Municipality of Bacong, Negros Occ.;
(2). His baptismal certificate; (3). Pictures
Filed suit in 1992
taken during Nicolas’ wake showing
Anacleto Elenette
e Anacleto being carried by Joaquina and
(Born 7/13/51) 1972 Florencia; (4). his school records; (5) his
Marriage Certificate; and (6). Joaquina’s
will.
Q1: Is Anacleto the illegitimate son of Nicolas?

Q2: Is he entitled to the properties in litigation?
A: YES. The father has duly acknowledged

the child as his illegitimate son. The birth
certificate of the child appearing in the Register of
Births showed that the father had himself caused
the registration of his birth, he being the
informant of the birth to be registered.
Considering that the father had a direct hand
in the preparation of the birth certificate,
reliance on the birth certificate of Anacleto as
evidence of his paternity was fully warranted.
Arado Heirs, et.al. vs. Alcoran, et.al., GR 163362,

July 8, 2015
(2 lots) (8 lots)
4 siblings Joaquina Raymundo
(+1981) (+1939)
nephews/
nieces
Florencia 3 siblings
Francisca Nicolas
(+1954) (+1960)
(1). Anacleto’s BC and Page 53, Book 4,
Register No. 214 of the Register of
Births of the Municipality of Bacong,
Negros Occ.; (2). His baptismal
Filed suit in 1992 certificate; (3). Pictures taken during
X
Anacleto Elenette Nicolas’ wake showing Anacleto being
carried by Joaquina and Florencia; (4).
(Born 7/13/51) 1972
his school records; (5) his Marriage
Art. 992 NCC Certificate; and (6). Joaquina’s will.
DIAZ vs. IAC,

182 SCRA 427
Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero sister (+)
(+ 1976 intestate)
Pablo Santero Felisa Pamuti --

--- Jardin
(+)
6 ill. children
In RE: Intestate Estates of Josefa

Delgado and Guillermo Rustia,
GR No. 155733, January 27, 2006
Ramon Felisa Delgado Lucio
Osorio (+) Campo
(+) (+)
Luis Guillermo Josefa 1. Nazario

Delgado Rustia Delgado 2. Edilberta
(+) (+2/28/74) (+9/8/72) 3. Jose
4. Jacoba
heirs 5. Gorgonio
g
Guillerma Guillermina Rustia
Rustia Nanie Rustia
RELATE TO ART. 902. RIGHTS

OF ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN
D (+2016)
(+2014) A B (+2015)
(leg) (ill)
Art. 992 Art. 902
W X Y Z
(leg) (ill) (leg) (ill)
OBLIGATIONS
AND
CONTRACTS
ART. 1169. Gen. Rule: NO DEMAND, NO DELAY

EXCEPTIONS: WHEN
1. the obligation or the law expressly so declare;
2. time is of the essence;
3. demand is useless as when the obligor has rendered it beyond
his power to perform.
General Milling Corp. vs. Spouses Ramos,

G.R. 193723, July 20, 2011
The foreclosure of a mortgage where there was NO
DEMAND for payment is VOID because there was NO
DELAY. GMC did not make a demand on Sps. Ramos but
merely requested them to go to GMC’s office to discuss the
settlement of their account. Sps. Ramos had not defaulted in
their payments and foreclosure by GMC was premature.
Art. 1170. Those who in the

performance of their
obligations are guilty of fraud,
negligence, or delay and
those who in any manner
contravene the tenor thereof,
are liable for damages.
RCPI vs. VERCHEZ G.R. 164349,

