Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
CASE DIGEST
PRELIM
2
nd
Semester SY 2013-2014
prescription?
Ruling: Pet.is without merit, claim is imprescriptible.
Respondents anchored their action for reconveyance
PRESCRIPTION
1.
AZNAR BROTHERS
VS.
HEIRS
OF ANICETO
AUGUSTO
petitioner
Tax
Declaration
No.
026794
issued
to
Petrona
Calipan in 1945.
Aznar
was
void
since
the
purported
They
pointed
out
that
the
1945
Tax
was
cancelled
pursuant
to
an
"Extrajudicial
Filomeno
Augusto,
Ciriaco
Icoy,
Zacarias
Augusto,
Abdon
Augusto,
Aying,
Teoderica
persons
Aznar
sold
the
property
to
Felipe
petitioner
ART. 1137.
Correjado,
Rogelia
Correjado
(Rogelia),
Assuming
arguendo
that
petitioners
respective
vda. de Beduna.
On
November
and
Carlota
that
death
complaint[1]
City
of
26,
for
partition
against
Julian
1986,
in
petitioners
of
the
respondents,
1950,
his
filed
property
alleging
children-herein
The
between
property,
circumstances
for Maria,
the
mother
of petitioners
near
Suffice it to
relatives,
under
the
facts
and
of
case,
especially
the
the
uncontroverted
claim of respondents
father
and
Julian,
the
that
documented
their
claim
of
her
were
them all under his name, viz: lot no. 265-A (with TCT
No. 16895), lot no. 265-B (with TCT No. 16896) and
demands
lot no. 265-C (with TCT No. 16897). He then paid the
co-petitioners
therefor,
never
even
benefited
an
or
extremely
liberal
against
the
second
vendees
Occea
Morales.
executed
Deed
of
Extrajudicial
Morales
who
had
house
constructed
thereon.
For their part, the Occea spouses claimed that the
OCT in the name of the original owners of the lots,
the Tordesillas spouses, was cancelled after it was
subdivided between Angela and Arnold in 1969; that
new TCTs had been issued in the latters names; that
they were unaware that the subject lots were already
previously sold to Morales as they denied that Tomas
had a talk with caretaker Abas on the matter; that as
of December 4, 1987, the TCTs covering the lots
were in the name of Arnold and his wife, without any
adverse claim annotated thereon; that vendor Arnold
represented to them that the occupants they saw on
the land were squatters and that he merely tolerated
their
presence;
that
they
did
not
personally
spouses.
Deeds
the
that
Arnolds
TCTs
were
clean
and
subject
property
by
means
of
fraud
and
names.
and
and
(40) years.
prescription.
They
argue
that
Alberta
4. SALUDARES VS. CA
compulsory heirs
recovering
what
has
been
fraudulently
Heirs and their father Juan executed a deed of extrajudicial partition of the share of Pomposa in the
Tanza estate. The settlement conferred the eastern
half of the Tanza estate to Juan and the western half
to the Heirs.
Juan was in possession of the entire Tanza estate.
After the partition, the Heirs took possession of their
share and had the same tenanted by a certain Miguel
Dahilig, husband of Petra, one of the Heirs, who in
turn managed the land in behalf of the other siblings.
the
property
was
issued
in
the
name
of
the
that
private
respondents
cut
some
to be reconveyed.9
50
felling of trees.
by
against
Regional
Private
No.
filing
an
Trial
5793;
(b)
action
for
Court
they
of
reconveyance
Lucena
bought
the
City.
the
land
from
was
based
on
the
theory
that
registration
Private
faithful
compliance
with
all
the
requirements
respondents
presented
documents
prescription of action.
Heirs,
the
vehemently
denied
having
signed
their
rights.
This
legal
precept
finds
perfect
names.
Accordingly, we find that the Court of Appeals
More importantly, the Heirs convincingly established
barred by prescription.
