CASE TITLE: TEAM IMAGE ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
, AND FELIX The parties allegedly breached and violated the Compromise
S. CO., v. SOLAR TEAM ENTERTAINMENT, INC., (G.R. No.
191652, September 13, 2017)
SOLAR TEAM ENTERTAINMENT, INC., v. TEAM IMAGE
ENTERTAINMENT, INC., AND FELIX S. CO. (G.R. No. 191658,
September 13, 2017)
TOPIC: COMPENSATION
FACTS: Solar Team owned movies, films, telenovelas, television
series, programs, and coverage specials in several television
stations. It derived profits by selling advertising spots. On April 1996,
Solar Team entered into an agreement with Team Image, which
agreed to act as Solar Team's exclusive marketing agent. According
to Solar Team, Team Image breached their agreement. Now, Solar
Team demanded that Team Image render an accounting of all its
transactions and that it remits all the proceeds of the said sale.
Team Image refused to render an accounting. Solar Team filed a
Complaint for Accounting and Damages against Team Image before
the Regional Trial Court of Makati. RTC ordered Team Image to
render an accounting of all its transactions and collections.
A year after, Solar Team and Team Image entered into a
Compromise Agreement. For purposes of accounting and auditing,
the parties hired SyCip Gorres Velayo and Company as auditor.
Under their agreement, the parties must submit a certification of the
existence of those receivables. The parties likewise agreed to waive
all their claims against each other and to cause the provisional
dismissal of all the criminal and civil actions that they had filed
against each other. Further, the parties agreed to the immediate
issuance of a writ of execution and payment of liquidated damages in
case of breach of the Compromise Agreement. The trial court
approved and rendered judgment based on the Compromise
Agreement in its decision.
Agreement.
ISSUE: Whether or not compensation must take place.
RULING: YES
RATIO: Team Image violated paragraphs 6 and 7 of the
Compromise Agreement by failing to pay its monetary obligations
under these paragraphs. For these violations, Team Image must pay
Solar Team P2,000,000.00 in liquidated damages. As for Solar
Team, it violated paragraph 22 the Compromise Agreement for
failure to withdraw the complaint-in-intervention it had earlier filed
against Team Image. Hence, Solar Team must pay Team Image
P2,000,000.00 in liquidated damages.
Articles 1279 and 1281 of the Civil Code provide:
Article 1279. In order that compensation may be proper, it is
necessary: (1) That each one of the obligors be bound principally,
and that he be at the same time a principal creditor of the other; (2)
That both debts consist in a sum of money, or if the things due are
consumable, they be of the same kind, and also of the same quality
if the latter has been stated; (3) That the two debts be due; (4) That
they be liquidated and demandable; (5) That over neither of them
there be any retention or controversy, commenced by third persons
and communicated in due time to the debtor.
Article 1281. Compensation may be total or partial. When the two
debts are of the same amount, there is a total compensation.
Considering that the parties are equally liable to each other in the
amount of P2,000,000.00, this Court confirms that the amounts are
set off by operation of law.
CASE TITLE: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, v. SPOUSES
JOEL AND ANDREA NOVAL, ELLEN N. DELOS REYES, DALE Y.
NOVAL, WINNIE T. REFI, ZENAIDA LAO, AND DAISY N.
MORALES (G.R. No. 170316, September 18, 2017)
TOPIC: PRESCRIPTION
FACTS: Spouses Joel and Andrea Noval, Ellen N. delos Reyes,
Zenaida Lao, Winnie T. Refi, Dale Y. Naval, and Daisy Morales
collectively known as applicants.
On September 8, 1999, the Spouses Joel and Andrea Noval, Ellen
N. delos Reyes, Zenaida Lao, Winnie T. Refi, Dale Y. Naval, and
Daisy Morales collectively known as applicants sought the
registration of their titles over the subdivided portions of a land in
Barangay Casili, Consolacion, Cebu, designated as Lot 4287 of
Consolacion Cadastre. They alleged to have acquired their portions
of the land by purchase, coupled with continuous, public, notorious,
exclusive and peaceful possession in the concept of an owner for
more than 30 years including the possession of their predecessors-
in-interest. They also alleged that they were in actual possession of
their respective portions of the property.
The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed its
Opposition on the ground that the applicants failed to prove open,
continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of the property
since June 12, 1945. It also argued that the property was part of the
public domain. It alleged that the tax declarations and tax payment
receipts were not competent to show bona fide acquisition or open
and continuous possession of the land.
ISSUES: 1. Whether or not the respondents acquired those portions
of land through prescription.
