ASIAN CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs.

PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL
INTERNATIONAL BANK

G.R. No. 153827, April 5, 2006

GARCIA, J.:

FACTS:

PCIBANK sued ASIAKONSRUKT for unpaid debts amounting to US$4,453,446.06. PCIBANK alleged that
ASIAKONSTRUKT fraudulently diverted contract proceeds meant for PCIBANK's security. ASIAKONSTRUKT
admitted the debt but cited a financial crisis and argued the deeds of the assignment were unfair.

ISSUE:

The issue raised in the case was whether or not there is a genuine issue as to a material fact that rules out the propriety of a
summary judgment and whether or not the award of attorney’s fees is exorbitant or unconscionable.

RULING:

Summary judgment was granted in favor of PCIBANK as ASIAKONSTRUKT failed to prove genuine issues of fact. The
financial crisis wasn't a valid excuse for non-performance, and attorney's fees were reduced from P1,260,000 to
P1,000,000.
 ANG YU ASUNCION, ARTHUR GO AND KEH TIONG vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and BUEN
REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

G.R. No. 109125, December 2, 1994

VITUG, J.:

FACTS:

Ang Yu Asuncion and Keh Tiong, et al., claimed to be tenants of premises since 1935, suing for Specific Performance
against Bobby Cu Unjieng, Rose Cu Unjieng, and Jose Tan. The trial court favored defendants, later affirmed by the Court
of Appeals, but granting plaintiffs a right of first refusal. The Cu Unjieng spouses sold the property to Buen Realty. Buen
Realty demanded lessees vacate; they invoked a lis pendens.

ISSUE:

Whether the trial court erred in ordering a Deed of Sale in favor of plaintiffs and canceling Buen Realty's title.

RULING:

The Supreme Court stated that a right of first refusal, even under a final judgment, doesn't constitute a binding contract.
Thus, the court couldn't execute the sale in favor of plaintiffs or cancel Buen Realty's title without violating due process.
The rights of Buen Realty must be addressed separately.
 VICTORIA MOREÑO-LENTFER, GUNTER LENTFER and JOHN CRAIGIE YOUNG CROSS vs. HANS
JURGEN WOLFF

G.R. No. 152317, November 10, 2004

QUISUMBING, J.:

FACTS:

The petitioners, Gunter Lentfer, Victoria Moreño-Lentfer, and John Craigie Young Cross, engaged in a property
transaction with respondent Hans Jurgen Wolff. Discrepancies arose regarding the payment and ownership of a
beach house in Puerto Galera. Wolff alleged that he paid for the property, but documents suggested otherwise. He
filed a complaint for annulment and reconveyance, which led to conflicting court decisions.

ISSUE:

The issues that arose, in this case, were whether or not Article 1238 of the New Civil Code applies in the case,
specifically regarding the validity of payment made by a third person who did not intend to be reimbursed and
whether or not the principle of solutio indebiti under Article 2154 of the New Civil Code applies in the resolution of
the controversy.

RULING:

The Supreme Court ruled that Article 1238 doesn't apply, as Wolff's actions contradicted his claim of not
intending to be reimbursed. Instead, the principle of solutio indebiti applies, obliging Moreño-Lentfer to return the
unjustly obtained payment. The Court ordered reconveyance of the property to Wolff and awarded nominal
damages for property rights infringement committed by the petitioners.
 TITAN-IKEDA CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. PRIMETOWN PROPERTY
GROUP, INC.

G.R. No. 158768, February 12, 2008

CORONA, J.:
FACTS:

Primetown Property Group awarded Titan-Ikeda Construction the contract for structural works of Makati Prime
Tower (MPT) in 1992, followed by an architectural contract in 1994. Disputes arose over project progress and
payments, leading to legal actions by both parties.

ISSUE:

The issues that arose, in this case, were whether or not Titan-Ikeda Construction & Development Corporation
incurred a delay in completing the project, and if they are entitled to the claim for the damages under the contract
and legal principles.

