SAN BEDA COLLEGE - ALABANG SCHOOL OF LAW

CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2022

ACADEMICS COMMITTEE

HANNAH KEZIAH T. MORALES

Chairperson for Academics

ANDREA JOSES P. TAN ADRIAN R. MACASAQUIT

Deputy Deputy

ELOISA FE C. BUÑO
Chairperson for Electronic Data Processing

SUBJECT HEADS

MARY GRACE B. DOMINGUEZ PAMELA A. PAEZ

Civil Law Legal and Judicial Ethics

DAVID GABRIEL V. PALLASIGUE BRIANT ALLEN S. ROSARIO

Criminal Law Mercantile Law

KARLA MARIE V. GABRIEL JOSHUA REED C. LOPEZ

Labor Law Political Law

JUSTINN ANTONIO ALON ALEXANDRE JANUS B. BIDO

Remedial Law Taxation Law

ASSISTANT HEADS

DAVE CHRISTIAN C. UMERAN MARIA ARIELLE SAMANTHA T. ALVAREZ

Civil Law Legal and Judicial Ethics

MAEIA MIKHAELA N. MAYUGA HANNAH MIKAELLA C. YAMIT

Criminal Law Mercantile Law

MIGUEL JULIO RAFAEL SORIANO III JESSICA LAURA C. SY

Labor Law Political Law

LANCE LIZOR A. PUNZALAN JAN EROS NIKE V. CABAUATAN

Remedial Law Taxation Law
 CIVIL LAW TEAM

MARY GRACE B. DOMINGUEZ

Subject Head

DAVE CHRISTIAN C. UMERAN

Assistant Head

MA. KIANA ABELLA ROSCH EMILLE C. MANUEL

GLORIETTE MARIE C. ABUNDO JOSEPH NAPOLEON S. MATIENZO
KRISHIELLE ANNE C. AGUILAR KATRINA PAULINE M. MENDOZA
ANREINNE SABILLE L. ARBOLEDA JOSEPH FREDERICK MILLADO
EDWARD CROMWELL T. BACUNGAN MARIA SALINA M. MOLDEZ
PIA DANIELLE B. BARROSO THERESA C. MURILLO
AEOLA COLEEN N. BELAMIDE JUSTINE CAILA D. OCAMPO
VICTOR EARNEST BENEDICT M. BORNEO MARIAH YVETTE C. PAPINA
MARION ANGELIQUE A. CANLAS VENICE Z. PASTOLERO
JAN YVETTE CARLOS MARIE ALBERT PILAR
ANDREA G. DE GUZMAN CARLO ALEXDAVE S. PURAY
ELLA A. DELA CRUZ MARK LORENZ S. RAZ
REINA DEL T. DELA CRUZ JOI ANGELI P. SAAVEDRA
MARY JOY V. DELA PIEZA MONETTE VICTORIA C. SANTIAGO
JANAH J. DELOS SANTOS AUSTIN LATRELL S. SANTUELE
IMELDA M. DEVESA QUENNIE SERENO
GILBERT JOSHUA P. FORTUNO ASHLEYA A. SOLAIMAN
VALENTIN JOSE DOMINIC SOTTO FREGIL DARLYMPLE DAYNE R. TABLIZO
NADIAH JOELLE N. FRIAS MICHAELA S. TIJAM
GRAZIELLA LOUISE D. GRIMARES APRIL ANNE C. TOLEDO
HYERI D. KIM JUAN CARLOS G. URIARTE
KARLA ANDREA SR. LEONADO GABRIEL CYAN R. VALDERRAMA
LOIS CIPRIANO L. LIM JANINE MONICA D. VILLAROMAN
SAGE RAINELLE A. LINGATONG PATRICIA VILORIA
MICHELLE E. MAMISAO MARY FE AILEN ZABALA

1
 ADMINISTRATION

DR. ULPIANO P. SARMIENTO III

Dean

ATTY. CARLO D. BUSMENTE

Vice Dean

ATTY. MA. ELIZA YAMAMOTO-SANTOS

Prefect of Student Affairs

ATTY. ROBEN B. CADUGO JR.

Administrative Officer

ATTY. PAULINO Q. UNGOS III

Adviser

SAN BEDA COLLEGE - ALABANG SCHOOL OF LAW

CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2022
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

KATHLEEN L. CAPULONG
Over-All-Chairperson

HANNAH KEZIAH T. MORALES ELOISA FE C. BUÑO

Chairperson for Academics Chairperson for Electronic Data Processing

LOUIE ANN S. SOMEROS ROZELLE DIANNE I. MATEO

Chairperson for Operations Chairperson for Secretariat

JOSEPH M. LIBROJO ROLEEN WENDEE N. GUINTO

Chairperson for Academic Operations Chairperson for Bar Matters

JULIUS ROBERT A. JUICO EDWARD JAYSON B. SANTILLAN

Chairperson for Communications Chairperson for Logistics

FEMME ANGELA C. ARMAMENTO JOSHUA REED C. LOPEZ

Chairperson for Finance Chairperson for Recruitment and Membership

ANNA MARIE N. OBESO

Chairperson for Bar Mentoring Program

1
 NOTICE

This work is the intellectual property of the SAN BEDA COLLEGE ALABANG
SCHOOL OF LAW and SAN BEDA COLLEGE ALABANG CENTRALIZED BAR
OPERATIONS 2022. It is intended solely for the use of the individuals to which
it is addressed – the Bedan community.

Publication, reproduction, dissemination, and distribution, or copying of the

document without the prior consent of the SAN BEDA COLLEGE ALABANG
SCHOOL OF LAW CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2022
is strictly prohibited.

Material includes both cases penned by Justice Caguioa and recent landmark
cases decided by the Supreme Court.

Copyright © 2022
SAN BEDA COLLEGE ALABANG SCHOOL OF LAW
SAN BEDA COLLEGE ALABANG SCHOOL OF LAW CENTRALIZED BAR
OPERATIONS 2022
All Rights Reserved by the Authors.

2
 GENERAL RULES / HUMAN RELATIONS

Donald Francis Gaffney v. Gina V. Butler

Lourdes M. Padayhag v. Director Of Lands
Van De Brug v. Philippine National Bank
Spouses Ermino Vs. Golden Village Homeowners’ Association Inc.

CREDIT TRANSACTIONS

Saclolo v. Marquito
Engr. Ricardo Vasquez v. Philippine National Bank
The Mercantile Insurance Co., Inc. v. Dmci-Laing Construction, Inc.
Atty. Leonard Bulatao v. Zenaida Estonactoc
Industrial Personnel And Management Services, Inc. v.
Country Bankers Insurance Corp.
Lara’s Gifts And Decors v. Midtown Industrial Sales

LAND, TITLES & DEEDS

Privatization And Management Office v. Quesada

Republic v. Heirs Of Cabrera
Republic v. Saromo
Bernas v. Estate Of Felipe Yu Han Yat
Samuel And Edgar Buyco v. Republic Of The Philippines
Republic v. Spouses Alejandre
D.M. Consunji, Inc., v. Republic
Logrosa v. Spouses Azares
Fil-Estate Management, Inc v. Republic
Tranquilino Agbayani v. Lupa Realty Holding Corporation
Heirs Of Spouses Suyam v. Heirs Of Julaton
Heirs Of Spouses Ramirez v. Abon
Republic v. Tanduay Lumber, Inc.
Philippine Bank Of Communications v. Register Of Deeds
For The Province Of Benguet
Ususan Development Corp. v. Republic
Republic v. Heirs Of Bernabe
Belizario v. DENR
Republic v. Northern Cement Corp.
Heir Of Cardenas v. The Christian And Missionary Alliance
Churches Of The Philippines, Inc.
Mayuga v. Atienza
Heirs of Lupena v. Medina

OBLIGATIONS & CONTRACTS

G. Holdings, Inc. v. Cagayan Electric Power And Light Co., Inc

Yujuico v. Far East Bank And Trust Co.
Republic v. Heirs Cruz

3
Vdm Trading, Inc. v. Carungcong
Domestic Petroleum Corporation v. Manila International Airport Authority
Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. v. Plast-Print Industries, Inc.
Makati Water, Inc. v. Agua Vida Systems, Inc.
Chua Ping Huan v. Manas
Redentor Catapang v. Lipa Bank
Republic v. Sundiam
Tamayao v. Lacambra
Ma. Luisa Pineda v. Virginia Zuniga Vda De Vega

PERSONS & FAMILY RELATIONS

Meneses v. Lee-Meneses
Dr. Ruben Bartolome v. Republic Of The Philippines
Republic Of The Philippines v. Remar Quinonez
Cynthia A. Galapon v. Republic Of The Philippines
Spouses Anastacio, Sr. v. Heirs Of Coloma
Heirs Of Caburnay v. Heirs Of Sison
Sps. Cueno v. Sps. Bautista
Perez, Jr. v. Perez-Senerpida
Santos v. Republic
Republic v. Villacorta
Falcis III v. Civil Registrar General
Rosanna L. Tan-Andal v. Mario Victor M. Andal
Luisito G. Pulido v. People Of The Philippines
Republic Of The Philippines v. Court Of Appeals And Roridel O. Molina
Dana S. Santos v. Leodegario Santos
Estrella Abid-Babano v. Executive Secretary
Republic v. Manalo

PROPERTY LAW

San Francisco Inn v. San Pablo City Water District

City Of Batangas v. Philippine Shell Petroleum Corp.
Ama Land, Inc. v. Wack Wack Residents’ Association, Inc.
Republic v. Northern Cement Corp.
Heir Of Cardenas v. The Christian And Missionary Alliance
Churches Of The Philippines, Inc.
Sebastian M. Quinol v. Lorenza Inocencio
Spouses Garcia v. Santos
Heirs Of Tomakin v. Heirs Of Navares
Spouses Belvis v. Spouses Erola
Pnoc Alternative Fuels Corp. v. National Grid Corp. Of The Philippines
Camarines Sur Teachers And Employees Association, Inc. v.
Province Of Camarines Sur
Filipinas Eslon Manufacturing Corp. v. Heirs Of Llanes
Gatmaytan v. Misibis Land, Inc.
Macutay v. Samoy
Sally Sarmiento v. Editha A. Dizon

4
Ulay v. Bustamante
Saclolo v. Marquito
Selerio v. Bancasan
Spouses Ermino Vs. Golden Village Homeowners’ Association Inc.

SALES & LEASE

Spouses Beltran v. Spouses Cangayda

Jun Miranda v. Sps. Engr. Ernesto And Aida Mallari
And Sps. Domiciano C. Reyes And Carmelita Pangan
Narciso Melendres v. Alicia Catambay
Agustin v. De Vera
Uy v. Heirs Of Uy-Renales
Nuñez v. Moises-Palma
Tamayao v. Lacambra
Heirs Of Villeza v. Aliangan
D.M. Ragasa Enterprises, Inc.v. Banco De Oro, Inc.
Spouses Modomo v. Spouses Layug
Spouses Gaspar v. Herminio Angel Disini, Joseph Yu, And Diana Salita
William Golangco Construction Corp. v. Philippine Commercial International Bank
Spouses Sy v. De Vera-Navarro

TORTS & DAMAGES

Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils. Inc v. Meñez

Chevron Philippines, Inc. v. Mendoza
Nacar v. Gallery Frames
Ma. Luisa Pineda v. Virginia Zuniga Vda De Vega

WILLS & SUCCESSION

Mayuga v. Atienza
Spouses Salitico v. Heirs Of Felix
Tirol v. Nolasco
Dr. Nixon L. Reyes v. Antonio Larlar

5
₱

GENERAL RULES / HUMAN RELATIONS

GAFFNEY v. BUTLER
G.R. No. 219408 November 8, 2017
SUMMARY
Donald Francis Gafney (Gaffney), petitioner, sought to implead the estate of
Anthony Richard Butler (Butler) after the investment agreement between Gaffney and
Butler failed to materialize after the latter’s death. Seeking to recover the money
invested, Gaffney impleaded the estate of Anthony Richard Butler in order to obtain full
relief in the case.

DOCTRINE
A deceased person does not have the capacity to be sued and may not be made
a defendant in a case. Section 1, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court unequivocally
states that "[o]nly natural or juridical persons, or entities authorized by law may be
parties in a civil action."

───※ ·❆· ※───

PADAYHAG v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

G.R. No. 202872 November 22, 2017
SUMMARY
Public Respondent Director of Lands, through the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG), argued that the CA did not err in setting aside the RTC Decision and Resolution
for having been rendered without jurisdiction and proper publication in the Official
Gazette of the notice of the initial hearing as required by Act No. 2259 (Cadastral Act).
The OSG cited as additional ground the deprivation of the State of its day in court
because the OSG was allegedly not furnished with copies of the court orders, notices
and decisions in the cadastral case.

DOCTRINE
The Official Gazette is an official publication of the government and
consequently, the Court can take judicial notice of its contents.

───※ ·❆· ※───

1
 VAN DE BRUG v. PNB
G.R. No. 207004 June 6, 2018
SUMMARY
The RTC rendered the assailed Decision, favoring the Aguilars and found PNB
guilty of malice and bad faith in not pursuing its duty in helping the Aguilars avail of the
benefits of RA 7202 and, pursuant to Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code, justified the
award of moral and exemplary damages as well as attorney's fees and litigation expenses
in favor of the Aguilars. The CA granted the appeal and reversed the RTC Decision.

DOCTRINE
There is an abuse of right when it is exercised only for the purpose of prejudicing
or injuring another. The exercise of a right must be in accordance with the purpose for
which it was established and must not be excessive or unduly harsh; there must be no
intention to injure another.

───※ ·❆· ※───

SPS ERMINO v. GOLDEN VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION

INC.
G.R. No. 180808 August 15, 2018
SUMMARY
Spouses Abraham and Melchora Ermino (Spouses Ermino), petitioners, are
residents of Alco Homes, a subdivision located beside Golden Village Subdivision (Golden
Village), respondent, in Barangay Carmen, Cagayan de Oro City. There was continuous
heavy rain which caused a large volume of water to fall from the hilltop subdivision to
the subdivisions below. The volume of water directly hit Spouses Ermino's house and
damaged their fence, furniture, appliances and car. Spouses Ermino filed a complaint
for damages against E.B. Villarosa, the developer of Hilltop City Subdivision, and Golden
Village Homeowners Association Inc. (GVHAI) for negligently failing to observe DENR
rules and regulations and to provide retaining walls and other flood control devices
which could have prevented the softening of the earth and consequent inundation.

DOCTRINE
Civil Law; Human Relations; For purposes of Articles 20 and 21, the construction
of the concrete fence is not contrary to any law, morals, good customs, or public policy.

Any prudent person exercising reasonable care and caution could not have
envisaged such an outcome from the mere exercise of a proprietary act.

Easements; An easement or servitude is “a real right constituted on another’s

property, corporeal and immovable, by virtue of which the owner of the same has to
abstain from doing or to allow somebody else to do something on his property for the
benefit of another thing or person.”

2
 Lower estates are only obliged to receive water naturally flowing from higher
estates and such should be free from any human intervention.

───※ ·❆· ※───

CREDIT TRANSACTIONS

SACLOLO v. MARQUITO
G.R. No. 229243 June 26, 2019
SUMMARY
Petitioners Saclolo and Ogatia, claimed that they each obtained a loan from
Felipe Marquito and they used their inherited land as collateral for the loan obligation.
Respondents alleged that petitioners sold the subject property under a Memorandum of
Deed of Sale with Right of Repurchase.

DOCTRINE
Since the true transaction between the parties was an equitable mortgage and
not a sale with right of repurchase, there is no "redemption" or "repurchase" to speak of
and the periods provided under Article 1606 do not apply. Instead, the prescriptive
period under Article 1144 43 of the Civil Code is applicable. In other words, the parties
had 10 years from the time the cause of action accrued to file the appropriate action.

