[GR Number: G.R. No. L-3756.

June 30, 1952]

SAGRADA ORDEN DE PREDICADORES DEL SANTISMO ROSARIO DE
FILIPINAS, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
NATIONAL COCONUT CORPORATION, defendant-appellant.

FACTS
1. Petitioner's/Plaintiff's claim/s (no more than 3 sentences)
Sagrada Orden, whose name was on the title to the land before the war, filed a claim to
reclaim possession of a property in Pandacan Manila, as well as the rents for its occupation and
use. The complaint further claimed that it had lost its control during the Japanese military
occupation due to a rumored null sale to a Japanese business known as Taiwan Tekkosho.
2. Respondent's/Defendant's claim/s (no more than 3 sentences)
The defendant contends in his defense that the property was occupied in good faith and that
he was under no duty to pay rent for the warehouse's use and possession. Under an arrangement
with the Alien Property Custodian of the United States, who gained ownership of the property
after its emancipation, the defendant occupied it.
3. Decisions of the lower courts
The plaintiff was declared the legitimate owner of the property by the court's ruling, and the
plaintiff was granted the right to recover P3,000 per month in fair rentals from the defendant
for its use of the land from August 1946 to the date it vacated. The trial court further rules that
the defendant cannot assert any rights, and that because the defendant occupied the property,
it must pay appropriate rent.
ISSUE
Whether or not if the defendant is accountable to the plaintiff for rental payments from
August 1946 to the date the property was vacated.
HELD
4. Disposition of the case (one sentence)
The appeal is upheld, the judgment against National Coconut Corporation for failure to pay
rentals is overturned, and the plaintiff-appellee must pay the costs of the appeal.

5. Dictum (no more than five sentences addressing the issue relevant to the topic under
discussion)
According to Article 1157 of the New Civil Code, obligations arise from: law, contract,
quasi-contract, crime, or quasi-delicts. Because there was no agreement between the defendant
and the Alien Property Administration to pay rentals for the use of the property, the defendant
and the Alien Property Administration are not guilty of negligence. It is only fair and just that
defendant-appellant may not be held accountable for such use and occupation because it
entered into possession with no anticipation of obligation.
[GR Number: G.R. No. 125041. June 30, 2006]
MA. BELEN B. MANGONON, for and in behalf of her minor children REBECCA
ANGELA DELGADO and REGINA ISABEL DELGADO. Petitioner,
vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. JUDGE JOSEFINA GUEVARA-SALONGA,
Presiding Judge, RTC-Makati, Branch 149, FEDERICO C. DELGADO and FRANCISCO
C. DELGADO, Respondents.
FACTS
1. Petitioner's/Plaintiff's claim/s (no more than 3 sentences)
Ma. Belen B. Magonon alleges that she gave birth to twins Rica and Rina seven
months after her marriage to Federico was annulled. The petitioner went on to say that she
raised her twin daughters with the help of her second husband, Danny Mangonon, because
the private respondents had completely abandoned them. Petitioner also claimed that
because they are no longer able to support their children, they filed a Petition for
Declaration of Legitimacy and Support, as well as an application for support pendente lite,
against Federico and Francisco, the latter's father, for general support and payment of Rica
and Rina's required college education.

2. Respondent's/Defendant's claim/s (no more than 3 sentences)

Francisco, the respondent, disputes his responsibility to support the twins, claiming that
the order of liability for support under Article 199 of the Family Code is not concurrent,
requiring that the obligation be borne by those more closely related to the recipient. In this
case, he argued that petitioner and her second husband should bear responsibility because
the latter voluntarily assumed the duties and responsibilities of a natural father. He also
claims that, even if he is responsible for support, he cannot be held liable for more than the
petitioner and the father can afford.
3. Decisions of the lower courts
In light of the foregoing decisions, the Regional Trial Court- RTC orders respondents
to provide a monthly salary support (pendente lite) of P5,000 each or a total of P10,000 for
Rebecca Angela and Regina Isabel Delgado's education, to be delivered within the first five
days of each month without demand.