Jan. 31, 2006.
RCPI bound itself to deliver the telegram within the

shortest possible time. It took 25 days, however, for RCPI
to deliver it.
RCPI invokes force majeure, specifically, the

alleged radio noise and interferences which
adversely affected the transmission and/or
reception of the telegraphic message. Assuming that
fortuitous circumstances prevented RCPI from delivering
the telegram at the soonest possible time, it should have
at least informed Grace of the non-transmission and the
non-delivery so that she could have taken steps to
remedy the situation. But it did not. There lies NOT
ONLY DELAY but also NEGLIGENCE.
ART. 1174. GEN. RULE: No person shall be liable for a

fortuitous event.
REQUISITES OF A FORTUITOUS EVENT:
1. Cause of the breach of obligation must be independent of
the will of the debtor;
2. Event must be either unforeseen or unavoidable;
3. Event must be such as to render it impossible for the
debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner;
4. Debtor must be free from any participation in or
aggravation to the injury to the creditor.
FIL-ESTATE PROPERTIES, INC vs. SPS.

RONQUILLO, GR 185798, 1/13/14
Fil-Estate Central Park

Sps. Ronquillo Palace Tower
Prop. Inc.
8/24/97 – bought 82 sq.m. Construction works
condo unit for P5,174,000.00; Complaint w/the stopped & failed to
paid P200K reservation fee & HLURB for full develop the condo
DP of P1,552,200.00; had refund & interests project due to the
been paying monthly + damages Asian Financial
amortizations of P63,363.33 Crisis
until Sept. 1998
The fluctuating movement of the Philippine

peso in the foreign exchange market is an
everyday occurrence, and fluctuations in
currency exchange rates happen everyday,
thus, NOT an instance of caso fortuito.”
Art. 1191 NCC. 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.
XXX
NOLASCO, et.al. vs. CUERPO, et.al.,

GR 210215, Dec. 9, 2015
Contract To Sell of a 165,755 sq. m. lot, payable w/an
earnest money, downpayment and balance payable in 36 monthly
instalments by post-dated checks, provides:
“7. Petitioners shall, w/n 90 days from the signing of

the subject contract, cause the completion of the
transfer of registration of title of the property subject of
the contract, from Edilberta N. Santos to their names, at
petitioners’ own expense. Failure on the part of
petitioners to undertake the foregoing w/n the
prescribed period shall automatically authorize
respondents to undertake the same in behalf of
petitioners and charge the costs incidental to the
monthly amortizations upon due date.”
Petitioners failed to comply, hence it was contended that

rescission due to substantial breach is the proper remedy.
The RTC and CA ruled for respondents.
For a contracting party to be entitled to rescission

(or resolution) in accordance with Article 1191 of
the Civil Code, the other contracting party must be
in substantial breach of the terms and conditions of
their contract. A substantial breach of a contract,
unlike slight and casual breaches thereof, is a
fundamental breach that defeats the object of
the parties in entering into an agreement. Here,
it cannot be said that petitioners' failure to undertake
their obligation under paragraph 7 defeats the object
of the parties in entering into the subject contract,
considering that the same paragraph provides
respondents’ contractual recourse in the event
of petitioners' non-performance of the
aforesaid obligation, that is, to cause such
transfer themselves in behalf and at the
expense of petitioners.
ART. 1189. Effect of loss , deterioration or improvement

(determinate thing) :
IF THE THING :
1. is lost w/o the fault of debtor → the obl. is extinguished;
2. is lost thru the fault of debtor → debtor liable for damages;
3. deteriorates w/o the fault of debtor → impairment shall be
borne by the creditor;
4. deteriorates thru the fault of debtor → creditor may choose
between fulfillment or rescission of the obl., w/damages in
either case;
5. is improved by its nature/time→ improvement shall inure
to the benefit of the creditor;
6. is improved at the expense of debtor→ debtor has no other
right than that granted to a usufructuary.
ART. 1193. Obligations with a period demandable only

when that day comes;
Obligations w/a resolutory condition → take effect at
once, but terminate upon arrival of the day certain.
ART. 1180. Debtor binds himself to pay when his means
permit him to do so → deemed to be an obligation with
a period.
Art. 1197. Obligation does NOT fix a period but from its
nature and circumstances, it can be inferred a period
was intended → courts may fix the duration of the
period.
ART. 1198. RIGHT TO A PERIOD is LOST

