civil law must read cases

8/17/2019 Civil Law Must Read Cases

1/101

Civil Law

MUST READ CASES (CIVIL LAW)

PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

Tanada vs Tuvera, 1! SCRA "# (1$%&)

Article 2 of the NCC does not preclude the requirement of publication in theOcial Gazette even if the law itself provides for the date of its eectivit!

Tanada vs Tuvera,1'! SCRA ''! (1$%!)

"f the law provides for its own eectivit date# then it ta$es eect on the saiddate# sub%ect to the requirement of publication! &he clause 'unless otherwiseprovided( refers to the date of eectivit and not the to the requirement of publication itself# which cannot in an event be omitted!

LA UAL*LAAN TRIAL ASSOCIATION INC+ v+ RAMOS, +R+ N-+1"#%%", .anuar/ "#, "00'

)hile the eectivit clause of *!O! No! 2+, does not require its publication# itis not a -round for its invalidation since the Constitution# bein- .thefundamental# paramount and supreme law of the nation#. is deemed writtenin the law! /ence# the due process clause# which# so &a0ada held# mandatesthe publication of statutes# is read into 1ection of *!O! No! 2+,!Additionall# 1ection 3 of *!O! No! 244 which provides for publication .eitherin the Ocial Gazette or in a newspaper of -eneral circulation in the5hilippines#. 6nds suppletor application! "t is si-ni6cant to note that *!O! No!

2+, was actuall published in the Ocial Gazette

on Au-ust 7# 3,+!

R-/ vs CA, +R+ NO %0#1% .an+ "$, 1$%%

&he term 'laws( do not include decisions of the 1upreme Court becauselawers in the active practice must $eep abreast of decisions# particularlwhere issues have been clari6ed# consistentl reiterated and published inadvanced reports and the 1C8A!

T/ v+ Ca +R+ NO+ 1"#'0!, N-v+ "#, "000

&he two marria-es involved in this case was entered durin- the eectivit of the New Civil Code! &he 9amil Code has retroactive eect unless there beimpairment of vested ri-hts!

F2-res3a vs P452e6 M5n5n7 C-r8+,+R+ 0!'", A8r52 0, 1$%&

&he application or interpretation placed b the 1upreme Court upon a law ispart of the law as of the date of its enactment since the court:s application or


2/101

Civil Law

interpretation merel establishes the contemporaneous le-islative intent thatthe construed law purports to carr into eect!

Van D-rn vs+ R-522- +R+ NO+L!%'#0 O39-:er %, 1$%&

"t is true that owin- to the nationalit principle embodied in Article 3; of theCivil Code# onl 5hilippine nationals are covered b the polic a-ainstabsolute divorces the same bein- considered contrar to our concept of public polic and moralit! /owever# aliens ma obtain divorces abroad#

RCPI vs CA, 1' SCRA ! (1$%!)

s -rade# is not onl imputable

to the professor but is an act of the school# bein- his emploer!

SPOUSES =IN v+ ALE>ANDER C=OAC=UY, SR+ +R+ N-+ 1#$#!+ .une"!, "01

&hus# an individual:s ri-ht to privac under Article 2?@3 of the Civil Codeshould not be con6ned to his house or residence as it ma e=tend to placeswhere he has the ri-ht to e=clude the public or den them access! &he


3/101

Civil Law

phrase .prin- into the privac of another:s residence#. therefore# coversplaces# locations# or even situations which an individual considers as private!And as lon- as his ri-ht is reco-nized b societ# other individuals ma notinfrin-e on his ri-ht to privac! &he CA# therefore# erred in limitin- theapplication of Article 2?@3 of the Civil Code onl to residences!

WILLAWARE PRODUCTS CORPORATION vs! .ESIC=RISMANUFACTURIN CORPORATION+R+ N-+ 1$&&'$, Se89e:er , "01'

&he concept of .unfair competition. under Article 2 is ver much broaderthan that covered b intellectual propert laws! Article 2 of the Civil Codeprovides that .unfair competition in a-ricultural# commercial or industrialenterprises or in labor throu-h the use of force# intimidation# deceit#machination or an other un%ust# oppressive or hi-hBhanded method shall-ive rise to a ri-ht of action b the person who thereb suers dama-e!.

e2u? vs CA, .u2/ "0, 1$!1

"t is unquestionable that the appellant:s act in provo$in- the abortion of appellee:s wife# without medical necessit to warrant it# was a criminal andmorall reprehensible act# that cannot be to severel condemned and theconsent of the woman or that of her husband does not e=cuse it! Dut theimmoralit or ille-alit of the act does not %ustif an award of dama-e that#under the circumstances on record# have no factual or le-al basis!