NOTES
For the presumption in Article 1602 of the New Civil Code to arise, two
requirements must concur: (a) that the parties entered into a contract denominated as
a contract of sale; and (b) that their intention was to secure an existing debt by way of
a mortgage. The existence of any of the circumstances defined in Article 1602 of the
New Civil Code, not the concurrence nor an overwhelming number of such circumstances
is sufficient for a contract of sale to be presumed an equitable mortgage.

───※ ·❆· ※───

VASQUEZ v. PNB
G.R. No. 228355 | August 28, 2019
SUMMARY
Petitioner obtained two loans from respondent secured by a real estate mortgage
and the said agreement was subject to a stipulated interest. Respondent unilaterally
escalated the interest rate without prior knowledge and conformity of petitioner.

3
DOCTRINE
The interest rate scheme imposed upon petitioner under the loan agreement is
clearly one-sided, unilateral, and violative of the principle of mutuality of contracts.
Under Article 1308 of the Civil Code, a contract "must bind both contracting parties; its
validity or compliance cannot be left to the will of one of them."

NOTES
As explained in Sps. Almeda v. CA, "[e]scalation clauses are not basically wrong
or legally objectionable so long as they are not solely potestative but based on
reasonable and valid grounds. Here, as clearly demonstrated above, not only the
increases of the interest rates on the basis of the escalation clause patently
unreasonable and unconscionable, but also there are no valid and reasonable standards
upon which the increases are anchored."

───※ ·❆· ※───

MERCANTILE INSURANCE CO., INC. v. DMCI

G.R. No. 205007 September 16, 2019
SUMMARY
DMCI-Laing Construction, Inc. (DLCI), filed a complaint against Altech and
Mercantile Insurance Co., Inc. (Mercantile) before the Construction Industry Arbitration
Commission (CIAC) seeking to collect the sum of P31,618,494.81 representing the costs
it allegedly incurred to complete the subcontracted works, with interest and cost of
litigation. This complaint is based on the Sub-Contract entered by DLCI with Altech for
the supply and installation of glazed aluminum and curtain walling in a construction
project with Rockwell Land Corporation and is secured by a Performance Bond from
Mercantile.

DOCTRINE
Through a contract of suretyship, one party called the surety, guarantees the
performance by another party, called the principal or obligor, of an obligation or
undertaking in favor of another party, called the obligee. As a result, the surety is
considered in law as being the same party as the debtor in relation to whatever is
adjudged touching upon the obligation of the latter, and their liabilities are interwoven
as to be inseparable. While the contract of surety stands secondary to the principal
obligation, the surety's liability is direct, primary and absolute, albeit limited to the
amount for which the contract of surety is issued. The surety's liability attaches the
moment a demand for payment is made by the creditor; the debtor's failure to fulfill
the prestation gives rise to the creditor's right to obtain from the latter's assets the
satisfaction of the money value of the prestation; A surety binds himself to perform if
the principal does not, without regard to his ability to do so. A guarantor, on the other
hand, does not contract that the principal will pay, but simply that he is able to do so.
In other words, a surety undertakes directly for the payment and is so responsible at
once if the principal debtor makes default, while a guarantor contracts to pay if, by the
use of due diligence, the debt cannot be made out of the principal debtor; Article 2208
of the Civil Code entitles the plaintiff to an award of attorney's fees and expenses of

4
 litigation when "the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy
the plaintiffs plainly valid, just and demandable claim."

───※ ·❆· ※───

BULATAO v. ESTONACTOC
G.R. No. 235020 October 12, 2019
SUMMARY
Atty. Leonard Bulatao foreclosed on the real estate mortgage executed by
Zenaida Estonactoc after the latter defaulted in her obligation to pay back the
P200,000.00 loan to Atty. Leonard Bulatao. Zenaida contends that the 5% monthly
interest rate is excessive, iniquitous, unconscionable, exorbitant, and contrary to public
policy, which renders the contract of loan as null and void.

DOCTRINE
The imposition of an unconscionable rate of interest on a money debt, even if
knowingly and voluntarily assumed, is immoral and unjust. It is tantamount to a
repugnant spoliation and an iniquitous deprivation of property, repulsive to the common
sense of man. It has no support in law, in principles of justice, or in the human
conscience nor is there any reason whatsoever which may justify such imposition as
righteous and as one that may be sustained within the sphere of public or private morals.

The imposition of an unconscionable interest rate is void ab initio for being

"contrary to morals, and the law."

In determining whether the rate of interest is unconscionable, the mechanical

application of pre-established floors would be wanting. The lowest rates that have
previously been considered unconscionable need not be an impenetrable minimum.
What is more crucial is a consideration of the parties' contexts. Moreover, interest rates
must be appreciated in light of the fundamental nature of interest as compensation to
the creditor for money lent to another, which he or she could otherwise have used for
his or her own purposes at the time it was lent. It is not the default vehicle for predatory
gain. As such, interest need only be reasonable. It ought not be a supine mechanism for
the creditor's unjust enrichment at the expense of another.

───※ ·❆· ※───

INDUSTRIAL PERSONNEL AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. v.

COUNTRY BANKERS INSURANCE CORP.
G.R. No. 1941126 October 17, 2018
SUMMARY
Country Bankers Insurance Corporation (Country Bankers) refused Industrial
Personnel and Management Services, Inc. 's (IPAMS) payment of claims and instead
5
 insisted on the production of official receipts on the expenses incurred for the
application of nurses. IPAMS argued that the production of receipts was not stated in
the insurance policy as a requirement to collect claims. On Appeal, Country Bankers
were held to have been justified in refusing the payments made by IPAMS due to the
lack of competent proof to bolster the claims of IPAMS.

DOCTRINE
Under Section 92 of the Insurance Code all defects in the proof of loss, which the
insured might remedy, are waived as grounds for objection when the insurer omits to
specify to him without unnecessary delay - Country Bankers readily acknowledged the
obligations of Country Bankers under the surety agreement, apologized for the delay in
the payment of claims, and proposed to amortize the settlement of claims by paying a
semimonthly amount of P850,000.00. In addition, Country Bankers promised to pay
future claims within a 90-day period.

───※ ·❆· ※───

LARA’S GIFTS AND DECORS v. MIDTOWN INDUSTRIAL SALES

G.R. No. 225433 August 28, 2019
SUMMARY
Lara’s Gifts and Decors (Lara’s Gifts) bought industrial and construction
materials from Midtown Industrial Sales (Midtown) for P1,263,104.22. However, the
bank cheques issued by Lara’s Gifts were dishonored for insufficient funds. Lara’s Gifts
failure to pay prompted Midtown to file a Complaint for the Collection of Sum of Money.
Lara’s Gifts contended that the 24% interest rate in the contract of sale was
unconscionable. Hence, the contract is void.

DOCTRINE
Guidelines for the Computation of Interest is as follows:

a. When the obligation is breached, and it consists in the payment of a sum

of money, i.e, a loan or forbearance of money, goods, credits or
judgments, the interest due shall be that which is stipulated by the
parties in writing, provided it is not excessive and unconscionable, which,
in the absence of a stipulated reckoning date, shall be computed from
default, i.e., from extrajudicial or judicial demand in accordance with
Article 1169 of the Civil Code, UNTIL FULL PAYMENT, without
compounding any interest unless compounded interest is expressly
stipulated by the parties, by law or regulation. Interest due on the
principal amount accruing as of judicial demand shall SEPARATELY earn
legal interest at the prevailing rate prescribed by the Bangko Sentral ng
Pilipinas, from the time of judicial demand UNTIL FULL PAYMENT.

b. In the absence of stipulated interest, in a loan or forbearance of money,

goods, credits or judgments, the rate of interest on the principal amount
6
 shall be the prevailing legal interest prescribed by the Bangko Sentral ng
Pilipinas, which shall be computed from default, i.e., from extrajudicial
or judicial demand in accordance with Article 1169 of the Civil Code,
UNTIL FULL PAYMENT, without compounding any interest unless
compounded interest is expressly stipulated by law or regulation. Interest
due on the principal amount accruing as of judicial demand shall
SEPARATELY earn legal interest at the prevailing rate prescribed by the
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, from the time of judicial demand UNTIL FULL
PAYMENT.

c. When the obligation, not constituting a loan or forbearance of money,

goods, credits or judgments, is breached, an interest on the amount of
damages awarded may be imposed in the discretion of the court at the
prevailing legal interest prescribed by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas,
pursuant to Articles 2210 and 2011 of the Civil Code. No interest,
however, shall be adjudged on unliquidated claims or damages until the
demand can be established with reasonable certainty. Accordingly, where
the amount of the claim or damages is established with reasonable
certainty, the prevailing legal interest shall begin to run from the time
the claim is made extrajudicially or judicially (Art. 1169, Civil Code)
UNTIL FULL PAYMENT, but when such certainty cannot be so reasonably
established at the time the demand is made, the interest shall begin to
run only from the date of the judgment of the trial court (at which time
the quantification of damages may be deemed to have been reasonably
ascertained) UNTIL FULL PAYMENT. The actual base for the computation
of the interest shall, in any case, be on the principal amount finally
adjudged, without compounding any interest unless compounded interest
is expressly stipulated by law or regulation.

NOTES
The court also ruled in this case that an interest rate of 24% per annum is valid
and binding and is not unconscionable.

It must also be noted that interest in this case became due and demandable back
2008. Therefore, there are 2 legal interests applicable for the computation of interest
in this case. From the date of judicial demand on 5 February 2008 until 30 June 2013,
the prevailing rate of legal interest was 12% per annum. The 6% per annum legal interest
prescribed under BSP-MB Circular No. 799 took effect on 1 July 2013 and could only be
applied prospectively. In line with the prevailing interest rates, the court computed the
legal interest as such:

1. The 24% interest per annum due on the principal amount accruing as of
the judicial demand shall earn legal interest at the rate of 12% per annum
from the date of judicial demand on 5 February 2008 until 30 June 2013,
2. And thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum from 1 July 2013 until full
payment.

7
 ───※ ·❆· ※───

LAND TITLES & DEEDS

PRIVATIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OFFICE v. QUESADA

G.R. No. 224507 September 20, 2017
SUMMARY
Privatization and Management Office (PMO), through the Office of the Solicitor
General, filed a Motion to Dismiss on the following grounds: (i) the petition failed to
state a cause of action; (ii) the RTC lacks jurisdiction over the petition because it
involves an adverse claim to the land or controversial issue which should be properly
threshed out in an ordinary case, and (iii) any action against the [APT] (now PMO) is
barred by res judicata.

The Quesadas filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA, arguing, among others,
that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction when it dismissed the case contrary to its Order dated July 3, 2013. The CA
granted the petition of the Quesadas.

DOCTRINE
Section 107 of P.D. No. 1529 states that there are only two instances where a
petition for surrender of withheld duplicate certificate of title may be availed of. These
are: (1) where it is necessary to issue a new certificate of title pursuant to any
involuntary instrument which divests the title of the registered owner against his
consent, and (2) where a voluntary instrument cannot be registered by reason of the
refusal or failure of the holder to surrender the owner's duplicate certificate of title.

───※ ·❆· ※───

REPUBLIC v. HEIRS OF CABRERA

G.R. No. 218418 November 8, 2017
SUMMARY
The RTC found that the Republic failed to present proof that the Roxas Properties
(including Lot 1-A) have been reclassified as forest land. Citing Republic v. Animas, the
RTC held that in order to prove reversion of alienable and disposable land to forest land,
a positive government act evincing the same is necessary. Aggrieved, the Republic
appealed to CA, but CA dismissed the petition, stating that under the Public Land Act,
the power to classify (and reclassify) lands of public domain is vested with the President.

DOCTRINE
The power to classify and reclassify alienable or disposable, timber, and mineral
lands lies solely with the Executive Department.
8
NOTES
Under the Regalian Doctrine has long been recognized as the basic foundation of
the State's property regime, and has been consistently adopted under the 1935, 1973,
and 1987 Constitutions; it espouses that all lands of the public domain belong to the
State, and that, as a consequence thereof, any asserted right of ownership over land
necessarily traces back to the State.

───※ ·❆· ※───

REPUBLIC v. SAROMO
G.R. No. 189803 March 14, 2018
SUMMARY
The Republic of the Philippines, petitioner, filed a complaint for the reversion
and cancellation of title issued in favor of respondent Filemon Saromo, alleging that the
subject lot is inside the unclassified forest land and also inside the area covered by
Proclamation No. 1801 declaring the land as Tourist Zones and Marine Preserve under
the administration and control of the Philippine Tourism Industry; and that the subject
lot, being part of the shore, is part of the public dominion and therefore, cannot be
titled in the name of a private person.

DOCTRINE
Testimonial evidence on the physical layout or condition of the subject land —
that it was planted with coconut trees and beach houses had been constructed thereon
— is not conclusive on the classification of the subject land as alienable agricultural
land. Rather, it is the official proclamation releasing the land classified as public forest
land to form part of disposable agricultural lands of the public domain that is definitive.

───※ ·❆· ※───

BERNAS v. ESTATE OF FELIPE YU HAN YAT

G.R. No. 195908 and 195910 August 15, 2018
SUMMARY
Yu Han Yat filed a Petition for Quieting of Title before the RTC of Quezon. The
RTC issued a Decision ruling in favor of the Estate of Nava. Aggrieved, Yu Han Yat
appealed the above Decision of the RTC to the CA. The CA found that both TCT No.
30627 and TCT No. 336663 cover the same property as shown by their respective
technical descriptions stating that the parcel of land covered is Lot 824 of the Piedad
Estate.

DOCTRINE
Where there are two certificates of title covering the same land, the earlier in
date must prevail as between the parties claiming ownership over it.

9
 ───※ ·❆· ※───

BUYCO v. REPUBLIC
G.R. No. 197733 August 29, 2018
SUMMARY
The opposition of the Director of Lands against the registration of the subject
parcel of land under the names of Edgardo and Samuel H. Buyco (Buycos) was not given
credence by the RTC. The Director of Lands is of the position that the land applied for
is public land belonging to the State. The case was dismissed on appeal which led to the
case’s elevation before the Supreme Court. The RTC decision was reversed. After six (6)
years, the Buycos filed for an application for registration of title once again, which was
opposed by the Republic with a Motion to Dismiss on the basis of res judicata. The trial
court denied the Republic's motion to dismiss and granted the application. Upon appeal
the CA reversed. The Buycos aver that they are entitled to the land subject of
application because they "have removed or cured the obstacles to registration
mentioned in their first petition: G.R. No. 91189.”

DOCTRINE
A CENRO or PENRO certification is not enough to prove the alienable and
disposable nature of the property sought to be registered because the only way to prove
the classification of the land is through the original classification approved by the DENR
Secretary or the President himself.

───※ ·❆· ※───

REPUBLIC v. SPOUSES ALEJANDRE

G.R. No. 217336 October 17, 2018
SUMMARY
Spouses Alejandre, respondents, sought to register the subject property under
their name. The Republic opposed this registration, alleging that the subject property
applied for is a portion of the public domain belonging to the Republic of the Philippines
which is not subject to private appropriation. The trial court granted the application for
registration of title. The CA sustained the amended decision of the RTC.

DOCTRINE
All lands not appearing to be clearly of private dominion or ownership
presumptively belong to the State. Accordingly, public lands not shown to have been
classified, reclassified or released as alienable agricultural land or alienated to a private
person by the State remain part of the inalienable lands of public domain. Therefore,
the onus to overturn, by incontrovertible evidence, the presumption that the land
subject of an application for registration is alienable and disposable rests with the
applicant.

───※ ·❆· ※───

10
 D.M. CONSUNJI, INC., v. REPUBLIC
G.R. No. 233339 February 13, 2019
SUMMARY
DMCI filed an application for registration of title over a parcel of land alleging
that the subject lot is alienable and disposable, as shown by the conversion plan and
field inspection report for the subject property. CA however held that the conversion
plan and inspection report is inadequate to prove that the Subject Land is alienable or
disposable.

