U.P.
LAW BOC lustre5159
CIVIL LAW
RECENT JURISPRUDENCE
2019
CASE FACTS
Malabanan v. Before leaving to work in
Malabanan Libya, the petitioner and
Jose Malabanan acquired
G.R. No. 187225 | the subject property and
March 6, 2019 | J. built a house thereon. Upon
Leonen the petitioner’s return, she
discovered that the subject
property’s TCT had long
been canceled through a
string of transactions, which
was facilitated by an SPA
allegedly executed by Jose
in favor of the respondent.
The petitioner filed a
complaint for Annulment of
Title with Damages before
the RTC, alleging that the
SPA was void as her
signature was forged.
Yulo v. BPI BPI issued Sps. Yulo credit
cards. Sps. Yulo started to
delinquent in their
payments, thus leading to
Page 1 of 70
lustre5159
CIVIL LAW
HELD DOCTRINE
At issue in this case is Under the Civil Code,
whether the subject property acquired during
property was conjugal; marriage is presumed to
and thus, rendering its be conjugal. There is no
sale void without the need to prove that the
wife’s consent. In this money used to purchase
case, the evidence a property came from the
presented by conjugal fund. What
respondents (who had must be established is
the burden of proving that the property was
that the property was acquired during
not conjugal) were self- marriage. Only through
contradicting and "clear, categorical, and
insufficient to overturn convincing" proof to the
this presumption. contrary will it be
Applying Arts. 165 and considered the
166 of the Civil Code, paraphernal property of
the Court held that the one of the spouses.
sale of conjugal
property by a spouse
without the other’s
consent is void.
On the issue of the
validity of the SPA, the
Court affirmed the
finding that the SPA
was indeed a forgery.
This gives rise to the
presumption that the
respondent was the
author of the
falsification, which was
not rebutted by
contrary evidence.
Petitioners Rainier When issuing a pre-
Jose M. Yulo and Juliet screened or pre-
L. Yulo are DIRECTED approved credit card, the
TO PAY respondent credit card provider must
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
G.R. No. 217044, BPI sending them a
January 16, 2019, Demand Letter.
Leonen, J
Sps Yulo claimed in their
defense that the amount of
their liability was actually
less than demanded and
that they that BPI had not
disclosed to them the
Terms and Conditions on
their use of the issed credit
cards.
Jaka Investment Jaka purchased lots in
Corp. v. Urdaneta Village, which
Urdaneta Village automatically made it a
Association, Inc. member of the Urdaneta
Village Association. As a
G.R. No. 204187 member, it was subject to
and 206606 | April various building restrictions
1 , 2019 | Leonen, in the use of its lots. Years
J. later, the Association filed to
have its corporate life
extended and also for the
building restrictions to
remain in force during said
extension. Majority of the
Association members voted
in favor of this, including
Jaka via proxy. Suddenly,
Jaka filed with the RTC for
the cancellation of the
restrictions annotated in its
TCTs alleging that upon
expiration of the
Association’s corporate life,
Page 2 of 70
lustre5159
CIVIL LAW
Bank of the Philippine prove that its client read
Islands the amount of and consented to the
Two Hundred Twenty terms and conditions
Thousand Fifty-Seven governing the credit
Pesos and Fifty-One card's use. Failure to
Centavos prove consent means
(P220,057.51) plus that the client cannot be
twelve percent (12%) bound by the provisions
legal interest per of the terms and
annum from November conditions, despite
11, 2008 until June 30, admitted use of the credit
2013, and six percent card.
(6%) legal interest per
annum from July 1, When petitioners
2013 until their entire accepted respondent's
obligation is fully paid. credit card by using it to
purchase goods and
services, a contractual
relationship was created
between them,
"governed by the Terms
and Conditions found in
the card membership
agreement. Such terms
and conditions constitute
the law between the
parties.
The HLURB, and not Under P.D. No. 902-A,
the RTC, had the HLURB has the
jurisdiction over the jurisdiction to hear and
case. Under P.D. No. decide cases involving
902-A, the HLURB has controversies arising out
the jurisdiction to hear of intra-corporate
and decide cases relations between
involving controversies members and the
arising out of intra- association of which they
corporate relations are members.
between members and
the association of Under the doctrine of
which they are primary administrative
members. This is part jurisdiction, courts
of the HLURB’s limited cannot determine a
jurisdiction over controversy where the
homeowner’s disputes. issues for resolution
To determine whether demand the exercise of
this case falls under sound administrative
the above-description, discretion requiring the
it must be determined special knowledge,
who are the parties to experience, and services
the controversy, and of the administrative
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
the contractual basis for
said restrictions ceased.
The Association opposed
this saying the HLURB, and
not the RTC had jurisdiction
over the case, as it was an
intra-corporate controversy.
The RTC ruled that it had
jurisdiction over the case,
and that the restrictions had
already expired. The CA
reversed the RTC. As an
intra-corporate controversy,
the HLURB had jurisdiction.
Furthermore, Jaka was
estopped from questioning
the validity of the extension,
as it had already voted via
proxy in favor of the
extension.
Prudencio de Petitioner abandoned his
Guzman y wife and child and decided
Jumaquio v. to remarry. His wife found
out and filed a bigamy case
Page 3 of 70
lustre5159
CIVIL LAW
where the controversy tribunal to determine
arose from. technical and intricate
matters of fact.
First, there is no
dispute that Jaka is a
member of the
association. Second,
the controversy arose
from their
disagreement on the
validity of the
extension of the
restrictions. This is
definitely a controversy
that arose from an
intra-corporate relation
between the
association and its
member. Thus, HLURB
has jurisdiction over
the case.
The issues on whether
the extension of the
restrictions was valid,
and whether Jaka was
estopped are
questions of fact. The
HLURB is the
appropriate
government agency to
resolve said issues.
Under the doctrine of
primary administrative
jurisdiction, courts
cannot determine a
controversy where the
issues for resolution
demand the exercise
of sound administrative
discretion requiring the
special knowledge,
experience, and
services of the
administrative tribunal
to determine technical
and intricate matters of
fact.
The SC affirmed the A judicial declaration of
decision of the CA. nullity is indispensable
Regarding the lack of for the purposes of
the solemnizing remarriage.
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159 CIVIL LAW

People of the against him in the RTC. The officer’s signature, it

Philippines petitioner argued that his
first marriage was void
G.R. No. 224742, because the copy of their
August 07, 2019 Marriage Contract, which
was secured from the
National Statistics Office,
did not bear the solemnizing
officer's signature. The RTC
held that petitioner could
not unilaterally declare that
his marriage with Arlene
was void as only courts
have the power to do so.
During the pendency of his
appeal in the CA, his wife
executed an Affidavit of
Desistance, claiming that
she only filed the case due
to a misunderstanding and
prayed that the case be
dismissed. The CA denied
the appeal.
reiterated the RTC’s 1. The presentation of
findings that the
discrepancy was
merely inadvertent
since a copy of the
Marriage Certificate
under the Local Civil
Registry had been
signed.
The SC further held
that the petitioner was
guilty of the crime of
bigamy, and his wife’s 2. Affidavits of
affidavit of desistance
cannot prove the
nonexistence of the
elements of the crime.
the marriage license
is not a sine qua
non requirement to
establish the
existence of a
marriage as the
certified true copy of
the Marriage
Certificate is
sufficient for such
purpose.
desistance that were
executed after
judgments of
conviction had been
promulgated by trial
courts are generally
received with
extensive caution.
The Court attaches
no persuasive value
to a desistance,
especially when
executed as an
afterthought.

In the matter of Sanchez learned that her
Petition for Writ estranged husband was
of Amparo of among the 7 alleged
Vivian A. members of the NPA who
Sanchez Vs. were gunned down by the
Psupt. Marc PNP. When she checked
Anthony D. the corpses to verify the
Darroca, et al. news, police officers took
photos of her without her
G.R. No. 242257 | permission. When she
October 15, 2019 | returned to the funeral
Leonen, J. home, she was confronted
by police officers who
threatened to apprehend
her and charge her with
obstruction if she refused to
answer. Sanchez later on
noticed frequent drive-bys
of a police car in front of her
house. Her 15-year old
daughter attested that the
constant police presence
caused her anxiety. Thus,
The Petition is In determining whether a
meritorious. The writ of petition for a writ of
amparo is an equitable amparo should be
and extraordinary granted, judges, as
remedy primarily impartial inquisitors,
meant to address must assure themselves
concerns such as, but that there is indeed no
not limited to, actual or future threat to
extrajudicial killings the petitioner’s life,
and enforced security, or liberty.
disappearances, or
threats thereof. The No one can be
writ of amparo, being a compelled to testify
summary proceedings, against his or her direct
requires only descendants or direct
substantial evidence to ascendants.
provide rapid judicial Nevertheless, exceptions
relief to the petitioner. do exist to the general
Hearsay evidence, rule of marital privilege or
generally considered disqualification.
inadmissible, may be
considered in a writ of
amparo proceeding if

