OBLICON - PRELIMS CASES 3.
3. The act or omission of the defendant in violation of the After a year, the PCIB Tower II started to get damaged. The SC
1. Ang Yu Asuncion vs. CA, G.R. No. 109125, Dec. 2, 1994, 57
SCAD 163, 238 SCRA 602
Doctrine: Until the contract is perfected, it cannot, as an
independent source of obligation, serve as a binding juridical
relation. —
A, a tenant, was informed by B, the landlord, about the intention to
sell the leased property and offered A the first right to purchase it.
B initially offered the property for 6 million, but A countered with
5 million. A requested B to formalize the offer in writing, but B
did not respond. Consequently, A filed a Complaint for Specific
Performance against B to compel the latter to sell the property to
A.
While the case was pending before the SC, B sold the property to
another buyer.
Ruling: Among the sources of an obligation is a contract. A
contract undergoes various stages that include its negotiation or
preparation, its perfection and, finally, its consummation. Until the
contract is perfected, it cannot, as an independent source of
obligation, serve as a binding juridical relation.
In a sale, the contract is perfected when the seller obligates
himself, for a price certain, to deliver and to transfer ownership of
a thing or right to the buyer over which the latter agrees.
In this case, there was no perfected contract. (No meeting of the
minds as to the purchase price)
2. De la Rama vs. Mendiola, 401 SCRA 704 (2003)
Four elements of res judicata:
1. There is a final judgment or order,
2. Rendered by a competent court (has JD over the subject
matter and the parties),
3. There is a judgment on the merits,
4. There is identity of parties, subject matter and causes of
action
Cause of Action - an act or omission of one party in violation of
the legal right of another. 3 elements:
1. Legal right of the plaintiff
2. Obligation of the defendant to protect or not to damage
such right
legal right
In this there was res judicata.
3. Bachrach Corporation vs. CA, 296 SCRA 487 (1998)
In this there was NO res judicata. Lacking the fourth element -
identity of the parties, subject matter and causes of action
4. Pelayo vs. Lauron, 12 Phil. 453
A, a doctor filed a complaint against B and C who were parents-in-
law of D for the services rendered by A during D’s childbirth.
Ruling: Obligations arising from law are not presumed. Those
expressly provided by the law are the only demandable ones.
The obligation to provide medical assistance to a spouse falls on
the other spouse, not on the parents-in-law. B and C were, in the
eyes of the law, strangers to the obligation of spousal support and
lacked a contractual agreement with A.
5. De la Cruz vs. Northern Theatrical Enterprises, 95 Phil. 739
(1954)
A was a security guard for B’s theater. While performing his
duties, A shot and killed a gate crasher who attacked him. A was
charged with homicide but was acquitted. A demanded
reimbursement from B for legal expenses.
Ruling: There is no law compelling the employer to reimburse
their employee for legal expenses.
6. Eduardo B. Manzano vs. Antonio B. Lazaro, G.R. No.
173320, April 11, 2012
Implied ratification of the voidable contract.
In this case, there was an implied ratification of the voidable
contract. The appellant did not take any action to annul the
professional service contract nor address the poor campaign
services provided by the appellee. The appellant's silence, coupled
with the request for appellee to inventory equipment and liquidate
campaign funds, serves as an effective ratification of the original
agreement. Consequently, Manzano is obligated to compensate
Lazaro for the services rendered.
7. William Golangco Construction Corporation vs. Philippine
Commercial International Bank {PCIB), 485 SCRA 293 (G.R.
No. 142830. March 24, 2006)
A entered into a contract with B for the construction of the PCIB
Tower II. A provided a guarantee for any defects within a year.
ruled that A is not liable for the defects in the granitite finish of the
tower beyond the one-year guarantee period specified in the
contract.
8. Dio vs. St. Ferdinand Memorial Park, Inc., 509 SCRA 453
(G.R. No. 169578. November 30, 2006)
A purchased a memorial lot from B which was accompanied by an
agreement which stated that mausoleum buildings and memorials
should be constructed by the park personnel and lot owners cannot
contract other contractors for the construction.
Ruling: A is bound by the contract. Contracts, once perfected, bind
both parties, and obligations arising from contracts have the force
of law between the parties. A was fully aware of the rules and
regulations of the memorial park and had even sought permission
to build the mausoleum.
9. NHA vs. CA, G.R. No. 156437, March 1, 2004
A sent a letter to B expressing interest in acquiring certain lots. B
granted A’s request and informed A that their application would be
processed. B’s Board of Directors approved the sale of the lots to
A for P430k, A tendered a manager’s check of P55k but B returned
it for insufficiency. A filed a complaint for Specific Performance
and Damages against B arguing that A was quoted that amount
(unsigned piece of paper with a handwritten computation scribbled
on it).
Ruling: The absence of positive law does not automatically
authorize the application of equity. In this case, there was no
acceptance of B’s offer to sell the lots, making the alleged contract
inexistent. Equity cannot give validity to a void contract.