ISSUE
Whether Francisco is obligated to support Rica and Rina if the twin daughters'
parents are unable to maintain them financially.
 HELD
1. Disposition of the case (one sentence)
The petition is partially granted, and Francisco Delgado is liable for support pendente
lite in an amount to be decided by the trial court in accordance with this Decision.
2. Dictum (no more than five sentences addressing the issue relevant to the topic under
discussion)
Respondent Francisco, as the twins' next-of-kin, has a legal obligation to provide
general and educational support for Rica and Rina as support pendente lite under the
Family Code. “The person obligated to grant support shall have the choice of fulfilling
the responsibility either by paying the allowance fixed, or by receiving and maintaining
the person who has a right to receive support in the family dwelling,” according to Art.
204. If there is a moral or legal impediment to doing so, the latter option cannot be used.”
In this case, the Court considers that respondent Francisco will be unable to exercise the
second option and will instead rely on the first.
[GR Number: G.R. No. 84698. January 4, 1992]
PHILIPPINE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, JUAN D. LIM, BENJAMIN
P. PAULINO, ANTONIO M. MAGTALAS, COL. PEDRO SACRO and LT. M.
SORIANO, petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, HON. REGINA ORDOÑEZ-BENITEZ, in her capacity as
Presiding Judge of Branch 47, Regional Trial Court, Manila, SEGUNDA R. BAUTISTA
and ARSENIA D. BAUTISTA, respondents.
FACTS
1. Petitioner's/Plaintiff's claim/s (no more than 3 sentences)
The petitioners, PSBA and its corporate officials, filed a petition alleging that the
respondent appellate court's decision was based principally on the law of quasi-delicts as
set down in Article 2180 of the Civil Code.
2. Respondent's/Defendant's claim/s (no more than 3 sentences)
The parents of the deceased student claim that the Philippine School of Business
Administration (PSBA) and its corporate officers are liable under the law of quasi-delicts
for their alleged negligence, recklessness, and lack of security precautions, means, and
methods prior to, during, and after the victim's attack. The perpetrators were not members
of the school's academic community, but rather outsiders, according to the petitioner.
3. Decisions of the lower courts
The school and its officers are accountable, according to the trial court, unless they
"prove that they exercised all due diligence to avoid injury," as stated in the last paragraph
of Article 2180. The ruling was based principally on the civil code's Articles 2176 and
2180, which define the law of quasi-delicts.
According to Article 2176, whomever causes damage to another by act or omission,
regardless of guilt or carelessness, is liable to pay for the damage. If there is no pre-existing
contractual relationship between the parties, such fault or carelessness is referred to as a
quasi-delict and is subject to the rules of this Chapter.
The responsibility established by article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own
conduct or omissions, but also for those of others for whom one is accountable, according
to article 2180. Finally, while their pupils, students, or apprentices are in their custody,
teachers or heads of arts and trades establishments are accountable for damages caused by
them.
When the individual stated in this article proves that they used all the diligence of a good
father of a family to avoid injury, the obligation dealt with in this article will end."

ISSUE
Whether or not the PSBA and the officers are liable for the damages of the death of
its student under quasi-delicts when there is a pre-existing contract.
 HELD
1. Disposition of the case (one sentence)
The petition is refused, the respondents' case against the PSBA is upheld, and the court
of origin is instructed to continue the proceedings in accordance with the court's decision.
2. Dictum (no more than five sentences addressing the issue relevant to the topic under
discussion)
According to Article 2176, whomever causes damage to another by act or omission,
regardless of guilt or carelessness, is liable to pay for the damage. When there is no pre-
existing contractual relationship between the parties, such fault or carelessness is referred
to as a quasi-delict. The laws on quasi-delict, however, do not apply because there is a
contractual relationship between the student and the institution. Because the school has
accepted the student, it now has a responsibility to provide the student with a high-quality
education and a safe environment. The contractual relationship is a condition to the school's
obligation because there is no evidence of a breach of contract between the student and the
school due to the latter's negligence in providing security.
[GR Number: G.R. No. 126780. February 17, 2005]
YHT REALTY CORPORATION, ERLINDA LAINEZ and ANICIA PAYAM, petitioners,
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS and MAURICE McLOUGHLIN, respondents.

