Gaite v. Fonacier, G.R. No.

L-11827, July 31, 1961

Facts:

Fonacier, proprietor of 11 iron lode mineral claims (Dawahan Group) in Camarines

Norte,constituted a "Deed of Assignment", and delegated Gaite as his actual and legal lawyer
indeed to go into an agreement for its investigation and improvement on a sovereignty basis.
Gaite executed an overall task to the Larap Iron Mines possessed exclusively by him. However,
Fonacier chose to repudiate the power conceded which he consented.

Issue:

The lowered court erred in holding that the obligation of Fonacier to pay Gaite is one with a
period or term and that the term has already expired.

Rulling:

No error was found, affirming the decision of the lowered court.

Central Philippine University vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 112230. July 17, 1995

FACTS:
In 1939, Don Ramon Lopez Sr. executed a deed of donation in favor of CPU together with the
following conditions:
a) The land should be utilized by CPU exclusively for the establishment & use of medical
college;
b) The said college shall not sell transfer or convey to any 3rd party;
c) The said land shall be called “Ramon Lopez Campus” and any income from that land shall be
put in the fund to be known as “Ramon Lopez Campus Fund”.

However, on May 31, 1989, PR, who are the heirs of Don Ramon filed an action for annulment
of donation, reconveyance & damages against CPU for not complying with the conditions. The
heirs also argued that CPU had negotiated with the NHA to exchange the donated property with
another land owned by the latter.

ISSUE:
1 Petitioner failed to comply the resolutely conditions annotated at the back of petitioner’s
certificate of title without a fixed period when to comply with such conditions? YES

Rulling:

Under Art. 1181, on conditional obligations, the acquisition of rights as well the extinguishment
or loss of those already acquired shall depend upon the happening of the event which constitutes
the condition. Thus, when a person donates land to another on the condition that the latter would
build upon the land a school is such a resolutory one. The donation had to be valid before the
fulfillment of the condition. If there was no fulfillment with the condition such as what obtains in
the instant case, the donation may be revoked & all rights which the done may have acquired
shall be deemed lost & extinguished.
UP v. De Los Angeles, G.R. L-28602, September 29, 1970

FACTS:

University of the Philippines (UP), pursuant to Act 3608, entered into a logging agreement with
ALUMCO granting the latter logging rights over a particular land owned by UP. However,
ALUMCO incurred debts which were remained unpaid.

Upon receipt of notice from UP that it would rescind the contract, ALUMCO executed an
“Acknowledgment of Debt and Proposed Manner of Payments” which obligated itself to pay for
its incurred debts and upon further failure to pay the same, UP may treat the logging agreement
rescinded without need for judicial action.

Despite the execution of the document, ALUMCO incurred again debts. Thus, UP informed
ALUMCO of its intention to rescind the contract. However, ALUMCO continued its operations
which opted UP to filed an action for preliminary injunction and an action for preliminary
attachment for the payment of ALUMCOs debts.

During the pendency of the suit, UP was able to enter into another logging agreement with
another company. ALUMCO however, obtained a writ of preliminary injunction against UP and
the new firm to continue the logging operations. ALUMCO alleged that UP cannot unilaterally
rescind the contract without judicial action. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not UP can extra-judicially rescind the logging agreement with ALUMCO

Ruling:

Yes. As the Court previously held in Froilan v. Pan Oriental Shipping Company, “there is
nothing in the law that prohibits the parties from entering into an agreement that violation of the
terms of the contract would cause cancellation thereof, even without court intervention. In other
words, it is not always necessary for the injured party to resort to court for rescission of the
contract.”
Pryce Corporation v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corp., G.R. No. 157480, May 6, 2005

Facts:

On December 7, 2001, PAGCOR hired De Guzman as an Evaluation Specialist and assigned her
to the Property and Procurement Department. At the time of her employment, De Guzman
accomplished a Personal History Statement (PHS), which requires an attestation from the
employee that the information stated therein are true and correct to the best of her knowledge and
belief, and agreed that any misdeclaration or omission would be sufficient ground for denial of
her application, clearance, or cause for separation. In her PHS, De Guzman indicated that she
had no relatives currently employed with PAGCOR and did not disclose that she has a sister
named Adelina P. See (Adelina).In 2008, De Guzman updated her PHS, reiterating her statement
that she had no relatives working with PAGCOR, but this time, listed Adelina as one of her
siblings.