DOCTRINE
There are two documents which must be presented to prove that the land subject
of the application for registration is alienable and disposable. These are: (1) a copy of
the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy
by the legal custodian of the official records, and (2) a certificate of land classification
status issued by the CENRO, or the Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office
(PENRO) based on the land classification approved by the DENR Secretary

NOTES
Sps. Fortuna v. Republic cited by the CA ruled that mere notations appearing in
survey plans are inadequate proof of the covered properties' alienable and disposable
character. The applicant, however, must also present a copy of the original
classification of the land into alienable and disposable land, as declared by the DENR
Secretary or as proclaimed by the President. In addition, the applicant must present a
copy of the original classification of the land into alienable and disposable, as declared
by the DENR Secretary, or as proclaimed by the President. Sps Fortuna case made
reference to Republic v. Tan. Sps Fortuna v Republic and Victoria v Republic are not
incompatible with each other. In fact, they are complementary.

───※ ·❆· ※───

LOGROSA v. SPOUSES AZARES

G.R. No. 217611 March 27, 2019
SUMMARY
Logrosa filed a petition in order to assail the denial of his appeal which sought
to assert his ownership over the subject parcels of land. The CA gave credence to the
contention of Spouses Azares wherein they stated that while Logrosa’s name appeared
in all the titles of the properties, they belied Logrosa’s claim that he is a co-owner of
the same as he never contributed to its acquisition and to their maintenance, much less
paid the taxes due thereon.

DOCTRINE
It is a fundamental principle in land registration that the certificate of title
serves as evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in favor
of the person whose name appears therein. It becomes the best proof of ownership of
a parcel of land. Such principle of indefeasibility has long been well-settled, and it is

11
 only when the acquisition of title is attended with fraud or bad faith that the doctrine
finds no application.

───※ ·❆· ※───

FIL-ESTATE MANAGEMENT, INC v. REPUBLIC

G.R. No. 192393 March 27, 2019
SUMMARY
The CA was not convinced with the sufficiency of the evidence adduced by
Spouses Go, appellees, as to their possession and occupation, and ruled that they failed
to discharge the burden of proof required from applicants in land registration cases to
show clear, positive and convincing evidence that their alleged possession and
occupation were of the nature and duration required by law. The petitioners filed a
motion for partial reconsideration, which was denied by the CA. petitioners took
exception to the CA's finding that there is no evidence on record that the parcels of land
subject of the registration have been classified as alienable or disposable since portions
thereof have been proved during trial that they are private property covered by Torrens
titles in the name of the Fil-Estate Consortium. Hence this Petition for Review on
Certiorari under Rule 45.

DOCTRINE
Section 48 of PD 1529 provides:

Sec. 48. Certificate not subject to collateral attack. - A certificate of title shall
not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified, or canceled except
in a direct proceeding in accordance with law.
It is well settled that a Torrens title cannot be collaterally attacked; the issue
on the validity of title, i.e., whether or not it was fraudulently issued, can only be raised
in an action expressly instituted for the purpose. It has been invariably stated that the
real purpose of the Torrens System is to quiet title to land and to stop forever any
question as to its legality. Once a title is registered, the owner may rest securely,
without the necessity of waiting in the portals of the court or sitting on the "mirador su
casa" to avoid the possibility of losing his land.

NOTES
Section 6, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, a review by the Court is not a matter of
right, but of its sound discretion, and will be granted only when there are special and
important reasons therefore.

───※ ·❆· ※───

12
 AGBAYANI v. LUPA REALTY HOLDING CORPORATION
G.R. No. 201193 June 10, 2019
SUMMARY
Agbayani filed a Complaint for Reivindicacion, Cancellation of Title and
Document with Damages against Lupa Realty Holding Corporation. The Trial Court ruled
that the OCT in the name of Lupa Realty Corp, shall be declared null and void. On
appeal, the CA ruled in favor of the dismissal of Agbayani's complaint based on the lack
of evidence regarding his forgery allegation and its postulation that his action for
declaration of nullity of the 1997 DAS is not the direct proceeding required by law to
attack a Torrens certificate of title since it cannot be collaterally attacked.

DOCTRINE
Article 1409(2) of the Civil Code provides that contracts "which are absolutely
simulated or fictitious" are inexistent and void from the beginning. It is also provided in
Article 1346 that "[a]n absolutely simulated or fictitious contract is void."

───※ ·❆· ※───

HEIRS OF SPOUSES SUYAM V. HEIRS OF JULATON

G.R. No. 209081 June 16, 2019
SUMMARY
The Heirs of Feliciano Julaton filed a Complaint for Recovery of Ownership,
Cancellation of Title, Annulment of Sale, Reinstatement of Title, Reconveyance and
Damages over a parcel of land, against Sps. Suyam, who bought the said parcel from
Isabel. It is the contention of the heirs that Isabel fraudulently acquired title to the
subject property as she had never possessed or declared ownership of the subject
property.

DOCTRINE
The open, exclusive and undisputed possession of alienable public land for the
period prescribed by law creates the legal fiction whereby the land, upon completion
of the requisite period, ipso jure and without the need of judicial or other sanction,
ceases to be public land and becomes private property.

───※ ·❆· ※───

Heirs of Spouses Ramirez vs. Abon

G.R. No. 222916 July 24, 2019
SUMMARY
Respondent had been in possession of a property which is being claimed by the
petitioner alleging that the respondent obtained the property through fraud, the
respondent only has a copy of the TCT while the petitioners name is written on the TCT.

13
DOCTRINE
The owner of the land in whose favor and in whose name said land is registered
and inscribed in the certificate of title has a more preferential right to the possession
of the owner's duplicate than one whose name does not appear in the certificate and
has yet to establish his right to the possession thereof.

───※ ·❆· ※───

REPUBLIC v. TANDUAY LUMBER, INC.

G.R. No. 223822 | October 16, 2019
SUMMARY
A Complaint for Cancellation of Title/Reversion dated August 31, 2014 was filed
by the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Regional Executive Director
(RED), DENR, Regional Office No. III, the petitioner, against Tanduay Lumber, Inc.,
Verbo Realty and Development Corp., Spouses Clemente and Ma. Lourdes Garcia, John
Michael H. Artienda, Spouses Teodoro D.G. Chan and Angelita G. Chan, Licerio M.
Libunao, Maricris A. Melchor, Maricris C. Armado and Winston T. Capati, the private
respondents. After service of summons upon the private respondents, except for
Tanduay whose location is unknown as it is said to have closed, the private respondents
submitted their respective answers with Counterclaim and Special and Affirmative
Defenses on laches, estoppels and prescription.

DOCTRINE
The State's complaint for reversion is based solely on Section 118 of CA 141. Since
the restriction on the conveyance, transfer or disposition of the patented land subject
of this case within five years from and after the issuance of the patent pursuant to
Section 118 of CA 141 has been removed and the title of the patentee Epifania San Pedro
is, under RA 11231, now considered as title in fee simple, which is not subject to any
restriction on alienation or encumbrance, the Government no longer has any legal basis
to seek the reversion or reconveyance of the subject land.

───※ ·❆· ※───

PBCOM v. REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR THE PROVINCE OF BENGUET

G.R. No. 222958 G.R. No. 222958
SUMMARY
Philippine Bank of Communications (PBCOM), petitioners, filed a petition for
issuance of owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 21320 in lieu of the lost one (first petition,
docketed as LRC Case No. 11-AD-1335, raffled to RTC, Branch 62, La Trinidad, Benguet.
However, this petition was dismissed. PBCOM moved for reconsideration of the order of
dismissal, but to no avail.

PBCOM then filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, claiming that the
respondent judge therein committed grave abuse of discretion (1) in dismissing the

14
 second petition on the ground of res judicata and (2) in dismissing, without first
determining, whether the evidence presented in the first petition was identical to the
evidence intended to be presented in the second petition. PBCOM claimed that the
dismissal of the first petition did not bar the filing of a second petition, for otherwise,
it would be forever barred from securing a "replacement copy of the missing title."

The CA dismissed the petition for certiorari and held that: (1) PBCOM availed of
the wrong remedy as the dismissal of the second petition on the ground of res judicata
was a complete disposition and was thus reviewable via appeal; and (2) all elements of
res judicata were attendant, given that PBCOM sought the issuance of the owner's
duplicate copy of TCT No. 21320 in both petitions.

DOCTRINE
Section 109. Notice and replacement of lost duplicate certificate. In case of loss
or theft of an owner's duplicate certificate of title, due notice under oath shall be sent
by the owner or by someone in his behalf to the Register of Deeds of the province or
city where the land lies as soon as the loss or theft is discovered. If a duplicate
certificate is lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced by a person applying for the entry
of a new certificate to him or for the registration of any instrument, a sworn statement
of the fact of such loss or destruction may be filed by the registered owner or other
person in interest and registered.
Upon the petition of the registered owner or other person in interest, the court
may, after notice and due hearing, direct the issuance of a new duplicate certificate,
which shall contain a memorandum of the fact that it is issued in place of the lost
duplicate certificate, but shall in all respects be entitled to like faith and credit as the
original duplicate, and shall thereafter be regarded as such for all purposes of this
decree.

NOTES
Proceedings for the replacement of owner’s duplicate certificates of title only
involve “the re-issuance of a new owner’s duplicate certificate of title lost or destroyed
in its original form and condition. It does not pass upon the ownership of the land
covered by the lost or destroyed title.” Strictly speaking therefore, there is no
conclusive adjudication of rights between adversarial parties in a proceeding for the
replacement of a lost or destroyed owner’s duplicate certificate of title.

───※ ·❆· ※───

USUSAN DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. REPUBLIC

G.R. No. 209452 July 15, 2020
SUMMARY
Ususan Development Corporation filed for an application for registration and
confirmation of title before the RTC, asserting that the subject realty formed part of

15
 the alienable and disposable land of the public domain as evidenced by a Certification
registration suit earlier filed by Maria over such lot.

Appellant Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General,
filed an Opposition arguing that subject property cannot be owned by a private person
nor can it be registered to applicant-appellee as it still remained part of the public
domain that belonged to the State, and thus, not subject to private ownership.

RTC rendered declaring Ususan Development Corporation, now DMCI Project

Developers, Inc., as the owner in fee simple of the parcel of land. According to the CA,
RTC erred in granting the application for registration in the absence of competent proof
that the land applied for is within the alienable and disposable land of the public
domain. A motion for reconsideration was filed by the petitioner.

DOCTRINE
SEC. 14. Who may apply. - The following persons may file in the proper Court of
First Instance an application for registration of title to land, whether personally or
through their duly authorized representatives:

(1) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in- interest have been
in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and
disposable lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since June
12, 1945, or earlier.
(2) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by prescription under
the provision of existing laws.
(3) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands or abandoned riverbeds
by right of accession or accretion under the existing laws.
(4) Those who have acquired ownership of land in any other manner provided for
by law.

───※ ·❆· ※───

REPUBLIC v. HEIRS OF BERNABE

G.R. No. 237663 October 6, 2020
SUMMARY
The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), asserts that it
is the real party in interest in this case, due to the fact that it is the owner of all lands
of the public domain under the concept of jura regalia.

DOCTRINE
Section 2(10) of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code defines a
government "instrumentality" as any agency of the National Government, not integrated
within pie department framework, vested with special functions or jurisdiction by law,
endowed with some if not all corporate powers, administering special funds, and
enjoying operational autonomy, usually through a charter.

16
 When the law vests in a government instrumentality corporate powers, the
instrumentality does not become a corporation. Unless the government instrumentality
is organized as a stock or non-stock corporation, it remains a government
instrumentality exercising not only governmental but also corporate powers. Likewise,
when the law makes a government instrumentality operationally autonomous, the
instrumentality remains part of the National Government machinery although not
integrated with the department framework.

NOTES
Many government instrumentalities are vested with corporate powers, but they
do not become stock or non-stock corporations, which is a necessary condition before
an agency or instrumentality is deemed a [GOCC]. All these government
instrumentalities exercise corporate powers, but they are not organized as stock or non-
stock corporations as required by Section 2(13) of the Introductory Provisions of the
Administrative Code. These government instrumentalities are sometimes loosely called
government corporate entities. However, they are not [GOCCs] in the strict sense as
understood under the Administrative Code, which is the governing law defining the legal
relationship and status of government entities.

───※ ·❆· ※───

BELIZARIO v. DENR
G.R. No. 231001 March 24, 2021
SUMMARY
In 1965, the Supreme Court found that the Ayalas illegally included portions of
territorial waters and lands belonging to the public domain in the latter’s Hacienda
Calatagan. Meanwhile, in 1987, Belizario bought a parcel of land in Calatagan from the
DAR.

DOCTRINE
A reversion suit seeks to nullify a void title. A void title does not enjoy
indefeasibility under the Torrens system. A void title acquired through fraud,
misrepresentation or oversight cannot defeat the State's right to reacquire the same.
Verily, registration under the Torrens system is not a mode of acquiring ownership.

───※ ·❆· ※───

REPUBLIC v. NORTHERN CEMENT CORP.

G.R. No. 200256 April 11, 2018
SUMMARY
Northern Cement Corporation (Northern Cement) filed an application for
registration of land, which was opposed by the Republic of the Philippines on the ground

17
 that Northern Cement failed to observe the requirements for original registration of
title under PD 1529.

DOCTRINE
The burden of proof is on the person seeking original registration of land to prove
by clear, positive and convincing evidence that his possession and that of his
predecessors-in-interest was of the nature and duration required by law.

In a plethora of cases, the Supreme Court (SC) has disallowed registration of

lands where, although plants and fruit-bearing trees existed on the contested lands, it
was not proven that they were cultivated by the registrant, or that they were actively
and regularly cultivated and maintained and not merely casually or occasionally tended
to by the registrant, or that they were planted by him or his predecessors-in-interest.

───※ ·❆· ※───

HEIR OF CARDENAS v. THE CHRISTIAN AND MISSIONARY ALLIANCE

G.R. No. 222614 March 20, 2019
SUMMARY
The Heirs of Cardenas assert that they have a better right over the subject
property, which is why they filed a Complaint for Recovery of Possession and Use of Real
Property and Damages against CAMACOP. The Heirs of Cardenas argue that they
inherited the property from their parents, Spouses Cardenas, who are the registered
owners of the subject property, and have corroborated this claim by presenting the
corresponding TCT and Tax Declaration pertaining to the property.

DOCTRINE
As a general rule, a certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and
incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein.
In Umbay v. Alecha, the Court explained that the right to recover possession of
registered land is imprescriptible on the part of the registered owner because possession
is a mere consequence of ownership.

───※ ·❆· ※───

MAYUGA v. ATIENZA
G.R. No. 208197 January 10, 2018
SUMMARY
Plaintiff Araceli Mayuga instituted a petition for Cancellation and Recall of Free
Patent Application (FPA) No. 11636 and FPA No. 11637 and Reconveyance against
defendants Antonio Atienza, Benjamin Atienza Jr., Community Environment and Natural
Resource Officer (CENRO) and Register of Deeds of Romblon. She alleged that through
manipulation and misrepresentation with intent to defraud a co-heir, Antonio and

18
 Benjamin were able to secure free patents without notice to her as required by law.
Thus, she prayed for the recall and cancellation of the free patents and the division of
the 2 lots into 3 equal parts among the 3 forced heirs.

DOCTRINE
A partition inter vivos may be valid even though there is no supporting will.

───※ ·❆· ※───

HEIRS OF LUPENA v. MEDINA

G.R. No. 231639 January 22, 2020
SUMMARY
The original plaintiff, Lupena, filed a Complaint for Recovery of Possession of
Real Property against respondents Pastor Medina, Jovito Pagsisihan, Cenon Patricio and
Bernardo Dionisio. The RTC dismissed the Complaint because it found that the evidence
presented by the Heirs of Lupena failed to sufficiently establish that the lots occupied
by the respondents were actually part of or overlapped the property registered in the
name of Lupena. The CA affirmed ruling that under paragraph (d) of Section 43 of the
Revised Manual for Land Surveying Regulations in the Philippines, a geodetic engineer,
in the conduct of relocation survey, must indicate in his plan the positions of buildings,
fences wall and other permanent improvements adversely affected by the
determination of the boundaries.