FACTS

1. Petitioner's/Plaintiff's claim/s (no more than 3 sentences)

The hotel's operator, YHT Realty Corporation, filed a petition to refuse and hold Tropicana
Apartment Hotel free and blameless from any liability arising from any loss in the contents of
the said deposit box, citing a waiver signed by the respondent exempting them from any
liabilities arising from any loss.
2. Respondent's/Defendant's claim/s (no more than 3 sentences)
Maurice Mcloughlin, a private respondent, claims that during his stay at the Tropicana
Hotel, he rented a safety deposit box as was his custom when he registered at the Tropicana on
previous trips. He also demanded that YHT Realty Corporation, Brunhilda Mata-Tan (Tan),
Erlinda Lainez (Lainez), and Anicia Payam (Payam) be held liable and assume full
responsibility for all damages and losses he sustained, including his American and Australian
dollars deposited in the Tropicana Copacabana Apartment Hotel's safety deposit box, which is
owned and operated by YHT Realty Corporation.
3. Decisions of the lower courts
The Manila Regional Trial Court- RTC ruled in favor of Mcloughlin and against the
petitioners. The charges made by Mcloughlin were deemed to be trustworthy since he provided
simple and straightforward testimony in court. The hotel's management was also found
negligent in the performance of its responsibilities and obligations as innkeepers by the trial
court. With this, the YHT Realty Corporation was directed to pay the plaintiff various sums of
money for the loss of jewels, dollars, damages, and expenditures incurred by the plaintiff jointly
and severally.
The trial court found that paragraphs (2) and (4) of the "Undertaking For The Use Of A
Safety Deposit Box" are invalid because they contradict Article 2003 of the New Civil Code
and are against public policy. As a result, if the defendants are guilty of fraud or willful
misconduct, they should be held liable for all losses resulting from their failure to fulfill their
contractual commitments.
ISSUE

Whether or not the the petitioner was negligent in the theft of the private respondent's
property.
 HELD

4. Disposition of the case (one sentence)

The Court of Appeals' ruling of October 19, 1995 is upheld, and Petitioners are ordered to
pay Mcloughlin's damages, expenses, and loss jointly and severally.
5. Dictum (no more than five sentences addressing the issue relevant to the topic under
discussion)
Those who are negligent in the performance of their obligations are liable for damages
under Article 1170 of the New Civil Code. In terms of who is responsible for paying damages,
Article 2180, paragraph (4) of the same Code states that the owners and managers of an
establishment or enterprise are also liable for damages caused by their employees while
working in the branches where they are employed or while performing their functions.
Furthermore, this Court has declared that if an employee is found to be negligent, it is presumed
that the employer was negligent in hiring and/or overseeing him, because it is difficult for the
victim to prove the employer's negligence. The event could have been avoided if only the
petitioners had exercised the necessary diligence.
[GR Number: G.R. No. 150157. January 25, 2007]
MAURICIO MANLICLIC and PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, INC., Petitioners,
vs.
MODESTO CALAUNAN, Respondent

FACTS
1. Petitioner's/Plaintiff's claim/s (no more than 3 sentences)
The Philippine Rabbit Bus No. 353 with plate number CVD-478 is owned by petitioner
PRBLI and driven by petitioner Mauricio Manliclic. wsePetitioner PRBLI claims that they
maintained exercise of due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees,
specifically petitioner Manliclic.

2. Respondent's/Defendant's claim/s (no more than 3 sentences)

The respondent Modesto Calunan, owner of the jeep driven by Marcelo Mendoza that was
involved in a vehicle collision on July 12, 1988, filed criminal charges against PRBLI and the
driver Mauricio Manliclic for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property with
physical injuries. The plaintiff claims that the jeep was cruising at a speed of 60 to 70
kilometers per hour when the bus overtook the jeep causing for it to hit the rear of the jeep on
the left side. Subsequently, the respondent filed a complaint to PRBLI and Mauricio Calaunan
to be solidarily liable to pay damages and attorney fees to Calunan.