Perpetuo
Daya
could
not
identify
is REINSTATED.
the
we
note
declaration
private
that
he
respondent
was
the
Jose
cadastral
5. OO VS. LIM
Facts: Lim filed in the RTC in Cebu City a petition
for the reconstitution of the owners duplicate copy
of OCT No. RO-9969-(O-20449), alleging that said
OCT had been lost during World War II by his mother,
Luisa, that Lot No. 943 of the Balamban Cadastre in
Cebu City covered by said OCT had been sold in 1937
to Luisa by Spouses Diego Oo and Estefania Apas
(Spouses Oo), the lots registered owners; and that
although the deed evidencing the sale had been lost
without being registered, Antonio Oo (Antonio), the
only legitimate heir of Spouses Oo, had executed on
April
23,
1961
in
favor
of
Luisa
notarized
of
title
in
their
possession
as
the
of
for
the
RTC,
interest
possession of the
enjoying
had
Lim
converted
been in
its
fruits,
actual
and
the
paying
petition
the
taxes
in her name.
or adverse possession.
Issue:
Whether
or
not
the
ownership
to
the
Philippine
National
Oil
lapse
of
time
in
the
manner
and
under
the
land
had
registered
been
voluntarily
owners
transferred
themselves
to
by
the
Luisa,
his
predecessor-in-interest.
Despite
receiving
the
notice
to
vacate
on
21
National
471,
petitioner
alternatively
theorized
that
the
Land
Titles
and
Deeds
Registration
the Caballeros.4
ESSO
Petron
Easterns
separate
shares
corporate
in
entity.
ESSO
Philippines,
Alternatively,
the
same cadastral
proceedings
"Petition
for
reverse
RTC,
because
the
latter
has
no
lapsed.
Petitioners
registration
recourse,
in
the
by
same
cadastral
case,
was
registration. Inasmuch
as
the
petition
for
in
certificate
favor
of
respondents,
had
become
incontrovertible.
ANTHONY
title,
if
the
plaintiff
is
not
in
8.
of
ORDUNA
ET.
AL.,
VS
EDUARDO
FUENTEBELLA ET AL.,
property.[38] Thus,
the
one
who
is
in
actual
Since the
MAGDUA
a fence.
Gabriel Jr. sold the land to respondents, whom
Facts:
Roque,
respondent assailed.
on 1989, petitioners,
Tanauan,
Leyte. After
Juanitas
death
notarized
Property
HELD: NO.
[4]
Affidavit
of
Transfer
of
Real
the
annulment
of
the
covering
title,
has
not
possession,
[37]
partition
and
damages. Petitioners
Bahia-Abas,
of Ricardo.
agreed price.
to
respondent
Dominador
Magdua
reading as follows:
Plaintiff-respondent
alleges
that
the
defamatory
co-ownership
plaintiff
HELD: Yes.
repudiation
to
(3)
and
have
been
made
known
the
evidence
thereon
must
be
clear
convincing
claim
legal
ownership
over
the
land.
Thus,
OBLIGATIONS CASES
the petitioner.
LOQUITUR
(the
thing
speaks
for
itself),
by
consent.
indemnification of damages
contract
for
constituting
against
committing
acts
Respondent
of
Corporation
representations
RTC
rendered
judgment
ordering
Respondent
damages
damages deleted.
both
moral
and
exemplary.
Nominal
FACTS:
consequence .
The
spouses
engaged
in
the
sale
and
As
against them .
Held:
Yes.On
the
considerations,
Private
respondent
foregoing
faulted
with
fraud
in
the
inducement,
the
private
respondents
agents
instead
of
its
November 5, 2004
Payment
is
an
receive
following:
it.
In
mode
this
case,
of
extinguishing
the
payments
were
(1)
Defendant
Foundation
shall
pay
plaintiff
agreement.
Santos
shall
cause
the
dismissal
with
notices
authority
P13 million.
of
the
person
who
collected
their
of
lis
pendens
on
the
real
properties
On
October
28,
1992,
respondent
Santos
sent
appealed
Decision
is
hereby
REVERSED
and
Delay
Riverland,
The
properties
Complaint
Certificates
alleging
Inc.
of
for
that
was
Sale
the
highest
issued
Declaratory
there
was
for
Relief
delay
bidder.
both
on
and
the
Damages
part
of
was
already
due
and
demandable.
c)W/N
demanding
respondents
are
barred
from
cause
petitioner. SO ORDERED
of
action
ex
quasi
delicto
had
already
enforce
the
civil
enforcement
because
of
liability
the
Article
arising
subsidiary
103
of
the
from
liability
RPC
crime
of
operates
the
the
employee.