ISSUE:

(1) Whether or not Pryce is entitled to future rentals as provided in the contract even if PAGCOR
contends, as the CA ruled, that Article 1659 of the Civil Code governs; hence, PPC is allegedly
no longer entitled to future rentals, because it chose to rescind the Contract.

(2) Whether or not PAGCOR should be exempt from complying with its contractual obligations
due to fortuitous events

(3) Whether or not the future rentals constitute a penalty clause

Ruling:

The termination or cancellation of a contract would necessarily entail enforcement of its terms
prior to the declaration of its cancellation in the same way that before a lessee is ejected under a
lease contract, he has to fulfill his obligations thereunder that had accrued prior to his ejectment.
However, termination of a contract need not undergo judicial intervention.
Royal Cargo Corp., vs. DFS Sports Unlimited, Inc., G.R. No. 158621, December 10, 2008.

From the evidence offered by the parties and their admissions in their respective pleadings, the
Court has clearly gathered that the plaintiff and the defendant are domestic corporations
organized under the laws of the Philippines. [Petitioner] is an international freight forwarder,
which offers trucking, brokerage, storage and other services to the public, and serves as conduit
between shippers, consignees, and carriers for the transportation of cargos from one point of the
globe to another. On the other hand, is one of the concessionaires of the Subic Bay Metropolitan
Authority (SBMA). It is principally engaged in the importation and local sale of duty-free
sporting goods and other similar products.

Issue:

I. WHETHER OR NOT THE BURDEN OF EVIDENCE LIES WITH THE DEBTOR TO PROVE
THAT PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE.

II. WHETHER OR NOT MERE PRESENTATION BY THE DEBTOR OF ORIGINAL INVOICES

ALONE SUFFICIENTLY PROVES PAYMENT OF ITS DEBT.

III WHETHER OR NOT AN INVOICE IS DEEMED A CREDIT INSTRUMENT WHICH, UPON

PRESENTATION BY THE DEBTOR, RAISES THE DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTION OF PAYMENT
AS PER RULE 131, SECTION 3(h) OF THE RULES OF COURT THAT STATES THAT A
DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTION OF PAYMENT IS RAISED WHEN AN OBLIGATION IS
DELIVERED TO A DEBTOR.

Ruling:

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review is granted. The Decision dated January 24, 2003 and the
Resolution of June 4, 2003 of the Court of Appeals as well as the Decision of the Regional Trial
Court dated June 3, 1998 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Respondent is ORDERED to pay
petitioner: the amount of Two Hundred Forty-Eight Thousand Four Hundred Forty-Nine Pesos
and Sixty-Three Centavos (P248,449.63) plus legal interest of 6% per annum from February 10,
1995 until this Decision becomes final and executor; the legal interest of 12% per annum on the
total amount due from such finality until fully paid; 10% of the total amount due as and by way
of attorney's fees, and the costs of suit.
Gaisano Cagayan, Inc. v. Insurance Company of North America, G.R. Ni. 147839, June 8, 2009

Facts:

February 25, 1991: Gaisano Superstore Complex in Cagayan de Oro City, owned by Gaisano
Cagayan, Inc., containing the ready-made clothing materials sold and delivered by IMC and
LSPI was consumed by fire.

February 4, 1992: Insurance Company of North America filed a complaint for damages
against Gaisano Cagayan, Inc. alleges that IMC and LSPI filed their claims under their respective
fire insurance policies which it paid thus it was subrogated to their rights

Gaisano Cagayan, Inc: not be held liable because it was destroyed due to fortuities event or force
majeure

ISSUE:

Insurance Company of North America can claim against Gaisano Cagayan for the debt that was
insured.

