Pahang vs. Vestil, et. al., G.R. No.

148595, July 12, 2004

Facts:
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (Metrobank) extrajudicially foreclosed the real estate
mortgage which secured Sps. Antonio and Lolita Pahang’s loan upon the latter’s default. The property was
sold to Metrobank at public auction and a certiBcate of sale was issued. Metrobank informed Sps. Pahang
about the looming deadline of the redemption period. But instead of redeeming the property, Sps. Pahang
Bled a complaint for annulment of extrajudicial sale on the ground that their obligations were bloated by
Metrobank. After expiration of the redemption period, Metrobank consolidated its ownership over the
foreclosed property and Bled a Petition for Writ of Possession. Sps. Pahang opposed the Petition on the
ground that their complaint for annulment of extrajudicial sale constituted a prejudicial question to
Metrobank’s petition.

Issue:
Whether or not the civil case for annulment of extrajudicial sale poses a prejudicial question to
the land registration case for the issuance of writ of possession.

Ruling:
No. In the present case, the complaint of the petitioners for Annulment of Extrajudicial Sale is a civil action
and the respondents petition for the issuance of a writ of possession of Lot No. 3-A, Block 1 is but an
incident in the land registration case and, therefore, no prejudicial question can arise from the existence
of the two actions.

The focal issue in the civil case Bled by Sps. Pahang was whether the extrajudicial foreclosure of the real
estate mortgage executed by Sps. Pahang in favor of Metrobank and the sale of their property at public
auction are null and void. The issue in the land registration case was whether Metrobank was entitled to
the possession of the property after the statutory period for redemption had lapsed and title was issued.
FELICIANO CATALAN, petitioners, vs. JESUS BASA, respondents
G. R. No. 159567. July 31, 2007

Facts:

On October 20, 1948, Feliciano Catalan was discharged from active military service. The Board of Medical
Officers of the Department of Veteran Affairs found that he was unfit to render military service due to his
mental disorder (schizophrenia). On September 28, 1949, Feliciano married Corazon Cerezo. On June 16,
1951, Feliciano allegedly donated to his sister Mercedes one-half of the real property through the
execution of a document, titled, “Absolute deed of Donation”. On December 11, 1953, People’s Bank and
Trust Company filed Special Proceedings to declare Feliciano incompetent. On December 22, 1953, the
trial court issued its Order of Adjudication of Incompetency for Appointing Guardian for the Estate and
Fixing Allowance of Feliciano. Thus, Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI), which is formerly the People’s
Bank and Trust Company, was appointed to be his guardian by the trial court. On March 26, 1979,
Mercedes sold the property donated by Feliciano to her in issue in her children Delia and Jesus Basa. On
April 1, 1997, BPI, acting as Feliciano’s guardian filed a case for Declaration of Nullity of Documents,
Recovery of Possession and Ownership, as well as damages against herein respondents. BPI alleged that
the Deed of Absolute Donation of Mercedes was void ab initio, as Feliciano never donated the property
to Mercedes. In addition, BPI averred that even if Feliciano had truly intended to give the property to her,
the donation would still be void, as he was not of sound mind and was therefore incapable of giving valid
consent. On August 14, 1997, Feliciano passed away. Both the lower court and Court of Appeals dismissed
the case because of insufficient evidence presented by the complainants to overcome the presumption
that Feliciano was sane and competent at the time he executed the deed of donation in favor of Mercedes
Catalan.

Issue:

Whether or not Feliciano has the capacity to execute the donation

Whether or not the property donated to Mercedes and later on sold to her children is legally in possession
of the latter

Are laches and prescription should be considered in the case?

Ruling:

The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the lower court and the Court of Appeals and denied the
petition. A donation is an act of liberality whereby a person disposes gratuitously a thing or right in favor
of another, who accepts it. Like any other contract, an agreement of the parties is essential. Consent in
contracts presupposes the following requisites: (1) it should be intelligent or with an exact notion of the
matter to which it refers; (2) it should be free; and (3) it should be spontaneous. The parties’ intention
must be clear and the attendance of a vice of consent, like any contract, renders the donation voidable.
A person suffering from schizophrenia does not necessarily lose his competence to intelligently dispose
his property. By merely alleging the existing of schizophrenia, petitioners failed to show substantial proof
that at the date of the donation, June 16, 1951, Feliciano Catalan had lost total control of his mental
facilities. Thus, the lower court correctly held that Feliciano was of sound mind at that time and this
condition continued to exist until proof to the contrary was adduced. Since the donation was valid.
Mercedes has the right to sell the property to whomever she chose. Not a shred of evidence has been
presented to prove the claim that Mercedes’ sale of property to her children was tainted with fraud or
falsehood. Thus, the property in question belongs to Delia and Jesus Basa. The Supreme Court notes the
issue of prescription and laches for the first time on appeal before the court. It is sufficient for the Supreme
Court to note that even if it prospered, the deed of donation was still a voidable, not a void, contract. As
such, it remained binding as it was not annulled in a proper action in court within four years.
Mercado and Mercado v. Espiritu
G.R. No. L-11872, 1 December 1917

FACTS:

The case was about the contract made by Luis Espiritu (father of Jose Espiritu, the defendant) and the
heirs of his sister Margarita Mercado; Domingo and Josepha Mercado, who pretended to be of legal age
to give their consent into the contract of sale of the land they inherited from their deceased mother
Margarita Mercado (sister of Luis Mercado). The siblings Domingo et. al., sought for the annulment of
contract asserting that Domingo and Josepha were minors during the perfection of contract.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the deed of sale is valid, when the minors presented themselves of legal age, at the time
of the perfection of the contract.

RULING:

The court declared that the contract of sale was VALID, even if it were made and entered into by minors,
who pretended to be of legal age.

Whenever a party has, by its own declaration, act or omission, intentionally and deliberately led another
party to believe a particular thing to be true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising
out of such declaration, cannot be permitted to falsify it. Furthermore, the sale of real estate made by a
minor who pretend to be of legal age, when in fact he is not, is VALID, and he will not be permitted to
excuse himself from the fulfillment of the obligations contracted by him or to have it annulled. The
judgment that holds such sale to be valid and absolves the purchaser from the complaint filed against him
does not violate the laws relative to the sale of minor’s property, nor the judicial rules established in
consonance therewith.

In the given case, annulment of the sale cannot be invoked on the ground of minority, since at the time
of the perfection of the contract; Domingo and Josefa presented themselves to be of legal age.
 Atizado vs. People
G.R. No. 173822, October 13, 2010

Facts:
Petitioners Atizado and Monreal are accused of killing and murdering one Rogelio Llona on April
1994. It was said that both petitioners barged in on the house of one Desder, where the victim was a guest
and suddenly shot at Llona with their guns. After the shooting, they fled. For their defense, the petitioners
interposed that they were at thier family residence and drinking. The RTC convicted atizado adn Monreal
for the crime of murder and sentence them with reclusion perpetua. On appeal to the CA, the court
affirmed the conviction in 2005. It is important to note that Salvador Monreal was a minor at the time of
the commission of the crime.

Issue:
WON the lower courts erred in finding the petitioners guily beyond reasonable doubt for Murder.
What is the penalty to be imposed on Monreal, a minor during the time of the commission?

Ruling:

Yes, conviction is affirmed only for Atizado. There being no modifying circumstances, the CA
correctly imposed the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua on Atizado. But reclusion perpetua was not
correct penalty for Monreal due to his being minor at the time of the commission of the crime. The
revision of the penalty warranted his immediate release from the penitentialy.