RULING:

The Supreme Court found that Titan-Ikeda didn't cause project delays. Primetown's failure to follow contract
procedures and actions impeded Titan-Ikeda's work. Titan-Ikeda was entitled to reimbursement for work done
but couldn't recover additional costs for changes in project scope without written authorization. Compensatory
damages were denied due to insufficient evidence. The case was remanded to determine Titan-Ikeda's liability,
excess payments return, and any interests or penalties, with additional evidence needed.
 ANTONIO R. CORTES (in his capacity as Administrator of the estate of Claro S. Cortes) vs. HON. COURT OF
APPEALS and VILLA ESPERANZA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

G.R. No. 126083, July 12, 2006

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

FACTS:

Antonio Cortes and Villa Esperanza Development Corporation entered into a contract of sale for lots in Baclaran,
Parañaque, Metro Manila, for a total price of P3,700,000. The Corporation advanced P1,213,000 to Cortes. In
September 1983, they executed a deed of absolute sale, with the Corporation to pay P2,200,000 upon execution and
the remaining P1,500,000 within one year. The Corporation filed for specific performance in 1985, alleging Cortes
refused to deliver titles and the original deed despite readiness to pay. Cortes claimed non-payment of the down
payment.

ISSUE:

The lone issue that arises is whether or not there was an incurred delay in the performance of reciprocal
obligations which justifies the rescission of the contract of sale.

RULING:

The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals decision. Reciprocal obligations existed between the parties:
Cortes to deliver titles upon full payment, and the Corporation to pay upon execution. Evidence showed Cortes
never surrendered titles and the deed copy. Both parties were in delay, nullifying default effects. Court ordered
Cortes to execute the sale and deliver titles, and the Corporation to pay the full price.
 ROBERTO C. SICAM and AGENCIA de R.C. SICAM, INC. vs. LULU V. JORGE and CESAR JORGE

G.R. No. 159617, August 8, 2007

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:

FACTS:

On different dates from September to October 1987, Lulu V. Jorge (respondent Lulu) pawned several pieces of
jewelry with Agencia de R. C. Sicam located at No. 17 Aguirre Ave., BF Homes Parañaque, Metro Manila, to
secure a loan in the total amount of P59,500.00. On October 19, 1987, two armed men entered the pawnshop and
took away whatever cash and jewelry were found inside the pawnshop vault. Sicam informed Lulu of the robbery,
but she contested it, claiming the jewelry was deposited with a nearby bank at the time of the robbery. Lulu
requested the return of her jewelry, but Sicam failed to comply.

ISSUE:

The issue that arises in this case is whether or not Roberto C. Sicam and Agencia de R.C. Sicam, Inc. should be
held liable for the loss of the pawned jewelry due to robbery.

RULING:

The Court of Appeals held Sicam personally liable due to misleading representation. Despite incorporation, pawn
tickets still bore Sicam's name, implying direct dealings. Sicam was found negligent in safeguarding the items,
leading to the loss. The defense of fortuitous event was rejected as evidence showed Sicam anticipated robbery. The
court emphasized pawnshops' duty of care, holding Sicam liable for negligence in fulfilling this duty.
AIR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION vs. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AVIATION SERVICES PHILS., INC.

G.R. No. 151963, September 9, 2004

PANGANIBAN, J.:

FACTS:

Air Philippines, Inc. (API) engaged International Business Aviation Services Phils., Inc. (IBASPI) to find a
business enterprise to ferry its airplane from the United States to the Philippines. IBASPI, in turn, engaged
Universal Weather & Aviation, Inc. (UWAI) for the ferrying service. IBASPI incurred expenses on behalf of API,
expecting reimbursement.

API failed to pay UWAI, breaching its contract. IBASPI, acting in API's interest, paid UWAI on API's behalf to
avoid embarrassment. IBASPI demanded reimbursement from API, which eventually made a partial payment,
acknowledging its obligation. IBASPI sought the remaining balance, plus a 10% broker's fee, through legal action.
API contested, alleging insufficient documentation.

ISSUE:

The issue that prevails in this case is whether or not the monetary awards in favor of International Business
Aviation Services Phils., Inc. was duly proven.

RULING:

The court held that the petitioner was liable for legal interest on the unpaid balance as well as attorney's fees,
based on the terms of the Receipt/Agreement. The court determined that the respondent failed to adequately prove
its entitlement to a broker's fee, as the evidence presented was insufficient under the best evidence rule. The court
affirmed the lower court's decision, holding the petitioner liable for the unpaid balance, legal interest, and
attorney's fees as specified in the Receipt/Agreement.
 THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., vs. TOYOTA BEL-AIR, INC.

G.R. No. 137884, March 28, 2008

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:

FACTS:

Consignation refers to the act of depositing the rental payments due to Insular Life with the court or judicial authorities.
Insular Life contended that Toyota, the respondent, refused to vacate the leased premises and failed to comply with the
payment of reasonable compensation as ordered by the MeTC. Therefore, Insular Life sought to consign the rental
payments as a means to fulfill Toyota's obligation and resolve the dispute over unpaid rents.