when DEBTOR:
1. becomes insolvent, after the obligation has been
contracted, unless he gives a guaranty/security for the
debt;
2. does not furnish to the creditor the guaranties or securities
he has promised;
3. by his own acts, he has impaired said guaranties or
securities after their establishment, and when through a
fortuitous event, they disappear, unless he immediately
gives new ones equally satisfactory;
4. violates any undertaking, in consideration of which the
creditor agreed to the period;
5. attempts to abscond.
In SOLIDARY OBLIGATIONS:
1. defense of one is defense of all except if the

defense is personal to him interposing the defense;
2. payment by one is payment by all but the one who
paid is entitled to reimbursement by the other co-
debtors;
3. fault of one is fault of all but the others have a right
of recourse against the one at fault;
4. remission secured by one is remission of the whole
debt but the one who procured remission is not
entitled to reimbursement from the others.
ART. 1222. Available to a solidary debtor are DEFENSES:

1. Personal to him or pertain to his share;
2. Derived from the nature of the obligation;
3. Personally belong to the others but only with regard to

that part of the debt which belong to
the others.
MANLAR RICE MILL, INC. vs. DEYTO,

GR 19189, JAN. 29, 2014
Lourdes Deyto
(JD. Grains Center)
Manlar Rice Mill,
Inc. Janet D. Ang
(Janet Commercial Store)
Rice Supply Contract of
P3,843,220.00 covered Checks
by post-dated checks bounced;
issued by Janet absconded
& cannot
be located
Q: Are Deyto & Ang solidarily liable to Manlar?
The allegations that Deyto guaranteed Ang’s

checks and that she consented to be held
solidarily liable with Ang under the latter’s rice
supply contract with Manlar are hardly
credible. Pua in fact admitted that this was not
in writing, just a verbal assurance. But this will
not suffice. "Well-entrenched is the rule
that solidary obligation cannot lightly be
inferred. There is a solidary liability only
when the obligation expressly so states,
when the law so provides or when the
nature of the obligation
so requires."
ART. 1226. Obligations with a PENAL CLAUSE

Gen. Rule: Penalty shall substitute for damages and the
payment of interest.
EXCEPTIONS:
1. stipulation to the contrary;
2. obligor refuses to pay the penalty;
3. obligor is guilty of fraud in the fulfillment of the obligation.
ART. 1228. proof of actual

ensures performance damages suffered by the
of the obligation. creditor is NOT necessary
in order that penalty may be
demanded.
ART. 1229. Judge can equitably reduce the penalty when:

1. Principal obligation was partly/irregularly complied
with by the debtor;
2. Even if NO performance by the debtor, if penalty is
iniquitous/unconscionable.
ART. 1230. Nullity of penal clause → does NOT carry with

it the nullity of the principal obligation.
Nullity of the principal obligation → carries
with it the nullity of the penal clause.
EXTINGUISHMENT OF OBLIGATIONS
PA LO CON MER COM NO
Payment Novation
Compensation
Loss of the
thing due Merger or
Condonation
Confusion
PAYMENT: NOT only the delivery of money but also the

performance, in any manner, of an obl.; must be regular,
complete, and if in money → legal tender.
Q. Can the creditor be compelled to accept payment or
performance by a 3rd person?
A. Gen. Rule: NO. → There is NO privity of contract
between the 3rd person and a party to a contact.
EXCEPTIONS: WHEN
1. there is a stipulation allowing it;
2. the 3rd person has an interest in the fulfillment of the
obligation (co-debtor or guarantor).
ART. 1236 - 1238 NCC . IF A 3RD PERSON PAID
1. W/O knowledge or against the will of the debtor →

3rd person has the right of reimbursement to the
extent beneficial to the debtor;
2. W/ knowledge of the debtor → 3rd person has the
right of reimbursement and subrogation;
3. W/O intention to be reimbursed → DONATION →
needs acceptance of the debtor and compliance w/
the formalities required by law.
Dacion en Pago Cession