HELD: Petitioners expressly made a reservation of
their right to file a separate civil action as a result of
the
MCTC
did
not
make
any
several
LOAN
contracts
embodied
in
several
equipment. x x x.
cause
already
enforce
equipment
of
action
liability
ex
quasi
arising
delicto
from
crime
had
under
the
would
be
considered
as
the
leased
contracts
between
them
in
the
total
sum
of
agreement.
country
the
coupled
with
the
cancellation
of
amount
agreement as follows:
of
$826,003.27
plus
penalty
charges
ISSUE:Whether
corporation
can
be
held
in
HELD: No Estoppel
the deed of sale that the Alfaros could sell the land
Since
mutual
restitution
is
required
in
cases
Sy,
on
Amparo
Ong,
and
Ida
See.
Afterward,
in Chuas name.
Moreover, a year later the NHA instituted a case
Remedios
Ramos
(Spouses
Ramos).
Under
the
prescribed; and
On
May
7,
1997,
GMC
filed
Petition
for
Ramos
alleged
that,
when
the
property
was
foreclosure.
(d) Matters not specifically assigned as errors on
In
its
Answer,
repeatedly
the
Growers
GMC
argued
Contract.
It
that
argued
it
that
it
was
court ignored;
3135.
(f) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but upon
RTC rendered a decision in favor of the Spouses
assigned, is dependent.
ISSUES: A.
THE
GMC.
CASE
NOT
IN
ACCORD
WITH
LAW
AND
PETITIONER
GMC
MADE
NO
DEMAND
TO
DEPARTED
FROM
THE
ACCEPTED
AND
USUAL
spouses,
lack
foreclosure
of
assignment
of
errors
in
the
following
however,
GMC
proceedings.
proceeded
Neither
was
with
the
there
any
instances:
allowing
evidently
plain
or
clerical
errors
within
contemplation of law;
GMC
to
extrajudicially
foreclose
the
from
the
time
the
obligee
judicially
or
their obligation.
FACTS:
FR
Cement
Corporation
issued
several
declares; x x x
On
exist, We
before
proceeding
to
foreclose
the
real
estate
mortgage.
February
Co
then
sold
these
withdrawal
explained
However, if
demand was not made, then the loans had not yet
found
meant that
that
Co
not
the
plant
civilly
liable.
sought
premature.
was
trial
the
petitioner
regional
price
reconsideration
by
the
Lim
which
implemented
Court
for
specific
performance
and
damages
while
constitute
treated
constitute
felony
but,
nevertheless,
felony
but,
nevertheless,
treated
offended
civil
offending
party
the
may
pursue
rules
on
two
forum
types
of
shopping,
litis
for
collection
is
anchored
on
culpa
World Cars.
30,
therein.
1992,
and
the
due
date
of
the
monthly
receipt.
discussed
with
Josephine
the
advantages
and
1992
Nissan California
at
the
agreed
price
of
in his name.
Josephine
annulment
of
chattel
mortgage
plus
damages
Cars.
And
it
claimed
that
it
accepted
the
term,
Josephine
issued
the
check
Provisional Receipt
executed with it
charges.
she had fully paid the car to which Ana Marie replied
dated
December
9,
1992
from
The
trial
court
further
found
that
Perez
was
Citytrust
mortgage
and
the
checks
other
would
accessory
be
documents
dishonored
were
they
deemed
promissory note.
Since the condition for the instruments to
Moreover, the trial court held that the fact that on
and
which provides:
World
Cars
did
not
thus
acquire
rights
signed
the
promissory
note
without
Consequently,
Citytrust
cannot
enforce
the
to the assignor.
in
the
name
of
Perez,
she
verified
from
his
provides:
ARTICLE 1626.