ISSUE:

Whether the RTC erred in ordering the consignation of rentals and in nullifying the Writ of Execution issued by the
MeTC.

RULING:

The RTC's decision to grant Toyota's petition for certiorari, nullifying the entire Writ of Execution, also affected the issue
of consignation. The RTC's decision implied that the judgment to vacate the leased properties and pay attorney's fees and
litigation expenses was also voided along with the Writ of Execution. As a result, the RTC's ruling indirectly impacted the
validity of the consignation sought by Insular Life. The Court emphasized that consignation is an equitable remedy
available only under specific circumstances, and it cannot be used to cure errors in proceedings or to correct erroneous
conclusions of law or fact.
 AMADOR G. CAPIRAL vs. MANILA ELECTRIC CO., ET AL.

G.R. No. L-15721, December 27, 1963

PAREDES, J.:

FACTS:

Capiral's employment status hinges on whether his appointment as a "regular and permanent" employee with Meralco
implies a definite period or not. Capiral argues that his appointment signifies permanence and implies that he can only be
dismissed for cause. On the other hand, Meralco contends that the appointment was to provide fringe benefits and does
not preclude termination without cause.

ISSUE:

Whether the employment of Capiral with the Meralco is considered to have a definite period or not.

RULING:

The court rules that Capiral's employment did not have a definite period, despite his regular and permanent appointment,
and thus, he could be terminated without cause. The court reverses the lower court's decision, absolving Meralco from
liabilities such as back salaries and ordering Capiral's reinstatement.
 FIDELA DEL CASTILLO Vda. DE MISTICA vs. Spouses BERNARDINO NAGUIAT and MARIA PAULINA
GERONA-NAGUIAT

G.R. No. 137909, December 11, 2003

PANGANIBAN, J.:

This case involves a contract of sale between Eulalio Mistica and Bernardino Naguiat for a portion of land, with
terms specifying a downpayment and a ten-year payment period, along with provisions for interest if payment was
delayed. Although the buyer made partial payments, they failed to complete payment within the agreed timeframe.
The seller sought rescission of the contract, alleging breach due to non-payment within the stipulated period.
However, the buyer contended that they attempted payment within the timeframe and that the contract allowed
for payment with interest even after the specified period.

ISSUE:

Whether the failure to pay the full purchase price as stipulated in the contract of sale automatically grants the
seller the right to rescind the agreement.

RULING:

The Court of Appeals ruled against rescission, emphasizing that the contract allowed for payment even after the
ten-year period, provided the buyer paid the stipulated interest.
 DOMINGO ANG vs. AMERICAN STEAMSHIP AGENCIES, INC.

G.R. No. L-25047 & G.R. No. L-25050, March 18, 1967

BENGZON, J. P., J.:

FACTS:

The plaintiff entered agreements with Yau Yue to purchase goods and received bills of lading for the shipments.
However, despite demands for payment upon arrival in Manila, the purchasers failed to pay, leading to protests
from the bank and return of the bills of lading to the plaintiff. Subsequently, the purchasers obtained bank
guarantees and received the goods without presenting the bills of lading. The plaintiff then filed complaints against
the carrier for misdelivery or conversion. The carrier contended that the actions were time-barred by the one-year
prescription period under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act.

ISSUE:

Whether carriers and ships are no longer liable for loss or damage if a lawsuit is not initiated within one year after
the delivery of goods or the expected delivery date.

RULING:

The court ruled that the one-year prescriptive period under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act does not apply to
cases of misdelivery or conversion. Since there was no loss or damage to the goods, but rather misdelivery, the
court concluded that the prescriptive period under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act did not apply. Instead, the
applicable prescriptive periods are those found in the Civil Code, which are either ten years for breach of a written
contract or four years for quasi-delict.
 LAFARGE CEMENT PHILIPPINES, INC., (formerly Lafarge Philippines, Inc.), LUZON CONTINENTAL
LAND CORPORATION, CONTINENTAL OPERATING CORPORATION and PHILIP ROSEBERG

G.R. No. 155173, November 23, 2004

PANGANIBAN, J.:

FACTS:

Lafarge Cement Philippines, Inc. and Continental Cement Corporation entered into agreements for the sale of
CCC's cement business to Lafarge. Disputes arose over the handling of funds for potential liabilities, leading CCC
to file a complaint against Lafarge. Lafarge counterclaimed, alleging bad faith by CCC and individuals Lim and
Mariano, prompting CCC to move to dismiss the counterclaims against Lim and Mariano.