1. 1 debtor, 1 creditor 1. 1 debtor, several creditors
2. debtor is not insolvent 2. Debtor is insolvent, either
partially or totally
3. transfer of ownership to 3. no transfer of ownership
creditor upon delivery of thing to creditors
4. debtor delivers 1 or some of 4. debtor delivers ALL his
his properties to creditor properties to the creditors
5. obligation is extinguished 5. obligation is extinguished
to the extent of the value to the extent of the
of the thing delivered proceeds of the public sale
6. act of novation 6. not an act of novation
ART. 1252 NCC. APPLICATION OF PAYMENT
REQUISITES:
1. 1 debtor, 1 creditor;
2. 2 or more debts of the same kind;
3. All debts due and demandable;
4. Amt. paid by debtor insufficient to cover all debts.
GEN. RULE: DEBTOR → time of payment in default

thereof
EXCEPTION: CREDITOR → gives a receipt
most onerous debt to debtor

GEN. RULE: Prior valid tender of payment before

consignation.
EXCEPTIONS: WHEN
1. creditor is absent or unknown or does not appear
at the place of payment;
2. he is incapacitated to receive the payment at the
time it is due;
3. w/o just cause, he refuses to give a receipt;
4. 2 or more persons claim the same right to collect;
5. title of the obligation has been lost.
CONDONATION/REMISSION OF THE DEBT

ART. 1260. essentially gratuitous; requires acceptance
by the debtor
private document in the possession condonation by

evidencing the debt of the debtor the CREDITOR
presumed to have
delivered private
document
ART. 1273. Renunciation of principal obligation →
accessory obligation is extinguished; waiver of the
accessory shall leave the principal obligation in force.
CONFUSION OR MERGER OF RIGHTS

ART. 1275 NCC. The obligation is extinguished from the
time the characters of creditor and debtor are
merged in the same person.
NPN B
“I promise to pay A or
order P1M on or before
C
Dec. 31, 2013.”
“Sgd.________
D
x
COMPENSATION
ART. 1279 NCC. REQUISITES:
1. 2 parties who, in their own right, are principal
creditors and debtors of each other;
2. Both debts consist in money, or if consumables,
must be of the same kind and quality;
3. Both debts are due, demandable and liquidated;
4. No retention or controversy commenced by 3rd
persons over either of the debts and
communicated in due time to debtor;
5. Compensation is not prohibited by law.
NOVATION
REQUISITES:
1. a previous valid obligation;
2. agreement of the parties to the new
obligation;
3. extinguishment of the old obligation;
4. validity of the new obligation.
new debtor proposed

DELEGACION → by old debtor CONSENT
new debtor proposed OF
EXPROMISSION→ by creditor/3rd person CREDITOR
Mondragon vs. Sola Jr.,

G.R. 174882, January 21, 2013
Compensation is a mode of extinguishing, to the

concurrent amount, the obligations of persons, who in
their own right and as principals, are reciprocally
debtors and creditors of each other.
Heirs of Franco vs. Sps. Gonzales,

G.R. 159709, June 27, 2012
Novation is NOT presumed. There is novation when

there is irreconcilable incompatibility in the old and
new obligations. There is no novation in case of only
slight modifications; hence, the old obligation prevails.
LBP vs. Ong, G.R. 190755,

Nov. 24, 2010
Land Bank faults the CA for finding that

novation applies to the instant case. It reasons
that a substitution of debtors was made
without its consent, thus it was not bound to
recognize the substitution under the rules on
novation. Novation, which consists in
substituting a new debtor in the place of
the original one, may be made even
without the consent or against the will of
the latter, but not without the consent of
the creditor.
CONTRACTS
Art. 1305 NCC. A contract is a
meeting of minds between two
persons whereby one binds himself,
with respect to the other, to give
something or to render some service.
Art. 1306 NCC. Freedom/

