Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
137552
June 16, 2000
RUIZ VS CA Laforteza v. Machuca
GR NO GR NP 146942 Facts:
APRIL 22, 2003 In the exercise of the Special Power of Attorney (SPA)
FACTS: executed by their co-heirs, Gonzalo and Roberto
Petitioner Corazon Ruiz is engaged in the business of Laforteza. entered into a Contract to Sell with the
buying and selling jewelry. She obtained loans from plaintiff over the subject house and lot for P630,000.00.
private respondent Consuelo Torres on different On September 18, 1998, the defendant heirs, through
occasions and in different amounts. Prior to their their counsel, wrote a letter to the plaintiff, advising him
maturity, the loans were consolidated under 1 that he had thirty (30) days to produce the balance of
promissory note dated March 22, 1995. P600,000.00 under the Memorandum of Agreement
The consolidated loan of P750, 000.00 was secured by a and furnishing him a copy of the reconstituted title to
real estate mortgage on a lot in Quezon City, covered by the subject property. The plaintiff requested a 30-day
Transfer of Certificate of Title No. RT-96686, and extension, granted by Roberto but not by Gonzalo.
registered in the name of petitioner. The mortgage was On November 15, 1989, the plaintiff informed the
signed by petitioner for herself and as attorney-in-fact of defendant heirs, through their counsel Roberto, that he
her husband Rogelio. It was executed on 20 March has the money. However, the defendants told him that
1995, or 2 days before the execution of the subject the subject property was no longer for sale and insisted
promissory note. on rescission. Thereafter,the plaintiff filed the instant
Thereafter, petitioner obtained 3 more loans from action for specific performance.
private respondent, under the following promissory Issue:
notes: 1) promissory note dated 21 April 1995, in the Whether or not the defendants may rescind the contract
amount of Php100,000.00; 2) promissory note dated 23 Ruling:
May !995 in the amount of P100,000.00, and 3) Admittedly, the failure of Machuca to pay the balance of
promissory note dated 21 December 1995, in the the purchase price was a breach of the contract and a
amount of Php100,000.00. These combined loans of ground for rescission thereof. The extension of thirty
Php300, 000.00 were secured by Php571,000.00 worth (30) days allegedly granted to him by Roberto was
of jewelry pledged by petitioner to private respondent. correctly found by the Court of Appeals to be ineffective
inasmuch as the signature of Gonzalo did not appear
From April 1995 to March 1996, petitioner paid the thereon as required by the SPA. However, the evidence
stipulated 3% monthly interest on the Php750,000.00 reveals that the petitioners were not ready to comply
loan, amounting to Php270,000. After March 1996, with their obligation, i.e. the delivery of the
petitioner was unable to make interest payments as she reconstituted title of the house and lot. Machuca could
had difficulties collecting from her clients in her jewelry not therefore be considered in delay for in reciprocal
business. obligations, neither party incurs in delay if the other
Because of petitioner’s failure to pay the principal loan party does not comply or is not ready to comply in a
of P750,000.00, as well as the interest payment for April proper manner with what was incumbent upon him.
1996, private respondent demanded payment not only Even assuming for the sake of argument that the
of the P750,000.00 loan but also of the P300,000.00 petitioners were ready to comply with their obligation,
loan. When petitioner failed to pay, private respondent rescission will still not prosper. The thirty-day delay in
sought the extrajudicial foreclosure of the payment, a mere casual breach, was caused by the
aforementioned real estate mortgage. Machuca’s justified but mistaken belief that an extension
Issue: was granted to him. Rescission of a contract will not be
Whether or not there is undue influence in the signing permitted for a casual breach, but only for such
of the promissory note, which determines if foreclosure substantial breach as would defeat the very object of
proceedings could proceed. the parties in making the agreement
Ruling:
The promissory note in question did not contain any fine MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
print provision which could have escaped the attention PROFESSIONAL SERVICES VS. AGANA
of the petitioner. Petitioner had all the time to go over GR No. 126467 February 11, 2008
and study the stipulations embodied in the promissory FACTS:
note. Aside from the March 22, 1995 promissory note On April 04, 1984, Natividad Agana was admitted at the
for Php750,000.00, three other promissory notes of Medical City General Hospital because of difficulty of
different dates and amounts were executed by bowel movement and bloody anal discharge. Dr. Ampil
petitioner in favor of private respondent. These diagnosed her to be suffering from “cancer of the
promissory notes contain similar terms and conditions, sigmoid”. Thus, Dr. Ampil, assisted by the medical staff of
with a little variance in the terms of interests and Medical City, performed a surgery upon her. During the
surcharges. The fact that petitioner and private surgery, he found that the malignancy in her sigmoid
respondent had entered into not only one but several area had spread to her left ovary, necessitating the
loan transactions shows that petitioner was not in any removal of certain portions of it. Thus, Dr. Ampil
way compelled to accept the terms allegedly imposed by obtained the consent of Natividad’s husband to permit
private respondent. Moreover, petitioner, in her Dr. Fuentes to perform hysterectomy upon Natividad.