Page 4 of 70
lustre5159
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
Sanchez filed before the
RTC a Petition for Writ of
amparo.
Page 5 of 70
lustre5159
CIVIL LAW
required by the unique The right to privacy is
circumstances of the also a basic,
case. The totality of the fundamental right.
petitioner’s evidence
undoubtedly showed
that she became a
person of interest after
she had first visited the
funeral home.
Petitioner and her
children were the
subject of surveillance
because of their
relationship with a
suspected member of
the New People’s
Army, creating a real
threat to their life,
liberty or security.
Petition admits to
being separated in fact
from Labinghisa for
more than a decade.
Yet, this does not
suffice as an
exception, as
separation is not
tantamount to strained
marital relations.
Labinghisa’s supposed
membership in the
NPA is not an offense
envisioned by
jurisprudence which
would create an
exception to the
general rule on marital
disqualification.
Respondent Police’s
lack of contrition over
his police officers’ act
of taking petitioner’s
photo without her
permission-and then
placing it on display at
the police station-is
disturbing. It appears
as though he sees
nothing wrong in
flagrantly and
inexcusably violating
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
Arreza v. Toyo Arreza (Filipino) and Toyo
(Japanese got married in
GR No. 213198 | Quezon City in 1991. They
July 1, 2019 | filed a notification of divorce
Leonen by agreement after 19 years
of marriage. Such
notification was received by
the Mayor of Konohana-ku,
Osaka City, Japan and was
later recorded in Toyo’s
family register. Arreza filed
a petition for judicial
recognition of foreign
divorce and declaration of
capacity to remarry,
submitting a copy of the
Divorce Certificate, the
family register, the
certificate of acceptance of
the notification of divorce
and an English translation
of the CC of Japan. RTC
denied for failure to prove
the copy of Japan’s law as
the English translation was
not duly authenticated by
the Philippine consul in
Japan, the Japanese
Consul in Manila nor the
DFA.
BNL BNL Management
Management Corporation (“BNL”) owned
Corporation v. 6 condominium units at the
Uy Imperial Bayfront Tower
Condominium (“Imperial”)
G.R. No. 210297 | as well as 3 parking spaces.
April 03, 2019 | In 1996, BNL wrote a letter
Leonen, J. to Imperial’s building
administrator, putting forth a
list of concerns it had over
the condominium (such as
cleanliness, maintenance of
common areas, and
encroachment on parking
spaces). BNL said that
unless the problems are
solved, it will withhold all
future payments of
association dues.
Subsequently, the new
Page 6 of 70
lustre5159
petitioner’s right to
privacy.
Court held that it is
indispensable that the
petitioner proves not
only the foreign
judgment granting the
divorce but also the
alien spouse’s national
law. The English
translation submitted
by petitioner was
published by a private
company in Japan and
thus, has to be
authenticated.
The Court held that
BNL is not entitled to
damages for the
disconnection of water
and electricity utilities
from the units it owned.
As adjudged by the
lower courts, it was
BNL who filed to
comply with their
obligation to pay the
association dues on
time. Thus, pursuant to
Paragraph 5 of the
House Rules, Imperial
is justified in cutting off
its water and electric
services. Under Sec. 9
of the Condominium
Act, a declaration of
CIVIL LAW
Philippine courts do not
take judicial notice of
foreign judgments and
laws. They must be
proven as act under our
rules on evidence. A
divorce decree obtained
abroad is deemed a
foreign judgment, hence
the indispensable need
to have it pleaded and
proved before its legal
effects may be extended
to the Filipino spouse.
Under Section 9 of
Republic Act No. 4726,
or the Condominium Act,
a condominium owner
shall register a
declaration of
restrictions, which shall
be annotated to the
certificate of title of land
included within the
project. The declaration
of restrictions provides
for the project
management, among
others, and is
enforceable by the
condominium's
management body.
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
building administrator sent
BNL a letter containing a
breakdown of its unpaid
dues. Because BNL refused
to pay its arrears, Imperial’s
Board of Directors issued a
resolution in August 1999 to
disconnect the lighting
facilities in the 6 units BNL
owned. The Board also
disconnected BNL’s water
connection due to its
nonpayment. Thus, BNL
filed a complaint for
damages and specific
performance against
Imperial. The RTC and CA
ruled in favor of Imperial,
ruling that Imperial was
justified in disconnecting
BNL’s power and water
services under Paragraph 5
of Imperial’s House Rules
and Regulations (“House
Rules”).
Miller v Miller y Respondent filed a partition
Espenida of the Miller estate claiming
to be the illegitimate child of
G.R. No. 200344 | the deceased. Petitioner
August 28, 2019 | filed a petition to cancel
Leonen, J. Respondent’s certificate of
live birth and to remove the
entry that stated the
deceased to be her father.
RTC and CA found for the
Respondent due to the
documents showing that the
deceased acknowledged
her as an illegitimate child
and that the petitioner failed
to discharge the burden of
proving that said documents
were false.
Page 7 of 70
lustre5159
CIVIL LAW
restrictions, provided
by the owner of the
condominium, is
enforceable by the
management body of a
condominium. When
BNL bought the units
from Imperial, it was
bound by the terms
and conditions of the
declaration of
restrictions attached to
the Master Deed. The
House Rules were
promulgated in line
with the Master Deed.
Thus, BNL is bound to
follow it. Given these,
BNL is not entitlted to
the damages it prayed
for.
Petitioner’s initiatory Citing Braza v City Civil
pleading is a Petition Registrar of Himamaylan
for Correction of City, Negros Occidental,
Entries in the
Certificate of Live Birth. “legitimacy and filiation
Citing In re: Barreto v can be questioned only
The Local Registrar of in a direct action
Manila, the Court seasonably filed by the
explained that: the proper party, and not
summary procedure for through collateral attack.”
correction of entries
under Art. 412, CC and
Rule 108, ROC is
confirmed to
“innocuous or clerical
errors, such as
misspellings and the
like, errors that are
visible to the eyes or
obvious to the
understanding”
The Court held that
what Petitioners seek
is not a mere clerical
change but a
substantial one
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
Falcis III v. Civil [NOTE: The primary issue
Registrar of the case revolves around
General (2019) the absence of sufficient
facts as would merit the
G.R. No. 217910 | satisfaction of actual
September 3, case/controversy as one of
2019 the requisites of judicial
review]
Falcis III filed pro se a
petition for certiorari and
prohibition under Rule 65 to
declare Arts. 1 & 2, FC as
unconstitutional and as a
consequence, nullify Arts.
46(4) & 55(6), FC, arguing
that first, there is grave
abuse of discretion when
said provisions of the FC
were enacted, and second,
he along with all other
same-sex couples were
deprived of their right to
marry and to choose whom
to marry without due
process of the law. A
petition to intervene was
filed in support of the Falcis
petition, citing specifically
the denial of marriage
license to some same-sex
couples, for purposes of
satisfying the actual
case/controversy and the
standing requisites of
judicial review.
Page 8 of 70
lustre5159
CIVIL LAW
affecting Respondent’s
rights.
The first issue is w/n Although the Constitution
the requisites of judicial is capable of
review are met. SC accommodating a
held no. As regards contemporaneous
actual understanding of
case/controversy, SC SOGIESC as the plain
said that there are no text and meaning of the
actual facts that constitutional
present a real conflict. provisions (Sec. 1, Art.
Falcis never applied for 15 that pertains to family
a marriage license. He in general; Sec. 2, Art.
has never even visited 15 that concerns
the Civil Registrar marriage in particular) do
General’s (CRG) office. not prohibit SOGIESC,
He failed to show that the time for a definitive
the CRG actually judicial fiat may not yet
exercised its discretion be here. This is not the
in any way. A case that presents the
substantive portion of clearest actual factual
the petition merely backdrop to make the
parrots the separate precise reasoned
concurring opinion of judgment our
CJ Puno in Ang Ladlad Constitution requires.
LGBT Party concerning
the concept of suspect Perhaps, even before
classifications. that actual case arrives,
However, a separate our democratically-
opinion is w/o binding elected representatives
effect. A party invoking in Congress will have
it bears the burden of seen the wisdom of
proving that the acting with dispatch to
discussion there is a address the suffering of
correct legal analysis many of those who
that must govern. In choose to love
this case, Falcis also distinctively, uniquely,
failed to prove such. but no less genuinely
and passionately.
The second issue is
w/n the denial of right
to marry of same-sex
couples as cognates of
right to life & liberty
amounts to denial of
right to life & liberty
without due process.
SC held that this is a
political question
better left to the
wisdom of the
Congress. Besides,
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
Amoguis v. Sps. Ballado entered into
Ballado two contracts with St.
Joseph Realty, Ltd. to buy
G.R. No. 189626 | two parcels of land. The
August 20, 2018 | contracts were later
Leonen, J. rescinded by St. Joseph
Realty due nonpayment and
the two parcels of land were
sold to the Amoguis
Brothers. Sps. Ballado then
filed a complaint for
damages, injunction with
writ of preliminary
injunction, mandatory
injunction, cancellation and
annulment of titles, and
attorney's fees. The RTC,
later affirmed by the CA,
ruled in favor of Sps.
Ballado. Though not raised,
the CA discussed that
jurisdiction is with the
HLURB because the
complaint was for specific
performance and the
subject matter involved
subdivision lots. However,
since neither St. Joseph nor
the Amoguis Brothers
raised the issue of
jurisdiction before the RTC,
they must be considered
estopped from raising it on
appeal.
Page 9 of 70
lustre5159
CIVIL LAW
the petition barely
passes the procedural
requirements before
the SC may be even
allowed to go into the
substantive aspects of
the petition.
The CA was correct in Estoppel by laches bars
ruling that the Amoguis a party from invoking
Brothers are estopped lack of jurisdiction in an
from raising the issue unjustly belated manner
of jurisdiction. The law especially when it
that determines actively participated
jurisdiction of the NHA during trial.
had been in place for In estoppel by laches, a
more than a decade claimant has a right that
when the complaint he or she could
was filed. Amoguis otherwise exercise if not
sought affirmative relief for his or her delay in
from the RTC and asserting it. This delay in
actively participated in the exercise of the right
all stages of the unjustly misleads the
proceedings. court and the opposing
Therefore, there was party of its waiver. Thus,
no valid reason for to claim it belatedly given
petitioners to raise the the specific
issue of jurisdiction circumstances of the
only now before this case would be unjust.
Court.
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
2018
CASE FACTS
Amoguis v. Sps. Ballado entered into
Ballado two contracts with St.
Joseph Realty, Ltd. to buy
G.R. No. 189626 | two parcels of land. The
August 20, 2018 | contracts were later
Leonen, J. rescinded by St. Joseph
Realty due nonpayment and
the two parcels of land were
sold to the Amoguis
Brothers. Sps. Ballado then
filed a complaint for
damages, injunction with
writ of preliminary
injunction, mandatory
injunction, cancellation and
annulment of titles, and
attorney's fees. The RTC,
later affirmed by the CA,
ruled in favor of Sps.
Ballado. Though not raised,
the CA discussed that
jurisdiction is with the
HLURB because the
complaint was for specific
performance and the
subject matter involved
subdivision lots. However,
since neither St. Joseph nor
the Amoguis Brothers
raised the issue of
jurisdiction before the RTC,
they must be considered
estopped from raising it on
appeal.
Imperial v. Heirs A van owned by the
of Bayaban petitioner Imperial and
driven by his employee and
G.R. No. 197626 | driver Laraga figured in an
October 03, 2018 | accident with a tricycle. The
Leonen, J. passengers of the latter,
Sps. Bayaban, filed a
Complaint for damages
against the employer,
employee and the tricycle
driver. Imperial denied
liability contending that he
lent the van to another,
exercised due diligence in
the selection and
Page 10 of 70
lustre5159
HELD
The CA was correct in
ruling that the Amoguis
Brothers are estopped
from raising the issue of
jurisdiction. The law that
determines jurisdiction of
the NHA had been in
place for more than a
decade when the
complaint was filed.
Amoguis sought
affirmative relief from the
RTC and actively
participated in all stages
of the proceedings.
Therefore, there was no
valid reason for
petitioners to raise the
issue of jurisdiction only
now before this Court.
Imperial is solidarily liable
with Laraga. There is no
question here that
Laraga was petitioner's
driver, hence, his
employee, as this fact
was admitted by
petitioner. Likewise, the
respondents have
established that Laraga
was acting within the
scope of his assigned
tasks at the time of the
accident.
CIVIL LAW
DOCTRINE
Estoppel by laches
bars a party from
invoking lack of
jurisdiction in an
unjustly belated
manner especially
when it actively
participated during trial.
In estoppel by laches,
a claimant has a right
that he or she could
otherwise exercise if
not for his or her delay
in asserting it. This
delay in the exercise of
the right unjustly
misleads the court and
the opposing party of
its waiver. Thus, to
claim it belatedly given
the specific
circumstances of the
case would be unjust.
The burden of proving
that a negligent act of
an employee was
performed within the
scope of his or her
assigned tasks rests
with the plaintiff. When
the plaintiff has
discharged this
burden, the
presumption that the
employer was
negligent arises, and
the employer must put
forward evidence
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
supervision of his driver,
and that the driver acted
outside the scope of his
duties when the accident
happened during a rest day.
The trial court and the Court
of Appeals found Imperial
liable for failing to prove that
he exercised due diligence
in the selection and
supervision of his driver.
The appellate court noted
that apart from his bare
allegations, he failed to
present documentary
evidence to support his
defense
Page 11 of 70
lustre5159
CIVIL LAW
It was 3:00 p.m. and showing that he or she
Laraga was driving in had exercised the due
Antipolo City, where, as diligence of a good
alleged by petitioner, his father of a family in the
greenhouse and garden selection and
were located. It is worth supervision of the
noting that according to employee. Failing to
petitioner, he loaned the dispute this
van to Pascua for the presumption renders
maintenance of his the employer solidarily
greenhouse and the liable with the
repair of the water line employee for the
pipes in his garden. The quasi-delict.
logical conclusion is that
Laraga was driving the
van in connection with
the upkeep of petitioner's
Antipolo greenhouse and
garden. Laraga was
driving the van in
furtherance of the
interests of petitioner at
the time of the accident.
The defense that Sunday
was supposedly Laraga's
day off fails to convince
with Laraga not having
appeared in court to
testify on this matter.
Petitioner miserably
failed to dispute the
presumption of
negligence in his
selection and supervision
of Laraga. As the
Regional Trial Court and
the Court of Appeals
found, he only gave self-
serving testimonies
without the requisite
documentary proof that
he had enrolled Laraga in
a formal driving school.
At best, he only
established that he had
financed the fees needed
for Laraga to obtain his
driver's license, which is
hardly the due diligence
contemplated in Article
2180 of the Civil Code.
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
Cezar Yatco Real The contracts of sale
Estate Services, between MDC and the lot
Inc. V. Bel-Air owners of Bel-Air were
Village subject to Deed
Association, Inc. Restrictions, which had a
50-year term. It provided
G.R. No. 211780 | that the respondent “may,
November 21, from time to time, add new
2018 | J. Leonen ones, amend or abolish
particular restrictions or
parts thereof by majority
rule.” One year before the
expiration of the Deed
Restrictions, the respondent
extended the term for
another 25 years. The
petitioners filed a complaint
before the HLURB, alleging
that the said Deed
Restrictions were only
effective for 50 years and
thus cannot be extended.
Noell Whessoe, Independent Testing
Inc v. Consultants (ITC) is
Independent engaged in the business of
Testing conducting non-destructive
Consultants, Inc testing on the gas pipes and
vessels of its industrial
customers. Petrotech,
subcontractor of Liquigaz
engaged the services of
ITC. Upon billing, Petrotech
refused to pay. ITC filed a
complaint for collection of
sum of money with
damages against Petrotech,
Liquigaz, and Whessoe,
included as defendant as
Liquigaz’s contractor that
subcontracted Petrotech.
Racho v. Seiichi Racho (wife) and Tanaka
Tanaka (husband; Japanese) were
married on 2001 in Manila
G.R. No. 199515| and lived together for 9
June 25 , 2018 | years in Japan. According
Leonen, J. to Racho, on 2019, Tanaka
filed for divorce and the
divorce was granted. Racho
filed a Petition for Judicial
Determination and
Declaration of Capacity to
Page 12 of 70
lustre5159
At issue in this case is
whether the respondent
may extend the term of
the Deed Restrictions by
majority vote. The Court
ruled in favor of the
respondents, finding that
the term is a necessary
element of the Deed
Restrictions between
MDC and the lot buyers.
Thus, it may be validly
amended through a
majority vote. The Court
also found that MDC did
not intend to prohibit the
lot owners from
extending the term of the
Deed Restrictions.
Petitioner Noell
Whessoe, Inc.
is ABSOLVED from
solidary liability with
respondents Petrotech
Systems, Inc. and
Liquigaz Philippines
Corporation to
respondent Independent
Testing Consultants, Inc.
in view of its full payment
to Petrotech Systems,
Inc. Petitioner Noell
Whessoe, Inc.'s claim for
moral damages
is DENIED for lack of
factual basis.
The petition was granted.
The Certificate of
Acceptance of the Report
of Divorce was sufficient
to prove the fact of
divorce. The seal was
authenticated by the
Consul of Japan.
Under the Japan civil law,
“divorce by agreement
CIVIL LAW
In contract
interpretation, courts
must first determine
whether a stipulation is
ambiguous or
susceptible of multiple
interpretations. If no
ambiguity is found and
the terms of the
contract clearly reflect
the intentions of the
contracting parties, the
stipulation will be
interpreted as it is
written.
The contractor may be
solidarily liable with the
owner and the
subcontractor for any
unpaid obligations to
the subcontractor's
supplier despite the
absence of a contract
between the contractor
and supplier. Full
payment to the
subcontractor,
however, serves as a
valid defense against
this liability.
Judicial recognition of
a foreign divorce
requires that the
national law of the
foreign spouse and the
divorce decree be
pleaded and proved as
a fact before the
Regional Trial Court.
The Filipino spouse
may be granted the
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
Marry with RTC Las Pinas
and submitted a Divorce
Certificate issued by the
consul of Japan and a
Japanese law English
version of the Civil Code of
Japan, 2000 ed. RTC
dismissed the petition on
the ground that she failed to
prove that Tanaka legally
obtained a divorce since the
Divorce Certificate was not
competent evidence as it
was not the divorce decree
itself. MR also denied.
Racho filed a Petition for
Review on Certiorari with
the SC. In compliance with
SC resolution, she
submitted an authenticated
Certificate of Acceptance of
the Report of Divorce..
Belina Cancio Respondent Performance
and Jeremy Forex is a corporation
Pampolina v. operating as a financial
Performance broker/agent between
Foreign market participants in
Exchange foreign exchange
Corporation transactions.
Petitioners Cancio and
G.R. No. 182307, Pampolina accepted a
June 06, 2018 Hipol’s (broker) invitation to
open a joint account with
Performance Forex wherein
they deposited the required
margin account deposit of
US$100,000. The parties,
among others, executed an
Page 13 of 70
lustre5159
becomes effective by
notification, orally or in a
document signed by both
parties and 2 witnesses
xxx.” Thus, the document
is sufficient in
accordance with the
national law of Japan.
Furthermore, the
Certificate is admissible
in evidence under Rule
132, Sec 24, ROC.
It is irrelevant to
determine if it is the
foreign spouse who
procured the divorce.
Based on studies,
Filipino women are more
likely to enter into mixed
marriages, thus, the Art.
II, Sec. 14, CONST,
CEDAW, and Magna
Carta for Women should
be considered in
interpreting Art. 26.
Lastly, the wording of Art.
728 of the Japan Civil
Code is absolute: “the
matrimonial relationship
is terminated by divorce.”
It contains no other
provisions that could limit
capacity to marry.
The SC affirmed the
decision of the CA. It
held that the Respondent
cannot be held liable
since both parties signed
and agreed to absolve
respondent from actions,
representations, and
warranties of their agent
made on their behalf.
The Petitioners conferred
trading authority to Hipol
and Respondent was not
obligated to question
whether Hipol exceeded
his authority whenever
CIVIL LAW
capacity to remarry
once our courts find
that the foreign divorce
was validly obtained by
the foreign spouse
according to his or her
national law, and that
the foreign spouse's
national law considers
the dissolution of the
marital relationship to
be absolute.
To insist, as the Office
of the Solicitor General
does, that under our
laws, petitioner is still
married to respondent
despite the latter's
newfound
companionship with
another cannot be just.
Justice is better served
if she is not
discriminated against
in her own country. As
much as petitioner is
free to seek fulfillment
in the love and
devotion of another, so
should she be free to
pledge her
commitment within the
institution of marriage.
1. Under Article 1900
of the Civil Code:
So far as third
persons are
concerned, an act
is deemed to have
been performed
within the scope of
the agent's
authority, if such
act is within the
terms of the power
of attorney, as
written, even if the
agent has in fact
exceeded the limits
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159 CIVIL LAW

agreement for appointment he made purchase of his authority

of an agent Hipol in behalf orders, and was not privy according to an
of Cancio and Pampolina. on how petitioners understanding
The trust/trading facilities instructed Hipol to carry between the
agreement between the out their orders. It did not principal and the
Petitioners and the assign Hipol to be agent.
Respondent Performance Petitioners’ agent, as 2. Before a claimant
Forex provided that the Hipol himself approached can be entitled to
latter shall not be the petitioners and damages, "the
responsible for any actions offered his services. claimant should
or any warranties or Petitioners themselves satisfactorily show
representations Hipol may should been aware of the the existence of
have made. Later, Hipol extent of authority they the factual basis of
confessed to Cancio that he granted to Hipol when damages and its
made unauthorized they handed to him 10 causal connection
transactions using the joint pre-signed blank to defendant's
account. Upon conferring purchase order forms. acts."
with Performance Forex
officers, the latter confirmed
that there were also
previous unauthorized
transactions made by Hipol
under other accounts, they
offered US$5,000.00 to
settle the matter but the
petitioners rejected the
offer. Petitioners file a
complaint for damages
against Respondent and
Hipol before the RTC, which
found the Respondent and
Hipol solidarily liable to the
Petitioners for damages. On
appeal, the CA, however
reversed the decision and
held that Respondent was a
trading facility that acted
only on whatever their
clients and their
representatives would order
and thus, are not privy to
anything that happens
between its client and
representatives.

Galindez v. In May 16, 1949, Firmalan
Firmalan filed an application with the
Bureau of Lands for a
G.R. No. 187186 | parcel of land of Romblon.
June 6, 2018 | A second application was
Leonen, J. sent after no action was
taken on the order for
The facts are not
disputed that respondent
filed her application for a
portion of Lot No. 915 on
May 16, 1949.
Meanwhile, petitioner
only built a house on that
There is nothing in the
miscellaneous sales
application which
forbade the applicant
from entering into or
occupying the lot being
applied for. Instead,

Page 14 of 70
lustre5159
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
reappraisal of Firmalan’s
application almost 18 years
after filing her first
application.
Alicia filed a protest to
Firmalan’s second
application. She claimed
that from November 1951,
she and her family had
been in constant
possession of the portion of
the lot covered by the
second application.
Republic v. In 2009, Laureana and Iden
Malijan-Javier Malijan-Javier filed an
application for registration
G.R. No. 214367 | of land title over a parcel of
April 04, 2018 | land in Talisay, Batangas.
Leonen, J. To support their application,
they presented the
following: witnesses who
testified that they were in
Page 15 of 70
lustre5159
CIVIL LAW
same portion of Lot No. what the miscellaneous
915 on November 1, sales application
1950 and filed her own provides is an
application on February acknowledgment from
20, 1964. Clearly, the the applicant that he or
Bureau of Lands did not she has no right over
err in favorably endorsing the lot while the
respondent's application is still
applications. pending and while the
lease contract has not
yet been executed
The miscellaneous
sales application warns
the applicant that
submission of a false
statement or false
affidavit in support of
an application may
cause the cancellation
of the application,
forfeiture of all
amounts paid and
prohibition from
applying for any public
land. However, there is
no similar warning or
an equally dire
consequence for
applicants who
prematurely enter or
occupy the lot applied
for. At most, it is
merely implied that
applicants bear the risk
of introducing
improvements to a lot
that has not yet been
awarded to them since
the application may be
denied or the lot may
be awarded to some
other applicant.
The lower courts erred in To establish that the
granting the application land sought to be
for registration of registered is alienable
property. Among others, and disposable,
the applicant for land applicants must
registration has to prove "present a copy of the
that the land forms part original classification
of the disposable and approved by the
alienable lands of the [Department of
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
open and continuous
possession of the land
since 1945, a CENRO
Certification that the land
was subject to
appropriation, and tax
declarations. The Republic
opposed the application,
arguing that there was a
need to present a copy of
the original classification
approved by the DENR
Secretary and certified as
true copy by its legal
custodian. The RTC and CA
ruled in favor of the
applicants.
Metro Rail MRT enlisted Parsons as
Transit the Management team who
Development will oversee the
Corporation v. construction of the MRT-3
Gammon North Triangle Description
Philippines, Inc. Project. Parsons sent
Gammon an invitation to bid
GR. No. 200401 | for the complete concrete
January 17, 2018 | works. Gammon eventually
Leonen won and so Parsons issued
a Letter of Award and
Notice to Proceed to
Gammon where it was
stated that the latter could
already start with work. A
few days later, Gammon
transmitted the contract
documents to Parsons. On
the same day, Parsons
directed Gammon to hold
any further mobilization
activities because MRT
decided to redesign.
Gammon presented to MRT
the possible sequencing
and phasing of the work.
Parsons then issued
Gammon a second notice to
proceed which has a
Page 16 of 70
lustre5159
public domain. However,
a CENRO or PENRO
certification is not enough
to establish that a land is
alienable and disposable.
It should be
accompanied by an
official publication of the
DENR Secretary’s
issuance declaring the
land alienable and
disposable. The
certification is necessary
because the DENR
Secretary is the official
authorized to approve
land classification. Since
such certification is
absent in this case, the
land remains part of the
public domain, and the
application must be
denied.
The Court ruled that
there is a perfected
contract between MRT
and Gammon.
In bidding contracts, this
Court has ruled that the
award of the contract to
the bidder is an
acceptance of the
bidder’s offer. Its effect is
to perfect a contract
between the bidder and
the contractor upon
notice of the award to the
bidder. Thus, the award
of a contract to a bidder
perfects the contract.
Failure to sign the
physical contract does
not affect eh contract’s
existence or the
obligations arising from it.
There is a perfected
contract here because
MRT had already
awarded the contract to
Gammon and Gammon’s
acceptance of the award
CIVIL LAW
Environment and
Natural Resources]
Secretary and certified
as a true copy by the
legal custodian of the
official
records."
To determine when the
contract was perfected,
the acceptance of the
offer must be
unqualified,
unconditional, and
made known to the
offeror. Before knowing
of the acceptance, the
offeror may withdraw
the offer. Moreover, if
the offeror imposes the
manner of acceptance
to be done by the
offeree, the offeree
must accept it in that
manner for the contract
to be binding. If the
offeree accepts the
offer in a different
manner, it is not
effective, but
constitutes a counter-
offer, which the offeror
may accept or reject.
When a contract is
suspended temporarily,
it provisionally ceases
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159 CIVIL LAW

provision which allows was communicated to to be operative until

reimbursement for any and MRT before MRT the occurrence of a
all expenses that are rescinded the contract. condition or situation
necessary and directly - that warrants the lifting
incurred by Gammon in the The Court also ruled that of the suspension of
event that the contract will MRT did not revoke its the contract. It is
not be finalized in the near offer when it temporarily different from a
future. A third notice to suspended the First cancellation of a
proceed was issued after. Notice to Proceed. contract which
Parsons then informed terminates the contract
Gammon that MRT was such that it does not
temporarily rescinding the become operative
third notice to proceed, again.
noting that it remained
unaccepted by Gammon. A
fourth notice to proceed
was issued which was
different from the first and
third notices. Gammon
qualifiedly accepted the
fourth notice. MRT treated
this as a new offer and told
Gammon that the contract
would be awarded to
another company if
Gammon does not accept
the Fourth Notice to
proceed. Gammon
acknowledged MRT’s intent
to grant the fourth notice to
another party and notified
MRT of its claims for
reimbursement for costs.
MRT expressed
disagreement but was open
to discussing claims.
Gammon then notified
Parsons of its claim for
payment of all costs,
damages, and expenses
and the consequences of its
award of the contract to
another party. MRT offered
a reimbursement amounting
to 5% of Gammon’s total
claim. Gammon replied that
it was not enough to cover
the expenses it had
incurred. Thus, Gammon
filed a Notice of Claim
before the CIAC. CIAC and
the CA ruled in favor of
Gammon.