ISSUE:

Whether the counterclaims against Lim and Mariano are compulsory and if CCC can file a motion to dismiss on
their behalf.

RULING:

The counterclaims against Lim and Mariano were deemed compulsory and properly included in the same action.
However, CCC lacked authority to file a motion to dismiss on behalf of Lim and Mariano, as each party must
assert its own defenses. The court reversed the trial court's dismissal of the counterclaims against Lim and
Mariano and ordered summons to be served on them.
 BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK vs. JUANITA B. YBAÑEZ, CHARLES B. YBAÑEZ,
JOSEPH B. YBAÑEZ and JEROME B. YBAÑEZ

G.R. No. 148163, December 6, 2004

QUISUMBING, J.:

FACTS:

Juanita B. Ybañez and her sons obtained loans from Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank to build a
commercial building, secured by a Real Estate Mortgage. The loan obligation increased over time, with monthly
payments made until 1988. Banco Filipino ceased operations from 1985 to 1994 due to liquidation. In 1990,
respondents requested return of the mortgaged property, claiming excessive interest. Upon receiving a foreclosure
notice in 1994, they sued, alleging full payment of the loan.

ISSUE:

Whether the 21% interest rate and 3% monthly surcharge are legal.

RULING:

The 21% interest rate was deemed legal under CBP Circular No. 705-79, covering loans with maturities over 730
days, including the 15-year loan in question. However, the 3% monthly surcharge exceeded the Usury Law's
prescribed ceiling and was therefore invalidated.
 AGRIFINA AQUINTEY vs. SPOUSES FELICIDAD AND RICO TIBONG

G.R. No. 166704, December 20, 2006

CALLEJO, SR., J.:

FACTS:

Agrifina Aquintey lent Felicidad Tibong P773,000 for business purposes, documented through promissory notes.
Despite demands, Felicidad failed to repay the loan, leading Agrifina to file a complaint.

ISSUE:

Whether Felicidad borrowed P773,000 from Agrifina and if her obligations were partially extinguished by deeds of
assignment.

RULING:

The Supreme Court upheld Felicidad's liability for the loan but found her obligations partially extinguished by
valid deeds of assignment, allowing Agrifina to collect payments from Felicidad's debtors. The Court affirmed the
Court of Appeals' decision, modifying it to reflect the remaining balance owed.
SELEGNA MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION; and Spouses EDGARDO and ZENAIDA
ANGELES

G.R. No. 165662, May 3, 2006

PANGANIBAN, CJ.:

FACTS:

Selegna Management and Development Corporation and the Spouses Edgardo and Zenaida Angeles obtained a
credit facility from UCPB, securing it with real estate mortgages. They defaulted on payments, leading UCPB to
initiate extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings on their properties.

ISSUE:

Whether the petitioners are entitled to a preliminary injunction to halt the extrajudicial foreclosure despite their
default on payments.

RULING:

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, denying the petitioners' request for a preliminary
injunction. The Court held that the petitioners failed to establish a clear legal right for the injunction since they
were in default. The Court emphasized that foreclosure is proper in cases of default, and the partial payment made
by the petitioners did not alter this.
 FAR EAST BANK & TRUST COMPANY vs. DIAZ REALTY

G.R. No. 138588, August 23, 2001

PANGANIBAN, J.:

FACTS:

Diaz and Company obtained a loan from Pacific Banking Corporation (PBC), secured by a real estate mortgage
over two parcels of land. Allied Banking Corporation rented office space on the mortgaged properties, with rent
payments intended to partially pay off the loan. PaBC was closed by the Central Bank, and Far East Bank & Trust
Company (FEBTC) purchased Diaz's loan account in 1986. Diaz attempted to settle their loan obligation with
FEBTC in 1988, but FEBTC refused to accept payment.

ISSUE:

The issues included whether the tender of payment was valid, if the transfer to FEBTC constituted novation, the
correct interest rate, and the status of the mortgage contract.