DOCTRINE
Section 643(d) of the Revised Manual for Land Surveying Regulations in the
Philippines requires geodetic engineers to indicate in the relocation plan the positions
of buildings, fences, walls, and other permanent improvements adversely affected by
the determination of the boundaries.

───※ ·❆· ※───

OBLIGATIONS & CONTRACTS

G. HOLDINGS, INC. v. CAGAYAN ELECTRIC

G.R. No. 226213 September 27, 2017
SUMMARY
G. Holdings, Inc. (GHI) filed a case against Sheriff Baron, CEPALCO and FPI for
Nullification of Sheriff's Levy on Execution and Auction Sale, Recovery of Possession of
Properties and Damages before the RTC of Cagayan De Oro. GHI claimed that the levied
ferro-alloy smelting facility, properties and equipment are owned by it as evidenced by

19
 a Deed of Assignment dated March 11, 2003 (the Deed of Assignment) executed by FPI
in consideration of P50,366,926.71.

DOCTRINE
Recission has been defined as a remedy to make ineffective a contract validly
entered into which is obligatory under normal conditions by reason of external causes
resulting in a pecuniary prejudice to one of the contracting parties or their creditors.
Under Art 1381 of the Civil Code, enumerates the contracts which are considered to be
rescissible.

On the other hand, void or inexistent contracts are those which are ipso jure
prevented from producing their effects and are considered as inexistent from the very
beginning because of their certain imperfections

NOTES
Under Article 1345 of the Civil Code, simulation of a contract may be absolute,
when the parties do not intend to be bound at all, or relative, when the parties conceal
their true agreement. The former is known as contracto simulado while the latter is
known as contracto disimulado. An absolutely simulated or fictitious contract is void
while a relatively simulated contract when it does not prejudice a third person and is
not intended for any purpose contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or
public policy binds the parties to their real agreement.

───※ ·❆· ※───

YUJUICO v. FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST CO.

G.R. No. 186196 August 15, 2018
SUMMARY
Benedicto v. Yujuico (Yujuico), the president of appellee GTI Sportsware Corp.
(GTI), alleged that during the signing of the loan restructuring agreement, they were
assured by the officers of appellant bank that after a few payments on the obligation,
GTI’s peso loan would be converted into its request - U dollars. Hence, appellees prayed
that appellant bank be directed to convert GTI’s loan to US dollars retroactively
effective October 1, 1996. Appellant bank denied that it has made any assurances to
appellees that it would approve the latter’s request for conversion of the peso loan to
US dollar.

DOCTRINE
Novation has been defined as the substitution or alteration of an obligation by a
subsequent one that cancels or modifies the preceding one. Unlike other modes of
extinction of obligations, novation is a juridical act of dual function, in that at the time
it extinguishes an obligation, it creates a new one in lieu of the old. This is not to say
however, that in every case of novation the old obligation is necessarily extinguished.
Our Civil Code now admits of the so-called imperfect or modificatory novation where
the original obligation is not extinguished but modified or changed in some of the

20
 principal conditions of the obligation. Thus, article 1291 provides that obligations may
be modified.

As to its essence, novation may be classified into: (a) objective or real, (b)
subjective or personal, or (c) mixed. Article 1291(1) contemplates an objective or real
novation where there is a change in the cause, object or principal conditions of the
obligations while (2) and (3) of said Article contemplate a passive one where there is a
substitution of the person of the debtor and an active one where there is subrogation of
a third person in the rights of the creditor. Mixed novation, on the other hand, refers to
a combination of objective and subjective novation.

As to its form or constitution, novation may be express, when it is declared in

unequivocal terms that the old obligation is extinguished by a new one which substitutes
the same, or implied or tacit, when the old and the new obligations are incompatible
with each other on every point. As to extent or effect, novation may be total or
extinctive, when there is an absolute extinguishment of the old obligation, or partial,
when there is merely a modification of the old obligation.

───※ ·❆· ※───

REPUBLIC v. HEIRS CRUZ

G.R. No. 208956 October 17, 2018
SUMMARY
The Oliquino group presented before the RTC a Compromise Agreement for
approval. While said agreement allocated the remaining balance of just compensation
corresponding to the Disputed Portion among the defendants in the Interpleader, only
the Oliquino and Agalabia groups agreed upon the allocation. The RTC issued a judgment
(Partial Judgment) approving the terms of the Compromise Agreement. The CA affirmed
the validity of the Order directing the execution of the Partial Judgment.

DOCTRINE
Art. 2028 of the Civil Code defines a compromise as a “contract whereby the
parties, by making reciprocal concessions, avoid litigation or put an end to one already
commenced.”
Clearly, the immediate execution of the Partial Judgment approving the
Compromise Agreement facilitates the premature distribution of the Republic's
remaining balance without affording the De Leon group and Atty. Borja of the
opportunity to establish their entitlement. This defeats the very purpose for which the
Republic's Interpleader had been filed, as it opens the portals to protracted litigation
not only among the opposing claimants, but also between said claimants and the
Republic.

───※ ·❆· ※───

21
 VDM TRADING, INC. v. CARUNGCONG
Case Code Case Date
SUMMARY
An action for damages was filed by VDM Trading and Spouses Domingo against
Carungcong due to unauthorized installation of piping and plumbing at a laundry area in
which a strong leak was found affecting the subject unit owned by petitioners in the
condominium.

DOCTRINE
According to Article 2176 of the Civil Code, whoever by act or omission causes
damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage
done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between
the parties, is called a quasi-delict. A quasi-delict has the following elements: a) the
damage suffered by the plaintiff; b) the act or omission of the defendant supposedly
constituting fault or negligence; and c) the causal connection between the act and the
damage sustained by the plaintiff, or proximate cause.

NOTES
Proximate cause is that cause which, in natural and continuous sequence,
unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury and without which the
result would not have occurred.

───※ ·❆· ※───

DOMESTIC PETROLEUM CORPORATION v. MIAA

G.R. No. 21064 March 27, 2019
SUMMARY
DPRC protested the increased rentals set by MIAA, arguing that it was decreed
and implemented without prior notice and hearing. The case filed by DPRC protesting
the validity of the increase in rent was resolved in favor of DPRC. DPRC paid MIAA based
on the original rental rate. However, MIAA continued to demand payment. A case for
collection of sum of money was filed by DPRC which was ultimately settled in its favor.
When the case was brought on appeal by MIAA, the CA affirmed the ruling of the trial
court but adjusted the amount to be paid by MIAA. The CA ruled that the liability of
MIAA to DPRC for overpaid monthly rentals was in the nature of a quasi-contract of
solutio indebiti.

DOCTRINE
In order to establish the application of solutio indebiti in a given situation, two
conditions must concur: (1) a payment is made when there exists no binding relation
between the payor who has no duty to pay, and the person who received the payment,
and (2) the payment is made through mistake, and not through liberality or some other
cause.

───※ ·❆· ※───

22
 RCBC v. PLAST-PRINT INDUSTRIES, INC.
G.R. No. 199308 June 19, 2019
SUMMARY
RCBC alleged that the CA erred when it affirmed the ruling of the RTC in finding
that the foreclosure of the mortgaged properties was deemed premature. As a result,
the CA disregarded the obligatory force of the Restructuring Agreement executed by
Plast-Print.

DOCTRINE
Articles 1291 and 1292 of the Civil Code govern novation. Novation may be total
or extinctive, when there is an absolute extinguishment of the old obligation, or partial,
when there is merely a modification of the old obligation.

NOTES
As noted by civilist Justice Eduardo P. Caguioa:

x x x Novation has been defined as the substitution or alteration of an obligation

by a subsequent one that cancels or modifies the preceding one. Unlike other modes of
extinction of obligations, novation is a juridical act of dual function, in that at the time
it extinguishes an obligation, it creates a new one in lieu of the old. x xx This is not to
say however, that in every case of novation the old obligation is necessarily
extinguished. Our Civil Code now admits of the so-called imperfect or modificatory
novation where the original obligation is not extinguished but modified or changed in
some of the principal conditions of the obligation. Thus, Article 1291 provides that
obligations may be modified.

───※ ·❆· ※───

MAKATI WATER, INC. v. AGUA VIDA SYSTEMS, INC.

G.R. No. 205604 June 26, 2019
SUMMARY
After the expiration of the Franchise Agreement between AVSI and MWI, MWI
operated the water refilling stations under its own name. MWI's interpretation of the "in
the event of Termination" in the two-year prohibition clause shall not apply "in the event
of Expiration."

DOCTRINE
The Court has previously held that in construing an instrument with several
provisions, a construction must be adopted as will give effect to all. Under Article 1374
of the Civil Code, contracts cannot be construed by parts, but clauses must be
interpreted in relation to one another to give effect to the whole. The legal effect of a
contract is not determined alone by any particular provision disconnected from all
others, but from the whole read together.

23
NOTES
1. The literal, express, and plain meaning of the word termination is end of existence or
conclusion. The expiration of an agreement leads to the end of its existence and effectivity;
an agreement has reached its conclusion upon expiration. Upon close reading of the
Franchise Agreements, there is no provision therein which expressly limits, restricts, or
confines the term termination to the cancellation of the agreements by the acts of the
parties prior to their expiry date.
2. Under Article 1374 of the Civil Code, the various stipulations of a contract shall be
interpreted together, attributing to the doubtful ones that sense which may result from all
of them taken jointly.

───※ ·❆· ※───

CHUA PING HUAN v. MANAS

G.R. No. 198867 October 16, 2019
SUMMARY
Ching, petitioner, entered into a contract of sale with Manas, respondent, for
the purchase of four projectors for the cinema owned by ching. However, Ching refused
to pay the balance of the purchase price for the projectors even after Manas complied
with his obligation to provide and install the projectors.

DOCTRINE
In a reciprocal obligation, the performance of one is conditioned on the
simultaneous fulfillment of the other obligation. Neither party incurs in delay if the
other does not comply or is not ready to comply in a manner with what is incumbent
upon him.

Reciprocal obligation has been defined as that "where each of the parties is a
promissee of a prestation and promises another in return as a counterpart of equivalent
of the other. x x x The most salient feature of this obligation is reciprocity."

───※ ·❆· ※───

CATAPANG v. LIPA BANK

G.R. No. 240645 January 27, 2020
SUMMARY
Redentor and Casiana both alleged that the execution of a promissory note and
a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage was tainted with fraud, undue influence, and trickery.
This was alleged because Lipa Bank, without the consent and knowledge of Redentor,
was able to convince Casiana to sign a promissory note dated on June 30, 1999 in the
amount of Php 270,000 and a deed of Real Estate Mortgage on August 6, 1999 over the
property amounting to Php 1,440,000. They also alleged that Casiana was not a party to
the Sales Contract; and further alleged that she did not receive the proceeds of the Php

24
 270,000. It led Redentor and Casiana to file a case with the prayer that the Deed of Real
Estate and the Promissory Note be declared as null and void.

DOCTRINE
Article 1332 contemplates a situation wherein a contract has been entered into,
but the consent of one of the parties is vitiated through mistake or fraud on the part of
the other party. The burden of proof shifts to the other party to prove that they were
able to explain the terms of the contract to the illiterate party, and that it was not
executed by fraud or mistake.

NOTES
A contract is a meeting of the minds between two parties whereby one binds
himself, with respect to the other, to give something or render service. There are 3
elements that have to concur for there to be a meeting of the minds, they are as follows:
(1) consent of the contracting parties; (2) object certain which is the subject matter of
the contract; and (3) the cause of the obligation which is established. When one of the
elements mentioned is wanting, no contract can be perfected.

Consent in contracts presupposes the following: (1) it should be intelligent or

with an exact notion of the matter to which it refers; (2) it should be free; and (3) it
should be spontaneous. Intelligence in consent means that it is vitiated by error. So, a
contract where consent is given through mistake, violence, intimidation, undue
influence and fraud is voidable.

The banking industry is one impressed with great public interest, since it affects
the economy, so the people place their trust and confidence in the systems of banks,
which is also why there is a fiduciary nature of the banks functions.

It was explained by Justice Caguioa, Article 1332 is a new provision that was
taken from American Jurisprudence. There is a fairly large number of illiterates and
documents are usually drawn in English or Spanish. The burden of proof is shifted to the
party alleging the mistake to the party enforcing the contract. So, that means it’s up to
the other party to prove that they were able to fully explain the terms of the contracts,
if the party cannot prove this, the allegation of mistake and fraud will remain
unrebutted.

───※ ·❆· ※───

REPUBLIC v. SUNDIAM
G.R. No. 236381 | August 27, 2020
SUMMARY
The Republic through the OSG, filed before the Court of First Instance Pampanga,
alleging that a portion of Fort Stotstenberg Military Reservation (Now Clark Air Base)
was surveyed, segregated, designated, and later on subdivided into seven (70 separate
lots allegedly without the approval of the director of lands. One of the registered owners
was herein Respondent, Sixto Sundiam (Sundiam), who caused the registration of Lot

25
 986 in his name through an original certificate of title (OCT). He sold the same to Liberty
Engineering Corporation (Liberty Corp). However, it was later on discovered that the
said lot is within the Clark Air Force Base, a military reservation, prompting the Republic
to file a reversion case to declare the titles on the said property null and void.

DOCTRINE
ART. 1432. The principles of estoppel are hereby adopted insofar as they are not
in conflict with the provisions of this Code, the Code of Commerce, the Rules of Court
and special laws.

Equitable estoppel may be invoked against public authorities when as in this

case, the lot was already alienated to innocent buyers for value and the government did
not undertake any act to contest the title for an unreasonable length of time.

Only innocent purchasers for value (IPV) are afforded the right to raise the
equitable principle of estoppel by laches in their defense against the Government to
avoid injustice to them.

───※ ·❆· ※───

TAMAYAO v. LACAMBRA
G.R. No. 244232 November 3, 2020
SUMMARY
When Rogelio finished constructing his house, Pedro Balubal (Pedro), the son of
Jose, and Leandro Anda (Leandro), son of Jose's deceased daughter, Enrica, paid the
Spouses Tamayao a visit and asked them why they bought part of the property from the
heirs of Lacambra when the subject property clearly belonged to their predecessors.
Pedro and Leandro further claimed that Tomasa and Jose never sold the parcel of land
to the Lacambras. In her Answer with Counterclaim, Tomasa denied that she and her
brother, Jose, sold the property to Juan.

DOCTRINE
Once consummated, a sale of land is valid regardless of the form it may have
been entered into. For nowhere does law or jurisprudence prescribe that the contract
of sale be put in writing before such contract can validly cede or transmit rights over a
certain real property between the parties themselves.

───※ ·❆· ※───

26
 PINEDA v. VDA DE VEGA
G.R. No. 233774 April 10, 2019
SUMMARY
Ma. Luisa Pineda alleges that Virginia Zuniga Vda De Vega borrowed from her
P500,000, payable within one year with an interest of 8% per month and as security
respondent executed a Real Estate Mortgage (REM) over a certain parcel of land together
with all buildings and improvements there on. On the due date of the loan the
respondent failed to pay, the interest at the time amounted to P232,000.

Respondent states that this action was dismissible for lack of barangay
conciliation, and that the interest was unconscionable as such illegal. She further stated
that she never received the P500,000 from the petitioner, and the P500,000 was the
accumulated amount of another obligation which only had an interest of 3% per month
and that there was no demand made by Pineda prior to this action.

DOCTRINE
Default is a voluntary breach of an obligation, which signifies delay in the
fulfillment of an obligation. In positive obligations delay occurs upon demand of the
creditor, demand may also be judicial or extrajudicial.

───※ ·❆· ※───

PERSONS & FAMILY RELATIONS

MENESES v. LEE-MENESES
G.R. No. 200182 March 13, 2019
SUMMARY
Anacleto filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage. Anacleto
presented the testimony of Dr. Arnulfo V. Lopez (Dr. Lopez), a clinical psychiatrist. Dr.
Lopez concluded that Linda suffers from narcissistic personality disorder with borderline
personality disorder features that render her incapable of fulfilling the essential marital
obligations.