Page 17 of 70
lustre5159
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
MRT filed the instant
Petition for Review, arguing
that there was no perfected
contract between MRT and
Gammon.
Republic v. Gallo This case is about Michelle
(2018) Soriano Gallo’s petition for
correction of entry of her
G.R. No. 207074 | birth certificate before the
January 17, 2018 RTC. Applying Rule 108 of
the Rules of Court, Gallo
intends only to correct the
records which contained
errors on her name,
biological sex, parent’s
name, and her parent’s
marriage date. She claims
that neither she nor her
parents changed names
and neither did she
undertook any gender-
reassignment surgery.
While RTC and CA found
Gallo’s petition sufficient in
form and substance, the
OSG appealed, alleging
that Rule 103 is the
applicable rule for the
changes sought by Gallo
were substantial changes.
With this, OSG contends
that Gallo was not able to
comply with the
jurisdictional requirements
provided in Sec. 2 of Rule
103.
Page 18 of 70
lustre5159
CIVIL LAW
The first issue is w/n the Corrections to the
change sought by Gallo name or circumstance
is substantive. SC held in the birth certificate
no. Even though the error may be made even
is not typographical, though the error is not
Gallo’s case may still be typographical if it is
considered a correction visible to the eyes or
and not a change since obvious to the
the mistake was “visible understanding.
to the eyes or obvious to
the understanding.” (Sec. Additionally, the
2, RA 10172). difference between
correction and change
The second issue is w/n must be noted: To
Rule 103 of the Rules of correct simply means
Court applies, instead of "to make or set right.
Rule 108. Considering To change means "to
that Gallo had shown that replace something with
the reason for her something else of the
petition was not to same kind or with
change the name by something that serves
which she is commonly as a substitute.
known, SC ruled that
neither Rule 103 or 108
covers her petition. When
Gallo filed her petition in
2010, the governing law
was not RA 10172 but
RA 9028, which removed
the correction of errors
from the scope of Rule
108. This means only if
Gallo’s petition was
denied by the local city
civil registrar can RTC
take cognizance of her
case.
But while the doctrine of
exhaustion of
administrative remedies
requires parties to first
avail all administrative
processes before taking
the case to court, failure
to observe such does
not affect the
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159 CIVIL LAW

jurisdiction of the
court. The only effect of
noncompliance with the
doctrine is that it will
deprive the
complainant of a cause
of action.

Land Bank of the Respondents owned
Philippines v agricultural land totalling to
Manzano almost 89 hectares. With
the enactment of the RA
G.R. No. 188243 | 6657, the respondents
January 24, 2018 | offered their land to the
Leonen, J. government at P84k per
hectare. Landbank
counteroffered at P26K to
P66K per hectare but the
respondents refused
resulting to a price deadlock
and filing of admin cases for
land valuation. After a new
valuation was set,
respondents again
disagreed with the quotation
and filed a complaint for
judicial determination and
payment of just
compensation before the
RTC sitting as Special
Agrarian Court. RTC ruled
for the respondents and
issued a writ of execution
pending appeal with a
provision for 6% legal
interest. CA denied
Petitioner’s appeal.
RTC has full discretion to
make a binding decision
on the value of the
properties. RA 6657
gives Special Agrarian
Courts the original and
exclusive jurisdiction over
all petitions for the
determination of just
compensation to
landowners.
Special Agrarian Court is
"required to consider" the
factors in Republic Act
No. 6657 and the formula
in the administrative
issuances. This must be
construed to mean that
the Special Agrarian
Court is legally mandated
to take due consideration
of these legislative and
administrative guidelines
to arrive at the amount of
just compensation.
Consideration of these
guidelines, however,
does not mean that these
are the sole bases for
arriving at the just
compensation.
The final determination
of the RTC sitting as a
Special Agrarian Court
must be respected.
The determination of
just compensation is a
judicial function which
cannot be curtailed or
limited by legislation,
much less by an
administrative rule.
The amount of just
compensation must be
determined based on
the fair market value of
the property at the time
of the taking.
The power of the State
to expropriate property
for public use is without
question. In eminent
domain proceedings,
courts have the power
to decide on the final
amount of just
compensation. This is
especially true in cases
of agrarian reform.

There is no prompt
payment if the payment is
only partial. Petitioner's
delay in payment makes
it liable for legal interest
by way of damages. The
legal interest must be
applied "on the unpaid
balance of the
compensation due.

Page 19 of 70
lustre5159
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
Racelis v. Sps. Sps. Javier leased the
Javier property that Racelis is
administering with the
G.R. No. 189609 | understanding that former
January 29, 2018 | will eventually purchase it.
Leonen, J. For failure to pay the
purchase price and falling
behind rental payments,
Racelis decided to
terminate the lease and
demanded that Sps. Javier
vacate the premises. She
assured that she will return
the Php 78,000 earnest
money upon receiving the
purchase price from a
prospective buyer. Sps.
Javier refused to vacate
and proposed that the Php
78,000 it paid as initial
payment or goodwill money
be applied to their
outstanding liability. Racelis
eventually disconnected the
electrical service over the
property due to Sps.
Javier’s refusal to give up
possession and pay rent.
Racelis then filed a
complaint for ejectment.
Kawayan Hills Kawayan Hills Corporation
Corporation v. (Kawayan Hills) sought to
Court of Appeals register a parcel of land
under Section 14(1) of
G.R. No. 203090 | Presidential Decree No.
September 5, 1529, otherwise known as
2018 | Leonen, J. the Property Registration
Decree, for judicial
confirmation of imperfect
title.
Page 20 of 70
lustre5159
CIVIL LAW
The CA erred in ruling Lessees are entitled to
that Sps. Javier were suspend the payment
justified in withholding of rent under Article
rental payments due to 1658 of the Civil Code
the disconnection of if their legal possession
electrical service and in is disturbed. Acts of
ordering Racelis to return physical disturbance
the Php 78,000 earnest that do not affect legal
money. possession is beyond
the scope of this rule.
The disconnection of
electrical service was not In a contract to sell, the
just an act of physical payment of earnest
disturbance but also money represents the
meant to remove seller's opportunity
respondents from the cost of holding in
leased premises and abeyance the search
disturb their legal for other buyers or
possession as lessees. better deals. Absent
However Art. 1658 will proof of a clear
not apply because the agreement to the
lease had already contrary, it should be
expired when the forfeited if the sale
electrical service was does not happen
disconnected. without the seller's
fault. The potential
The parties entered into buyer bears the burden
a contract to sell. Since of proving that the
Sps. Javier failed to earnest money was
deliver the purchase intended other than as
price at the end of 2003, part of the purchase
the contract to sell was price and to be
deemed cancelled. The forfeited if the sale
contract's cancellation does not occur without
entitles petitioner to the seller's fault.
retain the earnest money
given by respondents.
Sps. Javier failed to
prove that the Php
78,000 was intended
other than as part of the
purchase price.
The Court of Appeals The court must
was in serious error in carefully weigh
granting the Republic's competing claims and
appeal and in concluding consider the totality of
that title over Lot No. evidence, bearing in
2512 cannot be mind the recognition in
confirmed and registered jurisprudence that
in petitioner's favor. It payment of real
failed to acknowledge the property taxes is,
prolonged duration of nevertheless, "good
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
The Republic, through the
Office of the Solicitor
General, opposed the
application on the grounds
that the petitioner failed to
satisfy the requisites of P.D.
1529.
The Court of Appeals
reversed the MCTC holding,
inter alia, that Kawayan
Hills failed to establish its or
its predecessors-in-
interest's bona fide claim of
ownership since June 12,
1945 or earlier, as to enable
confirmation of title under
Section 14(1) of the
Property Registration
Decree. It decried
petitioner's reliance on tax
declarations, even if they
dated to as far back as
1931, as these supposedly
did not prove ownership
Page 21 of 70
lustre5159
CIVIL LAW
consistent and indicia of possession in
uninterrupted payment of the concept of an
real property taxes; the owner, and when
absence of any adverse coupled with
claim, save the continuous
Republic's opposition; possession, it
and the confirmation and constitutes strong
tillage since 1942. Its evidence of title.
haphazard reliance on
the notion that real
property tax declarations
are not conclusive
evidence of ownership
demonstrates its failure
to go about its duty of
resolving the case with
care and precision. It
indicates grave abuse of
discretion.
The Court of Appeals'
reductive resort to an
aphorism about tax
declarations, as though it
were an incantation that
conveniently resolves the
myriad dimensions of this
case, is not mere error in
judgment; it is grave
abuse of discretion. It
amounts to its evasion of
its positive duty to weigh
the competing claims and
to meticulously consider
the evidence to arrive at
a judicious resolution.
In so doing, the Court of
Appeals validated what
amounted to a mere pro
forma opposition by the
Republic, one that was
triggered, not by an
independent
determination of a fatal
error in an application,
but by the mere occasion
of the filing of an
application. In Spouses
Noval, the Court decried
favorable actions on such
pro forma oppositions as
amounting to undue
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
Republic v. Heirs A Homestead Patent was
of Ignacio issued in favor of Daquer.
Daquer After he passed away, the
CENRO conducted an
G.R. No. 193657 | investigation to determine
September 4, whether the approved
2018 | J. Leonen patent applications
(including Daquer’s) was
indeed alienable or
disposable. Upon
investigation, CENRO
discovered that the land fell
within the zone of
unclassified public forest.
Thereafter, the Republic
filed a complaint for
Cancellation of Free Patent
and OCT, and the reversion
of the land to public domain.
Petitioner argues that the
mere issuance of a
homestead patent does not
automatically remove the
land from inalienability and
convert it into alienable
agricultural land. Petitioner
contends that before lands
of the public domain may be
the subject of a homestead
application, there must first
be a positive act of the
government, declassifying a
forest land and converting it
into alienable or disposable
land for agricultural
purpose.
Eversley Childs Eversley is a public health
Sanitarium v. facility operated by the DoH
Spouses to administer care for
Barbarona patients suffering from
leprosy. Sps Barbarona
allege they are owners of
the lot occupied by
Eversley. Sps Barbarona
filed a complaint for
ejectment against Eversley.
Page 22 of 70
lustre5159
CIVIL LAW
taking of property, thus,
violative of the right to
due process.
At issue in this case is Any application for a
whether the issuance of homestead settlement
a homestead patent recognizes that the
could classify an land belongs to the
otherwise unclassified public domain. Prior to
public land into alienable its disposition, the
and disposable public land has to be
agricultural land of the classified first as
public domain. The Court alienable and
ruled in favor of the disposable through a
Republic, finding that the positive act of the
mere issuance of a government. This act
homestead patent does must be direct and
not automatically remove express, not merely
the land from inferred from an
inalienability and convert instrument such as the
it into alienable homestead patent. The
agricultural land. There State has the right to
must be a positive act institute an action for
from the government the reversion of an
declaring them as open inalienable land of the
for alienation and public domain
disposition. erroneously awarded
by its officials and
In this case, the records agents.
are bereft of any
evidence showing that
the land has been
classified as alienable
and disposable.
Respondents presented
no proof to show that a
law or official
proclamation had been
issued declaring the land
covered by Homestead
Patent No. V-67820 to be
alienable and disposable.
WHEREFORE, the A case for unlawful
Petition is GRANTED. detainer must state the
The February 17, 2011 period from when the
Decision and August 31, occupation by
2011 Resolution of the tolerance started and
Court of Appeals in CA the acts of tolerance
G.R. SP No. 02762 exercised by the party
are REVERSED and SET with the right to
ASIDE. The Temporary possession. If it is
Restraining Order dated argued that the
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159 CIVIL LAW

May 13, 2011 is possession was illegal

made PERMANENT. from the start, the
proper remedy is to file
an accion publiciana,
or a plenary action to
recover the right of
possession. Moreover,
while an ejectment
case merely settles the
issue of the right of
actual possession, the
issue of ownership
may be provisionally
passed upon if the
issue of possession
cannot be resolved
without it. Any final
disposition on the
issue of ownership,
however, must be
resolved in the proper
forum.

Page 23 of 70
lustre5159
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
2017
CASE FACTS
Taar v. Lawan The case involves two free
G.R. No. 190922 | patent applications over a
October 11 , 2017 parcel of land. Pantaleon,
| Leonen, J. Alipio, Fortunata, the
Adaoag Spouses, and the
Gragasin Spouses (herein
petitioners) executed an
agreement to partition the
second parcel of land and a
subdivision plan was
prepared thereto. Claudio
Lawan (Claudio), Marcelino
M. Galo (Marcelino),
Artemio Abarquez
(Artemio), Augusto B.
Lawan (Augusto), and
Adolfo L. Galo (herein
private respondents) filed a
verified protest alleging that
their predecessors-in-
interest had been in actual
possession and occupation
of the land. Petitioners
countered that respondents
were tenants. DENR
Executive Director
Sibbaluca found that private
respondents were the
actual occupant of the
property thus cancelled the
subdivision plan and denied
petitioners free patent
application. Private
Respondents applied for a
free patent for the same
property and it was
approved. Petitioners filed
before the secretary of the
DENR petition to annul the
order on the ground of
extrinsic fraud and to cancel
the respondent’s free patent
and certificate of title. Thus
arose the issue of whether
or not the free patents and
certificates of title issued in
favor of Claudio Lawan,
Marcelino L. Gala, Artemio
Abarquez, Augusto B.
Lawan, and Adolfo L. Galo
Page 24 of 70
lustre5159
CIVIL LAW
HELD DOCTRINE
According to Section Entitlement to agricultural
91 of the Public Land lands of the public domain
Act there is the requires a clear showing
automatic cancellation of compliance with the
of the applications filed provisions of the Public
on the ground of fraud Land Act.. A judgment
and misrepresentation. approving the subdivision
But only extrinsic fraud of a parcel of land does
may be raised as a not prevent other parties
ground to “review or with a better right from
reopen a decree of instituting free patent
registration.” Which is application.
the type of fraud that
“is employed to There is no need to pass
deprive parties of their upon any allegation of
day in court and thus actual fraud in the
prevent them from acquisition of a title based
asserting their right to on a sales patent. Private
the property registered persons have no right or
in the name of the interest over land
applicant.” Petitioners considered public at the
in this case failed to time the sales application
substantiate their was filed. They have no
claims. personality to question the
validity of the title. For the
The court also sake of argument, that
reiterates that the fraud was committed in
validity or invalidity obtaining the title, it is
of free patents the State, in a reversion
granted by the case, which is the
government and the proper party to file the
corresponding necessary action.
certificates of title is (Urquiaga v. CA)
a matter between the
grantee and the
government.
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
are valid and were secured
through fraud and
misrepresentation.
Orient Freight Respondent Keihin-Everett
International, entered into an In-House
Inc. V. Keihin- Brokerage Service
Everett Agreement with Matsushita,
Forwarding and sub-contracted through
Company, Inc. a Trucking Service
Agreement with Petitioner
G.R. No. 191937, Orient Freight. Petitioner
August 09, 2017 subcontracted the work with
Schmitz. Matsushita called
Respondent regarding news
about and interception by
the Caloocan police of a
stolen truck filled with
shipment owned by
Matsushita. Respondent
directed Petitioner to
investigate the matter, and
Petitioner said that the truck
merely broke down and had
to be towed. However,
when the shipment arrived
in Japan, it was discovered
that some shipment was
missing and through
investigation by
Respondent, it was found
out that the driver of the
truck had stolen the goods
and ran away. Matsushita
terminated the in-house
brokerage service
agreement with
Respondent. Respondent
then demanded P2,500,000
from Petitioner as indemnity
for lost income, and filed a
complaint in the RTC upon
Petitioner’s failure to pay.
The RTC ruled against
petitioner, finding that it was
negligent in failing to
investigate the incident
properly and failed to
disclose the true facts to
Respondent and awarded
1,666,667.00 as actual
damages representing net
profit loss incurred and
Page 25 of 70
lustre5159
The Supreme Court 1. Negligence may either
denied the petition. It
held that though the
obligation to report
what happened during
the highjacking
incident does not
appear in the plain text
of the TSA between
the Petitioner and the
Respondent, it arose
after the execution of
said agreement when
Respondent asked
Petitioner to
investigate the news
report. The SC also 2. Negligence in culpa
held that both the RTC
and the CA erred in
finding the Petitioner’s
negligence to be an
action based on a
quasi-delict since such
negligence did not
create the vinculum
juris with the
respondent.
Petitioner's
negligence, arising as
it does from its
performance of its
obligation to 3. Article 2176 of the
respondent, is
dependent on this
obligation. As a case
of culpa contractual,
articles 1170, 1172
and 1173 of the Civil
Code should apply
instead of Article 2176
which implies culpa
aquilana.
CIVIL LAW
result in culpa
aquiliana or culpa
contractual. Culpa
aquiliana is the "the
wrongful or negligent
act or omission which
creates a vinculum
juris and gives rise to
an obligation between
two persons not
formally bound by any
other obligation," and
is governed by Article
2176 of the Civil
Code:
contractual, on the
other hand, is "the
fault or negligence
incident in the
performance of an
obligation which
already-existed, and
which increases the
liability from such
already existing
obligation." This is
governed by Articles
1170 to 1174 of the
Civil Code.
Civil Code does not
apply when the party's
negligence occurs in
the performance of an
obligation. The
negligent act would
give rise to a quasi-
delict only when it
may be the basis for
an independent action
were the parties not
otherwise bound by a
contract.
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
P50,000.00 in attorney's
fees.
The CA affirmed the RTC’s
ruling.
Mercury Drug Stephen and his parents,
Corp v. Sps. Spouses Huang, filed a
Huang complaint for damages
based on quasi-delict
G.R. No. 197654 | against Mercury Drug Del
August 30, 2017 | Rosario. Mercury Drug was
Leonen, J. the registered owner of a 6-
wheeler truck driven by Del
Rosario, which figured in an
accident with Stephen's car.
As a result of the tragic
incident, Stephen suffered
serious spinal cord injuries.
He is now a paraplegic. On
June 22, 2007, the Court in
Mercury Drug Corporation
v. Spouses Huang affirmed
the Decision of the Court of
Appeals. Mercury Drug and
Del Rosario moved for
reconsideration and/or new
trial arguing that Stephen
was not entitled to the entire
monetary award because
he had partially recovered
from his injuries. The
Motion was denied with
finality. Entry of judgment
was made. Stephen and his
parents moved for the
execution of the judgment
before the Regional Trial
Court. Mercury Drug and
Del Rosario moved to
quash the Writ of Execution
as it allegedly contravened
the tenor of the judgment.
Mercury Drug and Del
Rosario point out, in
particular, that the amounts
of life care cost and loss of
earning capacity reflected in
the dispositive portion and
the writ of execution do not
correspond to those stated
in the body of the decision.
Page 26 of 70
lustre5159
CIVIL LAW
In the present case, A judgment that lapses
petitioners assert that into finality becomes
the case falls under immutable and
the first exception: that unalterable. It can neither
clerical errors attended be modified nor disturbed
the computation of the by courts in any manner
amounts awarded as even if the purpose of the
life care cost and loss modification is to correct
of earning capacity. In perceived errors of fact or
this case, there are no law. Parties cannot
clerical errors or circumvent this principle
ambiguities regarding by assailing the execution
the computation of life of the judgment. What
care cost and loss of cannot be done directly
earning capacity cannot be done indirectly.
awarded to
respondent Stephen. The doctrine of
The amounts indicated immutability of judgment,
in the dispositive however, is not an
portion of the iron­clad rule. It is subject
judgment faithfully to several exceptions,
correspond to the namely:
findings of fact and (1) The correction of
conclusions of the trial clerical errors;
court. (2) The so-called nunc pro
tunc entries which cause
no prejudice to any party;
(3) Void judgments; and
(4) Whenever
circumstances transpire
after the finality of the
decision rendering its
execution unjust and
inequitable.
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
Team Image Solar and Team Image
Entertainment, entered into a Marketing
Inc. v. Solar Agreement in 1996, with the
Team latter agreeing to act as the
Entertainment, former’s exclusive
Inc. marketing image.
Subsequently, Solar filed a
G.R. No. 191652 | complaint for accounting
Sept. 13, 2017 | and damages against Team
Leonen, J. Image for an alleged breach
of the Agreement. Solar
argued that Team Image
failed to remit proceeds by
representing itself as owner
of Solar’s programs. In
2003, the parties entered
into a compromise
agreement. The parties
agreed on payment terms
and division of receivables
from VTV, to be accounted
for by SGV and Co. as
auditor. The Compromise
Agreement also provided
that the parties agreed to
waive all their claims
against each other and
cause the dismissal of
criminal and civil actions.
Lastly, it also provided that
the parties agree for an
immediate issuance of a
writ of execution and
payment of damages in
case of breach. Sometime
after, both parties filed for
motions of writs of
execution, arguing that the
other party broke the
Agreement. In a series of
decisions, the RTC ordered
Solar to pay PHP 2 Million
in liquidated damages for
violation of the Compromise
Agreement because it failed
to withdraw the complaint-
in-intervention. However,
Solar was also not made
liable for failing to cause the
dismissal of a criminal case
against Team Image’s
president. The RTC also
declared Team Image in
Page 27 of 70
lustre5159
CIVIL LAW
With regard to the Criminal liability cannot be
payment of dues, the subject of
Team Image was compromise, since a
found to have violated criminal case is committed
the Compromise against the People and
Agreement. There was not against the offended
no proof that it party.
complied with its
payments within the
required periods. With
regard to the dismissal
of civil and criminal
cases filed, it was
found that Solar
violated the
Compromise
Agreement by failing
to file a motion to
dismiss in a complaint-
in-intervention it filed
against Team Image.
It was clear from the
Compromise
Agreement that the
parties intended to
terminate all cases
against each other,
regardless of the case
being civil or criminal.
But despite this, it is
well settled that
criminal liability cannot
be the subject of a
compromise. Thus, the
parties cannot agree
on the dismissal of
criminal cases. Lastly,
the Court interpreted
Par. 24 of the
Compromise
Agreement to state
that there are only two
classifications of
violations: first, all
obligations requiring
SGV’s final
accounting, and
second, all other
obligations. The
payment of liquidated
damages is based on
these conditions, and
thus, only a maximum
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159 CIVIL LAW