complaint dated October 7, 1996 filed with the trial Dr. Fuentes performed and completed the
court, never claimed that she was forced to sign the hysterectomy. Afterwards, Dr. Ampil took over,
subject note. Therefore, the foreclosure proceedings completed the operation and closed the incision. The
may now proceed. operation, however, appeared to be flawed as the
attending nurses entered in the corresponding Record
COMPENSATIO MORAE of Operation that there were 2 lacking sponge and
KORINA MESA NGALOY pg. 1
announced that it was searched by the surgeon but to Facts:
no avail. The GSIS sold to a certain Macaria, a parcel of residential
land of the GSIS Low Cost Housing Project. The sale is
After a couple of days, Natividad complained evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale, which was,
excruciating pain in her anal region. She consulted both however, subject to certain encumbrances. A day after
Dr. Ampil and Dr. Fuentes. They told her that the pain the issuance of the TCT, Macaria sold the subject lot to
was the natural consequence of the surgical operation private respondent as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute
performed upon her. Dr. Ampil recommended that she Sale. This deed was notarized but was not registered
consult an oncologist to treat the cancerous nodes immediately upon its execution in because GSIS
which were not removed. Natividad and her husband prohibited him from registering the same in view of the
went to the US to seek further treatment. After 4 months five-year prohibition to sell. Sometime in 1979, for being
she was told that she was free of cancer. They then flew suspected as a subversive, an ASSO was issued against
back to the Philippines. Two weeks thereafter , private respondent. Upon learning that he was wanted
Natividad’s daughter found a piece of gauze protruding by the military, he voluntarily surrendered and was
from her vagina. Dr. Ampil saw immediately informed. detained and eventually released.
He proceeded to Natividad’s house where he extracted
by hand a piece of gauze. Natividad sought the Subsequently, he discovered that the subject TCT was
treatment of Polymedic General Hospital thereat Dr. missing. An Affidavit of Loss was filed with the Register
Gutierrez detected a foreign object in her vagina - a foul- of Deeds of Pasig and a certified copy of TCT was issued
smelling gauze which infected her vaginal vault. A recto- to him. Respondent then filed a petition with the RTC for
vaginal fistula had formed in her reproductive organ the issuance of owners duplicate copy of TCT to replace
which forced stool to excrete in her vagina. Another the lost one. To show he was the owner of the
surgical operation was performed upon her. contested lot, he presented the Deed of Absolute Sale.
During the hearing, the Register of Deeds was not
Spouses Agana filed a complaint against PSI (owner of served notice, and the Office of the Solicitor General and
Medical City), Dr. Ampil and Dr. Fuentes. The Trial Court the Provincial Prosecutor who were notified did not
found the respondents jointly and severally liable. The attend. There being no opposition, the trial court
CA affirmed said decision with modification that Dr. granted his petition. Subsequently, petitioner received a
Fuentes was dismissed. copy of the decision. Claiming that he was the present
occupant of the property and the heir of Macaria, he
ISSUE: filed his Motion to Reopen Reconstitution Proceedings.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in absolving Dr. The RTC and CA denied the same, hence this petition.
Fuentes of any liability.
Issue:
RULING: Whether the petitioner is entitled to notice?
It was duly established that Dr. Ampil was the lead
surgeon during the operation of Natividad. He Held:
requested the assistance of Dr. Fuentes only to perform No. Consequently, it is sufficient that the notice, under
hysterectomy when he (Dr. Ampil) found that the Section 109 of PD 1529, is sent to the Register of Deeds
malignancy in her sigmoid area had spread to her left and to those persons who are known to have, or appear
ovary. Dr. Fuentes performed the surgery and thereafter to have, an interest in the property as shown in the
reported and showed his work to Dr. Ampil. The latter Memorandum of encumbrances at the back of the
examined it and finding everything to be in order, original or transfer certificate of title on file in the office
allowed Dr. Fuentes to leave the operating room. Dr. of the Register of Deeds. From a legal standpoint, there
Ampil then resumed operating on Natividad. He was are no other interested parties who should be notified,
about to finish the procedure when the attending except those mentioned since they are the only ones
nurses informed him that two pieces of gauze were who may be deemed to have a claim to the property
missing. A "diligent search" was conducted, but the involved. A person dealing with registered property is
misplaced gauzes were not found. Dr. Ampil then not charged with notice of encumbrances not
directed that the incision be closed. During this entire annotated on the back of the title. Here, petitioner does
period, Dr. Fuentes was no longer in the operating not appear to have an interest in the property based on
room and had, in fact, left the hospital. the memorandum of encumbrances annotated at the
back of the title. His claim that he is an heir (nephew) of
Under the "Captain of the Ship" rule, the operating the original owner of the lot covered by the disputed lot
surgeon is the person in complete charge of the surgery and the present occupant is not annotated in the said
room and all personnel connected with the operation. memorandum of encumbrances. Neither was his claim
Their duty is to obey his orders. As stated before, Dr. entered on the Certificate of Titles in the name of their
Ampil was the lead surgeon. In other words, he was the original/former owners on file with the Register of
"Captain of the Ship." That he discharged such role is Deeds at the time of the filing or pendency of the land
evident from his following conduct. Clearly, the control registration case. Clearly, petitioner is not entitled to
and management of the thing which caused the injury notice. The fact that respondent complied with the
was in the hands of Dr. Ampil, not Dr. Fuentes. order of publication of the petition in a newspaper of
Here, the negligence was proven to have been general circulation, such is sufficient notice of the
committed by Dr. Ampil and not by Dr. Fuentes petition to the public at large.
TRANSMISSIBILITY OF RIGHTS
G.R. No. 121940 December 4, 2001 RESOLUTION DISTINGUISHED FROM RECISION UNDER
JESUS SAN AGUSTIN, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF ART 1381
APPEALS and MAXIMO MENEZ, JR., respondents
RULING: No.