Solante V. COA Gr no.

207348, August 19 2014

FACTS:

the City of Mandave and F.F. Cruz entered a contract for reclamation project, where F.F. Cruz could redaim land from
the sea at its own expense. The contract outlined a 6 year timeline, divided into 3 years for initial work and 3 years
for completing imprastructure. Later they signed a MOA, allowing FF. CWz to build structures on Mandave's land
without paying rent. After completing the project, these structures would become Mandave's property.

When Mandave initiated a road-widening project affecting FF cruz's structures, the DPWH and project director
Samuel Darza agreed to compensate FF. Cruz demolishing affected improvements outside the road bundary, offering
1,084, 836-42 PHP. However, a special audit office disagreed with this payment, holding F.F cruz, Darza and Sdante
responsible for the transaction's disallowed amount.

ISSUE: who owned the property during the period material the properties that were demolished.

HELD: FF cruz still own the structures on the land when they were demolished because the contract clidn't have a
specific contract deadline for completion, as required by Art. 1193 OF the civil cucle. The 6-year estimate mentioned
in the contract was just an approximation not a definite deadline. Since the project hadn't been completed within its
estimated time frame and the City of Mandave hadn't Specified a deadline for completion, FF Cruz retained
ownership of the materials. Hence, FF cruz was not in breach of contract, and the city of would not be able to claim
ownership of the demolished structures.

Macasaet v. Macasaet Gr no. L-154391 September 03, 2004

FACTS: Vicente and Ismael and Teresita Macasaet, who are first degree relatives. Rosario Macasaet, were sued for
ejectment by the latter in MTC Lipa City. The dispute revolved around two parcels of land owned by the respondents,
which the petitioners. occupied allegedly through a verbal lease agreement but failed to pay the agreed rent. Ismael
and Teresita denied the existence of a lease agreement, asserting that they were invited by the respondents to build
their residence and business on the lots to live nearby and assist the family. They claimed that one lot was allotted to
Ismael’s construction as advance inheritance, while the other was given to them as payment for materials used in
renovating the respondents' house.

ISSUE: WON Ismael and Teresita had a right to occupy the lots

HELD: Yes. but the issue lies on the duration allows court to determine the duration of an obligation when no period
is specified. However, this applies when the parties intended a period, which isn't evident in this case. Vicente and
Rosario allowed their children to use the lots out of parental love and was based on mutual benefit and Solidarity,
without specifying a period. The agreement affected, effectively having a resolutory condition. When conflict
replaced love and solidarity, the purpose of the agreement ceased, rendering petitioners' continued possession
untenable. Upon receipt of the notice to vacate, their right to use the properties became unlawful, justifying
ejectment as proper remedy.
Claret School of Quezon City v. Sinday Grno. 223458, October 9, 2018

FACTS: Sinday, the wife of one Claret School's drivers, Filed a complaint against the School for illegal dismissal. She
detailed her employment history, stating that she was initially hired as a releasing clerk, the worked as a filling clerk
in the Human Resource Department and later as a secretary at claretech Department. She claimed to be classified as
a regular employee, but clavet later presented her with a probationary contract, citing cost-cutting reasons for her
dismissal.

Claret denied Sinday's claims, asserting that she was a part-time Fired - term contractual employee, aware of the
terms of her employment. It argued that claretech was in an experimental stage and faced Financial difficulties,
leading to Sinday's purition. Being dissolved. Clarel also accused Sinday of stealing relief goods, though the incident
was not thoroughly investigated due to her impending employment expiration.

ISSUE: WON Sinday is a regular employee

HELD:

Yes. In cases where employees are repeatedly hired on fixed levy contracts and their work is essential to employer's
business, courts may deem them regular employees entitled to security of tenure. The repeated engagement under
such contracts indicates the necessity and desirability of their services. Cited term employment is not illegal per se,
but its validity depends on whether it serves the genuine interests of both 야 parties and does not undermine the
employee's rights. In this case, the employee was found to be a regular employee entitled to security of tenure due
to the essential nature of her work and the lack of equal bargaining power between her and the employer.