ASJ CORPORATION VS EVANGELISTA, 545 SCRA 300, G.R. NO. 158086, FEB.

14, 2008
PONENTE: Quisumbing J.,
Topic: Contracts
The petition for review for the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the decision
of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos,Bulacan Branch 9 in civil Case No. 745-M-93.
FACTS: Both respondent Efren and Maura Evanglista,the owners of the R.M Sy
Chicks involved in the selling chicks and egg by products.They availed the service of
the ASJ Corp. for hatching and incubation, this Corporation was owned by San Juan
Family.
For a long time of being engage in business with the ASJ corporation, the
respondents delayed the payments of ASJ Corp which the owner refuse to release
the hatched egg, that the respondent offered Php 15,000 a partial payment to San
Juan the owner of the ASJ Corp. The offer was accepted but insisted the full
payment and threated the respondents that he will impound their vehicle and detain
them at the hatchery compound if they still failed to pay. Both parties tried to settle
before police authority but failed.
The respondents then filed with the RTC an action for damages based on the
retention of the chicks and by-products by the petitioners.
The RTC held ASJ Corp. and San Juan solidarily liable for the actual and moral
damages and attorney’s fees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision
and added exemplary damages. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner’s retention of the chicks and by-products on
account of respondents’ failure to pay the corresponding fees justified.
HELD: Yes. The retention has legal basis, although the threats had none. Under
Article 1248 of the Civil Code, the creditor cannot be compelled to accept partial
payments from the debtor, unless there is an express stipulation to that effect.
Hence, the retention by the petitioner has legal basis and it was the respondent who
violated the contracts. It this case is a case on non-performance of reciprocal
obligation.
Reciprocal obligations are those which arise from the same cause, wherein each
party is a debtor and a creditor of the other such that the performance of one is
conditioned upon the simultaneous fulfillment of the other. The respondents are
guilty of delaying in the performance of their obligation, they are liable to pay actual
damages to the petitioners.
The petition was partly granted. The respondents were ordered to pay petitioners for
actual damages. The actual, exemplary and moral damages laid down by the Court
of Appeals were retained.

MULTI-VENTURES CAPITAL and MANAGEMENT CORPORATION vs.

STALWART MANAGEMENT SERVICES CORPORATION, MARIAN G. TAJO,
CESAR TAJO and ARIANA GALANG. G.R. NO. 157439 July 4, 2007
PONENTE: AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ J.:
TOPIC: Contracts
FACTS: On July 10, 1991, Multi-Ventures Capital and Management Corporation filed
with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 134, a Complaint for
Reformation of Instrument with application for attachment against Stalwart
Management Services Corporation and its officers. Petitioner alleged that on
January 11, 1991, respondent obtained from the former a loan in the amount of
₱9,000,000.00, with interest, but for purposes of expediency, said transaction was
denominated as a sale whereby petitioner bought from respondent various Land
Bank bonds originally valued at ₱11,557,972.60 at discounted price, as shown in a
Confirmation of Agreement; that the bonds serve as a partial collateral for the
payment of the loan; that respondent and some of its officers, however, have plans
of defrauding their creditors by absconding and disposing of its properties, thus
constraining petitioner to file the complaint for reformation in order to express the
true intent of the parties, i.e., that the ostensible sale of the bonds is actually a loan
agreement.
Respondent, together with its co-defendants, filed an Answer denying petitioner's
allegations and claiming, among others, that both petitioner and respondent are
companies engaged in dealing and trading government securities. According to
respondent, the transaction entered into on January 11, 1991 is really a purchase of
Land Bank bonds, and there is no mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct or accident in
the preparation of the true agreement of the parties such that reformation is called
for.
After trial on the merits, the RTC rendered a Decision dated May 11, 1995, in favor
of petitioner. Upon giving judgement in favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendant, the respondents and its officers appealed to Court of Appeals. In a
decision dated Feb. 24, 2003, the CA sustained the respondent’s position that the
transaction was in fact, a sale; reversed the RTC Decision; and dismissed
petitioner’s complaint and respondents counterclaim.