RFA,
World
Cars,
its
successors,
and
assigns,
favor of Citytrust.
FACTS:Petitioner
is
business
Empanada
name
doing
business
under
with
petitioner.
in
different
malls
and
the
sole
outlets
Royale,
business
To
the
contrary,
respondent
took
In
of the parties.
her
store
Complaint
space
at
petitioner
SM
Megamall
alleged
in
that
the
sum
the
of
without
January
2000,
transmitted
through
facsimile
transmissions.
justifiable
cause
and
without
previous
seizure
to
refrain
from
committing
similar
of
petitioners
equipment
and
personal
reimburse
the
petitioner
for
the
value
of
the
of Appeals Decision.
ISSUES:
I.
reimburse
petitioner
for
the
sum
of
the
payment
of
interests
in
case
of
the
Held:
I.
the
and
Code.
equitably
reduce
stipulated
penalty
in
the
the
clearly provides:
Art. 1229.
penalty
is
iniquitous
or unconscionable
in
unconscionable.
wit:
iniquitous
objective.
to
an
obligation
in
order
to
can
be
partly
subjective
and
partly
It is
insure
the
supervening
relationship
of
realities,
the
parties,
the
standing
and
and
the
the
like,
as well.
of security deposits.
The
Thus,
to
be
improvements
II.
which
space at SMMegamall.
allow
entitled
introduced
full
to
on
reimbursement
the
property,
reimbursement
of
for
the
useful
In the case at
any flaw in her title or was under the belief that she
INTL. CORP.
the
place
and
introduce
improvements
thereon
FACTS:
of
customers.
their
marketing
ploy
to
attract
The
Security
Diners
International
There are
(Local)
to
petitioner was not liable for any amount, not even for
establishments
exceeding
debts.[6]
pay
in
card.
Card
which
in
services
from
entitles
an
the
amount
member
cardholder
not
establishments
ISSUES: 1.
As a requirement of SDIC,
2.
The
it?
and
3651-203412-5007
to
upgraded card.
card
and
made
service
of
charges
P166,408.31.
in
the
from
member
establishments.
purchases
He used this
aggregate
amount
obligation.
and Jeanette.
It found that
As
supra:
independent existence.
first.
petitioners
interwoven
committed
and
shared
1.
Code:
solidary
simultaneously.
Undertaking;
and
and
several banks.
other
executed.
with
amounts
the
intent
voluntarily
of
cancelling
incurred
by
the
liability
as
to
solidarily
possesses
be
by
debtors
is
solidary.
inseparable.
petitioner,
or
some
surety
Although
the
There
respondent
or
all
of
is
was
them
considerable
work
experience
in
While we commiserate in
Prospective
advised
the
to
study
before
to
of this case.
unilateral
giving
carefully
their
the
consent,
terms
and
pay
of
heed
and
voluntary
action
of
plaintiff
in
FACTS:
Filinvest
Land,
for
defendant
Corporation
and
an
naming
Pacific
conditions
of
Inc.
(FILINVEST,
Equipment
which
are
contained
in
Architect
Antonio
Dimalanta
as
Court
three
extensions
granted
by
and
guarantee
bond
but
Philamgen
refused
to
principal,
defendant
Pacific,
refused
to
b)
(12,470,000-11,788,282.42).
construction
deficiencies,
the
Court
P477,000.00 to be in order.
P1,939,191.67.
The
of
between
allegation of P306,567.67.
commissioner
P532,324.01
by
arrived
getting
at
the
the
average
figure
P1,881,867.66.
The pertinent
paragraphs read:
a)
and
unconscionable
under
the
circumstances.
was
double
function:
(1)
to
provide
for
liquidated
excessive
and
accordingly
reduced
it
to
Code states:
Art. 1226.
P758,080.37
and
defendants
P306,567.67
and
of
the
payment
of
interests
in
case
As
Code.
another
contractor
(JPT),
the
nature
and
plaintiff FILINVEST.
Art. 1229.
clearly warranted.
Even if
unconscionable.
liquidated
irregular
compliance
with
the
provisions
in
damages
insofar
as
legal
results
are
Art. 2226.
of breach thereof.