default for failing to resume of PHP 4 Million may

payments. be filed for them.
Since the parties both
owe each PHP 2
Million, then they are
set off under Art. 1279
and 1281 of the Civil
Code.

Capablanca v. Andres and Pedro Bas The Supreme Court No judicial declaration of
Heirs of Bas acquired a lot in Cebu and held that there was no heirship is necessary in
Patent No 1724 was issued need for a separate order that an heir may
GR No. 224144 | in their names. Pedro sold proceeding for a assert his or her right to
June 28, 2017 | his portion to Faustina, declaration of heirship the property of the
Leonen evidenced by a notarized to resolve an action for deceased.
Deed of Sale. Heirs of cancellation of titles of
Faustina executed a the property.
notarized extrajudicial
declaration of heirs and The right to assert a
Deed of absolute sale. Lot cause of action as an
2535 consisting of “1,000 heir, although he has
square meters, more or not been judicially
less” was conveyed to one declared to be so, if
of the heirs. That heir sold it duly proven is well
to Edith who sold it to one settled in this
Eddy Deen. When he died, jurisdiction. This is
an extrajudicial settlement upon the theory that
of estate was executed but the property of a
Lot 2535 was not included deceased person, both
in this settlement. The heirs real and personal,
sold the land to Noberto becomes the property
(through an additional of the heir by the mere
extrajudicial settlement with fact of death of his
absolute deed of sale) who predecessor in
took possession and built a interest.
house. Noberto died without
a will and was succeeded
by his niece, Lolita. TCT
was issued in the names of
Andres and Pedro Bas.
Heirs of Bas filed a
complaint for clarification of
ownership.
Notarized partition
agreement of real property,
quitclaim and waiver of
rights was executed
between the heirs. Lolita
tried to register her portion
but was denied by the
Register of Deeds citing the
need for a court order. She
thus filed a Complaint for

Page 28 of 70
lustre5159
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159 CIVIL LAW

cancellation of titles
registered by the heirs. The
heirs of Bas contend that
the sale between Bas and
Faustina was fake and
spurious and invalid.
Furthermore, they contend
that Lolita needed to be
declared an heir of Norberto
first.
RTC held that there was no
need to be declared as heir.
Pedro sold entire share so
did not acquire any portion
by inheritance. The RTC
also declared that the titles
of the heirs be cancelled for
being null and void. CA
reversed holding that Lolita
must be first declared as
sole heir.

Torreon v. Vivian's husband, Rodolfo Re Abella’s standing in Lack of documentary

Aparra, Jr. (2017) Torreon and daughters,
Monalisa and Johanna
G.R. No. 188493 | boarded a cargo truck with
December 13, Rodolfo’s employer,
2017 Abellana. While passengers
were getting on the truck,
the driver left the truck while
the engine was still running.
Aparra, Jr., the chief diesel
mechanic, started driving
the truck. Caballes, the
driver, rushed to the truck
but instead of taking control
of the vehicle, he allowed
Aparra to drive.
Shortly thereafter, Aparra
lost control of the truck and
they fell off the wharf.
Consequently, Rodolfo and
Monalisa died while
Johanna and Abellana were
injured. Abellana testified
that Rodolfo was the
General Manager of her
businesses, and as such he
was earning a basic salary
of P10,000.00 and received
a 20% commission on the
profit of the businesses,
thus, earning more or less
the present civil case evidence is not fatal to a
When Abellana did not claim for the deceased's
reserve her right to lost earning capacity.
institute a separate Testimony from a
civil action, her cause competent witness familiar
of action for damages with his salary is a
was deemed impliedly sufficient basis to
instituted with the determine the deceased's
criminal case. Rule income before his death.
111, Section 3 of the
Rules of Court
prohibits offended
parties from
recovering damages
twice for the act being
prosecuted in the
criminal action. Thus,
Abellana is now barred
from instituting this
case.
Re requiring
documentary evidence
to prove loss of
earning capacity
In civil cases, Vivian is
only required to
establish her claim by
a preponderance of
evidence. Allowing
testimonial evidence to