ISSUE: Whether the contract entered into by Multi-Ventures Capital and

Management Corporation (petitioner) and Stalwart Management Services
Corporation (respondent) is one of loan or sale.

HELD: After a careful examination of the evidence on record, the Court sustains the
CA’s ruling that the transaction between the parties was one of sale and not of loan .
JOSEPHINE MARMO, NESTOR ESGUERA, DANILO DEL PILAR AND MARISA
DEL PILAR vs. MOISES ANACAY G.R. No. 18258, November 27, 2009
PONENTE: BRION
TOPIC: QUASI-DELICT

FACTS: September 2003, Anacay filed a case for annulment of Sale, recovery of
damages against petitioners and the Register of Deeds of Cavite. The complaint
states that Anacay and his deceased wife is a co-owner of a parcel of land and
house built in Regency Homes, Cavite. They authorized Marmo to sell the property,
Marmo then sold it to Danilo del Pilar for 520k payable in monthly instalments from
May 2001 to June 2006. Danilo defaulted in his payments from December 2002
onwards. Anacay later discovered that the title was cancelled and issued in Marmo's
name by virtue of a falsified deed of sale. The same title was subsequently
transferred to Danilo. Marmo averred that the children as co-owners of the property,
should have been included as plaintiffs because they are indispensable parties.
Anacay argued that his children are not indispensable parties because the issue in
the case can be resolved without their participation.
RTC Ruling: ruled in favor of Anacay, noted that the motion to include the children
was simply filed to delay the proceedings. Petitioners then elevated their case to the
CA.
CA Ruling: CA dismissed the petition, affirming the RTC; the children are not
indispensable parties.
The parties then were required to submit their memoranda.
Petitioner: submit that the respondent’s children, who succeeded their deceased
mother as co-owners of the property, are indispensable parties because a full
determination of the case cannot be made without their presence.
The respondent, on the other hand, counters that the respondent’s children are not
indispensable parties because the issue involved in the RTC – whether the
signatures of the respondent and his wife in the Deed of Absolute Sale dated
September 20, 2001 were falsified - can be resolved without the participation of the
respondent’s children.

ISSUE: Whether the children were indispensable parties.

HELD: No merit.
Section 7, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court defines indispensable parties as
parties-in-interest without whom there can be no final determination of an action and
who, for this reason, must be joined either as plaintiffs or as defendants.

When the controversy involves a property held in common, Article 487 of the Civil
Code explicitly provides that “any one of the co-owners may bring an action in
ejectment.”

We read these cases to collectively mean that where the suit is brought by a co-
owner, without repudiating the co-ownership, then the suit is presumed to be filed for
the benefit of the other co-owners and may proceed without impleading the other co-
owners. However, where the co-owner repudiates the co-ownership by claiming sole
ownership of the property or where the suit is brought against a co-owner, his co-
owners are indispensable parties and must be impleaded as party-defendants, as
the suit affects the rights and interests of these other co-owners.

In the present case, the respondent, as the plaintiff in the court below, never
disputed the existence of a co-ownership nor claimed to the sole or exclusive owner
of the litigated lot.  In fact, he recognized that he is a “bona-fide co-owner” of the
questioned property, along with his deceased wife. Moreover and more importantly,
the respondent’s claim in his complaint in Civil Case No. 2919-03 is personal to him
and his wife, i.e., that his and his wife’s signatures in the Deed of Absolute Sale in
favor of petitioner Josephine were falsified.

The issue therefore is falsification, an issue which does not require the participation
of the respondent’s co-owners at the trial; it can be determined without their
presence because they are not parties to the document; their signatures do not
appear therein. Their rights and interests as co-owners are adequately protected by
their co-owner and father.