2. Whether or not the tax declarations presented by
respondents are not conclusive evidence of ownership and
possession.
RULING: 1.YES
2. YES
RATIO: 1. The respondents acquired the lands in questions through
prescription. Both the Municipal Trial Court and the Court of Appeals
established that respondents and their predecessor-in-interest were
the exclusive owners and possessors of the land. The respondents
and their predecessor-in-interest have already been in occupation
and possession of the land for more than 50 years at the time of their
application for registration.
Only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on
certiorari. The findings of facts are often conclusive upon this Court,
subject only to a few exceptions.
Respondents' and their predecessor-in-interest's possession was
never opposed by the government agencies tasked to ensure that
public lands remain public. Also, there was neither indication nor
mention that Lot 4287 was forest, timber land, or belonging to a
reservation.
2. The Court acknowledges its previous rulings that payment of taxes
is not conclusive evidence of ownership. However, it is good indicia
of possession in the concept of an owner, and when coupled with
continuous possession, it constitutes strong evidence of title. No
person in the right mind would pay taxes on real property over which
he or she does not claim any title. Its declaration not only manifests a
sincere desire to obtain title to a property; it may be considered as an
announcement of an adverse claim against State ownership. It would
be unjust for the State to take properties which have been
continuously and exclusively held since time immemorial without
showing any basis for the taking, especially when it has accepted tax
payments without question.
The Petition is denied. The Decision dated August 5, 2005 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 76912 is affirmed.
CASE TITLE: VICENTE L. LUNTAO AND NANETTE L. LUNTAO
v. BAP CREDIT GUARANTY CORPORATION AND EFREN M.
PINEDA (G.R. No. 204412, September 20, 2017)
TOPIC: CONTRACTS
FACTS: Vicente was the owner of a real property covered by TCT in
Davao City. He executed a Special Power of Attorney in favor of his
sister Nanette. According to Nanette, she was introduced to the
lending institution by her sister Eleanor Luntao who allegedly had a
personal loan with it and whose office was located in the same
building where BAP's office was.
Nanette then applied for a loan with BAP and used Vicente's
property as collateral. The amount of P900,000.00, representing the
loan proceeds, was ordered to be released through Security Bank.
When the loan became due, BAP sent demand letters. In their letter,
Nanette and Eleanor's brother Jesus Luntao wrote BAP, asking for
additional time to settle his sisters’ accounts. Nanette's loan was still
left unpaid. As a result, BAP applied for Extra-Judicial Foreclosure of
Vicente's property.
Vicente and Nanette filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of
Real Estate Mortgage with a prayer for the issuance of a Temporary
Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction against BAP.
Nanette narrated that BAP appraised the collateral to determine the
loanable amount. They told her that she could borrow P900,000.00,
Thereafter, a BAP personnel visited her to get her signature. The
documents brought to her were all blank forms. She alleged that she
signed the forms on the understanding that it was part of the bank's
standard operating procedure. Nanette stated that she had received
four (4) letters from BAP, all addressed to Eleanor. She gave the
letters to Eleanor since the letters were about Eleanor's alleged loan
with BAP and the post-dated checks she issued to secure it.
Vicente and Nanette claimed that Eleanor's alleged debt with BAP
was separate from Nanette's debt and was not secured by Vicente's
property.
The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint. The trial court
gave weight to Jesus' letter. It held that Jesus admitted the existence
of the debt, that the loan was obtained in behalf of the clinic, and that
the money was used according to its intended purpose. The
statements of Jesus were not rebutted by Vicente or Eleanor. The
trial court also found that Vicente and Nanette failed to present
evidence that Eleanor used the loan proceeds for her personal use.
Vicente and Nanette elevated the case to the Court of Appeals. The
CA denied the appeal.
ISSUE: Whether or not the elements of a valid contract is present in
the case.
RULING: YES
RATIO: Petitioners' contention has no merit.
As an accessory contract, a mortgage contract's validity depends on
the loan contract's validity. It is, thus, imperative for this Court to
determine if the contract of loan between petitioners and private
respondent is valid. This Court held in Pentacapital Investment
Corporation v. Mahinay that "like any other contract, a contract of
loan is subject to the rules governing the requisites and validity of
contracts in general."
The elements of a valid contract are enumerated in Article 1318 of
the Civil Code:
ARTICLE 1318. There is no contract unless the following requisites
concur:(1)Consent of the contracting parties;
(2) Object certain which is the subject matter of the contract;
(3) Cause of the obligation which is established.
All elements should be present in a contract; otherwise, it cannot be
perfected. In this case, petitioners insist that they did not receive the
loan proceeds, which is the object of the loan contract.