Ruling:

Insurance policy is clear that the subject of the insurance is the book debts and NOT goods sold
and delivered to the customers and dealers of the insured

ART. 1504. Unless otherwise agreed, the goods remain at the seller's risk until the ownership
therein is transferred to the buyer, but when the ownership therein is transferred to the buyer the
goods are at the buyer's risk whether actual delivery has been made or not
Dizon v. CA, G.R. No. 140944, April 30, 2008.

Facts:

Jose P. Fernandez died in November 7, 1987. Thereafter, a petition for the probate of his will
was filed. The probate court appointed Atty. Rafael Arsenio P. Dizon as administrator of the
Estate of Jose Fernandez. An estate tax return was filed later on which showed ZERO estate
tax liability. BIR thereafter issued a deficiency estate tax assessment, demanding payment of Php
66.97 million as deficiency estate tax. This was subsequently reduced by CTA to Php 37.42
million. The CA affirmed the CTA’s ruling, hence, the instant petition.

The petitioner claims that in as much as the valid claims of creditors against the Estate are in
excess of the gross estate, no estate tax was due. On the other hand, respondents argue that

since the claims of the Estate’s creditors have been condoned, such claims may no longer be

deducted from the gross estate of the decedent.

Issue:

Whether the actual claims of creditors may be fully allowed as deductions from the gross state
of Jose despite the fact that the said claims were reduced or condoned through compromise
agreements entered into by the Estate with its creditors
PNB Madecor v. Uy, G.R. No. 129598, August 15, 2001

Facts:

On January 23, 1995, Gerardo Uy filed with the RTC a collection suit with an application for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment against PNEI. He sought to collect from PNEI the
amount of P8,397,440.00. He alleged that PNEI was guilty of fraud in contracting the obligation
sued upon, hence his prayer for a writ of preliminary attachment.

A writ of preliminary attachment was issued on January 26, 1995, commanding the sheriff "to
attach the properties of the defendant, real or personal, and/or (of) any person representing the
defendant"2 in such amount as to cover Gerardo Uy's demand.

On January 27, 1995, the sheriff issued a notice of garnishment addressed to the Philippine
National Bank (PNB) attaching the "goods, effects, credits, monies and all other personal
properties"3 of PNEI in the possession of the bank, and requesting a reply within five days. PNB
MADECOR received a similar notice.
Adriatico Consortium, Inc. v. Land Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 187838, December 23,
2009

Facts:

Sometime in 1997, William A. Siy, the president of Adriatico Consortium, Inc. (ACI), applied
for a credit line of PhP 200 million with Land Bank of the Philippines as additional funding to
finish the construction of the Pan Pacific Hotel and the Adriatico Square, both owned by ACI.
The lands on which the buildings were built belonged to Primary Realty Corporation (PRC).

The loan was approved and a Mortgage Trust Indenture (MTI) dated January 15, 1998 was
created to secure the loan. Under the MTI, Land Bank was constituted as trustee of the lands of
PRC and the buildings of ACI mortgaged to it.

On April 28, 1998, the MTI was amended increasing the maximum amount secured by it from
PhP 200 million to PhP 600 million. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (Metrobank) and
Land Bank participated in the MTI. Land Bank was then issued Mortgage Participation
Certificate (MPC) No. 0001 for PhP 200 million, while Metrobank was issued MPC No. 0003
for PhP 100 million.

On July 8, 1998, the MTI was amended for the second time at the initiative of Siy, without the
knowledge of other ACI officials and Board of Directors, to include J.V. Williams Realty and
Development Corporation (JVWRDC) as borrower. JVWRDC is a majority-owned corporation
of Siy. Consequently, Land Bank issued MPC No. 0002 dated July 17, 1998 for PhP 200 million
and MPC No. 0004 for PhP 100 million to cover the loans of JVWRDC.