10. Tiu Peck vs. CA vs. CA 221 SCRA 618 (1993)
A and B were business partners who decided to dissolve their
partnership. In 1983, they divided the businesses to themselves by
virtue of an Agreement. Each of them immediately took possession
of their respective portions of the businesses. After 3 years, B filed
an action for partition against A over the lands where the
businesses were located.
Ruling: The Agreement is valid and binding between A and B.
Contracts, once perfected, have the force of law between the
parties who are bound to comply in good faith.
11. BPI vs. Sarmiento, 484 SCRA 261 (G.R. No. 146021. March
10, 2006)
A was an assistant manager of B, a bank. A was allegedly involved
in anomalous transactions which were being investigated. During
the investigation, A did not regularly report to work. However, A
still received her full salary. B demanded the return of the salary.
Ruling: Solutio indebiti does not apply.
Solutio indebiti applies when payment is made without a binding
obligation between the payor and the recipient, and when the
payment is made by mistake, not through liberality or other causes.
However, in this case, there was a valid employer-employee
relationship between petitioner and respondent during the period in
question and A only merely followed the VP’s instruction.
12. Perez vs. Pomar, 2 Phil. 682 (G.R. No. 1299, November 16,
1903)
A rendered interpreting services for B but there were only verbal
arrangements.
Ruling: A is obliged to pay B. If there is a tacit and mutual consent
as to the rendition of the services, the defendant is still obliged to
pay such compensation to the petitioner even if there is no written
contract entered between the two parties on the basis of quasi-
contract.
When one party knowingly receives something for nothing, the
courts may impose a quasi contract. Under a quasi contract, neither
party is originally intended to create an agreement. Instead, an
arrangement is imposed by a judge to rectify an occurrence of
unjust enrichment.
13. Reyes vs. Lim, 408 SCRA 560 (2003)
A and B entered into a contract to sell a parcel of land. A paid a
down payment of 10 million.
Basta ang ruling is that B did not have any reason to deny the
request to deposit the 10 million to the court. Note that while the
case was pending, the parcel of land was already sold to C. B
cannot be enriched at the expense of A.
14. Rodzssen Supply, Inc. vs. Far East Bank & Trust Co., 148
SCAD 392, 357 SCRA 618 (G.R. No. 109087, May 9, 2001)
A and B opened a domestic letter of credit (LOC) for the purchase
of hydraulic loaders from Ekman. While the first three loaders
were received and paid for within the LOC's validity, the last two
were received after its expiry, but B still paid Ekman. A refused to
reimburse the respondent, leading to a legal case.
ownership resulting from the failure to deliver the property and the
Ruling: A is liable to B for the two hydraulic loaders belatedly presence of bad faith.
delivered by Ekman and voluntarily received and kept by
Rodzssen Supply, Inc. 2. San Lorenzo Development Corp. vs. CA, 449 SCRA 99 (G.R.
No. 124242, January 21, 2005)
Despite the inefficacious Letter of Credit (LC), the petitioner is
still liable under quasi-contract principles. In cases where both In a contract of sale, title passes to the vendee upon the delivery of
parties exhibit negligence in fulfilling their obligations, one party's the thing sold; whereas in a contract to sell, by agreement the
fault can cancel out the other's negligence. The rights and ownership is reserved in the vendor and is not to pass until the full
obligations of the parties can be determined equitably to prevent payment of the price.
unjust enrichment.
A sale itself does not transfer ownership but creates the obligation
15. People vs. Catubig, 153 SCRA SCAD 624, 363 SCRA 621 to transfer ownership.
(2001)
Ownership is actually transferred through tradition or delivery,
(crime as a source of obligation) which is a consequence of the sale.
16. Air France v Rafael Carrascoso and CA, 18 SCRA 155 The law recognizes two principal modes of delivery: actual
delivery and legal or constructive delivery.
Damages were awarded to Carrascoso
Tort. Although the relation of a passenger and a carrier is both Actual delivery involves placing the sold item in the control and
contractual in origin and nature, the act that breaks the contract possession of the buyer.
may be a tort.
Legal or constructive delivery can be achieved through various
17. Makati Stock Exchange vs. Campos, 585 SCRA 120 (G.R. methods, including the execution of a public instrument,
No. 138814, April 16, 2009) symbolical tradition like delivering keys, traditio longa manu,
traditio brevi manu, and traditio constitutum possessorium, where
The enumeration of the law is exclusive. the seller retains possession in a different capacity.
A filed SEC Case No. 02-94-4678 against Makati Stock Exchange,
Inc. and its directors, seeking to nullify a resolution that allegedly
deprived him of equal participation in Initial Public Offerings
(IPOs).
Ruling: A’s petition was dismissed for failure to state a cause of
action. A cause of action requires the violation of a legal right, the
corresponding obligation of the defendant, and the act or omission
by the defendant that infringes upon that right.
1. EQUATORIAL REALTY DEVELOPMENT v. MAYFAIR
THEATER, GR No. 133879, 2001-11-21
A leased two properties to B. These properties were sold by A to
C. B filled a petition for the annulment of the sale, arguing that
they have a 30-day exclusive option to purchase the property under
their lease contract.
Ruling: SC ruled in favor of C. The civil fruits of ownership, such
as rentals, cannot be claimed by the A due to the lack of actual