CASES PENNED BY JUSTICE BERSAMIN
DBP validly exercised its right to rescind the deed
COMPROMISE
WON the appeal should be closed and
terminated.
Under Article 2028 of the Civil Code, a
compromise is a contract whereby the parties, by
making reciprocal concessions, avoid a litigation
or put an end to one already commenced.
Accordingly, a compromise is either judicial, if the
objective is to put an end to a pending litigation, or
extrajudicial, if the objective is to avoid a
litigation.
As a contract, a compromise is perfected by mutual
consent. However, a judicial compromise, while
immediately binding between the parties upon its
execution, is not executory until it is a approved by
the court and reduced to a judgment. The validity
of a compromise is dependent upon its compliance
with the requisites and principles of contracts
dictated by law. Also, terms and conditions of a
compromise must not be contrary to law, morals,
good customs, public policy and public order. A
review of the Agreement, indicates that it is a
judicial compromise because the parties intended it
to terminate their pending litigation by fully
settling their dispute.
CONSENT
WON DBP could validly rescind and WON
Article 1332 of the Civi Code applies.
Article 1332 of the Civil Code provides that when
one of the parties is unable to read, or if the contract
is in a language not understood by him, and
mistake or fraud is alleged, the person enforcing
the contract must show that the terms thereof have
been fully explained to the former.
It is quite notable that the petitioner did not specify
which of the stipulations of the deed of conditional
sale she had difficulty or deficiency in
understanding. Her generalized averment of
having been misled should, therefore be brushed
aside as nothing but a last attempt to salvage a
hopeless position.
of conditional sale upon the petitioners default.
NEGLIGENCE/PROXIMATE CAUSE
WON Makati Shangri-La Hotel is liable to pay
damages for the death of its guest.
In determining whether or not there is negligence
on the part of the parties in a given situation,
jurisprudence has laid down the following test: Did
defendant, in doing the alleged negligent act, use
that reasonable care and caution which an ordinary
prudent person would have used in the same
situation? If not, the person is guilty of negligence.
The law in effect, adopts the standard supposed to
be supplied by the imaginary conduct of discreet
pater families of the Roman Law.
Liability on the part of the defendant is based upon
the fact that he was in a better situation than the
injured person to force and prevent the happening
of the injurious occurrence. Moreover, in applying
the premises liability rule in the instant case as it is
applied in some jurisdiction in the United States, it
is enough that guests are injured while inside the
hotel premises to make the hotelkeeper liable.
Proximate cause is defined as that cause, which, in
natural and continuous sequence , unbroken by any
efficient intervening cause, produces, the injury,
and without which the result would not have
occurred. To reiterate, defendant-appellant is
engaged in a business imbued with public interest,
ergo, it is bound to provide adequate security to its
guests.
Section P.D. No. 1529
WON it applies in the instant case thereby
exempting the same from the requirements of
paying docket fees, of service of summons, and
of the certification against forum shopping due
to its not being an initiatory pleading.
Based on the provision, the proceeding for the
amendment and alteration of a certificate of title
under Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529 is applicable
in seven instances or situations, namely:
1. When registered interests of any description,
whether vested, contingent, expectant, or
inchoate, have terminated and cease;

2. when new interest have arisen or been created

which do not appear upon the certificate;

3. when any error, omission or mistake was made

in entering a certificate or any memorandum
thereon or on any duplicate certificate;

4. when the name of any person on the certificate

has been changed;

5. when the registered owner has been married,

or, registered as married, the marriage has been
terminated and no right or interest of hers or
creditors will thereby be affected;

6. when a corporation, which owned registered

land and has been dissolved, has not conveyed
the same within three years after its
dissolution; and

7. when there is reasonable ground for the

amendment or alteration of title.

Here, the petitioner was in reality seeking the

reconveyance of the property covered by OCT
684, not the cancellation of a certificate of title as
contemplated by Section 108 of P.D. No. 159.
Thus, his petition did not fall under any of the
situations covered by Section 108 and was for that
reason rightly dismissed by the lower courts.