Page 29 of 70
lustre5159
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
P15,000.00. Abellana
claimed that she could not
present her accounting
books to the court because
she had already disposed of
them.
The RTC ruled that
Caballes and Aparra
committed acts constituting
a quasi-delict, and awarded
actual damages, among
others. The CA held that
Simolde (employer of
Caballes and Aparra) is
solidarily liable with
Caballes and Aparra but
deleted the award of actual
damages for Rodolfo's loss
of earning capacity.
According to the CA,
documentary evidence
should be presented to
substantiate a claim for loss
of earning capacity.
Page 30 of 70
lustre5159
CIVIL LAW
prove loss of earning
capacity is consistent
with the nature of civil
actions. In determining
if this quantum of proof
is met, the Court is not
required to exclusively
consider documentary
evidence.
Using the formula in
People v. Wahiman,
the Court found that
respondents are liable
to pay P1,919,700.00
to compensate for the
income Rodolfo's heirs
would have received
had he lived.
On the other hand,
Vivian failed to prove
the actual damages
she suffered for the
death of her daughter,
Monalisa. Vivian
merely testified as to
the funeral and burial
expenses she incurred
without producing any
receipt or other
evidence to support
her claim.
Other award for
damages
MORAL DAMAGES.
With regard to the
award of moral
damages, this Court
affirms the CA’s ruling
to grant it. Article 2206
of the Civil Code
expressly grants moral
damages in addition to
the award of civil
indemnity. Vivian
maintains that the
amount of moral
damages granted her
should be increased.
The Court disagrees.
Although the Civil
Code grants
compensation for the
mental anguish
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
Chiquita Brands, A class suit was filed
Inc. v. Omelio against several companies
including petitioner. During
G.R. No. 189102 | the pendency of the
June 7, 2017 | proceedings, the parties
Leonen, J. entered into a settlement
agreement. In the RTC
however, the Filipino
employees entered into a
compromise agreement
which the court approved.
Later, the claimants moved
for execution of the
judgment but the petitioner
opposed on the ground of
mootness. RTC granted
Motion for Execution.
Page 31 of 70
lustre5159
CIVIL LAW
suffered by the heirs
for the loss of their
loved one, this award
is not meant to enrich
the petitioner at the
expense of the
respondents.
EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES. The CA
correctly imposed
exemplary damages
against respondents.
Each respondent
clearly acted with
gross negligence.
Aparra drove without a
license and
jeopardized the life of
the cargo truck
passengers. Caballes
not only allowed
Aparra to drive on a
perilous road but he
also permitted
passengers to board
the cargo truck despite
knowing that the
vehicle was not
designed to transport
people. Simolde was
also grossly negligent
for tolerating his
employees' negligent
behaviors.
The Writ of Execution Courts can neither amend
ordering the collection nor modify the terms and
of the settlement conditions of a
amount directly from compromise validly
petitioners and its co- entered into by the
defendants in the parties. A writ of execution
current case is void. that varies the respective
obligations of the parties
A compromise is under a judicially
defined under the Civil approved compromise
Code as "a contract agreement is void.
whereby the parties,
by making reciprocal A compromise validly
concessions, avoid a entered into has the
litigation or put an end authority and effect of res
to one already judicata as between the
commenced.” (Art. parties
2028, Civil Code)
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
Cascayan v. Sps. Cascayan Heirs filed a
Gumallaoi complaint for Recovery of
Possession, Demolition,
G.R. No. 211947 | and Damages against Sps.
July 3, 2017 | Gumallaoi, alleging that
Leonen, J. they were co-owners of Lot
No. 20028 covered by OCT
No. P-78399 by virtue of a
free patent, and that Sps.
Gumallaoi built a residential
house which encroached on
Lot No. 20028. Sps.
Gumallaoi averred that they
were the true owners of
both Lot Nos. 20028 and
20029 and that the
Cascayan heirs obtained a
free patent through fraud
and misrepresentation. The
RTC and CA ruled in favor
of Sps. Gumallaoi and
declared them as legal
owners of Lot No. 20028.
OCT No. P-78399 had been
secured through fraud, and
without legal and proper
basis.
Page 32 of 70
lustre5159
CIVIL LAW
A compromise that
has received judicial
imprimatur "becomes
more than a mere
contract, is regarded
as a determination of
the controversy"
between the parties
and "has the force and
effect of [a final]
judgment."
It may neither be
disturbed nor set aside
except in cases where
there is forgery or
when either of the
parties' consent has
been vitiated
The CA did not commit An action is an attack on a
an error of law in title when the object of the
sustaining the action is to nullify the title,
cancellation of OCT and thus challenge the
No. P-78399, pursuant judgment or proceeding
to respondents' pursuant to which the title
counterclaim, and in was decreed. The attack
its determination that is considered direct when
petitioners obtained it the object of an action is
fraudulently. to annul or set aside such
proceeding, or enjoin its
The petitioners enforcement. Conversely,
obtained the free an attack is indirect or
patent fraudulently collateral when, in an
based on several action to obtain a different
findings. They relief, an attack on the
determined that proceeding is
petitioners were never nevertheless made as an
in possession of Lot incident thereof. Such
No. 20028. Even the action to attack a
documents submitted certificate of title may be
to support their an original action or a
application were counterclaim, in which a
flawed: the tax certificate of title is
declarations were assailed as void. A
inconsistent and the counterclaim can be
affidavits and considered a direct attack
Certifications were on the title. It is
subsequently considered a complaint,
retracted. only this time, it is the
original defendant who
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
Oriental JEA Steel received a
Assurance shipment which contained
Corporation v. 11 damaged coils. It filed a
Ong claim with Oriental pursuant
to a Marine Insurance
G.R. No. 189524 | Policy. Oriental paid JEA
October 11, 2017 | Steel and subsequently
Leonen, J. demanded indemnity from
Ong, owner of the delivery
trucks, and Asian
Terminals, arrastre
contractor.
Asian Terminals argued,
inter alia, that Oriental's
claim was barred for the
latter's failure to file a formal
claim within the 15-day
period provided in the Gate
Pass and the Management
Contract between the
Philippine Ports Authority
and Asian Terminals.
Moreover, it’s liability, if any,
would be limited to P5,000
per package as per the
provisions of the
Management Contract.
Petitioner Oriental contends
that it was not aware of the
provisions of the Gate Pass
or the Management
Contract, neither of which it
was a party to.
Consequently, it cannot be
bound by the stipulation
limiting the liability of Asian
Terminals. Moreover, it
asserts that under the Gate
Pass, the 15-day period
was to be reckoned from
the "date of issuance by the
contractor's certificate of
loss, damage, injury or
certificate of non-delivery."
Since Asian Terminals did
Page 33 of 70
lustre5159
CIVIL LAW
becomes the plaintiff. It
stands on the same
footing and is to be tested
by the same rules as if it
were an independent
action.
The Court finds for The Court has liberally
Oriental Assurance construed the requirement
Corporation. The case for filing a formal claim
presents a new and allowed claims filed
situation in that unlike even beyond the 15-day
previous cases, the prescriptive period after
facts do not show that finding that the request for
a provisional claim or bad order survey or the
a request for bad order provisional claim filed by
survey was made by the consignee had
the consignee. sufficiently served the
Instead, what was only purpose of a formal claim.
established is that the
consignee's claim As subrogee, petitioner
letter dated July 2, merely stepped into the
2002 was received by shoes of the consignee
respondent on July 4, and may only exercise
2002, or 17 days from those rights that the
last delivery of the consignee may have
coils to the consignee. against the wrongdoer
who caused the damage.
Under the express “It can recover only the
terms of the amount that is recoverable
Management Contract, by the assured.”
the consignee had
thirty (30) days from
receipt of the cargo to
request for a certificate
of loss from the
arrastre operator.
Upon receipt of such
request, the arrastre
operator would have
15 days to issue a
certificate of loss,
either actually or
constructively. From
the date of issuance of
the certificate of loss
or where no certificate
was issued, from the
expiration of the 15-
day period, the
consignee has 15
days within which to
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
not issue any certificate of
damage, then the 15-day
period did not begin to run.
Page 34 of 70
lustre5159
CIVIL LAW
file a formal claim with
the arrastre operator.
In other words, the
consignee had 45 to
60 days from the date
of last delivery of the
goods within which to
submit a formal claim
to the arrastre
operator.
The Court finds that
whether the consignee
files a claim letter or
requests for a
certificate of loss or
bad order
examination, the effect
would be the same, in
that either would afford
the arrastre contractor
knowledge that the
shipment has been
damaged and an
opportunity to examine
the nature and extent
of the injury.
Hence, the
consignee's claim
letter is regarded as
substantial compliance
with the condition
precedent set forth in
the Management
Contract to hold the
arrastre operator
liable.
However, the
Oriental’s liability for
damage to the cargo is
limited to P5,000.00
per package in
accordance with the
Management Contract.
In the performance of
its job, an arrastre
operator is bound by
the management
contract it had
executed with the
Bureau of Customs.
However, a
management contract,
which is a sort of a
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
Pavlow v. After the Assistant City
Mendenilla Prosecutor dismissed her
daughter’s criminal
G.R. No. 181489 | complaint for Slight Physical
April 19, 2017 | J. Injuries and Maltreatment
Leonen (VAWC), the respondent
filed a petition for the
issuance of a TPO/PPO
under RA 9262 with the
RTC. The RTC granted the
TPO. In the present case,
the petitioner assails the
personality of the
respondent to file the
petition, claiming that the
prior criminal complaint
precluded the respondent’s
subsequent filing.
Sps. Aboitiz v. Mariano owned a parcel of
Sps. Po land (divided into 2 lots). He
executed a Deed of
Absolute Sale in favor of his
son, Ciriaco. Ciriaco sold
the lots to Victoria Po. After
Mariano’s death, Peter Po
discovered that Ciriaco has
Page 35 of 70
lustre5159
CIVIL LAW
stipulation pour autrui
within the meaning of
Article 1311 of the
Civil Code, is also
binding on a
consignee because it
is incorporated in the
gate pass and delivery
receipt which must be
presented by the
consignee before
delivery can be
effected to it. The
insurer, as successor-
in-interest of the
consignee, is likewise
bound by the
management contract.
At issue in this case is The mother of a victim of
whether the acts of VAWC is expressly
respondent had given personality to file a
personality to file a civil action for the
petition for the issuance of a protection
issuance of a order for her child. (Sec.
protection under RA 9[b]) In filing such a
9262. The Court ruled petition, she avails of a
in favor of the remedy that is distinct
respondent. from the criminal action
under Section 5 of the
The right of a mother same law.
and of other persons
mentioned in Sec. 9 to
file such a petition is
suspended when the
victim has filed a
petition for herself.
Nevertheless, the
respondent in this
case filed her petition
after her daughter's
complaint-affidavit had
already been
dismissed.
WHEREFORE, the A person acquiring
Court of Appeals' property through fraud
October 31, 2012 becomes an implied
Decision227 and its trustee of the property's
June 17, 2013 true and lawful owner. The
Resolution228 in CA- prescriptive period to
G.R. CV No. 03803 is enforce this trust is 10
AFFIRMED. years from the time the
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
executed a quitclaim over
one lot in favor of Roberto
Aboitiz (petitioner). By way
of remedy, Ciriaco and the
Sps. Po (respondents)
executed a MOA in which
Ciriaco agreed to pay the
difference between the
amount paid by the Sps. Po
and the value of the land
the Sps. Po were left with
after the quitclaim.
Later on, however, one lot
(subject lot) was sold to
Roberto Aboitiz by the
Mariano’s heirs. Both the
Sps. Po and Roberto
Aboitiz declared the lot for
taxation purposes. Roberto
Aboitiz filed an application
for original registration and
the RTC granted the
issuance of the Original
Certificate. The lot was
subdivided with portions
sold to Jose Moraza, and
Sps. Ernesto and Isabel
Aboitiz.
The Sps. Po filed a
complaint to recover the
land and to declare nullity of
title with damages. The
RTC ruled in their favor.
The CA partially reaffirmed
the RTC, ruling that the
Sps. Po are the land’s
rightful owners. However,
the titles of Moraza and the
Sps. Aboitiz should be
respected because they are
innocent purchasers for
value.
Page 36 of 70
lustre5159
CIVIL LAW
right of action accrues. In
an action for
reconveyance, the right of
action accrues from the
time the property is
registered.
Laches is different from
prescription. Prescription
deals with delay itself and
thus is an issue of how
much time has passed.
The time period when
prescription is deemed to
have set in is fixed by law.
Laches concerns itself
with the effect of delay
and not the period of time
that has lapsed. It asks
the question whether the
delay has changed “the
condition of the property
or the relation of the
parties” such that it is no
longer equitable to insist
on the original right.
The rationale for allowing
reconveyance despite the
finality of the registration
is that the issuance of a
certificate of title does not
create or vest ownership
to a person over the
property. Registration
under the Torrens system
is not a mode of acquiring
ownership. A certificate is
only a proof of ownership.
An innocent purchaser for
value refers to the buyer
of the property who pays
for its full and fair price
without or before notice of
another person's right or
interest in it. The only
exception to the rule is
when the purchaser has
actual knowledge of any
defect or other
circumstance that would
cause a reasonably
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
International Spouses Briones took out a
Exchange Bank loan from iBank to purchase
v. Sps. Briones a BMW Z4 Roadster. The
spouses then executed a
G.R. No. 205657 | promissory note with chattel
March 29, 2017 | mortgage which gave
Leonen, J. iBank, as the spouses’
attorney-in-fact, irrevocable
authority to file an insurance
claim in case of loss or
damage to the vehicle and
the authority to collect the
insurance proceeds as the
beneficiary of the policy.
Four months later, the
mortgaged vehicle was
carnapped. Upon being
notified by Sps. Briones,
iBank instructed them to
continue paying the next
three monthly installments
“as a sign of good faith,”
which the spouses complied
with. Afterwards, iBank
demanded full payment of
the lost vehicle. Sps.
Briones then submitted a
notice of claim with their
insurance company, which
was denied due to the
delayed reporting of the lost
vehicle. iBank then filed a
complaint for replevin
and/or sum of money
against Sps. Briones,
alleging that the spouses
defaulted in paying the
monthly amortizations of the
mortgaged vehicle. Both the
RTC and CA dismissed
iBank’s complaint. At the
SC, iBank argues that the
spouse’s direct dealing with
the insurance company was
a revocation of their agency
relationship and that iBank
is entitled to the return of
the mortgaged vehicle or, in
the alternative, payment of
the outstanding balance of
Page 37 of 70
lustre5159
CIVIL LAW
cautious man" to inquire
into the title of the seller.
Sps. Briones’ filing of Upon accepting an
their claim with the agency, the agent
insurance company is becomes bound to carry
not an implied out the agency and shall
revocation of the be held liable for the
agency. They had no damages, which the
choice but to principal may incur due to
personally do it the agent’s non-
because of iBank’s performance.
negligence in failing
to do so despite
being their agent and
being authorized to
file a claim under the
insurance policy.
Furthermore, the
promissory note with
chattel mortgage
clearly shows that a
bilateral contract
existed between the
parties, making the
agency irrevocable
pursuant to Article
1927 of the Civil
Code. iBank was also
aware of the bilateral
contract; thus, it
included the
designation of an
irrevocable agency in
the promissory note
with chattel
mortgage.
For being negligent in
its duties as Sps.
Briones’ duly
constituted agent,
iBank must be held
liable for the
damages suffered by
Sps. Briones because
of non-performance
of its obligation as the
agent, and because it
prioritized its interest
over that of its
principal.
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
the loan taken out for the
mortgaged vehicle.
Heirs of Salas v. Petitioners are the Heirs of
Cabungcal Salas, the registered owner
of a vast tract of land
G.R. No. 191545, traversing five Barangays in
March 29, 2017 Lipa City. The Respondents
are the agrarian reform
beneficiaries under the
CARP. and regulations.
Pursuant to the approved
Plan/Zoning Ordinance of
Lipa by the Human
Settlements Regulatory
Commission , the subject
agricultural land was
reclassified as farmlot
subdivision for cultivation,
livestock production, or
agro-forestry. One June 10,
1988, RA 6657 sought to
expand the coverage of the
government’s agrarian
reform program and Salas’
lands were among those
contemplated for acquisition
and distribution to farmer
beneficiaries. Salas decided
to sell his subdivided lots
through Laperal Realty.
While a portion of the land
was sold, more than half
remained unsold. Hence,
Petitioners assailed the
inclusion of their
landholdings from the
coverage of CARP.
Petitioners filed protest
letters before the
Department of Agrarian
Reform and DAR
Adjudication Board. These
were denied, and agrarian
Page 38 of 70
lustre5159
CIVIL LAW
Furthermore, iBank
was in bad faith when
it advised Sps. Briones
to continue paying
three monthly
installments after the
loss. As such, it would
be inequitable to
compel Sps. Briones
to pay the full amount
of the lost property.
The SC affirmed the 1. As a general rule,
CA’s decision. It held agricultural lands that
that the lots were still were reclassified as
classified and devoted commercial,
to agricultural uses. residential, or
The reclassification of industrial by the local
Salas’ landholding into government, as
a farmlot subdivision approved by the
has not changed the HLURB, before June
nature of such 15, 1988 are excluded
agricultural lands, the from the
legal relationship Comprehensive
existing over such Agrarian Reform
langs, or the Program. A farmlot is
agricultural usability of not included in any of
the lands. Thus, they these categories.
were properly 2. Agricultural lands
subjected to the consist of lands:
compulsory coverage • Devoted to
under the CARP. agricultural activity
as defined by RA
6657
• Not classified as
mineral of forest
by the DENR; and
Prior to June 15 1988, not
classified for residential,
commercial, or industrial
use under a local
government town plan and
zoning ordinance as
approved by the HLURB.
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
reform beneficiaries were
given Certificates of Land
Ownership Award over
40.85 hectares of Salas’
landholdings. Thus, only 2
lots remained with Salas.
Petitioners filed an
application for exemption
from the CARP, claiming
that the property had been
reclassified as non-
agricultural prior to the
effectivity of RA 6657. The
Secretary of Agrarian
Reform granted the
exemption, but was
reversed. Both the OP and
the CA affirmed the
decision.
Tani-De La While they were still
Fuente v. De La sweethearts, Maria Teresa
Fuente, Jr. already noticed that Rodolfo
was an introvert and was
G.R. No. 188400 | prone to jealousy. His
March 8, 2017 | attitude worsened as they
Leonen, J. went on with their marital
life. His jealousy became so
severe that he even poked
a gun to his 15-year old
cousin and he treated Maria
Teresa like a sex slave who
made the latter feel
maltreated and molested. In
the heat of a quarrel,
Rodolfo poked a gun at
Maria Teresa’s head. She
left and never saw Rodolfo
again after that, and
supported their children by
herself. Maria Teresa filed a
petition for declaration of
nullity of marriage on the
ground of psychological
incapacity. As support to
her petitions, clinical
psychologist, Dr. Arnulfo V.
Lopez was presented as an
expert witness.
Page 39 of 70
lustre5159
CIVIL LAW
There was sufficient Camacho-Reyes v. Reyes
compliance states that the non-
with Molina to warrant examination of one of the
the nullity of parties will not
petitioner’s marriage automatically render as
with respondent. The hearsay or invalidate the
Court of Appeals is findings of the examining
mistaken when it psychiatrist or
chided the lower court psychologist, since
for giving undue marriage, by its very
weight to the definition, necessarily
testimony of Dr. Lopez involves only two persons.
since he had no The totality of the behavior
chance to personally of one spouse during the
conduct a thorough cohabitation and marriage
study and analysis of is generally and genuinely
respondent’s mental witnessed mainly by the
and psychological other.
condition.
Article 68 of the Family
Code obligates the
husband and wife “to
live together, observe
mutual love, respect
and fidelity, and render
mutual help and
support.” In this case,
petitioner and
respondent may have
lived together, but the
facts narrated by
petitioner show that
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159 CIVIL LAW

respondent failed to,

or could not, comply
with the obligations
expected of him as a
husband. The
incurability and
severity of
respondent’s
psychological
incapacity were
likewise discussed by
Dr. Lopez. He
vouched that a person
with paranoid
personality disorder
would refuse to admit
that there was
something wrong and
that there was a need
for treatment. This was
corroborated by
petitioner when she
stated that respondent
repeatedly refused
treatment. Dr. Lopez
concluded that
because of
respondent’s
personality disorder,
he is incapacitated to
perform his marital
obligations of giving
love, respect, and
support to the
petitioner.
Respondent’s
repeated behavior of
psychological abuse
by intimidating,
stalking, and isolating
his wife from her
family and friends, as
well as his increasing
acts of physical
violence, are proof of
his depravity, and utter
lack of comprehension
of what marriage and
partnership entail.

Ara v. Pizarro Romeo Ara, William Garcia Only Fely and Henry After the death of a
(petitioners), Fely Pizarro, are the children of parent, only the following
and Henry Rossi all claim to Josefa. Under Art. 175

Page 40 of 70
lustre5159
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
G.R. No. 187273 | be the children of Josefa
Feb. 15, 2017 | Ara. Upon her death, they
Leonen, J. filed a partition of the
properties left by Josefa,
which were in the
possession of Fely. Fely
refused, stating that, to the
best of her knowledge, she
is the only child of Josefa.
The other parties presented
various pieces of evidence
to show that they are the
children of Josefa. The RTC
found them all to be
Josefa’s heirs, but the CA
reversed and held only Fely
and Henry to be the
children of Josefa.
Page 41 of 70
lustre5159
CIVIL LAW
of the Family Code, grounds may be used to
illegitimate children prove illegitimate filiation:
may establish their 1. record of birth
filiation in the same appearing in the civil
way as legitimate register or a final
children. However, if judgment,
the filiation is sought to 2. an admission of filiation
be established through in a public document or a
the open and private handwritten
continuous possession instrument and signed by
of the status of an the parent concerned
illegitimate child and
any other means A delayed registration of
allowed by law and the birth is tenuous proof of
Rules of Court, it must filiation.
be done during the
lifetime of the alleged
parent. When the
parent has died,
filiation can only be
proven by record of
birth appearing in the
civil register or a final
judgment, and by an
admission of filiation in
a public document or a
private handwritten
instrument and signed
by the parent
concerned. In this
case, because Josefa
is already dead, only
the latter two grounds
are allowed for the
petitioners. None of
the evidence
presented (baptismal
certificate, marriage
certificate, late
registration of birth)
successfully proved
the petitioners’ filiation.
Furthermore, a
delayed registration of
birth is tenuous proof
of filiation. It is
analogous to a case
where a father’s name
is written on a
certificate of live birth
but there is no
showing that the father
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
Poole Blunden v. Poole-Blunden came across
Union Bank of an ad placed by Union Bank
the Philippines for the public auction of
certain properties, including
GR No. 205838 | a condominium unit with an
November 29, advertised area of 95
2017 | Leonen square meters. Petitioner
took precaution and visited
the Unit to inspect it and
found that the unit needed
substantial repairs to be
habitable. He also
inspected the Master Title
and the CCT to verify the
details as advertised. He
won the bid and entered
into a Contract to Sell with
Union Bank. A few years
later, he decided to
construct two additional
bedrooms but noticed that
there were apparent
problems in the dimensions
of the Unit. He found that it
was just about 70square
meters, not 95 as
advertised. Hence, he
asked for a rescission of the
Contract to Sell, along with
a refund of the amounts he
had paid, if it was
conclusively established
that the area was less than
95 square meters. Union
Bank informed petitioner
that the Unit was confirmed
to be 95 square meters
inclusive of the terrace and
the common areas
surrounding it. Petitioner
filed a Complaint for
Rescission of Contract and
Damages with the RTC
Makati which was
dismissed for lack of merit.
CA affirmed the RTC’s
ruling since the sale was
made on an “as-is-where-is”
basis and thus, Poole-
Blunden was deemed to
Page 42 of 70
lustre5159
CIVIL LAW
actually participated in
its preparation.
The Supreme Court A bank that wrongfully
held that respondent’s advertises the area of a
insistence on how property acquired through
common spaces foreclosure because it
should be included in failed to dutifully ascertain
the computation of the the property’s
total area runs afoul of specifications is grossly
how the Condominium negligent as to practically
Act reckons what be in bad faith in offering
forms part of a that property to
condominium unit. The prospective buyers. Any
common area being sale made on this account
excluded, the unit sold is voidable for causal
to the petitioner was fraud.
deficient in relation to
the advertised area. As-is-where-is stipulations
There was a falsity can only encompass
that amounted to fraud physical features that are
in this case because readily perceptible by an
the dimensions and ordinary person
area of the unit were possessing no specialized
crucial to the decision skills
to proceed with the
purchase.
The Supreme Court
also held that reliance
on the “as-is-where-is”
stipulation is
misplaced because:
(1) such a stipulation
absolving a seller of
liability for hidden
defect can only be
invoked by a seller
who has no knowledge
of the hidden defects
and (2) the stipulation
can only pertain to the
readily perceptible
physical state of the
object of a sale.
In this case, Union
bank knew that the
Unit’s area, as
reckoned from the
Condominium Act,
was not 95 square
meters.
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
have waived any errors in
the bounds or description of
the unit.
CE Construction Araneta Center, Inc. (ACI)
Corporation v. contracted CE Construction
Araneta Center Corporation (CECON) for
Inc. (2017) the construction of the
Gateway Mall with a lump-
G.R. No. 192725 | sum fixed price. Because of
August 9, 2017 the increase in the prices of
the construction materials
and the delay in the
execution of a formal
contract between the
parties, the initial bid of
CECON turned out to be
insufficient for the actual
cost of completing the
project. However, ACI
refused to pay the adjusted
prices and opted to pay the
discounted offer of CECON
for the sum of
P1,540,000,000.00. This
prompted CECON to seek
arbitration before the
Construction Industry
Arbitrary Commission
(CIAC), which ruled that the
lump-sum in the contract is
not immutable and thus
CECON may claim cost
adjustments from ACI. On
appeal, the CA reversed the
CIAC and held that the
lump-sum fixed price
arrangement between ACI
and CECON is inviolable.
Page 43 of 70
lustre5159
CIVIL LAW
The first issue is w/n Absent a concurrence of
the parties are bound consent and object, no
to a lump-sum contract can be perfected.
arrangement. SC held
no. There was no The CIAC is a quasi-
meeting of minds on judicial agency equipped
the price of with technical proficiency
P1,540,000,000.00. In that enables it to efficiently
submitting its bid, resolve construction
CECON merely made disputes, and its technical
its counter-offer to expertise means that its
ACI, and this arbitral awards may not be
exchange of offers assailed except on pure
fails to satisfy the questions of law.
requirement of
absolute and Where parties enter into
unqualified contracts which do not
acceptance for strictly conform to
contracts under Art. standard formalities or to
1319 of CC. Moreover, the typifying provisions of
Art. 1321 of CC also nominate contracts, when
allows an offeror to fix one renders services to
the time of another, the latter must
acceptance. In the compensate the former for
case at bar, ACI failed the reasonable value of
to manifest its the services rendered, to
acceptance of be fixed by a court.
CECON’s offered
contract sum within
the valid period. In
sum, while the tender
documents
characterized the
contract sum as fixed
and lump-sum, the
premises for this
arrangement have
been repudiated by
intervening
circumstances.
The second issue is
w/n CIAC acted within
its jurisdiction in ruling
that the lump-sum
agreement is not
immutable. SC held
yes. Where there are
no definite
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
Abella v Petitioner filed a Complaint
Cabañero for Support against
Respondent. RTC
G.R. No. 206647 | dismissed the case for
August 9, 2017 | “failure to implead the minor
Leonen, J. child.” CA disagreed with
the RTC but nevertheless
dismissed the case for
failure of the petitioner to
establish the filiation and
paternity of the child in a
separate case.
Page 44 of 70
lustre5159
CIVIL LAW
contractual terms,
CIAC may employ
aids in interpretation,
such as Art. 1371 of
CC, which allows for
the consideration of
the contemporaneous
and subsequent acts
of the contracting
parties in determining
their intention. There
being no meeting of
minds on the contract
sum, the amount due
to CECON is
susceptible to
reasonable
adjustment, subject to
proof of legitimate
costs.
While it is true that the To be entitled to legal
grant of support was support, petitioner must, in
contingent on proper action, first
ascertaining paternal establish the filiation of the
relations between child, if the same is not
respondent and admitted or
petitioner's daughter, it acknowledged.
was unnecessary for
petitioner's action for To establish filiation, an
support to have been action for compulsory
dismissed and recognition may be filed
terminated by the against the putative father
Court of Appeals in the ahead of an action for
manner that it did. support. In the alternative,
Instead of dismissing an action for support may
the case, the Court of be directly filed, where the
Appeals should have matter of filiation shall be
remanded the case to integrated and resolved.
the Regional Trial
Court. There, An action for support may
petitioner and her very well resolve that
daughter should have ineluctable issue of
been enabled to paternity if it involves the
present evidence to same parties, is brought
establish their cause before a court with the
of action—inclusive of proper jurisdiction, prays
their underlying claim to impel recognition of
of paternal relations— paternal relations, and
against respondent. invokes judicial
intervention to do so.
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
Orbe v. Filinvest Orbe entered into a
purchase agreement with
G.R. No. 208185 | Filinvest over a lot worth
September 6, Php 2,566,795. Orbe was
2017 | Leonen, J. able to pay from June 2001
to Jule 2004 a total of Php
608,648.20. She failed to
make further payments so
Filinvest sent her a notice of
cancellation informing her
that she failed to pay
despite the grace period.
Filinvest then sold the lot to
another person so Orbe
filed a complaint for refund
with damages against
Filinvest. Arbiter Soriano,
HLURB Board of
Commissioners, and the
Office of the President ruled
that Orbe was entitled to the
cash surrender value
equivalent to 50% of the
total payments made as she
was able to make
installment payments for
more than two years. The
CA reversed the ruling of
the OP because the
payments were short of two
years worth of installments.
“Two years of installments”
means the total payments
made should at least be
equivalent to two years’
worth of installments.
Dee Hwa Liong Petitioners and respondent
Foundation entered into a Contract of
Medical Center v. Sale, wherein the
Asiamed petitioners agreed to
Supplies and purchase medical
Equipment equipment from the
Corporation respondent. Upon the
delivery of the equipment,
G.R. No. 205638 | the respondent issued
August 23, 2017 | adelivery invoices, which
J. Leonen included stipulations of
interest and penalty
charges. These were
signed by the petitioners
upon receipt. After the
petitioners failed to pay the
Page 45 of 70
lustre5159
CIVIL LAW
The CA correctly held When Republic Act No.
that Orbe was not 6552 or the Maceda Law
entitled to benefits speaks of paying "at least
under Sec. 3 of RA two years of installments"
6552 as she had failed in order for the benefits
to pay two years' under its Section 3 to
worth of installments. become available, it refers
With the shortage in to the buyer's payment of
her payment, what two (2) years' worth of the
applies is Sec. 4. This stipulated fractional,
means that Filinvest periodic payments due to
could cancel the the seller. When the
contract since Orbe buyer's payments fall
failed to pay within the short of the equivalent of
60-day grace period. two (2) years' worth of
However, the notice of installments, the benefits
cancellation made by that the buyer may avail of
respondent was an are limited to those under
invalid notarial act. Section 4. Should the
Failing to satisfy all of buyer still fail to make
Section 4's requisites payments within Section
for a valid cancellation, 4's grace period, the seller
respondent's may cancel the contract.
cancellation was Any such cancellation is
ineffectual. But since ineffectual, however,
the lot has already unless it is made through
been sold to another, a valid notarial act.
Filinvest must refund
to Orbe the amount
she actually paid
subject to legal
interest.
At issue in this case is A contract may be
whether the interest contained in several
and penalty rate instruments with non-
stipulated in the conflicting terms. A
delivery invoices form contract need not be
part of the contract. contained in a single
The Court ruled in writing. It may be collected
favor of the from several different
respondents, holding writings which do not
that the delivery conflict with each other
invoices were signed and which, when
and mutually agreed connected, show the
upon by the parties. parties, subject matter,
There is likewise no terms and consideration,
proof that the said as in contracts entered
stipulations were into by correspondence. A
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159 CIVIL LAW

