For your consolidated quiz/activity.

I. Please prepare a CASE DIGEST for the following cases involving law on OBLIGATIONS:

1. PNB MADECOR vs. GERARDO C. UY

G.R. No. 129598

2. INCIONG VS. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 96405

3. REPUBLIC GLASS CORPORATION v. QUA

G.R. No. 14413

4. CEREZO VS. TUAZON

GR No. 141538

5. ALONZO VS SAN JUAN

GR No. 137549

6. ESTATE OF MOTA V SERRA

G.R.No. 22825

7. SONNY LO v. KJS ECO-FORMWORK SYSTEM

G.R. No. 149420

8. REPUBLIC GLASS CORPORATION v. QUA

G.R. No. 14413

II. Please prepare a CASE DIGEST for the following cases involving law on CONTRACTS:

1. MANILA METAL CONTAINER CORPORATION vs.

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK
G.R. No. 166862

2. PALATTAO VS. COURT OF APPEALS

381 Scra 681

3. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION VS. COURT OF APPEALS

301 SCRA 573/ G.R. No. 128690

4. DELA CRUZ V. SISON

G.R. No. 163770

5. RIZALINO, substituted by his heirs, JOSEFINA, ROLANDO and FERNANDO, ERNESTO, LEONORA,
BIBIANO, JR., LIBRADO and ENRIQUETA, all surnamed OESMER, Petitioners, vs. PARAISO
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.
G.R. No. 157493

6. FRANCISCO VS HERRERA
GR No. 139982

7. BIENVENIDO M. CASIÑO, JR. versus THE COURT OF APPEALS and OCTAGON REALTY
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
G.R. No. 133803

8. FERNANDO CARRASCOSO JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 123672 & G. R. No. 164489
YOU MAY USE THE FORMAT BELOW AND REFER TO THE GIVEN EXAMPLE:

I. FACTS
II. ISSUE
III. RULING

PHILIPPINE REALTY and HOLDING CORP. v. LEY CONST. and DEV. CORP.
G. R. No. 165548, June 13, 2011

FACTS:
Sometime between April 1988 and October 1989, the two corporations entered into four major construction
projects, as evidenced by four duly notarized "construction agreements." These were the four construction projects
the parties entered into involving a Project 1, Project 2, Project 3 (all of which involve the Alexandra buildings) and
a Tektite Building. LCDC committed itself to the construction of the buildings needed by PRHC, which in turn
committed itself to pay the contract price agreed upon. Both parties agreed to enter into another agreement. Abcede
asked LCDC to advance the amount necessary to complete construction.

In the course of the construction of the Tektite Building, it became evident to both parties that LCDC would not be
able to finish the project within the agreed period. Thus, through its president, LCDC met with Abcede to discuss
the cause of the delay. LCDC explained that the unanticipated delay in construction was due mainly to the sudden,
unexpected hike in the prices of cement and other construction materials. It claimed that, without a corresponding
increase in the fixed prices found in the agreements, it would be impossible for it to finish the construction of the
Tektite Building.

ISSUE:
Whether or not there is a fortuitous event in the case at bar.

RULING:

YES.
Under Article 1174 of the Civil Code, to exempt the obligor from liability for a breach of an obligation due
to an "act of God" or force majeure, the following must concur:

(a) the cause of the breach of the obligation must be independent of the will of the debtor; (b) the
event must be either unforseeable or unavoidable; (c) the event must be such as to render it impossible for
the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner; and (d) the debtor must be free from any
participation in, or aggravation of the injury to the creditor.

The shortage in supplies and cement may be characterized as force majeure. In the present case, hardware
stores did not have enough cement available in their supplies or stocks at the time of the construction in the 1990s.
Likewise, typhoons, power failures and interruptions of water supply all clearly fall under force majeure. Since
LCDC could not possibly continue constructing the building under the circumstances prevailing, it cannot be held
liable for any delay that resulted from the causes aforementioned.