Villar, Emmanuel Dominic L.

LM1A
CASE DIGEST
Republic v. Castellvi, 58 SCRA 336

FACTS:
Defendant Castellvi, the administratrix of a parcel of land leased to the Republic of the Philippines,
alleges the defendant’s motion to dismiss that the land under the administration, being residential
property, includes an adequate market value of P15.00 per square meter. Defendant Toledo-Guzon
also alleges the exact same thing. The defendant claims that the fair market value of the parcel of
land was not more than P2,000 per hectare, per the committee on appraisal for the province of
Pampanga. Upon the Republic’s P259,669.10 deposit with the Pampanga Provincial Treasurer, the
trial court granted the Republic possession of the land.
ISSUE:
Whether or not to use impending domain, the Republic is entitled to seize Castellvi's private
property in accordance with the definition of "taking".
HELD:
Wherefore, the decision appealed from is modified. The lands of appellees Carmen Vda. de
Castellvi and Maria Nieves Toledo-Gozun, as described in the complaint, are declared expropriated
for public use. The fair market value of the lands of the appellees is fixed at P5.00 per square meter.
The Republic must compensate appellee Castellvi P3,796,495 for a 759,299 square meter parcel
of land, deducted from her withdrew P151,859.80, with 6% annual interest. The Republic of the
Philippines will pay Toledo-Gozun P2,695,225 as compensation for her two parcels of land,
totaling 539,045 square meters, in lieu of the P107,809 she withdrew from the court deposit.
Interest will be charged until full payment is made.
Felipe v. Heirs of Aldon, 120 SCRA 638
FACTS:
The spouses, Maximo Aldon and Gemina Almosara purchased many parcels of land, which were
split up into three lots in 1960-1962. In 1951, Gimena Almosara sold the properties to Eduardo
Felipe and Hermogena V. Felipe, without getting Maximo’s approval. The heirs of Maximo Aldon
filed a complaint against the Felipes in the Masbate Court of first instance on April 26, 1976. They
claimed that the plaintiffs were the owners of lots 1370, 1371 and 1415 and that they had orally
mortgaged those properties to the defendants. After an attempt to redeem the mortgage was turned
down, the plaintiffs filed the complaint in an attempt to reclaim the three parcel of lands.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the sale made by Gimena is certainly a defective contract.
HELD:
Yes, it is a voidable contract, hence a defective contract.
According to Art. 1390 of the Civil Code, among the voidable contracts are "Those where one of
the parties is incapable of giving consent to the contract." In the instant case Gimena had no
capacity to give consent to the contract of sale. The capacity to give consent belonged not even
to the husband alone but to both spouses.
Wherefore, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby modified. Judgment is entered awarding
to Sofia and Salvador Aldon their shares of the lands as stated in the body of this decision; and the
petitioners as possessors in bad faith shall make an accounting of the fruits corresponding to the
share from 1959 and solidarity pay their value to Sofia and Salvador Aldon; costs against the
petitioners.
Cabaliw v. Sadorra, 64 SCRA 310

FACTS:
Isodra Cabaliw 2nd wife of Benigno Sadorra, filed a complaint against her husband for
abandonment of 2 parcels of land in Nueva Vizcaya. The First Instance of Manila authorized Isodra
to take possession of conjugal property and administer it. She discovered that her husband had sold
the land to his son-in-law, Sotero. Isodra filed a notice lis pendens with the Register of Deeds of
Nueva Vizcaya, claiming the sale was fictitious. In May 1940, Benigno Sadorra died.
ISSUE:
Whether or not is Sotero Sadorra presumed to have committed fraud?
HELD:
The ruling states that alienation by onerous title is presumed fraudulent when made by persons
against whom a judgment has been rendered or a writ of attachment has been issued. The
presumption of fraud was established at the time of the conveyance, as Sotero knew his father-in-
law was avoiding payment and execution of a judgment. The close relationship between Benigno
and Sotero is considered a badge of fraud.
Premises Considered, we find merit to this petition for review, and we set aside the decision of the
appellate court for being contrary to the law applicable to the facts of the case. The decision of the
trial court stands affirmed with costs against private respondents.
Ortega v. Leonardo, 103 Phil. 870

FACTS:
The defendant claimed to have occupied a portion of the land after the plaintiff, but plaintiff had
occupied the land for a long time before her house was destroyed. The plaintiff then claimed her
right as an occupant for purchase purposes when the government administered and disposed of the
said lot long with other lots to the rural progress administrator. Throughout the duration of the
investigation, the defendant requested that the plaintiff give up on her claim. He also made a firm
promise to sell her a portion of the property should he be successful in obtaining the title, if she
would cover the cost of lot subdivision and surveying. In addition, the defendant said that she
would be able to keep the lot as a tenant by continuing to pay monthly rental fees once he obtained
the title.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the sale of real estate would become enforceable upon the partial fulfillment of the
oral agreement.
HELD:
Yes, the rule that excludes parol contracts for the sale of real estate does not apply since there was
partial performance. The contract is therefore enforceable.
The complaint in this case described several circumstance indicating partial performance:
relinquishment of rights continued possession, building of improvements, tender of payment plus
the surveying of the lot at plaintiff's expense and the payment of rentals. We shall not take time to
discuss whether one or the other or any two or three of them constituted sufficient performance to
take the matter away from the operation of the Statute of Frauds. Enough to hold that the
combination of all of them amounted to partial performance; and we do so line with the accepted
basis of the doctrine, that it would be a fraud upon the plaintiff if the defendant were permitted to
oppose performance of his part after he has allowed or induced the former to perform in reliance
upon the agreement. The paragraph immediately preceding will serve as our comment on the
appellee's quotations from American Jurisprudence itself to the effect that "relinquishment" is not
part performance, and that neither "surveying the land" nor tender of payment is sufficient. The
precedents hereinabove transcribed oppose or explain away or qualify the appellee's citations. And
at the risk of being repetitious we say: granting that none of the three circumstances indicated by
him would separately suffice, still the combination of the three with the others already mentioned,
amounts to more than enough. Hence, as there was partial performance, the principle excluding
parol contracts for the sale of realty does not apply. The judgment will accordingly be reversed,
and the record remanded for further proceedings. With costs against appellee.
Manotok Realty v. IAC, 149 SCRA 372

FACTS:
The petition seeks to set aside the Court of Appeals' decision that dismissed the petitioner's
complaint for reinvidicatory action with damages against the private respondent. The petitioner is
ordered to accept the payment of the balance of P2,551.85 from the respondent and execute the
deed of sale of Lot 227, Block I in favor of the respondent. The private respondent Felipe
Madlangawa claims to have occupied a parcel of land in the Clara de Tambunting de Legarda
Subdivision since 1949. The owner of the lot, Clara Tambunting, died in 1950, and her estate was
placed under custodia legis. The respondent made a deposit of P1,500.00 for the lot, which was
received by Vicente Legarda, the husband of the late owner. The respondent did not pay the unpaid
balance, and Don Vicente Legarda was appointed as a special administrator of the estate.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Don Vicente Legarda's sale in the private respondent's favor is legal, enforceable,
and binding against the petitioner.
HELD:
No, the sale is of Void ab initio.
Wherefore, in view of the foregoing, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed and set aside.
The private respondent is ordered to surrender the material and physical possession of Lot No.
277, Block I to the petitioner and to pay the latter the rentals as stated above from May 1950 until
he surrenders the said lot. The petitioner shall reimburse the private respondent the amount of
P1,500.00 with legal interest from May 1950 or offset said amount from the rentals due to it. Costs
against the private respondent.