LAVADIA V.

HEIRS OF JUAN LUCES LUNA

730 SCRA 376 (2014)

A marriage between Filipinos solemnized in the Philippines in 1947 is governed by the

Nationality Rule. As such, a divorce obtained by a Filipino abroad is considered void in this
jurisdiction because it is contrary to public policy. If the divorce is void, then the approval of the
agreement for liquidation and dissolution is also invalid.

The marriage to a second wife of a person whose first marriage was not validly terminated is a
bigamous marriage, hence void. Applying Art 144 of the NCC, the second wife must be able to
prove that she made actual contributions to the acquisition of the properties to be considered a
co-owner thereof.

LIMSON V. GONZALES
720 SCRA 246 (2014)

An alias is a name used by a person intended to be used by him publicly and habitually, usually
in business, in addition to his real name to which he was registered at birth or baptized or to the
substitute name authorized by a competent authority. To be an alias, it must be different from an
individual’s true name.

To be liable under the Anti-Alias Law, the names must be fictitious and must be used for
unscrupulous purposes, and to confuse or deceive the public.

SULPICIO LINES, INC. V. CURSO

615 SCRA 575 (2010)

Under Art. 2206 NCC, only the following are entitled to recover moral damages by reason of
contract: Descendants, Ascendants, Illegitimate Children and the surviving spouse of deceased
passenger. Brothers and sisters are not included in those enumerated under the law. Thus, the
surviving siblings of passenger of a vessel that sunk is not entitled to moral damages from the
owner of the vessel.

ABLAZA V. REPUBLIC
628 SCRA 27 (2010)

The provisions of A.M. 02-1110 as to who has the personality to file a petition for declaration of
absolute nullity of marriage are applicable only to marriages celebrated under the Family Code.

For marriages celebrated under the Old and New Civil Code, the plaintiff must still be the party
who stands to be benefitted by the suit, since it is basic in Procedural Law that every action must
be prosecuted in the name of a real party in interest.
REPUBLIC V. SANTOS III
685 SCRA 51 (2012)

Accretion of Riverbanks Drying Out of a River Bed

Does not involve any recession of the waters of the Involves the process of drying up a river to form dry
river. It will involve the movements of the waters of land through the recession of the water level. The
the river, and by such movements, sediments are dried up river bed does not equate to accretion,
carried to the banks of the river, thus adding to the hence it remains to be property of the Public
banks and enlarging the area of the riparian land. Domain.

If the requisites of accretion are present, the

additional soil deposit or alluvium will become
private property to be owned by the riparian
owner.

GONZALO V. TARNATE, JR.

713 SCRA 224 (2014)

Principle of In Pari Delicto:

In a void contract, both parties being aware that the contract they entered into was an illegal
arrangement, none of them will recover from each other and the Court will simply leave them
where they are, pursuant to the principle of In Pari Delicto.

However, the principle of In Pari Delicto is not always rigid. The accepted exception arises
when application of the doctrine CONTRAVENES the well-established public policy of the
State. Applying the Principle of Unjust Enrichment, the Court treated this case as an exception to
the application of In Pari Delicto Principle.

Accion In Rem Verso vs. Solutio Indebiti

An action for recovery under Art 22 NCC is called an Accion in Rem Verso

Action in Rem Verso Solutio Indebiti

1. Plai 1. Plai
ntiff suffered a loss ntiff suffered a loss
2. The 2. The
defendant was enriched and the enrichment was defendant was enriched and the enrichment was
at the expense of the plaintiff at the expense of the plaintiff
3. Plai 3. The
ntiff must have no other legal remedy under delivery or payment was by reason of mistake
contract, quasi contract, delict, or quasi delict.
4. Deli*The essence of Solutio Indebiti is MISTAKE!
very was without just/legal ground but it was not
 by reason of mistake

Novation:
In implied novation, if what is involved is a change in the object/purpose/consideration or any
principal condition of the obligation, it is called Extinctive Novation and such will result in
extinguishment of the old obligation by way of creating a NEW one. In Modificatory Novation,
there will be no extinguishment of the old obligation because it does not create a new obligation;
the obligation is simply modified. So the obligation will still exist up to the extent where it is
compatible with the modificatory arrangement.

COMSAVINGS BANK (NOW GSIS FAMILY BANK) V. CAPISTRANO

704 SCRA 72 (2013)

One can be held liable under Contract AND Quasi-delict at the same time. In this case, since
both the bank and the contractor were guilty of negligence, they are considered joint tortfeasors
so they are liable solidarily to the borrower.

DELA CRUZ V. PLANTERS PRODUCTS, INC.

691 SCRA 28 (2013)

If the computation of the interest is in accordance with the law and jurisprudence, even if it will
turn out higher compared to the principal, it is not unconscionable.

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK V. HEIRS OF BENEDICTO AND AZUCENA

ALONDAY
805 SCRA 657 (2016)

The DRAGNET CLAUSE or Blanket Mortgage Clause is one which is specifically phrased to
subsume all debts, whether past or present. The mortgage will stand as security for all
indebtedness, whether that indebtedness was incurred in the past or it will be incurred in the
future; the Dragnet Clause is couched in such a way that it is ALL-ENCOMPASSING.

In order for the all-embracing or Dragnet Clauses to secure future and other loans, the loans
thereby secured must be SUFFICIENTLY DESCRIBED in the mortgage contract.
Therefore in the second mortgage, it should have specifically described the existing loan as still
secured by the second mortgage in order for Dragnet Clause to apply.