DOCTRINE
To warrant a declaration of nullity on the basis of Article 36, the incapacity "must
be grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary
duties required in marriage; it must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the
marriage although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage; and it
must be incurable or even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of
the party involved.

───※ ·❆· ※───

27
 BARTOLOME v. REPUBLIC
G.R. No. 243288 | August 28, 2019
SUMMARY
Petitioner Bartolome sought to correct the name 'Feliciano Bartholome' as
appearing in his birth certificate under Rule 103 of the ROC stating that he has been
using the name Ruben [Cruz] Bartolome since childhood. The trial court denied the
petition averring that it should have been filed in accordance with Republic Act No.
9048 (RA 9048).

DOCTRINE
Republic Act No. 9048 amended Articles 376 and 412 of the Civil Code, effectively
removing clerical errors and changes of the name outside the ambit of Rule 108 and
putting them under the jurisdiction of the civil registrar and Rules 103 and 108 only
apply if the administrative petition has been filed and later denied.

NOTES
Section 1 of R.A. 9048 as amended by R.A. 10172, which provides:

Section 1. Authority to Correct Clerical or Typographical Error and Change of

First Name or Nickname. — No entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected
without a judicial order, except for clerical or typographical errors and change of first
name or nickname, the day and month in the date of birth or sex of a person where it
is patently clear that there was a clerical or typographical error or mistake in the entry,
which can be corrected or changed by the concerned city or municipal civil registrar or
consul general in accordance with the provisions of this Act and its implementing rules
and regulations.
In the case at bar, all changes sought by the petitioner fall within the ambit of
R.A. 9048.

───※ ·❆· ※───

REPUBLIC v. QUINONEZ
G.R. No. 237412 January 06, 2020
SUMMARY
In the summer of 2004, Remar filed for a leave from work to look for his wife in
Manila. He also went to Batangas along with his aunt, Evelyn Pachico, as well as to
Cavite with Lovelyn's aunt, Leonora Aguilar, yet they were not able to find her. On
February 27, 2013, after almost ten (10) years of trying to know about the whereabouts
of his wife from their relatives proved futile, Remar filed a Petition for Declaration of
Presumptive Death before the RTC.

DOCTRINE
Under Article 41, the time required for the presumption to arise has been
shortened to four (4) years; however, there is need for a judicial declaration of
presumptive death to enable the spouse present to remarry. Also, Article 41 of the
Family Code imposes a stricter standard than the Civil Code: Article 83 of the Civil Code

28
 merely requires either that there be no news that such absentee is still alive; or the
absentee is generally considered to be dead and believed to be so by the spouse present,
or is presumed dead under Articles 390 and 391 of the Civil Code. The Family Code, upon
the other hand, prescribes as "well founded belief" that the absentee is already dead
before a petition for declaration of presumptive death can be granted.

Thus, mere absence of the spouse (even for such period required by the law),
lack of any news that such absentee is still alive, failure to communicate or general
presumption of absence under the Civil Code would not suffice. This conclusion proceeds
from the premise that Article 41 of the Family Code places upon the present spouse the
burden of proving the additional and more stringent requirement of "well-founded
belief'' which can only be discharged upon a showing of proper and honest-to-goodness
inquiries and efforts to ascertain not only the absent spouse's whereabouts but, more
importantly, that the absent spouse is still alive or is already dead.

NOTES
The law did not define what is meant by '"well-founded belief." It depends upon
the circumstances of each particular case. Its determination, so to speak, remains on a
case-to-case basis. To be able to comply with this requirement, the present spouse must
prove that his/her belief was the result of diligent and reasonable efforts and inquiries
to locate the absent spouse and that based on these efforts and inquiries, he/she
believes that under the circumstances, the absent spouse is already dead. It requires
exertion of active effort (not a mere passive one).

───※ ·❆· ※───

GALAPON v. REPUBLIC
G.R. No. 243722 January 22, 2020
SUMMARY
Cynthia A. Galapon (Cynthia), petitioner of this case, got married to a South
Korean National, Noh Shik Park (Park) on February 27, 2012. The relationship turned
sour and ended in a mutual agreement to divorce in South Korea. The divorce was
already confirmed on July 16, 2012 by the local court in Korea. Cynthia filed a Petition
for Judicial Recognition of a Foreign Divorce Decree in the Regional Trial Court. A
hearing for the case was set, after the petition was found to be sufficient in form and
in substance. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Notice of Appearance as
counsel for the Republic of the Philippines.

DOCTRINE
Article 26 (2) includes divorce decrees obtained with or without the conformity
of the Filipino spouse. The law contemplates a situation where the foreign spouse is
granted the right to remarry upon the confirmation or the granting of his or her divorce
decree; the Filipino spouse shall also have the same right to remarry. It shall be the
height of injustice for a foreigner spouse to remarry but the Filipino spouse still remains
to be married to the foreigner spouse despite the existence of a divorce decree.

29
NOTES
A Filipino who initiated a foreign divorce proceeding is in the same place and in
the same circumstance as a Filipino who is at the receiving end of an alien that initiates
the proceeding. There is no distinction between the two, so in both instances, it is
extended as a means to recognize the residual effect of the foreign divorce decree on
Filipinos whose marital ties to their alien spouses are severed by the operation of the
latter’s national law.

In the Manalo case, Article 26 (2) applies to mixed marriages where the divorce
decree is: (1) obtained by the foreign spouse; (2) obtained jointly by the Filipino and
the Foreign spouse; and (3) obtained solely by the Filipino spouse. It only requires that
there be a valid divorce decree obtained abroad, but it does not mention that the alien
spouse should be the one to initiate the proceedings.

In the facts of the case, the pieces of evidence submitted by Cynthia may have
been sufficient to establish the authenticity and validity of the divorce obtained by the
couple abroad. But both courts relied on the law that states that the divorce decree
should be obtained by the foreign spouse.

───※ ·❆· ※───

SPS ANASTACIO, SR. v. HEIRS OF COLOMA

G.R. No. 224572 August 27, 2020
SUMMARY
Respondents, Heirs of Coloma, demand the surrender of the land situated in San
Jose, Tarlac from the petitioners, Spouses Anastacio, Sr. Respondents contend that the
title to the subject property, as shown in the Transfer of Certificate of Title, belongs to
respondent’s deceased father, Juan, and with the certificate of title likewise carried
the inscription of his marriage to respondent’s deceased mother, Juliana. The
petitioners refused such demand and claimed that they have paid Juan P100,000.00 as
first payment in 2003 and P260,000.00 upon execution of the said Deed of Absolute Sale,
apart from the P100,000.00 they spent as expenses for the wake and burial of Juan.
Petitioners also claimed that the consent of Juliana was not necessary to effect a valid
sale since the subject property was the sole property of Juan, having inherited the same
from his paternal ancestors and the spouses had long been separated from bed and
board.

DOCTRINE
Article 105 of the Family Code provides that the provisions of Chapter 4, Conjugal
Partnership of Gains (CPG), shall also apply to CPG already established before the
effectivity of the Family Code, without prejudice to vested rights already acquired in
accordance with the Civil Code or other laws.

ART. 116. All property acquired during the marriage, whether the acquisition
appears to

30
 have been made, contracted or registered in the name of one or both spouses,
is presumed to be conjugal unless the contrary is proved. The fact that Juan and Juliana
were separated from bed and board (a mensa et thoro) at the time of the supposed sale
of the subject property by Juan to petitioners did not exempt the disposition from the
requirement of obtaining the other spouse's consent under Article 116 of the Family
Code.

───※ ·❆· ※───

HEIRS OF CABURNAY v. HEIRS OF SISON

G.R. No. 230934 December 2, 2020
SUMMARY
The Heirs of Caburnay filed a complaint against the Heirs of Sison for specific
performance, declaration of nullity of document and title and damages. Petitioners
alleged that on September 23, 1994, respondents' predecessor-in-interest Teodulo Sison
sold a parcel of land to petitioners' predecessor-in-interest Apolinario Caburnay. The
subject property was covered by TCT No. 8791. The parties agreed that Apolinario would
pay P40,000.00 as initial payment of the total purchase price of P150,000.00, the rest
of which was to be paid in installments.

DOCTRINE
The third paragraph of Article 130 of the Family Code provides that a mandatory
regime of complete separation of property shall govern the property relations of the
subsequent marriage should the surviving spouse contract a subsequent marriage
without liquidating the conjugal partnership property.

───※ ·❆· ※───

SPS. CUENO v. SPS. BAUTISTA

G.R. No. 246445 March 2, 2021
SUMMARY
In 1961, Flora and Eulalio were husband and wife who bought a share of a parcel
of land. In 1967, Flora’s husband sold their share of the land to Flora’s father, Luis,
without Flora’s consent.

DOCTRINE
The applicable law in this case is the Old Civil Code which provides that a sale
of conjugal real property entered into without the wife's consent is voidable. However,
it is noteworthy that Article 96 and Article 124 the Family Code now expressly declares
that alienations or encumbrances of community or conjugal property without the
consent of the other spouse are null and void.

31
 ───※ ·❆· ※───

PEREZ, JR. v. PEREZ-SENERPIDA

G.R. No. 233365 March 24, 2021
SUMMARY
In 2004, Eliodoro donated their land to his grandson, Nicxon Jr., without the
conformity of his wife Adelita. In February 2005, Eliodoro filed against Adelita a petition
for declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity. The trial
court granted the petition and the judgment became final and executory in July 2005.
Eliodoro died in 2008 and, a year later, an extrajudicial settlement among the heirs was
executed. In 2010, Avegail brought an action of annulment of donation of the land
donated by Eliodoro to Nicxon Jr. on the ground that it was prejudicial to her interest
because it affected her future inheritance or legitime.

DOCTRINE
Neither party can encumber or dispose by acts inter vivos of his or her share in
the property acquired during cohabitation and owned in common, without the consent
of the other, until after the termination of their cohabitation.

───※ ·❆· ※───

SANTOS v. REPUBLIC
G.R. No. 250520 May 5, 2021
SUMMARY
Francis Luigi G. Santos (Santos) petitioner filed a petition for change of name
under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court seeking to change his surname from "Santos" to
"Revilla" in his Certificate of Live Birth. He alleged that his parents, Lovely Guzman and
Bong Revilla were never married but begot a son (him) named as "Francis Luigi Guzman."
Santos’ Certificate of Live Birth did not bear the Revilla surname and his father was
marked as unknown. However, subsequently, Bong Revilla executed an Affidavit of
Acknowledgment recognizing the petitioner as his son.

DOCTRINE
A change of one's name under Rule 103 can be granted, only on grounds provided
by law. In order to justify a request for change of name, there must be a proper and
compelling reason for the change and proof that the person requesting will be
prejudiced by the use of his official name.

───※ ·❆· ※───

32
 REPUBLIC v. VILLACORTA
G.R. No. 249953 June 23, 2021
SUMMARY
Melvin T. Villacorta (Melvin) and Janufi Sol P. Villacorta (Janufi) quarreled and
the issue of Mejan Dia's paternity was brought up in the presence of their relatives. This
drove Melvin to finally take a deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) Parentage Examination (DNA
test) at Hi-Precision Diagnostics, and the results of the DNA test were released, which
revealed that there was a 0.0% probability that Melvin was the father of Mejan Dia.
Janufi was shocked at the result of the DNA test and could not believe that Melvin was
not the father of Mejan Dia. Which prompted Melvin filed a petition for annulment of
marriage before the RTC which the RTC favored the annulment of the said marriage.

DOCTRINE
It is the concealment of the fact of pregnancy by another man at the time of
marriage that constitutes fraud as a ground for annulment. "No other misrepresentation
or deceit as to character, health, rank, fortune or chastity shall constitute such fraud
as will give grounds for action for the annulment of marriage.

───※ ·❆· ※───

FALCIS III v. CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL

G.R. No. 217910 September 3, 2019
SUMMARY
On May 18, 2015, Jesus Nicardo M. Falcis III (Falcis) filed before this Court a
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
His Petition sought to “declare article 1 and 2 of the Family Code as unconstitutional
and, as a consequence, nullify Articles 46(4) and 55(6) of the Family Code.”

DOCTRINE
Marriage is a legal relationship, entered into through a legal framework, and
enforceable according to legal rules. Law stands at its very core. Due to this inherent
“legalness” of marriage, the constitutional right to marry cannot be secured simply by
removing legal barriers to something that exists outside of the law. Rather, the law
itself must create the “thing” to which one has a right. As a result, the right to marry
necessarily imposes an affirmative obligation on the state to establish this legal
framework

───※ ·❆· ※───

ROSANNA L. TAN-ANDAL v. MARIO VICTOR M. ANDAL

G.R. No. 196359 May 11, 2021
SUMMARY
Rosanna filed a petition to have her marriage with Mario be declared void on the
ground that Mario was psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital
33
 obligations. To prove her case, she presented a psychologist (Dr. Fonso Garcia) who,
after interviewing Rosanna, Rosanna’s daughter, and Rosanna’s sister, concluded that
Mario was psychologically incapacitated to perform essential marital obligations.

DOCTRINE
Below is the Supreme Court’s new set of guidelines in determining the existence
of psychological incapacity:

The burden of proof in proving psychological incapacity is still on the plaintiff.

The Supreme Court however clarified that the quantum of proof required in nullity cases
is clear and convincing evidence which is more than preponderant evidence (ordinary
civil cases) but less than proof beyond reasonable doubt (criminal cases). This is because
marriage is presumed valid and, in this jurisdiction,, a presumption can only be rebutted
with clear and convincing evidence.

Psychological incapacity is neither a mental incapacity nor a personality disorder

that must be proven through expert testimony. There must be proof, however, of the
durable or enduring aspects of a person’s personality, called “personality structure,”
which manifests itself through clear acts of dysfunctionality that undermines the family.
The spouse’s personality structure must make it impossible for him or her to understand
and, more important, to comply with his or her essential marital obligations. Proof of
these aspects of personality need not be given by an expert. Ordinary witnesses who
have been present in the life of the spouses before the latter contracted marriage may
testify on behaviors that they have consistently observed from the supposedly
incapacitated spouse.

Incurable, not in the medical, but in the legal sense; incurable as to the partner.
Psychological incapacity is so enduring and persistent with respect to a specific partner
and contemplates a situation where the couple’s respective personality structures are
so incompatible and antagonistic that the only result of the union would be the
inevitable and irreparable breakdown of the marriage.

As to gravity, it must be shown that the incapacity is caused by a genuinely

serious psychic cause. It is not necessary that it must be shown that the psychological
incapacity is a serious or dangerous illness BUT that “mild characterological
peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts” are excluded. The
psychological incapacity cannot be mere “refusal, neglect, or difficulty, much less ill
will.”

Juridical antecedence. The incapacity must be proven to be existing at the time

of the celebration of the marriage even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after
its solemnization.

Essential marital obligations are not limited to those between spouses. Hence,
those covered by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code as regards the husband and
wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their
children.

34
 The decisions of the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic
Church of the Philippines has persuasive effect on nullity cases pending before secular
courts. Canonical decisions are, to reiterate, merely persuasive and not binding on
secular courts. Canonical decisions are to only serve as evidence of the nullity of the
secular marriage, but ultimately, the elements of declaration of nullity under Article 36
must still be weighed by the judge.

NOTES
In connection to the Molina Doctrine.

───※ ·❆· ※───

PULIDO v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 220149 July 27, 2021
SUMMARY
A husband is charged with bigamy when he contracted a second marriage while
he was still married to his first wife. Said husband now challenges his conviction in the
bigamy case because he maintains that the first marriage was void ab initio, and that
said marriage was solemnized prior to the effectivity of the Family Code and is thus
governed by the Civil Code and not the Family Code.

DOCTRINE
A void ab initio marriage is a valid defense, in the prosecution for bigamy even
without a judicial declaration of nullity. Consequently, a judicial declaration of absolute
nullity of either the first or second marriages obtained by the accused is considered a
valid defense in bigamy.