Liberty/Autonomy of
Contracts
The contracting parties
may establish such stipulations,
clauses, terms, and conditions as
they may deem convenient,
provided they are not contrary to
law, morals, good customs,
public order or public policy.
Art. 1308 NCC. Mutuality

of Contracts
The contract must bind

BOTH contracting parties; its
validity or compliance cannot
be left to the will of one of
them.
Art. 1311 NCC. Effectivity/

Relativity in Contracts
Contracts take effect only
between the PARTIES, their
ASSIGNS and HEIRS except in
case where the rights and obligations
arising from the contract are NOT
transmissible by (1) their nature, or
(2) by stipulation or (3) by provision
of law. The heir is NOT liable beyond
the value of the property he received
from the decedent.
Q: How are contracts perfected?

A: Art. 1315. Contracts are perfected
by MERE CONSENT, and from that
moment the parties are bound not
only to the fulfillment of what has
been expressly stipulated but also
to all the consequences which,
according to their nature, may be
in keeping with good faith, usage
and law.
Art. 1316. REAL CONTRACTS, such
as deposit, pledge and
commodatum, are not perfected
until the delivery of the object of
the obligation.
Q: How is consent manifested?

A: Art 1319. By the MEETING of
the OFFER and the ACCEPTANCE
upon the THING and the CAUSE. The
offer must be CERTAIN and the
acceptance ABSOLUTE. A qualified
acceptance constitutes a COUNTER-
OFFER.
Sps. GIRONELLA vs. PNB, GR 194515, 9/16/15
Oscar & Gina Gironella PNB

1/25/2000 – PNB wrote Sps.
11/11/91 & 1/16/92 – obtained 2 Gironella w/ a restructuring
loans in the total amt. of offer.
P9,500,000.00 w/ REM over their
lot; applied for 2nd loan of 3/8//2000 – PNB rejected Sps.
P5,800,000.00; defaulted in the Gironella’s counter-offer for
payment of the 1st 2 loans; loan restructuring.
2/7/2000 – gave a qualified acceptance
of PNB’s offer
A contract is perfected by mere consent. Consent is

manifested by the meeting of the offer and the acceptance upon
the thing & the cause which are to constitute the contract. The
offer must be certain & the acceptance absolute. If qualified,
the acceptance would merely constitute a counter-offer.
Q: What is an option contract?
A: Art 1324. When the offerer has allowed the

offeree a certain period to accept, the offer
may be withdrawn at anytime before
acceptance by communicating such
withdrawal, except when the option is
founded upon a consideration,
as something paid or promised.
OPTION – contract granting a person the

privilege to buy or not to buy, certain objects at
any time within the agreed period at a fixed
price.
OPTION CONTRACT
An option is a preparatory contract in

which one party grants to another, for a
fixed period and at a determined price, the
privilege to buy or sell, or to decide whether
or not to enter into a principal contract. It is
a separate and distinct contract from that
which the parties may enter into upon the
consummation of the option. It must be
supported by consideration distinct from
the price.
Art. 1328. Contracts entered into during a

lucid interval VALID; contracts
agreed to in a state of drunkenness or
during a hypnotic spell VOIDABLE.
Art. 1330. A contract where consent is given
through mistake, violence, intimidation,
undue influence, or
fraud VOIDABLE.
Art. 1331. MISTAKE should refer to
(1) the substance of the thing which is the
object of the contract OR (2) to those
conditions which have principally moved
one or both parties to enter into the
contract; must be substantial; serious and
important.
Art. 1332. When one of the parties is

unable to read, or if the contract is in a
language not understood by him, and
MISTAKE or FRAUD is alleged, the person
enforcing the contract must show that
the terms thereof have been fully
explained to the former.
Art. 1335. VIOLENCE
serious or irresistible force
is employed.
INTIMIDATION reasonable
and well-grounded fear of an imminent and
grave evil upon the person and property of
one of the contracting parties, his spouse,
descendants or ascendants.
Art. 1337. UNDUE INFLUENCE

when a person takes
improper advantage of his power
over the will of another, depriving
the latter of a reasonable freedom
of choice.
Factors to be considered: confidential,

family, spiritual and other relations
between the parties; mental
weakness, ignorance and financial
distress of the one alleged to be
influenced.
Art 1338/1344. FRAUD: Requisites