balance upon demand, the somehow hidden or contract may be

respondent filed a complaint
for sum of money before the
RTC.
Among other allegations,
the petitioners argued that
the respondent unilaterally
imposed the interest and
penalty charges, since it
only appeared in the
delivery invoices and not in
the Contract of Sale.
obscured such that encompassed in several
DHLFMC could not instruments even though
have read them, every instrument is not
making it impossible signed by the parties,
tor DHLFMC to agree since it is sufficient if the
to the terms. unsigned instruments are
clearly identified or
referred to and made part
of the signed instrument
or instruments.

Page 46 of 70
lustre5159
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
2016
CASE FACTS
Philippine Venancio and Lilia Reyes,
National Bank v. husband and wife,
Venacio C. mortgaged to PNB 3
Reyes, Jr. parcels of land to secure a
loan. The properties were
G.R. No. 212483 | foreclosed after the Sps.
October 5, 2016 | Reyes failed to pay the
Leonen, j. loan. PNB emerged as the
higest bidder in the auction
sale. Venacio assailed the
validity of the mortgage,
arguing that the parcels
were conjugal property and
his wife Lilia undertook the
loan and mortgage without
his consent and by forging
his signature.
Bases On June 1995, BCDA
Conversion entered into a Joint Venture
Development Agreement (JVA) with Phil.
Authority Railway Corp. (PNR) and
(BCDA) v. DMCI other foreign corporations to
Project construct a railroad system
Developers, Inc. from Manila to Clark. Under
(DMCI-PDI) the JVA, BCDA shall
establish North Luzon
G.R. No. 173137 | Railways Corporation
January 11 , 2016 (Northrail). The JVA also
| Leonen, J. contained an arbitration
clause. Later, JVA was
amended to include “D.M.
Consuji, Inc. and/or its
nominee” as party. On the
same date, a MOA was
entered into by the parties.
Under the MOA, parties
agreed to infuse P600M to
Northrail; P200M of which
shall be D.M. Consuji’s
share, which shall be
converted to equity upon
Northrail’s privatization.
Page 47 of 70
lustre5159
CIVIL LAW
HELD DOCTRINE
The Court ruled that Any disposition or
the real estate encumbrance of a
mortgage over the conjugal property by
conjugal properties is one spouse must be
void for want of consented to by the
consent from other; otherwise, it is
respondent. The lower void. The real estate
courts found that mortgage over a
Venacio’s signature conjugal property is void
was indeed forged. The if the noncontracting
Family Code is clear: spouse did not give
the written consent of consent. However, a
the spouse who did not mortgage is merely an
encumber the property accessory agreement
is necessary before and does not affect the
any disposition or principal contract of
encumbrance of a loan.
conjugal property can
be valid. The principal
obligation (loan),
however, is not
affected. It remains
valid.
The Court resolves the An arbitration clause in
issue in light of the a document of contract
State’s policy in favor may extend to
of arbitration (RA subsequent documents
9285). Each of the of contract executed for
three documents (JVA, the same purpose.
amended JVA, and Nominees of a party to
MOA) represents a and beneficiaries of a
step towards the contract containing an
implementation of the arbitration clause may
project, such that each become parties to a
must be read together proceeding initiated
for a complete based on that arbitration
understanding of the clause.
whole agreement. The
three should be treated There is no rule that a
as one contract contract should be
because they all form a contained in a single
part of the whole document. A whole
agreement. Hence, the contract may be
arbitration clause in the contained in several
JVA should not be documents that are
interpreted as consistent with one
applicable only to the other. Amendments or
JVA’s original parties. supplements to the
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159 CIVIL LAW

Through letters, D.M. The succeeding agreement may be

Consuji notified the parties
that DMCI-PDI shall be its
nominee for all agreements
it entered and would enter
in connection with the
project. On September
2000, DMCI-PDI demanded
the return of its deposit due
to Northrail’s failure to
increase its authorized
capital stock. BCDA and
Northrail refused the
demand as well as the
demand for arbitration, so
DMCI-PDI filed with the
RTC a Petition to Compel
Arbitration, pursuant to the
arbitration clause in the
original JVA. RTC granted
the Petition and denied
BCDA and Northrail’s
Motion to Dismiss. Hence,
the latter filed a Rule 45
petition with the SC.
agreements are executed by contracting
deemed part of or a parties to address the
continuation of the circumstances or issues
JVA. The arbitration that arise while a
clause should extend contract subsists.
to all the agreements
and its parties since it
is still consistent with
all the terms and
conditions of the
amendments and
supplements.
BCDA and Northrail’s
lack of consent to the
assignment [of D.M.
Consuji’s rights] is
irrelevant because
there was no
assignment. DMCI-PDI
was a nominee.
Although Northrail is
not a signatory to the
contracts, it is also
bound by the
arbitration agreements.
A beneficiary who
accepted the terms of
the agreement may be
compelled to abide by
its terms, including the
arbitration clause.

The Spouses Delfin filed a The SC reversed the 1. For acquisitive

Heirs of Delfin v. complaint for “Payment of
National Housing Parcel(s) of Land” in the
Authority RTC, claiming that they
were the owners of a parcel
G.R. No. 193618, of land in Iligan, which they
November 28, bought in 1951 from a
2016 Natingo who allegedly had
been in actual possession
of the property since time
immemorial. They further
alleged that the NHA
forcibly took possession of
a portion of their land, never
gave them compensation.
In its Answer, the NHA
alleged that the Delfins’
property was part of a
CA’s decision and held
that the Petitioners
were entitled to just
compensation. Though
the Petitioners may not
claim the title through
acquisitive prescription
under Sec. 14(2) of the
Public Land Act, they
may do so pursuant to
Sec. 48(b) of the Public
Land Act which
pertains to those who
have been in open,
continuous, exclusive,
and notorious 2. Under
possession and,
prescription to set in
pursuant to Section
14(2) of Presidential
Decree No. 1529,
two (2)
requirements must
be satisifled: first,
the property is
established to be
private in character;
and second the
applicable
prescriptive period
under existing laws
had passed.
Commonwealth Act

Page 48 of 70
lustre5159
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159 CIVIL LAW

military reservation area occupation of No. 141, a claimant

under Proclamation No.
2143, and the same
proclamation gave the NHA
the power to determine the
improvements’ valuation.
The RTC ruled in favor of
the Spouses Delfin and
ordered the NHA to pay just
compensation. The NHA
appealed to the CA, which
granted its petition. The CA
ruled that the Spouses
Delfin failed to establish
their possession since June
12, 1945 as required in
Section 48(b) of the Public
Land Act. The Spouses
Delfin died and were
replaced by their Heirs.
agricultural lands of
public domain, under a
bona fide claim of
acquisition or
ownership since June
12, 1945. Respondent
NHA itself admitted
that the property had
been declared to be
alienable and
disposable land, and
though the Spouses
Delfin’s testimonial and
tax declarations
showed their
possession went only
as far back as 1952,
the Deputy Public Land
Inspector’s letters to
the Director of land
attest to a previous
finding that the
property had been
occupied as early as
June 1945.
Proclamation No. 2143,
the law cited by the
NHA, facilitated the
compensation.
may acquire
alienable and
disposable public
land upon evidence
of exclusive and
notorious
possession of the
land since June 12,
1945. The period to
acquire public land
by acquisitive
prescription under
Presidential Decree
No. 1529 begins to
run only after the
promulgation of a
law or a
proclamation by the
President stating
that the land is no
longer intended for
public use or the
development of
national wealth.

Caravan Travel Reyes was walking along
and Tours the west-bound lane of
International, Sampaguita Street. A
Inc. v. Abejar Mitsubishi L-300 van was
travelling along the east-
G.R. No. 170631 | bound lane, opposite
February 10, 2016 Reyes. To avoid an
| Leonen, J. incoming vehicle, the van
swerved to its left and hit
Reyes. Espinosa, a witness
to the accident, went to her
aid and loaded her in the
back of the van. Espinosa
told the driver of the van,
Bautista, to bring Reyes to
the hospital. Instead of
doing so, Bautista appeared
to have left the van parked
inside a nearby subdivision
with Reyes still in the van.
Fortunately for Reyes, an
unidentified civilian came to
Respondent presented First, Article 2180's
a copy of the specifies that employers
Certificate of shall be liable for the
Registration of the van damages caused by
that hit Reyes. The their employees acting
Certificate attests to within the scope of their
petitioner's ownership assigned tasks. Second,
of the van. Petitioner the operation of the
itself did not dispute its registered-owner rule
ownership of the van. states that that
Consistent with the rule registered owners are
we have just stated, a liable for death or
presumption that the injuries caused by the
requirements of Article operation of their
2180 have been vehicles. These rules
satisfied arises. It is appear to be in conflict
now up to petitioner to when it comes to cases
establish that it in which the employer is
incurred no liability also the registered
under Article 2180. owner of a vehicle.
This it can do by Article 2180 requires
presenting proof of any proof of two things: first,

Page 49 of 70
lustre5159
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
help and drove Reyes to the
hospital. Upon investigation,
it was found that the
registered owner of the van
was Caravan. Bautista was
Caravan's employee
assigned to drive the van as
its service driver. Caravan
shouldered the
hospitalization expenses of
Reyes. Despite medical
attendance, Reyes died 2
days after the accident.
Page 50 of 70
lustre5159
CIVIL LAW
of the following: first, an employment
that it had no relationship between the
employment driver and the owner;
relationship with and second, that the
Bautista; second, that driver acted within the
Bautista acted outside scope of his or her
the scope of his assigned tasks. On the
assigned tasks; or other hand, applying the
third, that it exercised registered-owner rule
the diligence of a good only requires the plaintiff
father of a family in the to prove that the
selection and defendant-employer is
supervision of Bautista. the registered owner of
On the first, petitioner the vehicle.
admitted that Bautista
was its employee at the In light of this, the words
time of the accident. used in Del Carmen are
On the second, particularly notable.
petitioner was unable There, this court stated
to prove that Bautista that Article 2180 "should
was not acting within defer to" the registered-
the scope of his owner rule. It never
assigned tasks at the stated that Article 2180
time of the accident. should be totally
On the third, petitioner abandoned. Therefore,
likewise failed to prove the appropriate
that it exercised the approach is that in
requisite diligence in cases where both the
the selection and registered-owner rule
supervision of Bautista. and Article 2180 apply,
Employing a person the plaintiff must first
holding a non- establish that the
professional driver's employer is the
license to operate registered owner of the
another's motor vehicle vehicle in question.
violates Section 24 of Once the plaintiff
the Land successfully proves
Transportation and ownership, there arises
Traffic Code. Evidently, a disputable
petitioner did not only presumption that the
fail to exercise due requirements of Article
diligence when it 2180 have been proven.
selected Bautista as As a consequence, the
service driver; it also burden of proof shifts to
committed an actual the defendant to show
violation of law. that no liability under
Petitioner's argument Article 2180 has arisen.
that it should be This disputable
excused from liability presumption, insofar as
because Bautista was the registered owner of
already dropped as a the vehicle in relation to
party is equally the actual driver is
unmeritorious. The concerned, recognizes
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
Republic v. Sogod Development
Sogod Corporation filed an
Development application for registration
Corporation and confirmation of land title
over an area in Cebu. It
G.R. No. 175760 | claims that it purchased the
February 17, land from a Catalina Rivera
2016| Leonen, J. on Oct. 28, 1996, and avers
that it had been in open,
continuous, exclusive, and
notorious possession and
occupation of the land since
June 12, 1945. The Solicitor
General opposed, saying
that Sogod was disqualified
from applying for an original
registration of title, and
arguing that the land was
certified only as alienable
and disposable only on Jan.
17, 1986. Thus, there was a
violation of the Public Land
act. The trial court granted
the application.
Page 51 of 70
lustre5159
CIVIL LAW
liability imposed on the that between the owner
registered owner is and the victim, it is the
direct and primary. former that should carry
the costs of moving
forward with the
evidence. The
registration of the
vehicle, on the other
hand, is accessible to
the public.
The Court denied the For a judicial
petition and affirmed confirmation of title
the grant of the under Section 48 (b) of
application. It held that the Public Land Act, the
Sec. 48(b) of the Public land subject of the
Land Act, specifically in application needs only
including the date June to be alienable and
12, 1945, only qualifies disposable as of the
possession and time of the application,
occupation, not land provided the applicant's
classification as possession and
alienable and occupation of the land
disposable. The land dates back to June 12,
needs to be classified 1945, or earlier.
as alienable and
disposable as of the
time of the application,
provided the
applicant’s possession
and occupation of the
land dates back to
June 12, 1945 or
earlier. To rule
otherwise would result
in an absurdity,
especially since the
Philippines was not
even considered an
independent state
before such date.
Since Sogod was able
to prove that it was in
possession (by itself
and through its
predecessor-in-
interest) in the concept
of owner of the land
since June 12, 1945,
the application must be
granted.
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
Philippine PEZA published an
Economic Zone invitation to bid for the
Authority v. acquisition of 2 brand new
Pilhino Sales fire truck units. Pilhino
Corporation secured the contract for the
acquisition of the fire trucks.
GR No. 185765 | The contract stipulated that
September 28, Pilhino was to deliver the 2
2016 | Leonen trucks within 45 days of
receipt of a purchase order.
There was also a stipulation
for the payment of a penalty
at the rate of 1/10 of 1% of
the total contract price for
each day in case there is
failure to deliver on the date
specified. PEZA filed a
Complaint for rescission
and damages before the
RTC as Pilhino failed to
comply with its obligation.
RTC ruled for PEZA,
declaring the contract
rescinded and ordering
Pilhino to pay the stipulated
rate of liquidated damages.
Issue is the propriety of
awarding contractually
stipulated liquidated
damages notwithstanding
the rescission of the same
contract stipulating it.
Padilla, Jr. v. Petitioner-spouses Padilla
Malicsi (2016) bought a parcel of land in
Cabanatuan City in 1984. In
G.R. No. 201354 | 1998, they discovered that
September 21, the respondents had
2016 constructed houses on their
lot. The spouses made
repeated demands to no
avail. All efforts at
conciliation in the
Katarungang Pambarangay
failed, leading to the
spouses’ filing of the
complaint for recovery of
possession against the
respondents before the
Regional Trial Court.
The respondents claimed
that they were builders in
Page 52 of 70
lustre5159
CIVIL LAW
The Supreme Court Although the provisions
held that while of a contract are legally
rescission on account null and void, the
of breach of reciprocal stipulated method of
obligations results in computing liquidated
mutual restitution, it damages may be
does not negate accepted as evidence of
contractually stipulated the intent of the parties.
liquidated damages. To The provisions can be
rule otherwise would basis for finding a
turn delinquency into a factual anchor for
profitable enterprise, liquidated damages.
enabling contractual Nevertheless, the liable
breach to itself be the party may present better
means for evading its evidence to establish a
own fallout. more accurate basis for
awarding damages.
The sole issue is W/N Factual questions are
respondents are not proper subjects of
builders in good faith. an appeal by certiorari,
in general. However,
1. The case lies there are exceptions.
within the
exception to the Parties asserting the
rule that factual status of builder in good
questions are not faith must substantiate
proper subjects of their claim through
an appeal by preponderance of
certiorari. A careful evidence.
study of the
records led the
Court to conclude
that the case is
within the
exceptions laid
down in Medina v.
Asistio, Jr.,
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159 CIVIL LAW