3. Decisions of the lower courts

Trial Court- The judgement of the trial court rendered its decision in favor of respondent
Calaunan and against the petitioners Manliclic and PRBLI. The petitioners were ordered to pay
plaintiff jointly and solidarily the amount of P40,838 as actual damages for the towing as well
as the repair and the materials used for the repair of the jeep in question; P100,000 as moral
damages and another P100,000 as exemplary damages and P15,000 as attorney’s fees,
including appearance fees of the lawyer. In addition, the defendants are also to pay costs.

ISSUE
Whether or not Maliclic and PRBL be held solidarily liable for the damages and
attorney fees to respondent Modesto Calaunan.
HELD
4. Disposition of the case (one sentence)
The petition to review the case was denied, the judgement of the court of appeal that
Manliclic cannot be held liable for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property with
Physical Injuries is affirmed with the modification that (1) the award of moral damages shall
be reduced to P50,000.00; and (2) the award of exemplary damages shall be lowered
to P50,000.00.
5. Dictum (no more than five sentences addressing the issue relevant to the topic under
discussion)
In spite of the ruling that the petitioner is not criminally responsible, the latter can still be
held liable for the mishap. Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the civil
liability for the same act considered as a quasi-delict only and not as a crime is not extinguished
even by a declaration in the criminal case that the criminal act charged has not happened or has
not been committed by the accused. Moreover, a person not criminally liable may still be liable
civilly (Art. 29; Sec. 2 [c], Rule 111, Rules of Court.). With this, it is now settled that acquittal
of the accused, even if based on a finding that he is not guilty, does not carry with it the
extinction of the civil liability based on quasi delict. As the negligence of the employee gives
rise to the presumption of negligence on the part of the employer, the latter has the burden of
proving that it has been diligent not only in the selection of employees but also in the actual
supervision of their work.
[GR Number: G.R. No. L-48006. July 8, 1942]
FAUSTO BARREDO, petitioner,
vs.
SEVERINO GARCIA and TIMOTEA ALMARIO, respondents.
FACTS
1. Petitioner's/Plaintiff's claim/s (no more than 3 sentences)
Fausto Barredo, sole proprietor of the Malate Taxi Cab and employer of Pedro Fontanilla
claims that Fontanilla’s negligence being punishable by the penal code, his liability as an
employer is only subsidiary. The petitioner added that he cannot be held civilly liable as there
was no civil action against Pedro Fontanilla, the person who is criminally liable.

2. Respondent's/Defendant's claim/s (no more than 3 sentences)

As the court has granted the respondent the right to bring a separate civil action, Garcia and
Almario brought an action against the employer Fausto Barredo to be directly responsible for
the damages. The court of appeals added, that Barredo was careless in employing Fontanilla
who had been caught several times for violation of the Automobile Law and speeding, which
appeared in the records of the Bureau of Public Works.

3. Decisions of the lower courts

Court of Appeals- the Court of First Instance of Manila awarded damages in favor of the
plaintiffs for P2,000 plus legal interest from the date of the complaint. The Court of Appeals
modified the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila by reducing the damages by
P1,000 with legal interest from the time the action was instituted. It is undisputed that
Fontanilla's negligence was the cause of the mishap, as he was driving on the wrong side of the
road, and at high speed.
As to Barredo's responsibility, the Court of Appeals as the defendant’s employer, he must
indemnify plaintiffs under the provisions of article 1903 of the Civil Code. In the precise words
of article 1903 of the Civil Code itself, is applicable only to "those (obligations) arising from
wrongful or negligent acts or commission not punishable by law.

ISSUE
Whether or not the respondents have the right to file a separate civil action against Barredo,
making him primarily and directly responsible applying Article 1903 of the Civil Code.
 HELD
4. Disposition of the case (one sentence)
The judgement of the Court of Appeal is affirmed, the defendant-petitioner is liable for the
damages and cost incurred by the respondents.
5. Dictum (no more than five sentences addressing the issue relevant to the topic under
discussion)
The petitioner is being sued for his failure to exercise all the diligence of a good father of
a family in the selection and supervision of Pedro Fontanilla to prevent damages suffered by
the respondents. The liability sought to be imposed upon him in this action is not a civil
obligation arising from a felony or a misdemeanor (the crime of Pedro Fontanilla,), but an
obligation imposed in article 1903 of the Civil Code by reason of his negligence in the selection
or supervision of his servant or employee. At this juncture, it should be said that the primary
and direct responsibility of employers and their presumed negligence are principles calculated
to protect society. Workmen and employees should be carefully chosen and supervised in order
to avoid injury to the public.
[G.R. No. L-32599 June 29, 1979]
EDGARDO E. MENDOZA, petitioner
vs.
HON. ABUNDIO Z. ARRIETA, Presiding Judge of Branch VIII, Court of First Instance of
Manila, FELINO TIMBOL, and RODOLFO SALAZAR, respondents.

