Cruz vs. J.M.

Tuazon & Co

A is trying to enforce the alleged contract whereby the D agreed to deliver a parcel of land
to A in consideration of the latter's acting as intermediary to effect a compromise in a civil action
between the D and Deudors. Moreover, A is also seeking a reimbursement for the expenses he incurred
in making imrovements on the said land, which are being used and enjoyed by the D who are unjustly
enriching and benefiting at the expense of A. However, S asserts that the agreement was made by A
with the Deudors and not with the D. Hence, Article 2142 of the Code on unjust enrichment is untenable
and is unenforceable under the statute of frauds, there being nothing in writing about it.

Will the case at bar prosper?

NO. Under the provisions of Article 2142, a presumed qauasi-contract cannot emerge as
against one party when the subject matter thereof is already covered by an existing contract with
another party. Since it was the Deudors who had entered into an agreement with A regarding the
improvements and expenditures made by A on the land of the D, it is erroneous to say that the D have
been enriched at the expense of A. Hence, the case is DISMISSED.

Andres vs. Mantrust

A is trying to enforce the alleged contract whereby the D agreed to deliver a parcel of land
to A in consideration of the latter's acting as intermediary to effect a compromise in a civil action
between the D and Deudors. Moreover, A is also seeking a reimbursement for the expenses he incurred
in making imrovements on the said land, which are being used and enjoyed by the D who are unjustly
zenriching and benefiting at the expense of A. However, S asserts that the agreement was made by A
with the Deudors and not with the D. Hence, Article 2142 of the Code on unjust enrichment is untenable
and is unenforceable under the statute of frauds, there being nothing in writing about it.

Whether or not the private respondent has the right to recover the second $10,000.00 remittance it had
delivered to petitioner.

Yes. Art. 2154. If something received when there is no right to demand it, and it was unduly
delivered through mistake, the obligation to return it arises. This legal provision, which determines the
quasi-contract of solution indebiti, is one of the concrete manifestations of the ancient principle that no
one shall enrich himself unjustly at the expense of another. Hence, the Court holds that the finding by
the Court of Appeals that the second $10,000.00 remittance was made by mistake, being based on
substantial evidence, is final and conclusive.

The petition is DENIED and the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED.

Hermanos vs. Orense

This suit involves the validity and efficacy of the sale under right of redemption of a parcel
of land and a masonry house erected thereon. Jose Duran, a nephew of the owner of the property and
the defendant in this case, Engracio Orense, executed the deed of sale of the property in favor of the
plaintiff with the defendant's knowledge and consent. However, Orense denied that hes aware of the
said sale so he refused to deliver the property to the purchaser and to pay the rental because he had
been and was then the owner of the said property.

Whether or not Orense is bound by Durans act of selling plaintiffs property.

 Under the provisions of Article 1259, a contract executed in the name of another by one
who has neither his authorization nor legal representation shall be void, unless it should be ratified by
the person in whose name it was executed before being revoked by the other contracting party. So
having been proven at the trial that Orense gave his consent to the said sale, meet the requirements of
the law and legally excuse the lack of written authority, and, as they are a full ratification of the acts
executed by his nephew Jose Duran, they produce the effects of an express power of agency. Hence, the
principal must therefore fulfill all the obligations contracted by the agent, who acted within the scope of
his authority (Article 1709, 1710 and 1727). Judgment in favor of the plaintiff-appellee.

Saludaga vs. FEU

FEU student Joseph Saludaga was shot inside the campus by their security guard named
Alejandro Rosete. The victim petitioned a case against FEU and Edilberto C. De Jesus, president of FEU
on the ground that they breached their obligation to provide students with a safe and secure
environment and an atmosphere conducive to learning. Respondents in turn, filed a Third-Party
Complaint against Galaxy Development and Management Corporation, the agency contracted by
respondent FEU to provide security services within its premises and Mariano D. Imperial (Galaxy's
President,) to indemnify them. On the other hand, Galaxy and Imperial filed a Fourth-Party Complaint
against AFP General Insurance. The trial court rendered a decision in favor of petitioner, Respondents
appealed to the Court of Appeals which rendered the assailed Decision. Petitioner filed a Motion for
Reconsideration which was denied hence, the instant petition.

Whether or not the school is liable for breach of contract?

YES, It is settled that in culpa contractual, the mere proof of the existence of the
contract and the failure of its compliance justify, prima facie, a corresponding right of relief. In
the instant case, we find that, when petitioner was shot inside the campus by no less the
security guard who was hired to maintain peace and secure the premises, there is a prima facie
showing that respondents failed to comply with the defense of Caso Fortuito cannot be
sustained. After a thorough review of the records, we find that respondents failed to discharge the
burden of proving that they exercised due diligence in providing a safe learning environment for
their students. They failed to prove that they ensured that the guards assigned in the campus
met the requirements stipulated in the Security Service Agreement. also failed to show that they
understood steps to ascertain and confirm that the security guards assigned to them actually possess
the qualifications required in the Security Service Agreement. Petition GRANTED.