0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)
129 Ansichten2 Seiten
This document contains summaries of 3 legal cases from the Philippines:
1. The first case established that a moral obligation can serve as consideration for a new contract and confirmed the lower court's ruling.
2. The second case affirmed an order and established that a bonus is generally not a legally enforceable natural obligation and that voluntary fulfillment is needed before retention can be ordered.
3. The third case involved a promissory note and established that the right to prescription can be waived through a new contract, that debts contracted by the husband for the conjugal partnership are chargeable to the partnership, and that a new express promise to pay a debt revives the original contract.
Originalbeschreibung:
Case List from Atty. Uribe's CivLaw II Review Class
This document contains summaries of 3 legal cases from the Philippines:
1. The first case established that a moral obligation can serve as consideration for a new contract and confirmed the lower court's ruling.
2. The second case affirmed an order and established that a bonus is generally not a legally enforceable natural obligation and that voluntary fulfillment is needed before retention can be ordered.
3. The third case involved a promissory note and established that the right to prescription can be waived through a new contract, that debts contracted by the husband for the conjugal partnership are chargeable to the partnership, and that a new express promise to pay a debt revives the original contract.
This document contains summaries of 3 legal cases from the Philippines:
1. The first case established that a moral obligation can serve as consideration for a new contract and confirmed the lower court's ruling.
2. The second case affirmed an order and established that a bonus is generally not a legally enforceable natural obligation and that voluntary fulfillment is needed before retention can be ordered.
3. The third case involved a promissory note and established that the right to prescription can be waived through a new contract, that debts contracted by the husband for the conjugal partnership are chargeable to the partnership, and that a new express promise to pay a debt revives the original contract.
Case Title : JUAN F. VILLARROEL, recurrente y apelante, contra BERNARDINO ESTRADA, recurrido y apelado.Case Nature : SOLICITUD de revision mediante certiorari. Syllabi Class : CONTRATOS|PROMESA NUEVA DE PAGAR UNA DEUDA PRESCRITA Syllabi: 1. CONTRATOS; PROMESA NUEVA DE PAGAR UNA DEUDA PRESCRITA; OBLIGACIN MORAL COMO CONSIDERACIN DE UN CONTRATO.+ 2. CONTRATOS; PROMESA NUEVA DE PAGAR UNA DEUDA PRESCRITA; ID.+
Docket Number: No. 47362
Counsel: D. Felipe Agoncillo, D. Crispn Oben
Ponente: AVANCEA
Dispositive Portion: Se confirma la sentencia apelada, con las costas al apelante. As se ordena.
2. Ansay, et al. vs. Nat'l Development Co., et al., 107 Phil. 997 , April 29, 1960 Case Title : PRIMITIVO ANSAY, ETC., ET AL., plaintiffs and appellants vs. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, ET AL., defendants and appellees.Case Nature : APPEAL from an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila. Gatmaitan, J. Syllabi Class : NATURAL OBLIGATIONS|ELEMENT OF; VOLUNTARY FULFILLMENT Syllabi: 1. NATURAL OBLIGATIONS; ELEMENT OF; VOLUNTARY FULFILLMENT; WHEN RETENTION CAN BE ORDERED.- An element of natural obligation before it can he cognizable by the court is voluntary fulfillment by the obligor. Retention can be ordered only after there has been voluntary performance. 2. NATURAL OBLIGATIONS; BONUS NOT DEMANDABLE AND ENFORCEABLE; EXCEPTION.- A bonus is not a demandable and enforceable obligation, except when it is made a part of the wage or salary compensation. (Philippine Education Co. vs. CIR and the Union of Philippine Education Co. Employees (NLU), 92 Phil., 381; 48 Off. Gaz. 5278.) Hence, the grant thereof does not generally constitute a natural obligation on the part of the company.
Docket Number: No. L-13667
Counsel: Celso A. Fernandez, Juan C. Jimenez
Ponente: PARS
Dispositive Portion: Premises considered, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs.
3. Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) vs. Adil, 161 SCRA 307 , May 11, 1989 Case Title : DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES (DBP), petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE MIDPANTAO L. ADIL, Judge of the Second Branch of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo and SPOUSES PATRICIO CONFESOR and JOVITA VILLAFUERTE, respondents.Case Nature : PETITION for certiorari to review the decision of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, Br. II. Adil, J. Syllabi Class : Civil Law|Prescription|Waiver of right to prescription|Conjugal Partnership Syllabi: 1. Civil Law; Prescription; Waiver of right to prescription; Case at bar.- The right to prescription may be waived or renounced. Article 1112 of Civil Code provides: Art. 1112. Persons with capacity to alienate property may renounce prescription already obtained, but not the right to prescribe in the future. Prescription is deemed to have been tacitly renounced when the renunciation results from acts which imply the abandonment of the right acquired. There is no doubt that prescription has set in as to the first promissory note of February 10, 1940. However, when respondent Confesor executed the second promissory note on April 11,1961 whereby he promised to pay the amount covered by the previous promissory note on or before June 15, 1961, and upon failure to do so, agreed to the foreclosure of the mortgage, said respondent thereby effectively and expressly renounced and waived his right to the prescription of the action covering the first promissory note. This Court had ruled in a similar case that"x x x when a debt is already barred by prescription, it cannot be enforced by the creditor. But a new contract recognizing and assuming the prescribed debt would be valid and enforceable x x x. Thus, it has been heldWhere, therefore, a party acknowledges the correctness of a debt and promises to pay it after the same has prescribed and with full knowledge of the prescription he thereby waives the benefit of prescription. 2. Same; Same; Same; Conjugal Partnership; Husband as administrator of the conjugal partnership under Art. 165 of the Civil Code.- WE disagree. Under Article 165 of the Civil Code, the husband is the administrator of the conjugal partnership. As such administrator, all debts and obligations contracted by the husband for the benefit of the conjugal partnership, are chargeable to the conjugal partnership. No doubt, in this case, respondent Confesor signed the second promissory note for the benefit of the conjugal partnership. Hence the conjugal partnership is liable for this obligation. 3. Same; Same; Same; Effects of a new express promise to pay a debt.- This is not a mere case of acknowledgment of a debt that has prescribed but a new promise to pay the debt. The consideration of the new promissory note is the pre-existing obligation under the first promissory note. The statutory limitation bars the remedy but does not discharge the debt. A new express promise to pay a debt barred xxx will take the case from the operation of the statute of limitations as this proceeds upon the ground that as a statutory limitation merely bars the remedy and does not discharge the debt, there is something more than a mere moral obligation to support a promise, to wita preexisting debt which is a sufficient consideration for the new promise; the new promise upon this sufficient consideration constitutes, in fact, a new cause of action. x x x x x It is this new promise, either made in express terms or deduced from an acknowledgment as a legal implication, which is to be regarded as reanimating the old promise, or as imparting vitality to the remedy (which by lapse of time had become extinct) and thus enabling the creditor to recover upon his original contract.
Division: FIRST DIVISION
Docket Number: No. L-48889
Ponente: GANCAYCO
Dispositive Portion: WHEREFORE, the decision subject of the petition is reversed and set aside and another decision is hereby rendered reinstating the decision of the City Court of Iloilo City of December 27, 1976, without pronouncement as to costs in this instance. This decision is immediately executory and no motion for extension of time to file motion for reconsideration shall be granted.
ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF MALOLOS, INC., Petitioner, v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, and ROBES-FRANCISCO REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondents.
United States v. Ralph Giordano Alphonse v. Sisca Robert Baviello Vincent J. Laforte Joe Olivera Edward J. Kavanaugh Ralph Agovino Anthony Capuano Anthony Damiani Victor Signorini Angelo Piacentino Renato Lindia Steve Picone Jose Cesareo Gonzalez, Jr. Anders Gueche Steve Alfisi, Also Known as "Dee Dee" Alberto Yepez, Also Known as "Albert" and Eugene Dinapoli, Defnedants, Victor Roussos Genaro Perpinan Frank Mandarino Evelyn Horta, Also Known as "Pee Wee" and Charles Guida, 101 F.3d 682, 2d Cir. (1996)