Article 40 has retroactive application on marriages contracted prior to the

effectivity of the Family Code but only for the purpose of remarriage. In other words,
in order to remarry, a Judicial Declaration of Nullity of Marriage is required for prior
marriage contracted before the effectivity of the Family Code.

NOTES
This case seeks to reconcile the different rulings of the Court with regard to the
matter of whether a Judicial Declaration of Nullity of Marriage is required before one
can validly use a void ab initio marriage as a valid defense in a bigamy case. The Court
ultimately ruled that this requirement is not necessary if the first marriage was
celebrated before the Family Code came into effect.

───※ ·❆· ※───

35
 REPUBLIC v. CA AND MOLINA
G.R. No. 108763 February 13, 1997
SUMMARY
The marriage between a husband and wife was deemed to be void ab initio, after
the trial court found that the husband’s predisposition to quarrel constantly and his
neglect towards his responsibilities towards his wife and son, constituted the ground of
psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. Now, the Republic,
represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, questions such a “liberal”
interpretation of the Family Code Provision.

DOCTRINE
: In the present case, there is no clear showing that the psychological defect
spoken of is an incapacity. It appears to us to be more of a "difficulty," if not outright
"refusal" or "neglect" in the performance of some marital obligations. Mere showing of
'irreconcilable differences" and "conflicting personalities" in no wise constitutes
psychological incapacity. It is not enough to prove that the parties failed to meet their
responsibilities and duties as married persons; it is essential that they must be shown to
be incapable of doing so, due to some psychological (not physical) illness. The evidence
adduced by respondent merely showed that she and her husband could not get along
with each other. There had been no showing of the gravity of the problem; neither its
juridical antecedence nor its incurability. The expert testimony of Dr. Sison showed no
incurable psychiatric disorder but only incompatibility, not psychological incapacity.

NOTES
The doctrine of this case was further supplemented by the doctrine in the latter
case of Tan-Andal v. Andal, G.R. No. 196359, which modified the requirements before
a marriage can be considered as void ab initio due psychological incapacity, as provided
under Article 36 of the Family Code.

───※ ·❆· ※───

DANA S. SANTOS v. LEODEGARIO SANTOS

G.R. No. 214593 July 17, 2019
SUMMARY
Dana filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which referred
Dana's petition to the Philippine Mediation Center. Dana and Leodegario entered into a
compromise agreement, where they agreed to transfer the titles to their conjugal real
properties in the name of their common children. Dana moved for the archival of the
case. Thereafter, Dana filed a Manifestation alleging that Leodegario was not complying
with the compromise agreement.

DOCTRINE
Article 2035(2) and Article 5 of the New Civil Code provides that no compromise
upon the following questions shall be valid: "The validity of a marriage or a legal
separation." Further, Article 5 of the NCC provides: "Acts executed against the provisions
of mandatory or prohibitory laws shall be void, except when the law itself authorizes

36
 their validity." Here, compromise agreement is limited to Dana and Leodegario's
property relations vis-avvis their children, as Article 2036 of the Civil Code provides that
"compromise comprises only those objects which are definitely stated therein, or which
by necessary implication from its terms should be deemed to have been included in the
same."

NOTES
As held by the appellate court, the agreement makes no mention of the marital
ties between Leodegardio and Dana but is limited only to their property relations in
relation to their children.

───※ ·❆· ※───

ESTRELLA ABID-BABANO v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

G.R. No. 201176 August 28, 2019
SUMMARY
Department of Education (DepEd) Regional Director Estrella Abid Babano
(Babano) was suspended for violation of Section 7, R.A. No. 3019 and Section 8, R.A.
No. 6713 for her failure to disclose in her Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth
(SALN) certain motor vehicles belonging to her husband, himself a public servant
required to file his own SALN. On appeal, Babano argued that both Babano and her
husband were Muslims whose property regime was that of complete separation of
property as provided by Presidential Decree No. 1083 (Code of Muslim Personal Laws).

DOCTRINE
The requirement under Republic Act No. 6713 and similar laws that the sworn
statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth (SALN) to be filed by every government
official must include assets, liabilities, and net worth of the spouse of the filer is
construed not to include the assets, liabilities, and net worth of spouses whose property
regime during the marriage is by law or by agreement prior to the marriage one of
complete separation of property.Article 38 of the Code of Muslim Personal Laws
specifically defines their regime of property as Muslims to be one of Complete
Separation of Property. In view of this, the exemption of Babano from the disclosure
requirement should be clear and undisputed.

NOTES
Interestingly, similar consequences apply even to non-Muslim marriages whose
property regime is one of complete separation. Under the Civil Code, which also has
suppletory application to the Code of Muslim Personal Laws, the consequence of the
property regime of complete separation is found in Article 214. As the foregoing legal
provisions indicate, each spouse in marriages covered by the regime of complete
separation of property may exercise complete dominion over his or her exclusive estate.
No permission or consent is required before one spouse can exercise acts of ownership
or administration.

───※ ·❆· ※───

37
 REPUBLIC v. MANALO
G.R. No. 221029 April 24, 2018
SUMMARY
A case for divorce was filed by Manalo in Japan against her Japanese spouse and
after due proceedings, a divorce decree was rendered by the Japanese Court. Manalo
filed a petition for cancellation of entry of marriage in the Civil Registry by virtue of the
said judgment of divorce.

DOCTRINE
The letter of the law does not demand that the alien spouse should be the one
who initiated the proceeding wherein the divorce decree was granted.

Whether the Filipino spouse initiated the foreign divorce proceeding or not, a
favorable decree dissolving the marriage bond and capacitating his or her alien spouse
to remarry will have the same result: the Filipino spouse will effectively be without a
husband or wife.

NOTES
Both Dacasin v. Dacasin and Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr. already recognized a foreign
divorce decree that was initiated and obtained by the Filipino spouse and extended its
legal effects on the issues of child custody and property relation, respectively. When
this Court recognized a foreign divorce decree that was initiated and obtained by the
Filipino spouse and extended its legal effects on the issues of child custody and property
relation, it should not stop short in likewise acknowledging that one of the usual and
necessary consequences of absolute divorce is the right to remarry.

───※ ·❆· ※───

PROPERTY LAW

SAN FRANCISCO INN v. SAN PABLO CITY WATER DISTRICT

G.R. No. 204639 February 15, 2017
SUMMARY
The instant case is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) modifying the decision of
the Regional Trial Court of San Pablo City (RTC), which dismissed the petition of San
Francisco Inn (SFI) and declared as valid the imposition of production charges/fees by
respondent San Pablo City Water District (SPCWD) on commercial and industrial
users/operators of deep wells in San Pablo City and upholding the right of SPCWD to
demand payment of production charges/fees in accordance with existing rates from
petitioner SFI and for the latter to pay interest thereon from their imposition starting
in 1998.

38
DOCTRINE
Civil Law; Water Districts; Requirements that must be complied with before a
water district entity may impose production assessment on the production of ground
water by commercial or industrial operators/users.

───※ ·❆· ※───

CITY OF BATANGAS v. PHILIPPINE SHELL PETROLEUM CORP.

G.R. No. 195003 | June 07, 2017
SUMMARY
This case is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court, assailing the decision and resolution of the Tenth Division of the Court of Appeals
(CA). The assailed decision and resolution were a dismissal of the appeal filed by
Philippine Shell Petroleum Corp. (PSPC) in order to assail the ruling of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) in a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of the Ordinance issued by the City
of Batangas (Batangas).

DOCTRINE
The privilege to appropriate and use water is one which is exclusively granted
and regulated by the State through water permits issued by the National Water
Resources Board (NWRB). —The Water Code governs the ownership, appropriation,
utilization, exploitation, development, conservation and protection of water resources.
Under Article 3 thereof, water resources are placed under the control and regulation of
the government through the National Water Resources Council, now the NWRB.

───※ ·❆· ※───

AMA LAND, INC. v. WACK WACK RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION, INC.

G.R. No. 202342 July 19, 2017
SUMMARY
In 1998, due to the financial crisis, the AMA Tower Project was put on hold.
Although AMA asserted that It continued to pay Wack Wack Residents’ Association, Inc.
(WWRAI) for the use of Fordham Street, WWRAI claimed otherwise. As AMA resumed the
project, WWRAI filed In January 2010 an “Urgent Motion to Set for Hearing” It’s
application for temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction. AMA
failed to attend the proceedings. Without filing a motion for reconsideration, AMA filed
the Instant Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari.

DOCTRINE
The temporary easement of right of way under Article 656 of the Civil Code,
similar to the permanent easement of right of way pursuant to its Articles 649 and 650,
can only be granted after proof of compliance with the prerequisites set forth in the
articles duly adduced during a full- blown trial.

39
 ───※ ·❆· ※───

REPUBLIC v. NORTHERN CEMENT CORP.

G.R. No. 200256 | April 11, 2018
SUMMARY
Northern Cement Corporation (Northern Cement) filed an application for
registration of land, which was opposed by the Republic of the Philippines on the ground
that Northern Cement failed to observe the requirements for original registration of
title under PD 1529.

DOCTRINE
The burden of proof is on the person seeking original registration of land to prove
by clear, positive and convincing evidence that his possession and that of his
predecessors-in-interest was of the nature and duration required by law.

In a plethora of cases, the Supreme Court (SC) has disallowed registration of

lands where, although plants and fruit-bearing trees existed on the contested lands, it
was not proven that they were cultivated by the registrant, or that they were actively
and regularly cultivated and maintained and not merely casually or occasionally tended
to by the registrant, or that they were planted by him or his predecessors-in-interest.

───※ ·❆· ※───

HEIR OF CARDENAS v. THE CHRISTIAN AND MISSIONARY ALLIANCE

G.R. No. 222614 March 20, 2019
SUMMARY
The Heirs of Cardenas sought to recover the subject property from The Christian
and Missionary Alliance of Churches of the Philippines (CAMACOP). Janet, one of the
heirs of Cardenas, allege that sometime in the year 1962, CAMACOP unlawfully occupied
the subject property for their church activities and functions; that CAMACOP continues
to unlawfully occupy the subject property to the damage and prejudice of Janet; that
their repeated oral and written demands fell on deaf ears; and that CAMACOP failed to
accede to the demands and continues to occupy the subject property.

DOCTRINE
As a general rule, a certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and
incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein.
In Umbay v.Alecha, the Court explained that the right to recover possession of registered
land is imprescriptible on the part of the registered owner because possession is a mere
consequence of ownership.

40
 ───※ ·❆· ※───

. QUINOL v. INOCENCIO
G.R. No. 213517 April 10, 2019
SUMMARY
According to the respondents it was Lot 585, not Lot 584, that the late Pedro
bought, owned and possessed since 1958. Pedro used to occupy Lot 584 as tenants of
the Japas but after his death, possession of the land was returned to the latter.

The RTC ruled in favor of the respondents, RTC found that petitioners did not
present evidence that the sale was indeed registered. On appeal, the CA found that,
according to the evidence on record, the petitioners failed to prove that the OCT relied
upon by the respondents was procured through fraud.

DOCTRINE
Tax declarations and tax receipts as evidence of ownership cannot prevail over
a certificate of title which, to reiterate, is a presumptive proof of ownership.

───※ ·❆· ※───

SPOUSES GARCIA v. SANTOS

G.R. No. 228334 June 17, 2019
SUMMARY
Spouses Tedy and Pilar Garcia (the Sps. Garcia) filed a complaint for easements
of light, air and view, lateral support, and intermediate distances and damages with
prayer for writ of preliminary injunction and/or issuance of temporary restraining order
against Spouses Loreta and Winston Santos (the Sps. Santos) and Conchita Tan (Tan).
Sps. Santos constructed a building on Lot 1 which obstructed Sps. Garcia’s right to light,
air, and view arguing that the construction allegedly rendered the Sps. Garcia's house
dark such that they are unable to do their normal undertakings, that the Lot 1 is at a
distance of less than three meters away from the boundary line, in alleged violation of
their easement, and excavations on Lot 1 was made without providing sufficient lateral
support to the concrete perimeter fence of the Sps. Garcia.

DOCTRINE
Article 624 of the Civil Code reads: The existence of an apparent sign of
easement between two estates, established or maintained by the owner of both, shall
be considered, should either of them be alienated, as a title in order that the easement
may continue actively and passively, unless, at the time the ownership of the two
estates is divided, the contrary should be provided in the title of conveyance of either
of them, or the sign aforesaid should be removed before the execution of the deed. This
provision shall also apply in case of the division of a thing owned in common by two or
more persons.

41
 ───※ ·❆· ※───

HEIRS OF TOMAKIN v. HEIRS OF NAVARES

G.R. No. 223624 July 17, 2019
SUMMARY
Navares claimed that he obtained title to the property through a deed of
absolute sale and exercised dominion over the property, Tomakin on the other hand
averred that Navares is barred by prescription from enforcing his rights.

DOCTRINE
The Court ruled that prescription does not run against the plaintiff in actual
possession of the disputed land because such plaintiff has a right to wait until his
possession is disturbed or his title is questioned before initiating an action to vindicate
his right. His undisturbed possession gives him the continuing right to seek the aid of a
court of equity to determine the nature of the adverse claim of a third party and its
effect on his title. The Court held that where the plaintiff in an action for reconveyance
remains in possession of the subject land, the action for reconveyance becomes in effect
an action to quiet title to property, which is not subject to prescription.

NOTES
Prescription barres filing of action but if the property is under dispute, such
prescription will not run.

───※ ·❆· ※───

SPOUSES BELVIS v. SPOUSES EROLA

G.R. No. 239727 July 24, 2019
SUMMARY
The instant case stems from a complaint for unlawful detainer and damages filed
by respondents, as represented by their attorney-in-fact, Maureen Frias (Maureen). In
their complaint, respondents alleged that they are owners of a 29,772 sq.m. lot situated
in Barangay Malag-it, Pontevedra, Capiz. Lot 597 (subject property) is covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-26108 and a tax declaration, both in the name of
respondent Conrado V. Erola (Conrado), who allegedly purchased the same in October
of 1978.

DOCTRINE
Under Article 448 in relation to Articles 546 and 548, respondents as landowners
have the following options:

1. They may appropriate the improvements, after payment of indemnity

representing the value of the improvements introduced and the
necessary, useful and luxurious expenses defrayed on the subject lots; or

42
 2. They may oblige petitioners to pay the price of the land, if the value is
not considerably more than that of the improvements and buildings. 79
Should respondents opt to appropriate the improvements made;
however, petitioners may retain the subject lot until reimbursement for
the necessary and useful expenses have been made.

───※ ·❆· ※───

PNOC ALTERNATIVE FUELS CORP. v. NATIONAL GRID CORP. OF

THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 224936 September 4, 2019
SUMMARY
National Grid Corporation of the Philippines filed a complaint for expropriation
against PAFC (subsidiary of PNOC), et al., because negotiations conducted on the
establishment of transmission lines on the subject property were unsuccessful. PAFC
argues that the subject property (Petrochemical Industrial Park) is a land of public
domain which cannot be appropriated by the NGCP.

DOCTRINE
Patrimonial properties are properties owned by the State in its private or
proprietary capacity.

The mere fact that a parcel of land is owned by the State or any of its
instrumentalities does not necessarily mean that such land is of public dominion and not
private property. If land owned by the State is considered patrimonial property, then
such land assumes the nature of private property.

───※ ·❆· ※───

CAMARINES SUR TEACHERS AND EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INC.

v. PROVINCE OF CAMARINES SUR
G.R. No. 199666 October 7, 2019
SUMMARY
The Province of Camarines Sur, owner of the subject land, executed a Deed of
Revocation of Donation through Governor Luis Raymund F. Villafuerte, Jr. and served a
copy thereof to CASTEA. The Provincial Legal Officer sent a demand letter to CASTEA
for the latter to vacate the premises of the property in question within 10 days from
receipt of the letter. Consequently, the Province of Camarines Sur filed a case for
Unlawful Detainer against CASTEA before the MTCC.