@u557u5n7 vs ICAO, ' SCRA 1" (1$#0

A conceived child# althou-h as et unborn# is -iven b law a provisionalpersonalit of its own for all purposes favorable to it# as e=plicitl providedunder article E4 of the civil code!

Car5- v+ Car5-, +R+ NO+ 1"&"$ , Fe:+ 0", "001 &1 SCRA 1"#

)hether or not the certi6cation b the re-istrar of the nonBe=istence of marria-e license is enou-h to prove nonBissuance thereof! &he records revealthat the marria-e contract of petitioner and the deceased bears no marria-elicense number and# as certi6ed b the Local Civil 8e-istrar of 1an Fuan#

etro anila# their oce has no record of such marria-e license!

A23an9ara v+ A23an9ara, +R+ NO+ 1!##'! , Au7+ "%,"00# &1 SCRA''!

)hether or not# a marria-e license issued b a municipalit or cit to a nonBresident invalidates the license! "ssuance of a marria-e license in a cit ormunicipalit# not the residence of either of the contractin- parties# and


4/101

Civil Law

issuance of a marria-e license despite the absence of publication or prior tothe completion of the 34Bda period for publication are considered mereirre-ularities that do not aect the validit of the marria-e

N5a2 vs+ a/ad-7 "% SCRA 1"", Mar34 1', "000

"n this case# at the time of 5epito and respondent:s marria-e# it cannot besaid that the have lived with each other as husband and wife for at least6ve ears prior to their weddin- da because their cohabitation is note=clusive! &he Court ruled that the cohabitation contemplated under saidprovisions must be in the 'nature of a perfect union that is valid under thelaw but rendered imperfect onl b the absence of the marria-e contract(and 'characterized b e=clusivit meanin- nothird part was involved atantime within the ; ears andcontinuit that is unbro$en!

S-r5an- v+ Fe256, L$00&, .une "0, 1$&%

&he adavit is for the purpose of provin- the basis for e=emption from themarria-e license! *ven if there is failure on the part of the solemnizin- ocerto e=ecute the necessar adavit# such irre-ularit will not invalidate themarria-e for the adavit is not bein- required of the parties!

M-r57- v+ Pe-82e, +R+ NO+ 1'&""! , Fe:+ !, "00

&he mere private act of si-nin- a marria-e contract bears no semblance to avalid marria-e and thus# needs no %udicial declaration of nullit! 1uch actalone# without more# cannot be deemed to constitute an ostensibl valid

marria-e for which petitioner mi-ht be held liable for bi-am unless he 6rstsecures a %udicial declaration of nullit before he contracts a subsequentmarria-e!

MINORU FU.IBI v+ MARIA PA ALELA MARINAY, +R+ N-+ 1$!0'$, .une "!, "01 &he 8ule on


5/101

Civil Law

be @3 freel -iven and @2 made in the presence of a solemnizin- ocer! A.freel -iven. consent requires that the contractin- parties willin-l anddeliberatel enter into the marria-e! Consent must be real in the sense thatit is not vitiated nor rendered defective b an of the vices of consent underArticles E; and E? of the 9amil Code# such as fraud# force# intimidation# and

undue inJuence! Consent must also be conscious or intelli-ent# in that theparties must be capable of intelli-entl understandin- the nature of# andboth the bene6cial or unfavorable consequences of their act! &heirunderstandin- should not be aected b insanit# into=ication# dru-s# orhpnotism!

.u25an-L2ave v+ Re8u:253, +R+ NO+ 1!$#!! , Mar+ 0, "011 !'! SCRA!#

&he marria-e between the late 1en! &amano and Korada was celebrated in3,;# solemnized under civil and uslim rites! &he onl law in force

-overnin- marria-e relationships between uslims and nonBuslims ali$ewas the Civil Code of 3,;4# under the provisions of which onl one marria-ecan e=ist at an -iven time!