1. insidious words or machinations must
be employed by one of the contracting
parties;
2. must be serious;
3. must induce the other party to enter
into the contract;
4. must not have been employed by
BOTH contracting parties or by a
3rd person.
Art. 1339. Failure to disclose facts,
when there is a duty to reveal them,
as when the parties are bound by
confidential relations FRAUD
Art. 1340. The usual exaggerations in

trade, when the other party had an
opportunity to know the facts, are
NOT in themselves
FRAUDULENT.
Art. 1341. A mere expression of an

opinion does NOT signify fraud,
unless made by an EXPERT and the
other party has RELIED on the
former’ s special
knowledge.
Art 1345. Simulation of a contract

may be
1. absolute – parties do not intend
to be bound at all VOID.
2. relative – when the parties
conceal their true agreement
when it does not
prejudice a 3rd person and is
NOT intended for any purpose
contrary to law, morals, good
customs, public order or policy
BINDS the parties to
their real agreement.
CLEMENTE vs. CA, et. al., GR 175483, 10/14/15

owner of 3 lots (w/ 4/25/89 – DOAS
improvements located of the 3 lots to
in Diliman, Q.C. P; SPA in favor
of P “to
Adela administer,
(+1/14/90; USA) take charge
7/9/90 – and manage
complaint for Annie my properties”
recovery of Carlos, Sr. Corazon 9/25/89 –
properties as (+10/3/97) Anselmo registered the
the DOAS were (+9/7/00) sale w/ RD;
simulated & w/o Valentina TCTs issued in
consideration. Carlos, Jr. Dennis her name.
There was NO valid contract of sale between Valentina and

Adela because their consent was absent. The contract of
sale was absolutely simulated. There was NO
consideration paid by Valentina to Adela.
Art. 1359. REFORMATION OF

INSTRUMENT
REQUISITES:
1. there must have been a meeting of
the minds upon the contract;
2. instrument evidencing the contract
does NOT express the true agreement
between the parties;
3. the failure of the instrument to
express the agreement must be due
to mistake,, fraud, inequitable conduct
or accident.
Art. 1370. INTERPRETATION OF

CONTRACTS
If the TERMS of a contract are CLEAR
and leave no doubt upon the INTENTION of
the contracting parties, the LITERAL
meaning of its stipulations shall control.
If the words appear to be contrary to
the EVIDENT INTENTION of the parties,
the latter shall prevail over the former.
Art. 1377.The interpretation of OBSCURE

words or stipulations in a
contract shall NOT FAVOR
the party who CAUSED
THE OBSCURITY.
VALID CONTRACTS
1. Strictly comply with all legal
requirements as to consent, object
and cause (A1318 NCC).
2. Entered into during a lucid
interval (A1328 NCC).
3. Relatively simulated contracts w/c do
not prejudice a 3rd person and not
intended for a purpose contrary to law,
morals, good customs, public order or
public policy (A1346 NCC).
4. In divisible contracts, legal terms may
be enforced if same can be separated
from illegal provisions (A1420 NCC).
RESCISSIBLE
1. Valid until rescinded (A1380 NCC);
2. Economic/financial injury or damage to
contracting party or 3rd person. (A1381 NCC )
a) lesion by more than 1/4 of the value of the
object against
(1). ward by guardian
(2). absentee by representative
b) in fraud of creditors;
c) entered into by defendant over objects
under litigation without knowledge/approval
of litigants or of competent judicial authority
d) other contracts specially declared by
law to be subject to rescission;
e) payments made in a state of insolvency
(A1382 NCC);
3. Not susceptible of ratification;
4. May be assailed not only by a contracting

party but also by a 3rd person injured/
defrauded (A1383 NCC);
5. Action for rescission is subsidiary (A1383 );
6. Only to the extent necessary to cover the
damages caused (A1384 NCC);
7. Mutual restitution of object and cause;
a) Not applicable if object is legally in the
possession of a 3rd person who did not
act in BF (A1385 NCC);
b) Indemnity for damages against person
who caused the loss (A1385 NCC);
c) Effects of rescission retroact to the date
the action for rescission was instituted;
8. period to file action for rescission – 4 years
from:
a) termination of guardianship
b) time domicile of absentee is known (A1389).
Guzman Bocaling & Co. vs. Bonnevie,

