AYALA CORPORATION v.

ROSA-DIANA REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION

G.R. No. 134284 December 1, 2000

Facts:

Petitioner Ayala Corporation was the registered owner of a parcel of land located in
Alfaro Street, Salcedo Village, Makati City. On April 20, 1976, Ayala sold the lot to Manuel Sy
married to Vilma Po and Sy Ka Kieng married to Rosa Chan. The Deed of Sale executed
between Ayala and the buyers contained Special Conditions of Sale and Deed Restrictions.
Among the Special Conditions of Sale were: a) the vendees shall build on the lot and submit the
building plans to the vendor before September 30, 1976 for the latter’s approval b) the
construction of the building shall start on or before March 30, 1977 and completed before 1979.
Before such completion, neither the deed of sale shall be registered nor the title released even if
the purchase price shall have been fully paid and c) there shall be no resale of the property.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the deed of restriction can be enforced by Ayala Corporation.

RULING:

Contractual obligations between parties have the force of law between them and absent any
allegation that the same are contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy,
they must be complied with in good faith. The party guilty of violating the deed of restrictions
may only be held alternatively liable for substitute performance of its obligation, that is, for the
payment of damages.

Page |53
FACTS:

PEOPLE v. VENERACION G.R. No. 119987-88 October 12, 1995

On August 2, 1994, four accused were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape with
homicide of a seven year old girl in the RTC presided by Judge Lorenzo P. Veneracion.
Respondent judge however, refused to impose the corresponding penalty of death and he rather
imposed reclusion perpetua to each of the accused. The city prosecutor filed a motion for
reconsideration praying that the penalty of death be imposed upon the four accused. The
respondent judge refused to act.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent judge can impose penalty lower than that prescribed by law.

RULING:

The Supreme Court mandates that after an adjudication of guilt, the judge should impose the
proper penalty provided for by the law on the accused regardless of his own religious or moral
beliefs. In this case the respondent judge must impose the death penalty. This is consistent in the
rule laid down in the Civil Code Article 9 that no judge or court shall decline to render judgment
by reason of the silence, obscurity, or insufficiency of the laws.