Art. 2227.
apparent
when proper.
distinction
between
penalty
and
was
agreed
despite,
upon
and
to
answer
precisely
for
because
delay
of,
in
the
partial
completion.
difference
penalty
and
Appeals
unconscionable.
the
Infante.
iniquitous
can
be
partly
subjective
and
petitioner
corporation,
Hegerty,
and
Atty.
partly
The
the
supervening
relationship
of
realities,
the
parties,
petitioner
the
standing
and
three
and
the
the
demandable.
like,
promissory
corporation,
notes
were
together
not yet
with
its
due and
Nothing in the
records
delay
notes
suggests
that
Pecorps
in
the
in view of the
introduction of evidence
amount
of
P1,881,867.66.
Thus,
all
things
2005]
the case.
P20,000
not
as
payment
of
interest
but
to
ISSUE: (1)
(2)
HELD:
(1)
(2)
other
matters
included
in
the
case
may
be
instruments
multiplicity of suits.
possession
were
under
placed
an
in
her
control
and
arrangement
whereby
she
FACTS:
to
US$100,000
and
US$500,000,
respectively,
FACTS:
Abelardo
Licaros
invested
his
money
obligation.
payment
to
extinguish
the
obligation
of
the
respondent
ISSUE:Whether
between
the
petitioner
assignment
subrogation
of
memorandum
and
credit
or
of
respondent
one
of
agreement
is
one
of
conventional
RULING:
It is a conventional subrogation. An
payment.
to
effective
conditions
the
petitioner
executed.
of
the
did
not
involve
promissory
an
note
previously
amounting to P20M.
contract.
Regalado on the
and
then
re-filed
w/claim
of
P3,924,000.00.
25.
NEREO
J.
PACULDO,
PETITIONER,
VS.
fees + costs.
RTC
execution
12, 1994.
affirmed
MTC
thus
decision.
Paculdo
Issued
vacated
the
writ
of
property
NO.
RATIO: 1.
Based
on
MTC
&
RTC
findings,
2.
ejectment
PNB
case.
He
further
claims
that
his
and
PNB
MADECOR.
PNEI
with
RTC
rendered
of
execution
judgment
it was a rejection.
3.
that is not yet due (CC Art. 1252) and payment has
a.
against
The
writ
property.
b.
former.
demandable
(payment
of
heavy
equipment).
d.
to formers consent.
e.
Petitioner did
statement of account.
27.
AZOLLA
FARMS
VS
CA
G.R.NO.
138085
FACTS:
The
trial
court
rendered
its
decision
aside.
(a)
executed
by
plaintiff
Yuseco
novated,
if
not
unenforceable;
loan
As
alleged
by
petitioners,
the
testimony
agreement
had
been
executed?
What
of
of petitioner
Bank
of
Manila,
processed
by the
This loan
latter and
million.
mortgage.
ISSUE:
defendant.
procedures
the
concurrence
of
the
following
requisites
is
indispensable:
1.
2.
normally
recognize
loan
Only
novated.
SPOUSES
3.
DURAY
contract, and
4.
that
FAUSTINO
DURAY
AND
VICTORIANA
mortgage.
P200
per
square
meter.
That
rate
shall
be
29.
THE
MANILA
BANKING
UNIVERSITY
DEVELOPERS, INC.
OF
CORPORATION
BAGUIO,INC.
and
vs.
GROUP
respondents
the decision.
for
the
construction
of
additional
and
clause?
10708
and
executed
continuing
surety
four
reciprocal
obligations.
obligation
is
The
the
net
proceeds
to
one
preliminary
February
on
the
of
representing
simultaneous
conditioned
performance
checks
8,
attachment
1989.
By
against
way
of
the
university,
cross-claim,
the
with preliminary
deed.
Roland.
When its
claimed.
Respondents
the trial courts April 11, 2002 and June 27, 2003
represent
Orders.
Roland.
RULING:
payment
duly
made
by
respondent
YES
unrecorded.
Respondent
bounced
Rolands
for
UCPB
insufficiency
Check
of
No.
funds.