OBLIGATIONS pool, pelota court, tennis and/or basketball court, bath house, children's
playground and a clubhouse within a period of two (2) years from July
100. JOCELYN MODOMO and DR. ROMY MODOMO, petitioners -
versus- SPOUSES MOISES R. LAYUG, JR. and FELISARIN E.
LAYUG, JR., substituted by his heirs, namely his wife, FELISARIN
E. LAYUG, and children MA. CELESTE LAYUG CO, EUGENE
ESPINOSA LAYUG, FRANCIS ESPINOSA LAYUG and SHERYL
ESPINOSA LAYUG, respondents.
G.R. No. 197722, SECOND DIVISION, August 14, 2019, CAGUIAO, J.
FACTS:
Spouses Layug is a registered owner and legal possessors of a parcel
of land in Barangay Tejeros, Makati City. The said property was leased
to Spouses Modomo for a period of seven (7) years.
Pursuant to a Contract of Lease, Spouses Modomo agreed to pay the
amount of P170,000.00 as monthly rentals, subject to escalations. It was
also agreed that the real estate taxes on the property shall be paid by
Spouses Modomo. In view of these stipulations, an Addendum to the
Contract was made.
Subsequently, Spouses Modomo defaulted in the payment of the rental
fees, its escalation and real property taxes. Spouses Layug sent a
demand letter but to no avail. Ultimately, a letter was sent to Spouses
Modomo terminating the Contract of Lease and a demand to vacate.
Consequently, Spouses Layug filed a complaint for ejectment.
On the contrary, Spouses Modomo argued that due to the improvements
that they introduced on the property, they verbally asked Spouses Layug
to reduce the monthly rentals to P150,000.00 and the non-imposition of
the escalation clause and the real estate tax provision which allegedly
they agreed.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the provisions of the Contract of Lease have been
partially novated by the parties; alleged subsequent verbal agreement.
RULING:
Spouses Modomo alludes to the existence of a partial novation,
governed by Article 1291 of the Civil Code which states:
Obligations may be modified by:
1) Changing their object or principal conditions;
2) Subsistuting the person of the debtor;
3) Subrogating the person of the debtor
However, hile the Civil Code permits the subsequent modification of
existing obligations, these obligations cannot be deemed modified in the
absence of clear evidence to this effect. Novation is never presumed,
and the animus novandi, whether total or partial, must appear by express
agreement of the parties, or by their acts that are too clear and
unequivocal to be mistaken.
Accordingly, the burden to show the existence of novation lies on the
party alleging the same.
Applying the foregoing principles, the Court finds that while there has
been a modificatory novation of the Contract of Lease through the
parties' subsequent verbal agreement, such novation relates solely to
the lowering of the monthly rental fee from P170,000.00 to
Php150,000.00 which was clearly shown by the Statement of Accounts
sent to Spouses Modomo by Spouses Layug.
140. TAGAYTAY REALTY CO., INC., Petitioners, -versus- ARTURO
G. GACUTAN, Respondent.
G.R. No. 160033, FIRST DIVISION, July 1, 2015, BERSAMIN, J.
FACTS:
On September 6, 1976, Arturo Gacutan (Gacutan) entered into a
contract to sell with Tagaytay Realty Co., Inc. (petitioner) for the
purchase on installment of a residential lot with an area of 308 sqm.
situated in the Foggy Heights Subdivision then being developed by the
petitioner. Earlier, on June 30, 1976, the petitioner executed an express