P52a852 vs+ I:a/S-era, +R+ NO+ %011! .une 0, 1$%$

)hether or not# the complainant# a forei-ner# qualif as an oended spousehavin- obtained a 6nal divorce decree under his national law prior to his6lin- the criminal complaint! &he person who initiates the adulter case mustbe an oended spouse# and b this is meant that he is still married to theaccused spouse# at the time of the 6lin- of the complaint!

Re35- vs+ Re35- +R+ NO+ 1%""+ O39-:er ", "001

)hether or not the divorce must be proved before it is to be reco-nized inthe 5hilippines! Defore a forei-n divorce decree can be reco-nized b ourcourts# the part pleadin- it must prove the divorce as a fact anddemonstrate its conformit to the forei-n law allowin- it! 5resentation solelof the divorce decree is insucient!

Re8+ v+ Or:e35d-, +R+ NO+ 1&'%0, O39+ 0&, "00&

)hether or not# a 9ilipino 1pouse can remarr under A8&"CL* 2? O9 &/*9A"L CO


6/101

Civil Law

"n Gerbert:s case# since both the forei-n divorce decree and the national lawof the alien# reco-nizin- his or her capacit to obtain a divorce# purport to beocial acts of a soverei-n authorit# 1ection 2E# 8ule 372 of the 8ules of Court comes into pla! &his 1ection requires proof# either b @3 ocial

publications or @2 copies attested b the ocer havin- le-al custod of thedocuments! "f the copies of ocial records are not $ept in the 5hilippines#these must be @a accompanied b a certi6cate issued b the properdiplomatic or consular ocer in the 5hilippine forei-n service stationed in theforei-n countr in which the record is $ept and @b authenticated b the sealof his oce!

San9-s v+ C-ur9 -< A88ea2s, "'0 SCRA "0 (1$$&)

&he 1upreme Court enumerated the three basic requirements of 'pscholo-ical incapacit( as a -round for declaration of nullit of the

marria-eM @a -ravit @b %uridical antecedence and @c incurabilit!

C45 M5n7 Ts-5 vs CA, "!! SCRA "' (1$$#)

"n this case# there was no se=ual contact between the parties since theirmarria-e on a 22# 3, up to ar! 3;# 3,, or for almost a ear! &hesenseless and protracted refusal of one of the parties of se=ual cooperationfor the procreation of children is equivalent to pscholo-ical incapacit!

O34-sa v+ A2an-, +R+ NO+ 1!#'&$ , .an+ "!, "011 !'0 SCRA &1#

"n this case the court proved that respondent was the se= partner of manmilitar ocials! "n view of the fore-oin-# the bad-es of Dona:s alle-edpscholo-ical incapacit# i!e!# her se=ual in6delit and abandonment# canonl be convincin-l traced to the period of time after her marria-e to Foseand not to the inception of the said marria-e!

REPULIC OF T=E P=ILIPPINES v+ RODOLFO O+ DE RACIA +R+ N-+1#1#, Fe:ruar/ 1", "01'

'5scholo-ical incapacit#( as a -round to nullif a marria-e under Article 7?of the 9amil Code# should refer to no less than a mental not merel

phsical incapacit that causes a part to be 9ru2/ 5n3-7n595ve -< 94e:as53 ar59a2 3-venan9s that concomitantl must be assumed anddischar-ed b the parties to the marria-e which# as so e=pressed in Article? of the 9amil Code# amon- others# include their mutual obli-ations to liveto-ether# observe love# respect and 6delit and render help and support! &here is hardl an doubt that the intendment of the law has been to con6nethe meanin- of 'pscholo-ical incapacit( to the most serious cases of


7/101

Civil Law

personalit disorders clearl demonstrative of an utter insensitivit orinabilit to -ive meanin- and si-ni6cance to the marria-e!

Mend-?a v+ Re8u:253, +R+ NO+ 1!'$,N-v 1", "01" !%& SCRA 1!

/ere# the e=pert:s testimon on


8/101

Civil Law

N-22-ra v+ Pe-82e, +R+ NO+1$1'"& , Se89+ #, "011 ! SCRA 0

"ndeed# Article 37@2 of the Code of uslim 5ersonal Laws states that .iPncase of a marria-e between a uslim and a nonBuslim# solemnized not in

accordance with uslim law or this Code# the 9amil Code of the 5hilippines#or *=ecutive Order NO! 24,# in lieu of the Civil Code of the 5hilippinesP shallappl!. &hus# re-ardless of his professed reli-ion# Nollora cannot claime=emption from liabilit for the crime of bi-am!