FACTS
1. Petitioner's/Plaintiff's claim/s (no more than 3 sentences)
Edgardo Mendoza, petitioner and owner of the Mercedes Benz involved, claimed that the
jeepney driver, Salazar, overtook the truck driven by Montoya, swerved to the left and hits the
petitioner’s car. The plaintiff further testified that before hitting the car, Salazar had jumped
from the jeep, and he was not aware that the jeep was bumped from behind by the truck.

2. Respondent's/Defendant's claim/s (no more than 3 sentences)

Rodolfo Salazar, the jeepney-owner-driver, tried to prove that after overtaking the truck,
he was stopped at the intersection by a policeman. During at a stop position, his jeep was
bumped by the truck causing him to be thrown out of the jeep, which then swerved to the left
and hit the petitioner’s car.

3. Decisions of the lower courts

The trial court absolved the jeepney-owner-driver of any liability since the collision
that happened between Salazar’s jeep and petitioner’s car was the result of being bumped by
the truck driven by Montoya. Since the petitioner was not a complainant against the truck-
driver Montoya but only against jeepney-owner-driver Salazar, the petitioner was not awarded
damages.

ISSUE
Whether or not the person liable for the damages made to the petitioner’s vehicle would
be the driver of the jeep or of the truck.
HELD
1. Disposition of the case (one sentence)
The truck driver Montoya would be held liable for bumping Salazar’s jeep causing the
collision between the jeep and the petitioner’s car.
2. Dictum (no more than five sentences addressing the issue relevant to the topic under
discussion)
Considering the collision that happened between the jeepney and the petitioner’s car was
the result of the truck bumping the jeep’s rear. The Court behaves that he jeepney driver cannot
be held able for the damages made to Mendoza’s car. The judgement in the criminal case of
Salazar’s acquittal was not based on reasonable doubt which in turn a civil action for damages
made to the petitioner’s car can no longer be instituted. This was discussed in Article 29 of the
Civil Code. “When the accused in a criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground that his
guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act
or omission may be instituted. Such action requires only a preponderance of evidence…”.
[G.R. No. L-47745 April 15, 1988]

JOSE S. AMADORA, LORETA A. AMADORA, JOSE A. AMADORA JR., NORMA A.

YLAYA PANTALEON A. AMADORA, JOSE A. AMADORA III, LUCY A. AMADORA,
ROSALINDA A. AMADORA, PERFECTO A. AMADORA, SERREC A. AMADORA,
VICENTE A. AMADORA and MARIA TISCALINA A. AMADORA, petitioners
vs.
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, COLEGIO DE SAN JOSE-RECOLETOS,
VICTOR LLUCH SERGIO P. DLMASO JR., CELESTINO DICON, ANIANO
ABELLANA, PABLITO DAFFON thru his parents and natural guardians, MR. and MRS.
NICANOR GUMBAN, and ROLANDO VALENCIA, thru his guardian, A. FRANCISCO
ALONSO, respondents.

FACTS
1. Petitioner's/Plaintiff's claim/s (no more than 3 sentences)
The victim’s, Alfredo, parents filed a civil action for damages under Article 2180
of the Civil Code against the Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos, its rector, the high school
principal, the dean of boys, the physics teacher, two other students, together with Daffon,
who shot Alfredo, along with their respective parents. The petitioners also contend that
their son was in school to pass his physics experiment as a prerequisite for his graduation.
2. Respondent's/Defendant's claim/s (no more than 3 sentences)
The private respondents submit that Alfredo Amadora had gone to the school only
for the purpose of submitting his physics report and that he was no longer in their custody
because the semester had already ended.
3. Decisions of the lower courts
The respondent court found that Article 2180 was not applicable for this case. As
the Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos was not a school of arts and trades but an academic
institution of learning. It also held that the students were not in the custody of the school at
the time of the incident as the semester had already ended.