undertaking for the development of the roads, gutters, drainage system,
water and electrical systems, as well as amenities such as, swimming
15, 1976. Further, it was stipulated that failure on their part to develop
within the stipulated period, the “VENDEE” will have the option to
suspend payment of its monthly amortization without incurring penalty
interest, save in cases of any act of God, any act or event constituting
force majeure or fortuitous event.
Gacutan notified the petitioner that he was suspending his amortizations
because the amenities had not been constructed in accordance with the
undertaking after the lapse of the period stipulated. But instead of
making true of the undertaking, the petitioner sent to Gacutan a
statement of account demanding the balance of the price, plus interest
and penalty.
The Gacutan sued the petitioner for specific performance in the HLURB.
The petitioner sought to be excused from performing its obligations
under the contract, invoking Article 1267 of the Civil Code as its basis. It
contended that the depreciation of the Philippine Peso since the time of
the execution of the contract is a valid justification for its release from
the obligation.
The HLURB Arbiter ruled in favor of Gacutan. The petitioner appealed
to the Office of the President (OP) which office upheld the decision of
the HLURB Board of Commissioners. When the case was elevated to
the CA and the appellate court sustained the findings of both the HLURB
and the OP.
ISSUE:
Whether the petitioner is released from its obligation to construct the
amenities in the Foggy Heights Subdivision alleging inflation using
Article 1267 of the Civil Code as basis. – NO
RULING:
Petitioner was not relieved from its statutory and contractual obligations
to complete the amenities.
There is no question that the petitioner did not comply with its legal
obligation to complete the construction of the subdivision project.
Instead, it unilaterally opted to suspend the construction of the amenities
to avoid incurring maintenance expenses. In so opting, it was not driven
by any extremely difficult situation that would place it at any
disadvantage, but by its desire to benefit from cost savings.
Considering that the petitioner's unilateral suspension of the
construction of the amenities was intended to save itself from
costs, its plea for relief from its contractual obligations was
properly rejected because it would thereby gain a position of
advantage at the expense of the lot owners like the respondent. Its
invocation of Article 1267 of the Civil Code, which provides that "(w)hen
the service has become so difficult as to be manifestly beyond the
contemplation of the parties, the obligor may also be released therefrom
in whole or in part," was factually unfounded.
For Article 1267 to apply, the following conditions should concur,
namely:
a. the event or change in circumstances could not have been
foreseen at the time of the execution of the contract;
b. it makes the performance of the contract extremely difficult but
not impossible;
c. it must not be due to the act of any of the parties; and
d. the contract is for a future prestation.
The requisites did not concur herein because the difficulty of
performance under Article 1267 of the Civil Code should be such that
one party would be placed at a disadvantage by the unforeseen
event. Mere inconvenience, or unexpected impediments, or increased
expenses did not suffice to relieve the debtor from a bad bargain.
 CONTRACTS FACTS:

31. BELINDA TAÑEDO, for herself and in representation of her
brothers and sisters, and TEOFILA CORPUZ TAÑEDO,
representing her minor daughter VERNA TAÑEDO, petitioners, -
versus- THE COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES RICARDO M.
TAÑEDO AND TERESITA BARERA TAÑEDO, respondents.
G.R. No. 104482, THIRD DIVISION, January 22, 1996, PANGANIBAN,
J.
FACTS:
On October 20, 1962, Lazardo Tañedo executed a notarized deed of
absolute sale in favor of his eldest brother, Ricardo Tañedo, and the
latter’s wife, Teresita Barera, private respondents, whereby he conveyed
for P1,500 one (1) hectare of his future inheritance from his parents.
On February 28, 1980, upon the death of his father Matias, Lazaro made
an “Affidavit of Conformity” to reaffirm the 1962 sale. 

On January 13, 1981, Lazaro acknowledged therein his receipt of
P10,000.00 as consideration for the sale. 
However, on February 1981,
Ricardo learned that Lazaro sold the same property to his children,
petitioners, through a deed of sale dated December 29, 1980 
 of litigation but after judgment has been rendered. The Court of Appeals
On June 7, 1982, Ricardo recorded the Deed of Sale in their favor in the
Registry of Deeds. Petitioners led a complaint for rescission plus
damages of the deeds of sale executed by Lazaro in favor of Ricardo.
They contend that Lolo Matias desired that whatever inheritance Lazaro
would receive from him should be given to his (Lazaro’s) children.
Jesus Delos Santos and Rosita Delos Santos Flores were the judgment
awardees of the two-thirds (2/3) portion or 9,915 square meters of four
(4) adjoining lots designated as Lots 393-A, 393-B, 394-D and 394-E,
located in Boracay Island, Malay, Aklan, representing as their shares in
the intestate estate of Leonardo delos Santos.
Joey Peña averred that he is the transferee of Jesus and Rosita's
adjudged allotments over the subject lots. He claimed that he bought the
same from Atty. Romeo Robiso who acquired the properties from Jesus
and Rosita through assignment and sale.
Atty. Robiso later on sold Lots No. 393-A and 394-D to Peña thru a Deed
of Absolute Sale.15 The tax declarations over the said portions were
subsequently registered in Peña's name.
The plaintiffs opposed Peña's motion claiming that the conveyance
made by Jesus and Rosita in favor of Atty. Robiso was null and void for
being a prohibited transaction because the latter was their counsel in the
case.
The trial court upheld that the conveyance made by Jesus and Rosita in
favor of Atty. Robiso is valid since it was not made during the pendency
reversed the decision of the RTC.
ISSUE:
Whether the deeds of conveyance between Atty. Robiso and Jesus and
Rosita were void. - YES

Ricardo (private respondents), however, presented in evidence a “Deed RULING:

of Revocation of a Deed of Sale” wherein Lazaro revoked the sale in
favor of his children for the reason that it was “simulated or fictitious -
without any consideration whatsoever.”
According to Lazaro, he executed a sworn statement in favor of his
children. But he also testified that he sold the property to Ricardo, and
that it was a lawyer who induced him to execute a deed of sale in favor
of his children after giving him five pesos (P5.00) to buy a “drink”.
The trial court ruled in favor of Lazaro’s children. The Court of Appeals
affirmed the trial court’s decision.
Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code expressly prohibits lawyers from
acquiring property or rights that may be the object of any litigation in
which they may take part by virtue of their profession. Records show that
the judicial action over the subject lots was still in the appellate
proceedings stage when they were conveyed to Jesus and Rosita's
counsel, Atty.Robiso. Clearly then, since the property conveyed to Atty.
Robiso by Jesus and Rosita was still the object of litigation, the deeds of
conveyance executed by the latter are deemed inexistent. Under Article
1409 of the Code, contracts, which are expressly prohibited or declared
void bylaw, are considered inexistent and void from the beginning.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the sale of a future inheritance valid. – NO

RULING:

The sale made in 1962 involving future inheritance is not really at issue
here. In context, the assailed Decision conceded “it may be legally
correct that a contract of sale of anticipated future inheritance is null and
void.” But to remove all doubts, we hereby categorically rule that,
pursuant to Article 1347 of the Civil Code, “(n)o contract may be entered
into upon a future inheritance except in cases expressly authorized by
law.” Consequently, said contract made in 1962 is not valid and cannot
be the source of any right nor the creator of any obligation between the
parties.

The property in question is land, an immovable, and following the above-

quoted law, ownership shall belong to the buyer who in good faith
registers it first in the registry of property. Thus, although the deed of
sale in favor of private respondents was later than the one in favor of
petitioners, ownership would vest in the former because of the
undisputed fact of registration. On the other hand, petitioners have not
registered the sale to them at all.

Petitioners contend that they were in possession of the property and that
private respondents never took possession thereof. As between two
purchasers, the one who registered the sale in his favor has a preferred
right over the other who has not registered his title, even if the latter is in
actual possession of the immovable property.

83. JOEY R. PEÑA, Petitioner, v. JESUS DELOS SANTOS AND

THE HEIRS OF ROSITA DELOS SANTOS FLORES., Respondents.
G.R. No. 202223, THIRD DIVISION, March 02, 2016, REYES, J.