GR 90667, Nov. 5, 1991
The SC upheld the decision of the lower court ordering the
rescission of a deed of sale which violated a right of first
refusal granted to one of the parties therein. The Court held:
"xxx Contract of Sale was not voidable but rescissible.

Under Article 1380 to 1381 (3) of the Civil Code, a
contract otherwise valid may nonetheless be
subsequently rescinded by reason of injury to third
persons, like creditors. The status of creditors could be
validly accorded the Bonnevies for they had substantial
interests that were prejudiced by the sale of the subject
property to the petitioner without recognizing their right of
first priority under the Contract of Lease.
VOIDABLE CONTRACTS
1. Valid until annulled;
a) one party incapable of giving consent to
contract;
b) consent vitiated by mistake,
violence, intimidation, undue
influence or fraud. (A1390);
c) contracts entered in a state of drunkenness
ennesss
or during a hypnotic spell (A1328 NCC);
C);
2. Susceptible of ratification (A1390 NCC);
a) R cleanses contract from all defects (A1396);
b) R retroacts to constitution of contract (A1396)
c) R effected expressly or tacitly (A1393 NCC);
d) R may be effected by guardian (A1394 NCC);
e) R extinguishes action to annul contract (A1392);
f) R needs no conformity of other party who
has no right to bring action for annulment
(A1395 NCC);
3. May be assailed only by a contracting

party (obliged principally or subsidiarily);
Exceptions:
a) capacitated party as to the
incapacity of the other party;
b) those who exerted intimidation,
violence or undue influence or
employed fraud. (A1397).
4. Mutual restoration of object and cause;
5. Period to file annulment – 4 years from:
a). time defect of consent ceases;
b). time of discovery of mistake or fraud;
c). time guardianship ceases (A1391)
UNENFORCEABLE
1. Cannot be enforced by court action, unless
ratified (A1403 NCC);
a) entered into without authority or
without legal representation or beyond
authority granted;
b) d
did not comply with the Statute of Frauds:
(1) agreement not to be performed w/n a
year;
(2) special promise to answer for the
debt, default or miscarriage of
another;
(3) agreement made in consideration of
marriage, other than mutual promise
to marry;
(4) agreement for the sale of goods not

less than P500.00;
(5) lease for more than 1 year or sale of
real property;
(6) representation as to the credit of a
3rd person.
c) BOTH contracting parties incapable of

giving consent to a contract;
2. Su
usceptible of ratification (A1405 NCC)
a) failure to object to
presentation of oral evidence
b) acceptance of benefits
3. May be assailed ONLY by a contracting party

(A1408 NCC).
Tua vs. Mangrobang, G.R. 170701, 1/27/14
Unenforceable contracts are those which cannot

be enforced by a proper action in court, unless they
are ratified, because they are entered into without
authority or in excess of authority or they do not
comply with the Statute of Frauds or both of the
contracting parties do not possess the required legal
capacity. Where a person signs a Deed of Extrajudicial
partition in behalf of co-heirs without the latter’s authority;
where a mother, as judicial guardian of her minor children,
executes a deed of judicial partition, wherein one child is
given more share of the estate to the prejudice of the other
children; or where one person holding an SPA, sells a
property of his principal which is not included in said SPA,
these are some analogous cases of unenforceable contracts.
VOID CONTRACTS
1. Do not produce any effect;
2. One or some of the essential requisites
of a valid contract are lacking in fact or
in law. (A1409 NCC)
a) cause, object or purpose is contrary
to law, public morals, public policy,
good customs, public order;
b) absolutely simulated/ fictitious
contract;
c) cause or object inexistent at the
time of the transaction;
d) object outside commerce of man;
e) contemplate impossible service;
f) intention of the parties as to