good faith for they did so particularly that

after Toribia Vda. de “the inference
Mossessgeld, whom they made is manifestly
believed to own the land, mistaken”.
gave permission. De
Mossessgeld also agreed to 2. The respondents
sell the land to them, are not builders in
provided that pending full good faith.
payment, they would pay • The RTC found
her monthly rent. that the property
was titled as early
A commission was created as 1963 to the
to determine the actual mother of petitioner
valuation of the lot, Pablo Padilla, Jr.,
including the improvements while the
made thereon. But later the respondents
spouses filed a Motion and entered only
Manifestation with Offer to sometime between
Sell, to which the 1980 and 1983.
respondents rejected. The • The CA relied
RTC ruled that the heavily on cases
respondents cannot be that greatly differ
considered as builders in from the instant
good faith and ordered case. De
them to vacate the property Mossessgeld is not
and pay attorney’s fees and closely related to
litigation expenses. the respondents.
The lack of such
Respondents appealed close blood
before the Court of Appeals, relations should
which then reversed and set have been enough
aside the RTC decision. to put the
The CA gave credence to respondents on
the respondents’ allegation guard and not be
that De Mossessgeld own convinced to rely
the lot and gave them on her claim of
permission to construct ownership.
houses thereon, leading the • The respondents
petitioner-spouses to file the failed to present De
instant petition for review on Mossessgeld
certiorari before the Court. herself nor were
they able to
provide proof that
serves as the
latter’s basis for
her purported
ownership of the
lot. It was not
proven that De
Mossessgeld’s
ownership is so
well known in the
community that the

Page 53 of 70
lustre5159
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
Vitangcol v A complaint was filed
People accusing the Petitioner of
bigamy by his current
G.R. No. 207406 | spouse. Petitioner pleaded
January 13, 2016 | not guilty. After trial, RTC
Leonen, J. found petitioner guilty of
bigamy as he still had a
subsisting valid marriage
with another woman. CA
sustained the guilty verdict.
Sps. Lam v. Sps. Lam and Kodak
Kodak Phils., entered into an agreement
Ltd. wherein Kodak would
deliver 3 units of Minilab
G.R. No. 167615 | Equipment and Sps. Lam
January 11, 2016 | were to pay on installment
Leonen, J. basis. The first unit was
delivered and Sps. Lam
issued postdated checks.
The first two checks were
honored but the others were
dishonored due to the
spouses’ request to stop
payment. Kodak cancelled
the sale and demanded that
Sps. Lam return the unit.
The spouses, in turn,
rescinded the contract for
Kodak’s failure to deliver
Page 54 of 70
lustre5159
CIVIL LAW
respondents had to
believe her claim.
All the elements of Persons intending to
bigamy are present in contract a second
this case. Petitioner marriage must first
was still legally married secure a judicial
to another woman declaration of nullity of
when he contracted a their first marriage. If
second marriage. they proceed with the
second marriage without
Even with the absence the judicial declaration,
of a marriage license of they are guilty of bigamy
the first marriage in the regardless of evidence
civil registrar, it does of the nullity of the first
not categorically state marriage.
that such marriage
license does not exist.
Petitioner’s first
marriage was not
judicially declared void.
Art. 40, Civil Code. The
absolute nullity of a
previous marriage may
be invoked for
purposes of remarriage
on the basis solely of a
final judgment
declaring such
previous marriage void.
The CA erred in ruling An obligation is
that the obligations indivisible when it
were divisible but cannot be validly
correctly ruled that performed in parts,
there should be mutual whatever may be the
restitution after nature of the thing
rescission. which is the object
thereof. The indivisibility
The agreement refers to the prestation
contained an indivisible and not to the object
obligation. The thereof.
intention of the parties
is for there to be a Rescission creates the
single transaction obligation to return the
covering all 3 units of object of the contract. It
the equipment: Kodak can be carried out only
to deliver all 3 units when the one who
under a package and demands rescission can
the Sps. Lam to pay return whatever he may
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
the other 2 units. Kodak
then filed a complaint for
replevin and/or recovery of
sum of money. The RTC
held that Kodak defaulted in
the performance of its
obligation for failing to
deliver the 2 remaining units
within a reasonable time.
But Sps. Lam were liable for
the fair value of the unit
delivered. Upon appeal, the
CA ruled that the
obligations were divisible.
Because of the rescission of
the contract, Sps. Lam must
return the equipment while
Kodak must return the
amount paid.
National Power Under an Energy
Corporation v. Conversion Agreement,
Southern respondent Southern
Philippines Philippines Power (SPP)
Power was obligated to convert the
fuel supplied by petitioner
G.R. No. 219627 | National Power Corporation
July 4, 2016 | (NAPOCOR) to electricity
Leonen, J. deliver the same back to the
petitioner. Initially, SPP had
five engines in its power
plant, but would later on
unilaterally install another
engine thus providing an
additional 10% generating
capacity. SPP sought to
collect payment in the
amount attributable to the
said increase. It forwards
that under the Agreement, it
‘may nominate a Contracted
Capacity of up to, but not
exceeding, 55,000
[kilowatts] in any year
without securing [petitioner]
's consent.’ NAPOCOR
opposed the action
contending that it never
agreed to the installation of
another engine, and it was
Page 55 of 70
lustre5159
CIVIL LAW
the total purchase price be obliged to restore. To
in installments. This rescind is to declare a
intention must prevail contract void at its
even if the articles are inception and to put an
physically separable. end to it as though it
never was. It is not
Both parties must be merely to terminate it
restored to their and release the parties
original situation as far from further obligations
as practicable, as if the to each other, but to
contract was never abrogate it from the
entered into. Sps. Lam beginning and restore
must relinquish the parties to their
possession of the relative positions as if
delivered Minilab no contract has been
Equipment unit and made.
accessories, while
Kodak must return the
amount tendered by
Sps. Lam as partial
payment for the unit
received.
Petitioner NAPOCOR’s A contract is the law
contention fails to between parties. Absent
persuade. A reading of any showing that its
the entire Energy provisions are contrary
Conversion Agreement to law, morals, good
and its Schedules customs, public order,
reveals no express or public policy, it should
prohibition against be enforced to the letter.
respondent's Contracts cannot be
installation of a sixth altered for the benefit of
engine in its Power one party and to the
Station. The detriment of another.
Agreement does not Neither can [the] Court,
limit respondent to the by construction, "relieve
five generating units [a] party from the terms
initially required to be to which [it] voluntarily
installed, and that what consented, or impose
is of prime importance on [it] those which [it]
is that respondent did not.
makes available to
petitioner electricity no
less than 50,000
kilowatts.
Although it is clear that
respondent is given an
allowance of 5
megawatt contracted
capacity or up to a
maximum of 55
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
only bound to pay for the
amount based on the actual
net kW capacity of the
power station actually
demonstrated and tested
based on its original
configuration of five
engines.
Vitug v. Abuda Vitug mortgaged to Abuda a
property in Tondo, Manila to
G.R. No. 201264 | answer for a loan incurred
January 11, 2016 | from Abuda amounting to
J. Leonen PHP 250,000. The property
mortgaged was subject of a
conditional Contract to Sell
between the NHA and
Vitug. Subsequently, the
property was transferred to
Vitug’s name. However,
Vitug failed to pay the
loans. Abuda filed a
complaint for foreclosure of
property against Vitug,
which the RTC granted.
Vitug argues that the
contract was void on the
grounds of fraud and lack of
consent. He also argued
that there was an
annotation by the NHA in
his TCT which restricted his
right to dispose or
encumber the property.
Thus, the mortgage was
void.
Page 56 of 70
lustre5159
CIVIL LAW
megawatts, it is not
specified in the
Agreement that the
additional 5 megawatt
contracted capacity
must be produced only
from the original 5
generating units. This
omission in the
Agreement binds
petitioner.
At issue in this case is Contracts that only
whether the mortgage subject a property
contract between the owner's property rights
parties is valid. The to conditions or
Court ruled that it was limitations but otherwise
valid despite the contain all the elements
annotation in the TCT. of a valid contract are
All the elements of a merely voidable by the
valid mortgage contract person in whose favor
under Art. 2085 of the the conditions or
Civil Code were limitations are made.
present in this case.
The fact that Vitug had
the title in his name is
sufficient to give him
free disposal of it. The
restriction in this TCT,
as annotated by the
NHA, does not divest
him of his ownership
rights. They are mere
limitations on his right,
and only the NHA may
question the
disposition. Thus, the
contract is no void ab
initio, but merely
voidable at the
instance of the NHA.
Vitug does not have a
cause of action based
on the restriction.
Furthermore, the Court
held that there was
substantial compliance
with the requirement of
securing NHA’s
consent for the
mortgage.
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159 CIVIL LAW

2015
CASE FACTS HELD DOCTRINE

The Register of De Ocampo filed an Respondents Anglo, To claim under the

Deeds of Negros application to register Sr. and Anglo Corp. do Assurance Fund based
Occidental v. Oscar parcels of prime sugar not meet the criteria set on PD NO. 1529, the
Anglo, Sr. land. This was to recover damages following requirements
contested by the from the Assurance must be met:
G.R. No. 171804 | Bureau of Education, Fund. Anglo, Sr. no First, the individual must
August 5, 2015 | alleging that the longer had an interest sustain loss or damage,
Leonen, j. parcels were donated over the lots after he or the individual is
to the Bureau by the had transferred these deprived of land or any
late Jalandoni. The CFI to Anglo Corp. Hence, estate or interest.
ordered the registration he no longer has a Second, the individual
of the parcels, which claim from the must not be negligent.
De Ocampo eventually Assurance Fund. On Third, the loss, damage,
sold to Anglo, Sr. the other hand, Anglo or deprivation is the
Despite the notices of Corp. cannot be consequence of either
lis pendens, Anglo, Sr. considered a (a) fraudulent
conveyed the parcels transferee in good registration under the
to Anglo Corp. in faith, considering it was Torrens system after the
exchange for shares of aware of the title’s land’s original
stock. The Court of notices of lis pendens. registration, or (b) any
Appeals then decided Hence, it also has no error, omission, mistake,
in favor of the Bureau, right to claim damages or misdescription in any
so Anglo, Sr. and from the Assurance certificate of title or in
Anglo Corp. were Fund. any entry or
ordered to surrender memorandum in the
the title. The latter then registration book.
filed a complaint for Fourth, the individual
damages from the must be barred or
Assurance Fund under otherwise precluded
Act No. 496 and PD under the provision of
No. 1529 against the any law from bringing an
Register of Deeds of action for the recovery
Negros Occidental and of such land or the
the National Treasurer, estate or interest
alleging that they therein.
acquired the lots in
good faith and for value
without any negligence.

Mendoza v. Valte In 1978, Reynosa Valte The SC denied the Questions of fact are not
filed a free patent petition. Firstly, the generally entertained in
G.R. No. 172961 | application for a 7.2-ha factual issue of the a petition for review
September 7 , 2015 | parcel of land in Nueva identity of the land in before the SC. The
Leonen, J. Ecija; Procopio Vallega controversy cannot be existence or non-
and Pedro Mendoza belatedly raised on existence of fraud is a
were listed as appeal, as it offends question of fact; it is a
witnesses to testify to due process and fair legal conclusion based
the truth of the play. Furthermore, a on a finding that the
allegations in the petition for review evidence presented is

Page 57 of 70
lustre5159
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159 CIVIL LAW

application. The under Rule 45 may sufficient to establish

Bureau of Lands raise only questions of facts constituting its
approved the law. The identity of the elements.
application, and a Free land and the presence
Patent and OTC were or absence of fraud Petitions for a review or
issued in Valte’s name. involves factual reopening of a decree of
In 1982, Mendoza and questions. registration based on
Jose Gonzales filed a actual fraud must be
protest against Valte’s Petitioners also failed filed before the proper
application, claiming to to overcome the court within the one-year
be lawful owners and burden of proving that period provided under
possessors since 1930 respondent Valte relevant laws. The party
through a predecessor- employed fraud in her alleging fraud must
in-interest who had free patent application. overcome the burden of
been in actual, The law allowing fraud proving the fraud with
uninterrupted, open, as a ground for a clear and convincing
peaceful, exclusive and reopening of a land evidence.
adverse possession in registration
the concept of an contemplates actual Sec. 101 of
owner of the land. They and extrinsic fraud, not Commonwealth Act No.
alleged that Valte merely constructive or 141 allows actions for
procured the Free intrinsic. Petitioners did the reversion of the land
Patent by means of not allege nor show fraudulently granted to
fraud, any irregularity in the private individuals filed
misrepresentation in free patent application even after the lapse of
connivance, that the proceedings conducted the one-year period, but
said land was in their before the Director of this must be initiated by
actual possession, and Lands. In fact, the state.
that the improvements petitioner Mendoza
on the land were was one of the
existing long before witnesses stated in
Valte filed her free respondent’s free
patent. The DENR patent application, and
found Mendoza and he even executed a
Gonzales to be mere Joint Affidavit in
tenants of the land and Support of the Patent
dismissed the protest. Application attesting to
The OP reversed the the respondent’s
DENR’s decision and continuous occupation
adjudged Mendoza and and cultivation of the
Gonzales to have land herself.
preferential right over
the land. The CA Sec. 32 of PD 1529 or
reinstated the DENR the Property
decision. Hence, Registration Decree
Mendoza and states that a petition for
Gonzales filed the reopening and review
present petition. of the decree of
registration of the land
must be filed not later
than one year from and
after the date of the
entry of such decree of

Page 58 of 70
lustre5159
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159 CIVIL LAW

registration. Petitioners
only filed their protest
on Dec. 6, 1982,
almost four years after
the Free Patent had
been issued on Dec.
28, 1978. Their right to
action, thus, already
prescribed.

Sec. 101 of
Commonwealth Act
No. 141 allows actions
by the state for the
reversion of land
fraudulently granted to
private individuals even
when they are filed
after the lapse of the
one-year period.
However, the state has
not initiated such a
case.

Saudia v. Rebesencio Respondents were The SC affirmed the 1. Section 3(d) of the
et. al recruited and hired by CA’s decision. First, it Foreign Investments
Petitioner Saudia, a held that summons Act allows foreign
G.R. No. 198587, foreign company, and was validly served on corporations doing
January 14, 2015 became permanent Saudia and jurisdiction business in the
flight attendants. The over it was validly Philippines be sued
Respondents claimed acquired. By its own in the Philippines
that after Saudia had admission, Saudia, and is subject to the
approved their while a foreign jurisdiction of
maternity leaves, it was corporation has a Philippine tribunals.
soon retracted and Philippine office. 2. Any evaluation of
they were asked to Second, it ruled that the propriety of
resign. Saudia Saudia may not invoke contracting parties'
anchored its decision forum non conveniens choice of a forum
to demand for their to effectuate the and'its incidents
resignation on its stipulations in the must grapple with
Contract which renders contracts which require two (2)
the employment of a the application of the considerations: first,
flight attendant void laws in Saudi Arabia. the availability and
once she becomes Forum non conveniens adequacy of
pregnant—a contract relates to forum, not to recourse to a foreign
which the Respondents the choice of governing tribunal; and
alleged only too effect law. the considerations second, the
after they had already for assumption of question of where,
filed and had their jurisdiction by as between the
maternity leaves Philippine tribunals as forum court and a
approved. The outlined in Bank of foreign court, the
Respondents filed a America, NT&SA have balance of interests
claim for illegal been satisfied. First, all inhering in a dispute

Page 59 of 70
lustre5159
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159 CIVIL LAW

dismissal before the the parties are based in weighs more

LA, which the LA the Philippines and all heavily.
dismissed, but which the material incidents 3. Constructive
was granted upon transpired in this dismissal is
appeal. The CA jurisdiction. Thus, the tantamount to
affirmed the decision. parties may involuntarily
conveniently seek relief resignation due to
from Philippine the harsh, hostile,
tribunals. Second, and unfavorable
Philippine tribunals are conditions set by the
in a position to make employer. The
an intelligent decision gauge for
as to the law and the constructive
facts. Third, Philippine dismissal is whether
tribunals are in a a reasonable person
position to enforce their in the employee's
decisions. There is no position would feel
compelling basis for compelled to give up
ceding jurisdiction to a his employment
foreign tribunal. under the prevailing
The SC also ruled that circumstances."
Respondents were
illegally terminated, as
they were
constructively
dismissed. The
Respondents were
entitled to full
backwages and
benefits from the time
of their termination until
the finality of the SC’s
decision.

