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.