43
DOCTRINE
According to its effects, donation may be classified into pure, conditional, with
a term, and onerous. Pure donations are those not subject to any future and uncertain
event nor to a period. Conditional donations are those subject to a future and uncertain
event which may either be suspensive or resolutory. Donations with a term are those
whose demandability or termination depends on the arrival of a term which may also be
either suspensive or resolutory. Onerous donations are those where a burden inferior in
value to the property donated is imposed on the donee. This kind of donation includes
those improper donations, mixed donations, and modal donations. Improper donations
are those where a burden equal in value to the property donated is imposed. Mixed
donation (neotium mixtum cum donatione) is one which contains an onerous transaction.
Modal donation is one which imposes on the donee a prestation.

───※ ·❆· ※───

FILIPINAS ESLON MANUFACTURING CORP. v. HEIRS OF LLANES

G.R. No. 194114 March 27, 2019
SUMMARY
FEMCO received a letter from Heirs of Llanes informing them that they have
erroneously fenced a portion of his clients’ lot thus, demanding that the fence be
removed immediately and that FEMCO pay a rental fee until the fence is removed.
FEMCO filed a complaint for quieting of title. RTC ruled in favor of FEMCO but CA
reversed on the ground that a certificate of title cannot be subject to a collateral
attack.

DOCTRINE
In the case of the corporations, the physical act of signing (the certificate of
non-forum shopping) may be performed, on behalf of the corporate entity, only by
specifically authorized individuals for the simple reason that corporations, as artificial
persons, cannot personally do the task themselves.

An action or proceeding is deemed an attack on a title when its objective is to

nullify the title, thereby challenging the judgment pursuant to which the title was
decreed. On the other hand, the attack is indirect or collateral when, in an action to
obtain a different relief, an attack on the judgment is nevertheless made as an incident
thereof.

An action to quiet title or to remove the clouds over a title is a common law
remedy grounded on equity wherein a competent court is tasked to determine the
respective rights of the complainant and other claimants, not only to put things in their
proper place, to make the one who has no rights to said immovable respect and not
disturb the other, but also for the benefit of both, so that he who has the right would
see every cloud of doubt over the property dissipated, and he could afterwards without
fear introduce the improvements he may desire, to use, and even to abuse the property
as he deems best. For an action to quiet title to prosper, two indispensable requisites

44
 must concur, namely: (1) the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an equitable title
to or interest in the real property subject of the action; and (2) the deed, claim,
encumbrance, or proceeding claimed to be casting cloud on his title must be shown to
be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal
efficacy.

───※ ·❆· ※───

GATMAYTAN v. MISIBIS LAND, INC.

G.R. No. 222166 June 10, 2020
SUMMARY
Petitioners Gatmaytan and Valdellon found that the disputed lot had been
consolidated by Misibis Land, Inc. (MLI) with other adjoining lots in Misibis, and sub-
divided into smaller lots covered by several new Torrens titles. Petitioners filed a
complaint before the RTC against Spouses Garcia, DAA Realty and MLI.

DOCTRINE
Under Article 476 of the Civil Code, an action for quieting of title may be filed
"[w]henever there is a cloud on title to real property or any interest therein, by reason
of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding which is apparently valid
or effective but is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable,
and may be prejudicial to said title." This action may be brought by one who has legal
or equitable title to, or interest in the real property, which is the subject matter of the
action, whether or not such party is in possession.

NOTES
An action for reconveyance is a legal remedy granted to a rightful owner of land
wrongfully or erroneously registered in the name of another to compel the latter to
reconvey the land to him. In reconveyance, the decree of registration is respected as
incontrovertible. What is sought instead is the transfer of the property, which has been
wrongfully or erroneously registered in another person's name, to its rightful and legal
owner, or to one with a better right.

───※ ·❆· ※───

MACUTAY v. SAMOY
G.R. No. 205559 December 2, 2020
SUMMARY
A homestead application was filed and issued in favor Urbana and a Registry of
Deed was issued on her name. Fortunato sent a telegram to then President Ramon
Magsaysay protesting the issuance of Homestead Patent No. V-41498, as he had allegedly
been in possession of a four (4)-hectare portion of the land covered by Urbana's
Homestead Patent No. V-41498 since 1936.

45
DOCTRINE
A title once registered cannot be defeated, even by an adverse, open, and
notorious possession. Registered title under the Torrens system cannot be defeated by
prescription. The title, once registered, is notice to the world. All persons must take
notice. No one can plead ignorance of the registration. Petitioners must rely on the
strength of their own title, and not on the weakness of respondents' claim.

───※ ·❆· ※───

SALLY SARMIENTO v. EDITHA A. DIZON

GR No. 235424 February 3, 2021
SUMMARY
Editha Dizon (Dizon) filed a complaint against Sally Sarmiento (Sarmiento) who
refused to vacate the parcel she owned. Sarmiento claimed that the subject property
was owned by her uncle.

DOCTRINE
For unlawful detainer to prosper, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving by a
preponderance of evidence the following facts:

1. Initially, possession of property by the defendant was by contract with or

by tolerance of the plaintiff;
2. Eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by plaintiff to
defendant of the termination of the latter's right of possession;
3. The defendant remained in possession of the property and deprived the
plaintiff of the enjoyment thereof; and
4. Within one year from the last demand on defendant to vacate the
property, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment.

NOTES
If the plaintiff will rely in testimonial evidence to substantiate his claims, the
witness must have personal knowledge that the possession of the property by the
defendant was by mere tolerance or contract. Otherwise, in the absence of other
evidence, a complaint for unlawful detainer will not prosper.

───※ ·❆· ※───

ULAY v. BUSTAMANTE
G.R. No. 231721 and 231722 March 18, 2021
SUMMARY
Lot No. 1089 was inherited by Eugenio Bustamante (Eugenio) from his parents.
After his death, his wife Juana and one of her daughters, Gregoria, inadvertently

46
 interchanged shares. The Gregoria Heirs sold a portion of the lot to Jesus Ulay without
the consent of the other co-owners.

DOCTRINE
The Deed of Extrajudicial Partition is a binding contract that is enforceable
against the parties thereto, as well as their successors-in-interest. The same may not
be undermined or otherwise altered by a subsequent subdivision plan which contained
a clearly and undisputedly erroneous interchanging of designation of lot vis-à-vis the
heir.

Under Art. 493 of the Civil Code, it is stated that “Each co-owner shall have the
full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may
therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even substitute another person in its
enjoyment, except when personal rights are involved. But the effect of the alienation
or the mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, shall be limited to the portion which
may be allotted to him in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership.” In the
case at bar, the sale is valid but only to the extent of the pro-indiviso shares of the
parties who participated in the sale of the lot. The said sale may not bind or extend to
the pro-indiviso shares of the other co-owners who were not parties to the sale.

NOTES
In Bailon-Casilao v. Court of Appeals, it was held that since a co-owner is entitled
to sell his undivided share, a sale of the entire property by one co-owner without the
consent of the other co-owners is not null and void. However, only the rights of the co-
owner-seller are transferred, thereby making the buyer a co-owner of the property.

The proper action in cases like this is not for the nullification of the sale or for
the recovery of the thing owned in common from the third person who substituted the
co-owner or co-owners who alienated their shares, but the DIVISION of the common
property as if it continued to remain in the possession of the co-owners who possessed
and administered it.

───※ ·❆· ※───

SACLOLO v. MARQUITO
G.R. No. 229243 June 26, 2019
SUMMARY
Petitioners Saclolo and Ogatia verbally informed respondents Marquito of their
intention to "redeem" the property and a written offer to redeem the property was
made, but the respondent refused. RTC found that the true transaction between the
parties was one of equitable mortgage.

DOCTRINE
Since the true transaction between the parties was an equitable mortgage and
not a sale with right of repurchase, there is no "redemption" or "repurchase" to speak of
and the periods provided under Article 1606 do not apply. Instead, the prescriptive

47
 period under Article 1144 of the Civil Code is applicable. In other words, the parties had
10 years from the time the cause of action accrued to file the appropriate action.

───※ ·❆· ※───

SELERIO v. BANCASAN
G.R. No. 222442 June 23, 2020
SUMMARY
Nieves Selerio (Nieves) sold the subject property to Tregidio. The illegitimate
children of Nieves filed a case for partition against Nieves and Tregidio. A compromise
agreement was executed but remained unheeded. Tregidio filed a Complaint for
Recovery of Possession, Damages and Attorney's Fees against Nieves and Alicia Selerio
alleging that he is entitled to the possession of the property by virtue of the Deed
executed in his favor.

DOCTRINE
Regarding a written contract, no cause of action arises until there is a breach or
violation thereof by either party. Article 1144 of the Civil Code provides that an action
based on a written contract must be brought within 10 years from the time the right of
action accrues.

NOTES
A cause of action has three elements, namely:

1. A right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever

law it arises or is created;
2. An obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to
violate such right; and,
3. An act or omission on the part of such defendant violative of the right of
the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant
to the plaintiff. It is only when the last element occurs or takes place
that it can be said in law that a cause of action has arisen.

───※ ·❆· ※───

SPOUSES ERMINO v. GOLDEN VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS’

ASSOCIATION INC.
G.R. No. 180808 August 15, 2018
SUMMARY
Spouses Abraham and Melchora Ermino (Spouses Ermino), petitioners, are
residents of Alco Homes, a subdivision located beside Golden Village Subdivision (Golden
Village), respondent, in Barangay Carmen, Cagayan de Oro City. There was continuous
heavy rain which caused a large volume of water to fall from the hilltop subdivision to
48
 the subdivisions below. The volume of water directly hit Spouses Ermino's house and
damaged their fence, furniture, appliances and car. Spouses Ermino filed a complaint
for damages against E.B. Villarosa, the developer of Hilltop City Subdivision, and Golden
Village Homeowners Association Inc. (GVHAI) for negligently failing to observe DENR
rules and regulations and to provide retaining walls and other flood control devices
which could have prevented the softening of the earth and consequent inundation.

DOCTRINE
Civil Law; Human Relations; For purposes of Articles 20 and 21, the construction
of the concrete fence is not contrary to any law, morals, good customs, or public policy.

Any prudent person exercising reasonable care and caution could not have
envisaged such an outcome from the mere exercise of a proprietary act.

Easements; An easement or servitude is “a real right constituted on another’s

property, corporeal and immovable, by virtue of which the owner of the same has to
abstain from doing or to allow somebody else to do something on his property for the
benefit of another thing or person.”

Lower estates are only obliged to receive water naturally flowing from higher
estates and such should be free from any human intervention.

───※ ·❆· ※───

SALES & LEASE

SPOUSES BELTRAN v. SPOUSES CANGAYDA

G.R. No. 225033 August 15, 2018
SUMMARY
Spouses Apolonio Cangayda, Jr. and Loreta E. Cangayda (Spouses Cangayda),
respondents, verbally agreed to sell the disputed property to Spouses Antonio Beltran
and Felisa Beltran (Spouses Beltran), petitioners, for ₱35,000.00. After making an initial
payment, Spouses Beltran took possession of the disputed property and built their family
home thereon. Spouses Beltran subsequently made additional payments, which,
together with their initial payment, collectively amounted to P29,690.00. However,
despite Spouses Cangayda's repeated demands, Spouses Beltran failed to pay their
remaining balance of ₱5,310.00. The parties signed an Amicable Settlement but failed
to pay within the period set.

DOCTRINE
Civil Law; Sales; Contract to Sell; Words and Phrases; A contract to sell is defined
as a “bilateral contract whereby the prospective seller, while expressly reserving the
ownership of the subject property despite its delivery to the prospective buyer, commits
49
 to sell the property exclusively to the prospective buyer” upon full payment of the
purchase price.

Contract of Sale; The essential requisites of a contract under Article 1318 of the
New Civil Code are: (1) consent of the contracting parties; (2) object certain which is
the subject matter of the contract; and (3) cause of the obligation which is established.

In a contract of sale, ownership of a thing sold shall pass to the buyer upon actual
or constructive delivery thereof in the absence of any stipulation to the contrary. Article
1592 extends to the vendee in a sale of immovable property the right to effect payment
even after expiration of the period agreed upon, as long as no demand for rescission has
been made upon him by the vendor.

───※ ·❆· ※───

JUN MIRANDA v. SPS. ENGR. ERNESTO AND AIDA MALLARI AND

SPS. DOMICIANO C. REYES AND CARMELITA PANGAN
G.R. No. 218343 November 28, 2018
SUMMARY
Spouses Mallari filed the suit for recovery of possession against Miranda.

DOCTRINE
Transfer of ownership, based on a contract of sale, is transferred upon the actual
and constructive delivery thereof, or by tradition - in this case, when the Deed of
Absolute Sale was given to the vendee though Title has not been transferred yet. The
non-registration of Deed of Absolute Sale with the RD did not affect the sale’s validity
and effectivity because there is a contract of sale when one of the contracting parties
obligates himself to transfer ownership and to deliver the determinate thing and the
contract is perfected at the moment there was the meeting of the minds. From that
point on, the property could not have been the subject of execution in favor of the
respondents.

───※ ·❆· ※───

NARCISO MELENDRES v. ALICIA CATAMBAY

G.R. No. 198026 November 28, 2018
SUMMARY
Narciso filed a complaint for Annulment of Deed of Absolute Sale with
Reconveyance against private respondents. Petitioner claimed he inherited that he
owned the subject property. An alleged gross error was committed by the Cadastral
Survey Team of the Bureau of Lands, which resulted in the reduction of the original area
of the subject property.

50
DOCTRINE
The burden of proving the status of a purchaser in good faith lies upon him who
asserts that status and it is not sufficient to invoke the ordinary presumption of good
faith, that is, that everyone is presumed to have acted in good faith.

A person who deliberately ignores a significant fact which would create suspicion
in an otherwise reasonable man is not an innocent purchaser for value. A purchaser
cannot close his eyes to facts which should put a reasonable man upon his guard, and
then claim that he acted in good faith under the belief that there was no defect in the
title of the vendor.

NOTES
During the pendency of the petition for reinvestigation filed before the CENRO,
Narciso sued Edmundo for Forcible Entry and Damages with Prayer for Preliminary
Injunction and Restraining Order before the MTC of Tanay, Rizal. The MTC declared
Ariston as the rightful possessor of the land in controversy and ordered Edmundo to
remove the improvements introduced on the property and to vacate and restore Narciso
to its physical possession. On appeal, the RTC reversed the decision of the MTC on the
ground that the issue involved in the case was not merely physical or de facto possession
but one of title to or ownership of the subject property; consequently, the MTC did not
acquire jurisdiction over it.

───※ ·❆· ※───

AGUSTIN v. DE VERA
G.R. No. 233455 April 3, 2019
SUMMARY
Gregorio De Vera (Gregorio) sold a parcel of registered land to spouses Agustin.
When Gregorio died petitioners filed a case for Acknowledgement of the Contract of
Purchase and Sale and Judicial Declaration of Ownership before the RTC.

DOCTRINE
According to Article 1544 of the Civil Code, if the same thing should have been
sold to different vendees, in the case of immovable property, the ownership shall belong
to the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property:

Art. 1544. If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the
ownership shall be transferred to the person who may have first taken possession thereof
in good faith, if it should be movable property.

───※ ·❆· ※───

51
 UY v. HEIRS OF UY-RENALES
G.R. No. 227460 December 5, 2019
SUMMARY
Uy discovered that the subject lot was allegedly fraudulently sold by Labnao in
1990 in favor of the respondents Heirs of Julita through a Deed of Absolute Sale 9 dated
April 11, 1990 (Deed of Absolute Sale) purportedly executed by Labnao. Petitioner Uy
asserted that the signature of Labnao in the Deed of Absolute Sale is a patent forgery
as shown by the findings of the PNP Crime Laboratory, Region VII.

DOCTRINE
A contract of sale is a consensual contract. Under Article 1475 of the Civil Code,
the contract of sale is perfected at the moment there is a meeting of minds upon the
thing which is the object of the contract and upon the price. Because a contract of sale
is a consensual contract, no particular form is required for its validity.