Re8+ v+ N-2as3-, +R+ NO+ $'0& , Mar+ 1#, 1$$ ""0 SCRA "0

"n the case at bar# the Court considers that the investi-ation alle-edlconducted b respondent in his attempt to ascertain Fanet onica 5ar$er>swhereabouts is too s$etch to form the basis of a reasonable or wellBfoundedbelief that she was alread dead! )hen he arrived in 1an Fose# Antique after

learnin- of Fanet onica>s departure# instead of see$in- the help of localauthorities or of the Dritish *mbass# he secured another seaman>s contractand went to London# a vast cit of man millions of inhabitants# to loo$ forher there!

Va2de? v+ Re8u:253, +R+ NO+1%0%! , Se89+ 0%, "00$ &$% SCRA !'!

1ince death is presumed to have ta$en place b the seventh ear of absence# 1o6o is to be presumed dead startin- October 3,2! &oretroactivel appl the provisions of the 9amil Code requirin- petitioner toe=hibit .wellBfounded belief. will# ultimatel# result in the invalidation of her

second marria-e# which was valid at the time it was celebrated!

Re8+ v+ Tan7-, +R+ NO+1!10!" , .u2+ 1, "00$ &$' SCRA &!0

D e=press provision of law# the %ud-ment of the court in a summarproceedin- shall be immediatel 6nal and e=ecutor! As a matter of course# itfollows that no appeal can be had of the trial court:s %ud-ment in a summarproceedin- for the declaration of presumptive death of an absent spouseunder Article E3 of the 9amil Code

CELERINA .+ SANTOS vs+ RICARDO T+ SANTOS, +R+ N-+ 1%#0!1, 0%

OCTOER "01'

&he proper remed for a %udicial declaration of presumptive death obtainedb e=trinsic fraud is an action to annul the %ud-ment! An adavit of reappearance is not the proper remed when the person declaredpresumptivel dead has never been absent!

On7 v+ On7, +R+ NO+ 1&"0!, O39+ ", "00! &0& SCRA #!


9/101

Civil Law

Also without merit is the ar-ument of )illiam that since Lucita hasabandoned the famil# a decree of le-al separation should not be -ranted#followin- Art! ;?# par! @E of the 9amil Code which provides that le-alseparation shall be denied when both parties have -iven -round for le-al

separation! &he abandonment referred to b the 9amil Code isabandonment without %usti6able cause for more than one ear!

Pa3e9e vs+ Carr5a7a, +R+ NO+ &%%0, Mar+ 1#, 1$$' "1 SCRA "1

)hether or not# the order declarin- in default a respondent in a le-alseparation case amounts to -rave abuse of discretion! "n case of nonBappearance of the defendant# the court shall order the prosecutin- attorneto inquire whether or not a collusion between the parties e=ists! "f there is nocollusion# the prosecutin- attorne shall intervene for the 1tate in order tota$e care that the evidence for the plainti is not fabricated!

Ar3a:a vs+ a9-3ae2, +R+ NO+1'!!% , N-v+"", "001 #0 SCRA '1'

8espondents havin- proven b a preponderance of evidence that Cirila and9rancisco lived to-ether as husband and wife without a valid marria-e# theinescapable conclusion is that the donation made b 9rancisco in favor of Cirila is void under Art! + of the 9amil Code!

Deara v+ Lae2a +R+ NO+ 1#$010, A8r+ 11, "011 !'# SCRA '%

All propert of the marria-e is presumed to belon- to the con%u-al

partnership# unless it be proved that it pertains e=clusivel to the husband orto the wife! 8e-istration in the name of the husband or the wife alone doesnot destro this presumption!

OY TAN, v+ RACE ANDRADE, ET AL+ v! OY TAN, +R+ N-+1#"01# Q +R+ N-+ 1#1$0' Au7us9 #, "01

&he presumption under Article 3?4 of the New Civil Code# that propert

acquired durin- marria-e is con%u-al# does not appl where there is no

showin- as to when the propert alle-ed to be con%u-al was acquired! &hepresumption cannot prevail when the title is in the name of onl one spouse

and the ri-hts of innocent third parties are involved! oreover# when the

propert is re-istered in the name of onl one spouse and there is no

showin- as to when the propert was acquired b same spouse# this is an

indication that the propert belon-s e=clusivel to the said spouse!

oreover# the presumption ma be rebutted onl with stron-# clear#


10/101

Civil Law

cate-orical and convincin- evidence! &here must be strict proof of the

e=clusive ownership of one of the spouses# and the burden of proof rests

upon the part assertin- it!

