Heirs of Bacus v.

Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 127695, December 3, 2001
DENIED

FACTS

 On 1984 Luis Bacus leased to Faustino Duray a parcel of agricultural land with total land area of
3,002 of square meters, in Cebu.

o The lease was for six years ending in 1990, the contract contained an option to buy
clause.

o Under the said option, the lessee had the exclusive and irrevocable right to buy 2,000
square meters 5 years from a year after the effectivity of the contract, at P200 per
square meter. That rate shall be proportionately adjusted depending on the peso rate
against the US dollar, which at the time of the execution of the contract was 14 pesos.

 Close to the expiration of the contract Luis Bacus died on 1989, after Duray informed the heirs
of Bacus that they are willing and ready to purchase the property under the option to buy
clause. The heirs refused to sell, thus Duray filed a complaint for specific performance against
the heirs of Bacus. He showed that he is ready and able to meet his obligations under the
contract with Bacus. The RTC ruled in favor of the Durays and the CA later affirmed the decision.

ISSUES

1. Can the heirs of Luis Bacus be compelled to sell the portion of the lot under the option to buy
clause? - YES

RULING

1. Obligations under an option to buy are reciprocal obligations. The performance of one
obligation is conditioned on the simultaneous fulfillment of the other obligation. In other words,
in an option to buy, the payment of the purchase price by the creditor is contingent upon the
execution and delivery of the deed of sale by the debtor.

2. When the Duray’s exercised their option to buy the property their obligation was to advise the
Bacus’ of their decision and readiness to pay the price, they were not yet obliged to make the
payment. Only upon the Bacus’ actual execution and delivery of the deed of sale were they
required to pay.

3. The Durays did not incur in delay when they did not yet deliver the payment nor make a
consignation before the expiration of the contract. In reciprocal obligations, neither party incurs
in delay if the other party does not comply or is not ready to comply in a proper manner with
what is incumbent upon him. Only from the moment one of the parties fulfills his obligation,
does delay by the other begin.

NOTES

 Reciprocal Obligations - Those which arise from the same cause, and in which each party is a
debtor and a creditor of the other, such that the obligation of one is dependent upon the
 obligation of the other. They are to be performed simultaneously such that the performance of
one is conditioned upon the simultaneous fulfillment of the other

2. Fraud (dolo); b. Dolo Incidente

Barlin v. People,
G.R. No. 207418, June 23, 2021
DENIED

FACTS

 Barlin received in trust the merchandise from Gacayan to: (a) hold the goods in trust; (b) dispose
or sell them for cash and to receive the proceeds in trust; (c) turnover and remit the proceeds of
the sale of goods on or before the due date less petitioner's commission; and (d) return the
goods in the event of non-sale within period specified or upon demand.
 From March 6, 1999 until December 16, 1999, petitioner religiously returned the unsold items to
Gacayan. However, Gacayan claimed that petitioner failed to pay on time for the other items
with a total value of P74,955.00. Petitioner thus issued checks to pay her obligations to Gacayan
but the checks bounced for having been drawn against a closed account. Hence, Gacayan filed a
criminal complaint for estafa against petitioner. During trial, Gacayan claimed that petitioner
owed her P78,055.00.

ISSUES (relevant onli)

1. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT THE AGREEMENTS
BETWEEN BARLIN AND GACAYAN ARE TRUST RECEIPT AGREEMENTS. – NO
2. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN CONVICTING BARLIN OF ESTAFA WHICH
WAS NOT PROVEN AND ESTABLISHED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. – NO

RULING

1. All the essential elements of Estafa are present in this case.

2. There is no dispute that petitioner received merchandise from Gacayan as evidenced by TRAs
0081 and 0083 signed and executed by petitioner herself. However, contrary to the ruling of the
courts below, petitioner could not be held liable for the other TRAs as they were not signed by
petitioner.
3. A violation of trust receipt agreements would make the accused criminally liable for estafa
under paragraph (1 )(b) of Article 315 of the RPC as expressly provided in Section 13 of the Trust
Receipts Law.

NOTES

 TRA or trust receipt agreement – a trust agreement between a lender and a borrower by which
the lender gives up possession of goods without abandoning title and the borrower agrees to
hold the goods in trust for the lender and if the goods are sold to turn the proceeds over to the
lender in settlement of the debt.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS

G.R. No. 139050

 OCTOBER 2, 2001

FACTS:

On 12 December 1992, a shipment of bales of textile gray cloth arrived at the Manila
International Container Port (MICP). There has been a mistake in the name of the consignee provided in
the shipment's Inward Foreign Manifest. Forthwith, the shipping agent, FIL-JAPAN, requested for an
amendment of the Inward Foreign Manifest so as to correct the name of the consignee from that of GQ
GARMENTS, Inc., to that of AGFHA, Inc. Subsequently, FIL-JAPAN forwarded to AGFHA, Inc., the
amended Inward Foreign Manifest which the latter, in turn, submitted to the MICP Law Division. The
MICP indorsed the document to the Customs Intelligence Investigation Services (CIIS). The CIIS placed
the subject shipment under Hold Order on the ground that GQ GARMENTS, Inc., could not be located in
its given address and was thus suspected to be a fictitious firm. Forfeiture proceedings under Section
2530(f) and (l) (3-5) of the Tariff and Customs Code were initiated.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the private respondent is guilty of fraud in relation to the shipment subject of
the case at bench.

RULING:

Petitioner asserts that all of the requisites for forfeiture proceedings under the Tariff and
Customs Code are present in this case. Private respondent AGFHA, Inc., on the other hand, maintains
that there has only been an inadvertent error and not an intentional wrongful declaration by the shipper
to evade payment of any tax due.

Fraud must be proved to justify forfeiture. It must be actual, amounting to intentional wrong-doing with
the clear purpose of avoiding the tax. Forfeiture is not favored in law nor in equity. Mere negligence is
not equivalent to the fraud contemplated by law. What is here involved is an honest mistake, not even
directly attributable to private respondent, which will not deprive the government of its right to collect
the proper tax. The conclusion of the appellate court, being consistent with the evidence on record and
not contrary to law and jurisprudence, hardly can be overturned by this Court.

Notes: Dolo Incidente