Thus, even if there is a document that purports to be a contract of sale, if there

is strong countervailing evidence establishing the want of consent or meeting of the
minds, there is no contract of sale.

───※ ·❆· ※───

NUÑEZ v. MOISES-PALMA
G.R. No. 224466 March 27, 2019
SUMMARY
Norma Palma (Norma) was able to register the subject property on her name
despite non-payment of the purchase price and the absence of Alden's signature on the
Deed of Adjudication and Sale (DAS).

DOCTRINE
Article 1245 of the Civil Code provides, there is dation in payment when property
is alienated to the creditor in satisfaction of a debt in money and is governed by the law
of sales

NOTES
Nonpayment of the Purchase Price; The nonpayment of the purchase price by
the buyer after the seller has delivered the object of the sale to the buyer constitutes
a breach of the buyer’s prestation in a contract of sale.

───※ ·❆· ※───

52
 TAMAYAO v. LACAMBRA
G.R. No. 244232 November 3, 2020
SUMMARY
A complaint for the Annulment of Sale and Title with Damages was filed by the
heirs of Lacambra against Spouses Tamayao and heirs of Balubal due to the refusal of
the Spouses Tamayao to agree to the demand for legal redemption by Cirilio and
Catalino as regards the 5/14 portion sold by their co-owners.

DOCTRINE
A contract of sale is a consensual contract and no particular form is required for
its validity. Upon perfection thereof, the parties may reciprocally demand performance.
A contract of sale is consensual in nature and is perfected upon the concurrence of its
essential requisites: (1) consent of the contracting parties; (2) object certain which is
the subject matter of the contract; and (3) cause of the obligation which is established.
(Art. 1318, NCC) Once perfected, they bind other contracting parties and the obligations
arising therefrom have the force of law between the parties and should be complied
with in good faith.

───※ ·❆· ※───

HEIRS OF VILLEZA v. ALIANGAN

G.R. No. 244667-69 December 2020
SUMMARY
Corazon Villeza died without executing any deed of conveyance in respondents'
favor. The respondents thus filed three separate Amended Complaints for Specific
Performance to compel the Heirs of Villeza to execute the subject deeds. Petitioners
claimed that the obligation of Corazon to transfer ownership by delivery arises upon full
payment of the purchase price.

DOCTRINE
The provision where the seller agrees to execute a deed of absolute sale when
the buyer has paid in full the purchase price has been construed by the Court to signify
that the seller has withheld the transfer of ownership until the purchase price has been
paid in full, making the agreement between the seller and the buyer a contract to sell
and not a contract of sale.

───※ ·❆· ※───

53
 D.M. RAGASA ENTERPRISES, INC. v. BANCO DE ORO, INC.
G.R. No. 190512 June 20, 2018
SUMMARY
Ragasa sought to collect money owed by Banco De Oro, Inc. (BDO), representing
monthly rentals under the Lease Contract entered into by Ragasa and BDO, after the
latter pre-terminated said contract.

DOCTRINE
Entitlement to rentals after the termination of the lease pursuant to an
automatic rescission or termination clause is possible in the case where the lessor
invokes the clause and the lessee refuses to vacate the premises. The lessee shall then
be liable for damages of its possession from the termination of the lease until he vacates
the premises. The bank did not continue to possess the leased premises after its
automatic termination, as it vacated the same.

───※ ·❆· ※───

SPOUSES MODOMO v. SPOUSES LAYUG

G.R. No. 197722 August 14, 2019
SUMMARY
Spouses Layug alleged that they are the registered owner[s] and legal possessors
of a parcel of land located at No. 1038 A.P. Reyes Street corner Cristobal Street,
Barangay Tejeros, Makati City covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 208683
and that the aforesaid property was leased to Spouses Modomo for a period of seven (7)
years. Subsequently, Spouses Modomo defaulted in the payment of the escalation of
rental fees commencing from the year 2006 up to the filing of the complaint for
ejectment on July 23, 2008.

Ultimately, a letter dated March 24, 2008 was sent to Spouses Modomo
terminating the Contract of Lease and containing therein a demand for Spouses Modomo
to vacate the premises. To protect their interest, Spouses Layug instituted the present
suit claiming that Spouses Modomo should vacate the premises, to pay Spouses Layug
rental arrearages, attorney's fees and costs of suit.

DOCTRINE
Novation is never presumed, and the animus novandi, whether total or partial,
must appear by express agreement of the parties, or by their acts that are too clear and
unequivocal to be mistaken.

NOTES
Spouses Modomo alludes to the existence of a partial novation, governed by
Article 1291 of the Civil Code which states:

ART. 1291. Obligations may be modified by:

1. Changing their object or principal conditions;

54
 2. Substituting the person of the debtor;
3. Subrogating a third person in the rights of the creditor.

───※ ·❆· ※───

SPOUSES GASPAR v. HERMINIO ANGEL DISINI, JOSEPH YU, AND

DIANA SALITA
G.R. No. 239644 February 3, 2021
SUMMARY
Artemio Marquez mortgaged his year 2000 model Pajero to Joseph Yu as a
security for a loan the former had obtained from the latter. Marquez defaulted from his
loan which allowed Yu to seize the mortgaged property. Yu then sold the Pajero to
Spouses Gaspar for the price of Php 1 million. Spouses Gaspar then sold the said car to
Herminio Disini for the price of Php 1.16 million. Unfortunately, when the police
apprehended the said Pajero because it was illegally parked, the authorities found out
that the said vehicle was stolen from the Office of the President.

DOCTRINE
According to Article 1409 of the Civil Code, a contract is void or inexistent from
the very beginning if the cause, object or purpose of the contract is contrary to law,
morals, good customs, public order, or public policy.

NOTES
Actions for recovery of sum of money from void contracts are imprescriptible.

───※ ·❆· ※───

WILLIAM GOLANGCO CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. PCIB

G.R. No. 142830 March 24, 2006
SUMMARY
WGCC, petitioner, undertook to perform construction of washed granite finish
on the office of PCIB, respondent. WGCC filed the present case, arguing that they are
not liable for the wear and tear on said granite walls which occurred one year after its
completion.

DOCTRINE
Article 1723 of the Civil Code, it states that The contractor hereby guarantees
the work stipulated in the contract and shall make good any defects in workmanship or
materials which becomes evident within 1 year of the acceptance of the work.

───※ ·❆· ※───

55
 SPOUSES SY v. DE VERA-NAVARRO
G.R. No. 239088 April 3, 2019
SUMMARY
Respondent BHTLI alleged that it is a buyer in good faith since the sale between
it and respondent De Vera-Navarro over the subject property was supposedly
consummated 10 days prior to the annotation of the adverse claim. Since it was
supposedly not aware of any infirmity involving the subject property, BHTLI alleged that
it should be treated as a buyer in good faith.

DOCTRINE
He who alleges that he is a purchaser of registered land is burdened to prove
such statement.

───※ ·❆· ※───

TORTS & DAMAGES

COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS. INC v. MEÑEZ

G.R. No. 209906 November 22, 2017
SUMMARY
Research scientist Ernani Guingona Meñez was a frequent customer of Rosante
Bar and Restaurant and ordered a bottle of Sprite. When he tasted it, it was not one of
Sprite but of a different substance, smelled like kerosene. The bottle of Sprite was
examined by Prof. Chester Dumancas, a licensed chemist of Silliman University. The
analysis made, identified the contents of the liquid inside the bottle as pure kerosene.
Hence, he prayed for damages against CCBPI and Rosante.

DOCTRINE
Quasi-delict being the source of obligation upon which Meñez bases his cause of
action for damages against Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. (CCBPI), the doctrine of
exhaustion of administrative remedies is not applicable. Such is not a condition
precedent required in a complaint for damages with respect to obligations arising from
quasi-delicts under Chapter 2, Title XVII on Extra Contractual Obligations, Article 2176,
et seq, of the Civil Code which includes Article 2187.

Unless the case falls under the enumeration as provided under Article 2219,
which is exclusive, and Article 2220 of the Civil Code, moral damages may not be
awarded.

As to exemplary or corrective damages, these may be granted in quasi-delicts if

the defendant acted with gross negligence pursuant to Article 2231 of the Civil Code.

56
 ───※ ·❆· ※───

CHEVRON PHILIPPINES, INC. v. MENDOZA

G.R. No. 211533 and 21071 June 19, 2019
SUMMARY
Leo Mendoza applied for the Chevron Philippines, Inc. (Chevron), for dealerships
of a company-owned service station. However, the company awarded the dealership to
the other parties whom he claims to have not even passed the initial screening of Caltex
to qualify and be included in the dealers’ pool listing. He filed a complaint for damages
against CHEVRON PHILIPPINES, INC.

DOCTRINE
Elements of an abuse of right under Article 19 of the Civil Code are the following:
(1) the existence of a legal right or duty, (2) which is exercised in bad faith, and (3) for
the sole internet of prejudicing or injuring another.

───※ ·❆· ※───

NACAR v. GALLERY FRAMES

G.R. No. 189871 | August 13, 2013
SUMMARY
Dario Nacar (Nacar)was illegally dismissed by Gallery Frames. The court ruled in
favor of Nacar. However, the CA dismissed Nacar’s motion for recomputation and
damages.

DOCTRINE
When the obligation is breached, and it consists in the payment of a sum of
money, the interest due should be that which may have been stipulated in writing,
Furthermore, the interest due shall itself earn legal interest from the time it is judicially
demanded. In the absence of stipulation, the rate of interest shall be 6% per annum to
be computed from default.

NOTES
In the absence of an express stipulation as to the rate of interest that would
govern the parties, the rate of legal interest for loans or forbearance of any money,
goods or credits and the rate allowed in judgments shall no longer be twelve percent
(12%) per annum - as reflected in the case of Eastern Shipping Lines.

───※ ·❆· ※───

57
 PINEDA v. VDA. DE VEGA
G.R. No. 233774 April 10, 2019
SUMMARY
Virginia Zuniga VDA De Vega (Virginia) Respondent borrowed money from Ma.
Luisa Pineda (Luisa) worth PhP 500,000. On the due date of the loan the respondent
failed to pay.

DOCTRINE
Default is a voluntary breach of an obligation, which signifies delay in the
fulfillment of an obligation. In positive obligations delay occurs upon demand of the
creditor, demand may also be judicial or extrajudicial.

───※ ·❆· ※───

WILLS & SUCCESSION

MAYUGA v. ATIENZA
G.R. No. 208197 January 10, 2018
SUMMARY
Plaintiff Araceli Mayuga instituted a petition for Cancellation and Recall of Free
Patent Application (FPA) No. 11636 and FPA No. 11637 and Reconveyance against
defendants Antonio Atienza, Benjamin Atienza Jr., Community Environment and Natural
Resource Officer (CENRO) and Register of Deeds of Romblon. She alleged that through
manipulation and misrepresentation with intent to defraud a co-heir, Antonio and
Benjamin were able to secure free patents without notice to her as required by law.
Thus, she prayed for the recall and cancellation of the free patents and the division of
the 2 lots into 3 equal parts among the 3 forced heirs.

DOCTRINE
A partition inter vivos may be valid even though there is no supporting will.

───※ ·❆· ※───

SPOUSES SALITICO v. HEIRS OF FELIX

G.R. No. 240199 April 10, 2019
SUMMARY
Felix sold to Spouses Salitico the inherited subject property from Amanda as
devisee. Subsequently, Spouses Salitico received a demand letter requiring them to
vacate the subject property and surrender possession over it to the Heirs of Felix.
Spouses Salitico filed a complaint for specific performance seeking the delivery and

58
 return in their favor of the owner's duplicate copy of the title of the property and prayed
that a new title be issued in their names. RTC & CA dismissed the complaint for specific
performance for lack of cause of action for being premature as it was not shown that
the Probate Court had already fully settled the Estate of Amanda.

DOCTRINE
The rights of the inheritance are transmitted from the moment of the death of
the decedent — meaning that the transmission by succession occurs at the precise
moment of death and, therefore, at that precise time, the heir is already legally deemed
to have acquired ownership of his/her share in the inheritance, "and not at the time of
declaration of heirs, or partition, or distribution." Thus, there is no legal bar to an heir
disposing of his/her hereditary share immediately after such death.

In a contract of sale, the parties' obligations are plain and simple. The law obliges
the vendor to transfer the ownership of and to deliver the thing that is the object of
sale to the vendee.

It is only upon the issuance by the testate or intestate court of the final order of
distribution of the estate or the order in anticipation of the final distribution that the
certificate of title covering the subject property may be issued in the name of the
distributees.

───※ ·❆· ※───

TIROL v. NOLASCO
G.R. No. 230103 August 27, 2020
SUMMARY
Gloria Tirol died testate on October 1991. She was survived by her husband
Roberto Tirol Sr., and their 6 children, one of which was Roberto Tirol Jr., who had an
annulled married with Cecilia Geronimo. Another one of his children was Martin Tirol,
who is now the current Petitioner. Subsequently, Roberto Tirol Jr. died on April 1995,
and was succeeded by his 4 children.In 2002, Roberto Tirol Sr. had died and was
succeeded by his remaining children and his grandchildren from Roberto Tirol Jr.

Petitioner Martin Tirol, joined by Cecilia and Criroco filed a petition to probate
the wills of their Mother and Father, Roberto Sr., and Gloria, stating that in their wills
they had named Martin Tirol as designated administrator of their estates.

The Respondent Nolasco on the other hand contend that she has legal interest in
the claim because she is the surviving spouse of Roberto Jr., and that since Roberto Jr.,
has a claim to the titles of Roberto Sr., and Gloria, she is entitled to that portion as a
compulsory heir. The court ruled that Respondent was a compulsory heir under Article
887, Section 3.

59
DOCTRINE
ART. 887. The following are compulsory heirs:

1. Legitimate children and descendants, with respect to their legitimate

parents and ascendants;
2. In default of the foregoing, legitimate parents and ascendants, with
respect to their legitimate children and descendants;
3. The widow or widower;
4. Acknowledged natural children, and natural children by legal fiction;
5. Other illegitimate children referred to in Article 287. x x x x (807a).

───※ ·❆· ※───

DR. NIXON L. TREYES v. ANTONIO LARLAR

G.R. No. 232579 September 8, 2020
SUMMARY
Petitioner Treyes’ wife passed away, inestate, leaving 14 properties in the
Philippines which are owned with the petitioner. Petitioner Treyes executed affidavits
of adjudication, as the alleged sole heir to the estate, for the property and eventually
new TCTs were given to him. The same was contested by the private respondents and
sought to annul such.

DOCTRINE
Subject to the required proof, without any need of prior judicial determination,
Larlar, et al., siblings of Rosie, by operation of law, are entitled to one-half of the
inheritance of the decedent. Thus, in filing their Complaint, they do not seek to have
their right as intestate heirs established, for the simple reason that it is the law that
already establishes that right. What they seek is the enforcement and protection of the
right granted to them under Article 1001 in relation to Article 777 of the Civil Code by
asking for the nullification of the Affidavits of Self-Adjudication that disregard and
violate their right as intestate heirs. Unless there is a pending special proceeding for
the settlement of the decedent’s estate or for the determination of heirship, the
compulsory or intestate heirs may commence an ordinary civil action to declare the
nullity of a deed or instrument, and for recovery of property, or any other action in the
enforcement of their ownership rights acquired by virtue of succession, without the
necessity of a prior and separate judicial declaration of their status as such.

NOTES
The operation of Article 777 occurs at the very moment of the decedent's death
— the transmission by succession occurs at the precise moment of death and, therefore,
the heir is legally deemed to have acquired ownership of his/her share in the inheritance
at that very moment, "and not at the time of declaration of heirs, or partition, or
distribution."

60
 Hence, the Court has held that the "title or rights to a deceased person's property
are immediately passed to his or her heirs upon death. The heirs' rights become vested
without need for them to be declared 'heirs.'" In fact, in partition cases, even before
the property is judicially partitioned, the heirs are already deemed co-owners of the
property. Thus, the heirs are deemed real parties in interest without a prior separate
judicial determination of their heirship.

───※ ·❆· ※───

61