Perfecto v. Esidera Perfecto filed an The Court finds What the law prohibits is
administrative respondent Judge not a second marriage
A.M. No. RTJ-15-2417 complaint against Esidera’s omission to during a subsisting
| July 22, 2015 | respondent Judge correct her child’s birth marriage per se. What
Leonen, J. Esidera for falsification certificate is not the law prohibits is a
of public document and sufficient to render her second marriage that
dishonesty. Perfecto administratively liable would have been valid
alleged that respondent under the had it not been for the
Judge Esidera falsified circumstances. The subsisting marriage.
her daughter’s birth error in the birth
certificate to make it certificate cannot be
appear that she and attributed to her. She
Renato Esidera were did not participate in
married on March 18, filling in the required
1990 when in fact they details in the
were married on June document. The birth
3, 1992 in order to certificate shows that it
show that their

Page 60 of 70
lustre5159
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159 CIVIL LAW

daughter was a was her husband who

legitimate child of signed it as informant.
Renato Verano
Esidera. It was also Respondent judge’s act
alleged that her first of participating in the
marriage with Richard marriage ceremony as
Tang Tepace was governed only by the
contracted on May 7, rules of her religion is
1987 and was later not inconsistent with
declared void on our law against
January 27, 1992. bigamy. Under our law,
Perfecto prays for respondent judge’s
respondent Judge marriage in 1990 was
Esidera’s dismissal invalid because of the
from office for her solemnizing officer’s
alleged dishonesty. lack of authority.
However, respondent
Judge Esidera argued Respondent Judge
that everything she did Esidera is also not
was legal and in guilty of disgraceful
accordance with her and immoral conduct
religious beliefs. She under the Code of
was indeed, married to Professional
her second husband on Responsibility. The
March 18, 1990, but Court cannot conclude
only under recognized that respondent
Catholic rites. The Judge’s acts of
priest who officiated contracting a second
their marriage had no marriage during the
authority to solemnize subsistence of her
marriages under the alleged first marriage
civil law. She said that and having an alleged
couples who are civilly “illicit” affair are
married are considered “immoral” based on her
living in state of sin, Catholic faith. The
and may be ex- Court is not a judge of
communicated. They religious morality. The
cannot receive the Court may not sit as
sacraments. judge of what is
immoral conduct
according to a
particular religion. The
Court has no
jurisdiction over and is
not the proper authority
to determine which
conduct contradicts
religious doctrine. They
have jurisdiction over
matters of morality only
insofar as it involves
conduct that affects the
public or its interest.

Page 61 of 70
lustre5159
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159 CIVIL LAW

Spouses Abella v. Petitioner spouses filed The Court determined • The legal rate of
Spouses Abella a complaint for sum of that this case involves interest, when applied
money against the a simple loan or as conventional interest,
G.R. No. 195166 | July respondents, alleging mutuum. That being shall always be the legal
08, 2015| Leonen, J. that the respondents said, the Court held rate at the time the
obtained a loan of PHP that interest accrued on agreement was
500,000 from them. respondents’ loan at executed and shall not
However, only PHP 12% p.a. due to the be susceptible to shifts
200,000 was paid. The mandatory language of in rate.
respondents, however, jurisprudence involving • Apart from
argue that the amount legal interests in light of respondents’ liability for
they received was the absence of a conventional interest at
actually part of the stipulation regarding the rate of 12% per
capital for a joint interest rate to be annum, outstanding
venture (JV) involving applied to the loan. conventional interest—if
the lending of money. 12% p.a. was the legal any is due from
The contract allegedly rate at the time the respondents—shall itself
stipulated that they contract was executed. earn legal interest from
would split the 5% Should the the time judicial demand
interest charged by the conventional interest was made by
JV agreement to their still be due as of 01 petitioners, i.e., on July
debtors. The one year July 2013, the rate of 31, 2002, when they
deadline was not a 12% per annum shall filed their Complaint.
deadline for payment, persist as the rate of
but a deadline to return conventional interest.
the money placed by The legal rate of
the petitioners if the JV interest, when applied
was not successful. as conventional
Allegedly, the interest, shall always
petitioners terminated be the legal rate at the
the JV and was only time the agreement
able to collect PHP was executed and shall
200,000 from the not be susceptible to
debtors. The RTC ruled shifts in rate. The Court
in favor of the also held that
petitioners, ordering outstanding
the respondents to pay conventional interest
the principal plus the shall itself earn legal
stipulated interest rate interest from the time
of 30% per annum. The judicial demand was
CA reversed, holding made by the
that the payment of petitioners. Thus, the
2.5% interest per interest due on
month was invalid, thus conventional interest
the respondents shall be at 12% p.a.
already overpaid. from 31 July 2002 to 30
June 2013. But starting
01 July 2013, it shall be
at 6% p.a. After
computations were
made, it was found that
Respondents made an
overpayment in the

Page 62 of 70
lustre5159
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159 CIVIL LAW

amount of P3,379.17.
As such, Petitioners
were made to
reimburse said
amount to abide by the
principle of solutio
indebiti.

Maltos v. Heirs of A Free Patent over a The Supreme Court The sale of a parcel of
Borromeo piece of agricultural held that since the sale agricultural land covered
land in Agusan Del Sur was made within the 5 by a free patent during
GR No. 172720 | was issued to year prohibitory period, the five-year prohibitory
September 14, 2015 | Borromeo in 1979. there is sufficient cause period under the Public
Leonen Borromeo sold the land to revert the property in Land Act is void.
to Maltos in 1983. Prior faor of the state. Reversion of the parcel
to his death in 1991, he However, because the of land is proper.
told his wife and title was already vested However, reversion
children to nullify the in Borromeo’s name, under Section 101 is not
sale made to Maltos Section 101 will apply automatic so the OSG
because it was within and there is a limitation must first file an action
the five year prohibitory in the provision which for reversion.
period. Hence, heirs says that an action for
filed a complaint for reversion must first be The doctrine of in pari
nullity of title and filed by the OSG. delicto non oritur action
reconveyance of title. is inapplicable when
RTC dismissed on the The Supreme Court public policy will be
ground of failure to also held that while violated.
state a cause of action there is yet no action
since the said heirs for reversion filed, the
were unable to property should be
establish their status as conveyed by the
heirs of Borromeo. petitioners to the
RTC also held that the respondents
sale was null and void
for being made within
the 5 year prohibitory
period. The in pari
delicto rule was also
held inapplicable since
it does not apply to an
inexistent contract such
as a sale void ab initio
under the Public Land
Act, when its
enforcement runs
counter to the public
policy of preserving the
grantees right to the
land under homestead
law.
CA reversed, holding
that the property
should revert to the

Page 63 of 70
lustre5159
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
state. However, the
government has to file
an action for reversion
because reversion is
not automatic. While
there is yet no action
for reversion instituted
by the OSG, the
property should be
returned to the heirs of
Borromeo.
The Wellex Group v. Wellex, a corporation
U-Land Airlines maintaining airline
(2015) operations in the
Philippines, and U-
G.R. No. 167519 | Land Airlines, a
January 14, 2015 Taiwan-based
corporation, entered
into a First
Memorandum of
Agreement (FMA) on
May 16, 1998,
intending to expand
their respective airline
operations by creating
a joint interest in airline
operations and
property development
projects in the
Philippines. The FMA
provided for (1) U-
Land’s acquisition of
the shares of stock of
both Air Philippines
International
Corporation (APIC) and
Philippine Estates
Corporation (PEC),
where Wellex owns
shares of stock; (2)
their joint operational
control of APIC and Air
Philippines Corporation
(APC); and (3) a Joint
Development
Agreement.
The FMA was
conditioned on the
execution of a Share
Purchase Agreement
Page 64 of 70
lustre5159
CIVIL LAW
The issue inquires into The failure of one of the
the propriety of the contracting parties to
RTC and CA’s decision comply with its
to grant the rescission. reciprocal obligation
The Court affirms the allows the wronged
judgment, applying Art. party to seek the
1191, CC. remedy of rescission or
resolution under Art.
For Art. 1191 to be 1191, CC.
applicable, there must
be reciprocal It is a principal action
prestations between that is based on the
the parties. A breach of faith, violating
prestation is the object the original reciprocal
of an obligation, and it prestation.
is the conduct required
by the parties to do or
not to do, or to give. It
also must emanate
from the same cause
that gave rise to the
existence of the
contract. In this case,
the desire of both
parties to enter into the
SPA that would allow
them to expand their
airline operations
serves as the cause
which gave rise to the
reciprocal prestations.
The failure of one of
the parties to comply
with its reciprocal
prestation allows the
wronged party to seek
the remedy under Art.
1191. It is a principal
action that becomes
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159 CIVIL LAW

(SPA) which would available due to the

finalize the number of breach of faith by the
shares of stock to be defendant, that violates
purchased by U-Land. the reciprocity between
It also states that the parties.
failure to agree on the
terms of the SPA and Contrary to Wellex’s
the JDA within 40 days argument, Suria v. IAC
of signing would is inapplicable in this
release the parties case as it talks of
from their obligations rescission under Art.
and render the FMA 1381 which is different
ineffective. from the rescission or
resolution found in Art.
The 40-day period 1191. Art. 1381 and
lapsed on June 25, Art. 1383 pertain to
1998 and the parties rescission where
were unable to agree creditors or even third
on the SPA. Despite persons can file an
the absence of such action due to lesion or
agreement, U-Land damage as a result of
remitted a total of USD the contract. Also,
7,499,945 to Wellex, unlike Art. 1191, Art.
which acknowledged 1381 is a subsidiary
receipt of the said action which is
amount. However, they predicated on injury to
still failed to agree on the economic interests
the terms and 10 of the party plaintiff.
months after their last
formal communication,
U-Land demanded the
return of its remittance.

On July 30, 1999, U-

Land filed a complaint
praying for rescission
of the First
Memorandum of
Agreement and
damages against
Wellex.

Reyes v Sps. Ramos Petitioner filed a The Court dismissed the following requisites
complaint before the the petition for lack of need to be established
G.R. No. 194488 | RTC for easement of merit. Petitioner was before a person
February 11, 2015 | right of way against not able to satisfy the becomes entitled to
Leonen, J. Respondents as her requisites to demand demand the compulsory
property was the compulsory easement of right of
surrounded by estates easement of right of way:
belonging to other way under Arts. 649
persons and prevented and 650 of the Civil 1. An immovable is
her from accessing the Code. surrounded by other
highway. The RTC immovables belonging

Page 65 of 70
lustre5159
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159 CIVIL LAW

dismissed the An easement of right of to other persons, and is

complaint as it was not way is a real right. without adequate outlet
the least onerous to the When an easement of to a public highway;
servient estate. CA right of way is granted
denied Petitioner’s to another person, the 2. Payment of proper
appeal. rights of the property’s indemnity by the owner
owner are limited. An of the surrounded
owner may not immovable;
exercise some of his or
her property rights for 3. The isolation of the
the benefit of the immovable is not due to
person who was its owner’s acts; and
granted the easement
of right of way. Hence, 4. The proposed
the burden of proof to easement of right of way
show the existence of is established at the
the above conditions is point least prejudicial to
imposed on the person the servient estate, and
who seeks the insofar as consistent
easement of right of with this rule, where the
way distance of the dominant
estate to a public
highway may be the
shortest.

The burden of proof to

show the existence of
the above conditions is
imposed on the person
who seeks the
easement of right of
way. The criterion of
least prejudice to the
servient estate must
prevail over the criterion
of shortest distance
although this is a matter
of judicial appreciation.

Republic v. After its sequestration The CA correctly ruled The notation "in trust
Tatlonghari was lifted, Pantranco that the funds were for" or "for escrow" that
was put under the private and APT was comes with deposited
G.R. No. 170458 | management of APT. holding the funds for funds indicates that the
November 23, 2015 | In the Imexo case, Pantranco. deposit is for the benefit
Leonen, J. Pantranco’s prayer for of a third party.
the issuance of a writ APT deposited funds
of preliminary "in trust for" Pantranco,
injunction was granted a corporation under its
upon the posting of a management. These
P1M bond. Pantranco funds belong to
transferred P20M to Pantranco. Further, in
APT but subsequently the absence of
realized that only the evidence that APT is

Page 66 of 70
lustre5159
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159 CIVIL LAW

posting of a P1M bond authorized to collect

was required. APT Pantranco's
refused to return the indebtedness to
funds to Pantranco. Philippine National
The P20M earned Bank, the subject funds
interest and increased can be garnished to
to P29M. APT satisfy the claims of
deposited the P29M in Pantranco's creditors.
a Fix Term Account of
the Treasurer in trust
for APT-Pantranco
North Express. The
respondents filed
separate civil cases
against Pantranco and
they received favorable
judgements. The total
monetary award
amounted to P27M.
The sheriffs served
Notices of Garnishment
but APT asserted that
the funds were
government funds.
Tatlonghari released
the funds upon
information by the
Bureau of Treasury
that the funds do not
form part of the general
fund of the national
government.

Crisostomo v. Petitioner Crisostomo The Court of Appeals Tenancy relations

Victoria entered into a lease had gravely erred in its cannot be an expedient
contract with a certain Decision. Hipolito's artifice for vesting in the
G.R. No. 175098 | David Hipolito over a status as the tenant rights over the
August 26, 2015 | parcel of riceland. acknowledged tenant landholding which far
Leonen, J. Upon Hipolito’s death, did not clothe him with exceed those of the
Crisostomo sought to the capacity to landowner. It cannot be
reclaim possession of designate respondent a means for vesting a
his property. However, as a tenant. tenant with security of
he found respondent tenure, such that he or
Martin Victoria Citing Valencia v. Court she is effectively the
possessing the of Appeals, the Court landowner. Even while
disputed lot and reiterated that ‘the right agrarian reform laws are
cultivating the same. to hire a tenant is pieces of social
Crisostomo then filed basically a personal legislation, landowners
an Ejectment suit right of a landowner, are equally entitled to
before the Office of the except as may he protection.
Provincial Agrarian provided by law’.
Reform Adjudicator. Nowhere in the Once the tenancy
Respondent contends Agricultural Land relation is established,

Page 67 of 70
lustre5159
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159 CIVIL LAW

that he enjoys tenancy Reform Code is it the parties to that

rights over the same. It provided that a civil law relation are limited to the
was submitted that lessee of a landholding persons therein stated.
Hipolito was his uncle is authorized to install a
and he was the one tenant thereon. On the Unless a person has
who actually made use other hand, under the established his status as
of the property during express provision of a de jure tenant, he is
the latter’s illness. Art. 1649 of the Civil not entitled to security of
Furthermore, he raises Code, the lessee tenure and is not
the defense that cannot assign the covered by the Land
Crisostomo's act of lease without the Reform Program of the
receiving lease rentals consent of the lessor, Government under
from him amounted to unless there is a existing tenancy laws.
implied consent, which stipulation to the Tenancy relationship
gave rise to a tenancy contrary. cannot be presumed.
relationship between Claims that one is a
them. Once the tenancy tenant do not
relation is established, automatically give rise to
The Office of the the parties to that security of tenure. The
Provincial Agrarian relation are limited to requisites of tenancy,
Reform Adjudicator of the persons therein however, must be
Bulacan ruled in favor stated. Hipolito was not established by
of Crisostomo, but the clothed with authority substantial evidence.
Court of Appeals to "allow" respondent Logically, it is for the
overturned the said to be the tenant person averring tenancy
Decision holding that himself. Hipolito, as to adduce such
Hipolito, as the legal lessee, was entitled to evidence.
possessor, could possession of the
legally allow Victoria to disputed portion, and
work and till the legally so. He was, in
landholding. It this sense, a "legal
recognized the implied possessor." However,
consent of the his capacities ended
petitioner having here. There was
supposedly received nothing that authorized
shares of the harvest him to enter into a
from respondent and tenancy relation with
his issuance of the another.
corresponding receipts.
Furthermore, as an While the Court has
agricultural tenant, previously recognized
Victoria was entitled to that implied consent as
security of tenure who, sufficing to vest
absent any of the security of tenure in a
grounds for person claiming to be a
extinguishing tenant, the Court
agricultural leasehold herein stressed that,
relationships, "should ‘the requisites of
not be deprived of but tenancy must be
should continue his established by
tenancy on the substantial evidence’.
landholding." The petitioner’s
consistent inclusion of

Page 68 of 70
lustre5159
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159 CIVIL LAW

Hipolito's name
indicates that, to his
mind, it was still
Hipolito, albeit through
another person making
actual delivery, sharing
the produce with him.
Respondent was
recognized only as an
agent acting for
Hipolito.

As soon as Hipolito
died, the petitioner
demanded that the
respondent vacate and
surrender possession
of the disputed portion.
Stated otherwise, as
soon as the lease
period that petitioner
and Hipolito agreed
upon expired, petitioner
expected that the
disputed portion was to
be restored to his
possession.

In petitioner's mind,
only Hipolito was
entitled to possession
precisely because it
was only with Hipolito
that petitioner agreed
to cede possession for
a definite duration.
Conversely, this
definitively settles that
petitioner never
recognized respondent
as having any personal
right to possess the
disputed portion.

La Tondeña, Inc. v. La Tondeña applied for At issue in this case is The June 12, 1945
Republic registration of a parcel whether the application reckoning point refers to
of land, alleging of La Tondeña should the date of possession
G.R. No. 194617 | acquisition and have been granted. and not to the date of
August 5, 2015 | J. possession even The Court ruled against land classification as
Leonen before 1945. Among the petition and upheld alienable and
others, it presented tax the denial by the CA. disposable. The land
declarations for certain The Court held that the needs only to be
years beginning 1948, question as to the classified as alienable

Page 69 of 70
lustre5159
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159 CIVIL LAW

saying that all the admissibility of the and disposable at the

records showing its report was rendered time of the application,
purchase of the land moot due to the ruling provided that the
were burned. The in Heirs of Malabanan possession and
administrator also v. Republic. This case occupation of the land
testified that property provided that the June dated back to the June
taxes were paid from 12, 1945 reckoning 12, 1945 or earlier.
1994 to 2005. The point refers to the date
DENR-CENRO, of possession and not
however, submitted a to the date of land
report starting that the classification as
land was declared alienable and
alienable and disposable. The land
disposable only on Jan. needs only to be
21, 1987. La Tondeña classified as alienable
questioned the and disposable at the
admissibility of this time of the application,
report. provided that the
possession and
The MTC granted the occupation of the land
application for dated back to the June
registration, but the CA 12, 1945 or earlier.
reversed and denied
the registration. In this case, La
Petitioner argues, Tondeña failed to show
among others, that it that it was in
was able to prove possession and
possession and occupation of the land
acquisition before before the said date.
1945, and that it There is no evidence of
acquired a vested right the exact acquisition
over the land under the date. The tax
1935 constitution. declarations and
testimony presented do
not prove possession
before 1945. The Court
held that intermittent
and sporadic assertion
of alleged ownership
does not prove open,
continuous, exclusive,
and notorious
possession and
occupation.

Page 70 of 70
lustre5159