principal object cannot be
ascertained;
g) expressly declared by law as
void.
3. a) not susceptible of ratification;

b) right of action or defense cannot be
waived/does not prescribe (A1410 );
4. May be assailed not only by a

contracting party but even by a 3rd
person whose interest is directly
affected (A1421 NCC).
Heirs of Ureta Sr., et. al. vs. Heirs of Ureta, et.

al., G.R. 165748, September 14, 2011
While the Deed of Sale states that the purchase

price was paid to the seller for the subject properties,
it has been proven that there was no such payment as
there was no money involved, the Deed of Sale is void
for absence of consideration.
The right to set up the nullity of a void or

inexistent contract is not limited to the parties, as in
the case of voidable contracts; it is extended to 3rd
persons who are directly affected by the contract. In
this case, the parties are heirs and are not strangers to
the parties to the contract, hence they have a right to
question the same.

Civil Law - Cruz

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Civil Law - Cruz

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

B. For immovable property (Art. 749 NCC)

1. donation must be in a public

CARINAN vs. SPS. CUETO, GR 198636, 10/8/14

Roberto Sps. Gavino

VILLANUEVA vs. SPOUSES BRANOCO,

Gonzalo Sps. Branoco

I, DONOR, XXX due to love & affection, devise a lot to

This is a donation inter vivos.

The donor stipulated that “if the Donee predeaceases

DEL ROSARIO vs. FERRER, GR 187056,

The express "irrevocability" of the

SPS. SICAD vs. CA, GR 125888, 8/13/1998

TAN QUETO vs. POMBUENA

An oral donation of land is VOID: it

ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP

ARCABA vs. TABANCURA Vda. DE

418 sq.m. lot w/house

Cirila admitted that she and Francisco

Art. 774. SUCCESSION

FERRER vs. SPS. DIAZ, G.R. 165300,

Q: Is a waiver of hereditary rights in favor of another

A: For the inheritance to be considered “future”, the succession

In Re Petition For Probate of Last Will and

(1)Bibiana (+) (2) Irene (+) (3) Cecilia

“4. ALL my properties, I bequeath to my heirs,

This provision in the will is NOT VALID. It is

ARTICLE 799 NCC. SOUND MIND

b). Attestation Clause

2. AZUELA vs. CA AND CASTILLO,

1. to be buried at North Cemetery, La Loma;

2. Devising 2 lots to my nephew Felix Azuela;

3. Appointing Vart Pague, executor of my will

Signed June 10, 1981 in Manila.

3 This document, consisting of ______ pages,

Signed and notarized by me this 10th day of

A will whose attestation clause does

3. Attestation Clause not

4. Attestation Clause not signed

8. Decedent’s alleged will was

9. 5-paged will, 1 page of which

10. 6-paged will, the first 5 pages

12. 2-paged will, the first page of which

(ESTATE OF TAMPOY vs. ALBERASTINE,

13. Marginal signatures of T and 3

(AVERA vs. GARCIA, 42 PHIL 145)

14. Testator’s name was written for

15. T’s signature is located below the

16. True test of “signing in the

(JABONETA vs. GUSTILO, 5 PHIL 541)

17. CRUZ vs. VILLASOR, 54 SCRA 31

Notarial will was executed by T. One of

ECHAVEZ vs. Dozen Construction & Dev.

The attestation clause and an acknowledgment

Art. 810 - 814.

AJERO vs. CA, 236 SCRA 488

Probate of the HW was opposed on the

(1) the will and the signature were

(2) some dispositions were signed

(3) there were alterations and

The holographic will of testatrix

Signed: Natividad Kalaw

KALAW vs. RELOVA, 132 SCRA 237