ISSUE
Whether or not Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos should be held liable.
 HELD
1. Disposition of the case (one sentence)
Collegio San Jose-Recoletos cannot be directly held liable under Article 1280.
2. Dictum (no more than five sentences addressing the issue relevant to the topic under
discussion)
Art. 2180. “The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one’s
own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.” Colegio
de San Jose-Recoletos cannot be held directly liable under the article because only the
teacher or the head of arts and trades is made responsible for the damage caused by the
student and none of the principal and dean. Hence, none of the respondents were held liable
for the death of the victim.
[ G.R. No. 131491, August 17, 2007 ]
SPOUSES ELVIRA AND CESAR DUMLAO, petitioners,
VS. MARLON REALTY CORPORATION, respondent.

FACTS
1. Petitioner's/Plaintiff's claim/s (no more than 3 sentences)
Petitioners, Elvira and Cesar Dumlao, insist that they are not liable to pay interest
since the loan proceeds were released, not to petitioners, but directly to respondent and that
pending the release, no interest should accrue.
2. Respondent's/Defendant's claim/s (no more than 3 sentences)
The respondent, Marlon Realty Corporation, claims a sum of money against
petitioners since both parties entered into a Contract to Sell.
3. Decisions of the lower courts
RTC of Paranaque, Branch 258 denied the plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration.
Therefore, ordering the petitioners, Cesar and Elvira Dumlao to pay the sum of P109,929.79
representing the accumulated interests as of January 6, 1995 with interest at 2% per month
computed from January 6, 1995.
ISSUE
Whether or not the petitioners are liable to pay interest on the balance of the
purchase price.
HELD
1. Disposition of the case (one sentence)
The petitioners are liable to pay interest on the balance of the purchase price.

2. Dictum (no more than five sentences addressing the issue relevant to the topic under
discussion)
Since both parties are bound into a Contract to Sell (Article 1370.” If the terms of a
contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, the literal
meaning of its stipulations shall control.”), it is only fair that the petitioners should be faithful
in their part of the bargain since the respondent complied to the said agreement. (Article
1159.” Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting
parties and should be complied with in good faith.”)
[G.R. No. L-1299, November 16, 1903]
VICENTE PEREZ, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. EUGENIO POMAR, Agent of the Compañia General de Tabacos, defendant-appellant.

FACTS
1. Petitioner's/Plaintiff's claim/s (no more than 3 sentences)
Vicente Perez, the petitioner, filed a complaint to determine the amount due to him for
the services he rendered in the Tabacalera Company, and that Eugenio Pomar should be
condemned to the payment of damages amounting to $3,200, gold together with the cost of the
suit.
2. Respondent's/Defendant's claim/s (no more than 3 sentences)
Pomar, the defendant, filed for dismissal of the complaint denying the allegations made
by the petitioner. Insisting that Perez borrowed money from time to time totaling to $175 for
his soap business, Perez purposes in accompanying him is to extend his business and mercantile
relations, free transportation, and Perez acted as an interpreter of his own free will. Denying any
legal relation between parties.

3. Decisions of the lower courts

The Court conferred upon it by the law that if there is a tacit and mutual consent as to
the rendition of services, the defendant is still obliged to pay such compensation to the
petitioner even if there is no written contract between the two parties on the basis of quasi-
contract.

ISSUE
Whether or not the defendant should pay the continued service rendered by the petitioner.
HELD
4. Disposition of the case (one sentence)
The Court decided that the judgement should be rendered against Don Eugenio
Pomar for the payment to the plaintiff of the sum of 200 Mexican pesos

5. Dictum (no more than five sentences addressing the issue relevant to the topic under
discussion)
The reality remains that Perez acted as an interpreter for Pomar. The defendant is
obligated, and the mutual benefits that accrue to each are the best proof that there existed
an implied contract sufficient to constitute a legal bond. “Every person who obtains or
comes into possession of something at the expense of another without just or lawful
ground, shall return the same to him,” says Article 22 of the Civil Code.