RULING:

The Court affirmed Diaz Realty's tender of payment, considering FEBTC's acceptance of the check. The transfer
to FEBTC was deemed an assignment of credit, not novation, allowing enforcement of the original loan terms. Diaz
was ordered to pay the principal plus interest at 20% until November 14, 1988, and then at 12% until fully paid.
The mortgage and lease contracts remained valid until the loan was settled, allowing renegotiation afterward.
 B.E. SAN DIEGO, INC. vs. ROSARIO T. ALZUL

G.R. No. 169501

VELASCO, JR., J.:

FACTS:

Rosario T. Alzul entered an installment agreement with B.E. San Diego, Inc. for four subdivision lots. Alzul
assigned her rights to Wilson P. Yu but later rescinded the assignment due to Yu's default. B.E. San Diego, Inc.
rescinded the contract due to defaults by Alzul and Yu, selling the lots to Carlos and Sandra Ventura. Legal battles
ensued, ultimately resulting in B.E. San Diego, Inc. retaining ownership.

ISSUE:

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting Alzul an extension of time to comply with payment obligations
and allowing consignation.

RULING:

The Court found that Alzul failed to make full payment within the specified timeframe set by previous court
resolutions. Although Alzul attempted to tender payment, she did not validly consign the amount due when B.E.
San Diego, Inc. refused payment. As a result, Alzul forfeited her rights over the properties.
MAVEST (U.S.A.) INC., and MAVEST Manila Liaison Office vs. SAMPAGUITA GARMENT CORPORATION

G.R. No. 127454, September 21, 2005

GARCIA, J.:

FACTS:

MAVEST and Sampaguita Garment Corporation entered into transactions involving the supply and manufacture
of garments. Sampaguita delivered orders to JC Penney, who failed to pay, leading to a lawsuit. MAVEST argued
they were owed damages from previous transactions, but failed to prove this.

ISSUE:

The key issues were whether legal compensation applied, whether Mavest Manila Liaison Office was liable, and
whether MAVEST's evidence supported their claim for damages.

RULING:

The Supreme Court rejected MAVEST's legal compensation argument as they failed to prove Sampaguita's
liability for damages. The Court upheld the solidary liability of Mavest Manila Liaison Office with Mavest U.S.A.
as it acted as its representative. MAVEST's evidence did not sufficiently support their claim for damages, leading
to a ruling against them on this issue.
 ROMEO C. GARCIA vs. DIONISIO V. LLAMAS

G.R. No. 154127, December 8, 2003

PANGANIBAN, J.:

FACTS:

Dionisio Llamas sued Romeo Garcia and Eduardo de Jesus to recover a ₱400,000 loan evidenced by a promissory
note. Garcia claimed he was an accommodation party and that the debt was novated by a bounced check. De Jesus
admitted receiving ₱360,000 and alleged the remaining ₱40,000 was advance interest. He failed to appear at the
pre-trial conference.

ISSUE:

The case revolves around whether novation extinguished Garcia's liability, if he was merely an accommodation
party.

RULING:

The court ruled novation did not occur as there was no clear consent. The promissory note stated joint and several
liability, and Garcia's defense as an accommodation party was rejected. The court affirmed the trial court's
judgment as a summary judgment, finding no genuine factual disputes raised by Garcia's answer. Garcia was held
jointly and severally liable with de Jesus for the loan.
 CHEMPHIL EXPORT & IMPORT CORPORATION (CEIC) vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
JAIME Y. GONZALES, as Assignee of the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI), RIZAL COMMERCIAL
BANKING CORPORATION (RCBC), LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES (LBP), PHILIPPINE
COMMERCIAL & INTERNATIONAL BANK (PCIB) and THE PHILIPPINE INVESTMENT SYSTEM
ORGANIZATION (PISO)

G.R. Nos. 112438-39, December 12, 1995

PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL BANK (AND ITS ASSIGNEE JAIME Y. GONZALES) vs.
HONORABLE COURT OR APPEALS and CHEMPHIL EXPORT AND IMPORT CORPORATION (CEIC)

G.R. No. 113394, December 12, 1995

KAPUNAN, J.:

FACTS:

Dynetics, Inc. and Antonio M. Garcia filed a complaint concerning a surety agreement with a bank consortium.
Writs of preliminary attachment were obtained against their properties. Garcia was later dropped from the case
due to a compromise agreement, but legal disputes continued over shares in Chemphil, which were sold and
transferred.

ISSUE:

The main issue is the rightful ownership of the disputed shares in Chemphil.

RULING:

The court ruled in favor of the consortium, led by Jaime Gonzales, as the rightful owner of the shares. It deemed
the attachment lien obtained by the consortium valid, despite arguments from CEIC. CEIC's claim of subrogation
to SBTC's rights was rejected, and the compromise agreement between Garcia and the consortium didn't
discharge the attachment lien. The court emphasized the continuation of the attachment lien until the debt is
settled or discharged.