V522e7as v+ L5n7an +R+ NO+ 1&%$ , .un+ "$, "00# &"! SCRA !

Consequentl# as correctl held b the CA# arilou acquired ownership of thesub%ect propert! All ri-hts and title of the %ud-ment obli-or are transferredupon the e=piration of the ri-ht of redemption! And where the redemption ismade under a propert re-ime -overned b the con%u-al partnership of -ains# Article 34, of the 9amil Code provides that propert acquired b ri-htof redemption is the e=clusive propert of the spouses redeemin- thepropert!

Ferrer v+ Ferrer, +R+ NO+1!!'$! , N-v+ "$, "00! &0% SCRA

&he obli-ation to reimburse rests on the spouse upon whom ownership of theentire propert is vested! &here is no obli-ation on the part of the purchaserof the propert# in case the propert is sold b the ownerB spouse!

Pana v+ =e5rs -< .-se .uan59e +R+ NO+ 1!'"01,De3+ 10, "01" !%#SCRA '1'

Contrar to *fren:s contention# Article 323 above allows pament of thecriminal indemnities imposed on his wife# elecia# out of the partnershipassets even before these are liquidated! "ndeed# it states that such

indemnities .ma be enforced a-ainst the partnership assets after theresponsibilities enumerated in the precedin- article have been covered!. Noprior liquidation of those assets is required!

MTC v+ Pas3ua2, +R+ NO+ 1!#'', Fe:+ "$, "00% &'# SCRA "'!

&ermination of Con%u-al 5ropert 8e-ime does not ipso facto *nd the Natureof Con%u-al Ownership! )hile the declared nullit of marria-e of Nicholsonand 9lorencia severed their marital bond and dissolved the con%u-alpartnership# the character of the properties acquired before such declarationcontinues to subsist as con%u-al properties until and after the liquidation and

partition of the partnership!

Es85n-sa v+ Oaa, AC+ $0%1, O39 1", "011 !&$ SCRA 1

*=tra%udicial dissolution of the con%u-al partnership without %udicial approvalis void! &he Court has also ruled that a notar public should not facilitate thedisinte-ration of a marria-e and the famil b encoura-in- the separation of the spouses and e=tra%udiciall dissolvin- the con%u-al partnership# which is


11/101

Civil Law

e=actl what Oma0a did in this case! &he .Rasunduan N- 5a-hihiwala. hasno le-al eect and is a-ainst public polic!

D5- v+ D5-, +R+ NO+ 1#%0'', .an+ 1$, "011 !'0 SCRA 1#%

&he trial court erred in orderin- that a decree of absolute nullit of marria-eshall be issued onl after liquidation# partition and distribution of the parties:properties under Article 3E+ of the 9amil Code! &he rulin- has no basisbecause 1ection 3,@3 of the 8ule does not appl to cases -overned underArticles 3E+ and 3E of the 9amil Code!

.UAN SEVILLA, .R+ v+ EDEN VILLENA AUILA, +R+ N-+ "0"#0,Se89e:er ", "01

Article 3E+ of the 9amil Code applies to the union of parties who are le-allcapacitated and not barred b an impediment to contract marria-e# but

whose marria-e is nonetheless declared void under Article 7? of the 9amilCode# as in this case! Inder this propert re-ime# propert acquired durin-the marria-e is prima facie presumed to have been obtained throu-h thecouple:s %oint eorts and -overned b the rules on coBownership! "n thepresent case# 1alas did not rebut this presumption! "n a similar case wherethe -round for nullit of marria-e was also pscholo-ical incapacit# we heldthat the properties acquired durin- the union of the parties# as found b boththe 8&C and the CA# would be -overned b coBownership!

Va2des vs+ RTC r+ 10", @C +R+ NO+ 1""#'$, .u2+ 1, 1$$! "!0 SCRA""1

)hether or not# Articles ;4# ;3 and ;2 in relation to Articles 342 and 32, of the 9amil Code -overn the disposition of the famil dwellin- in cases wherea marria-e is declared void ab initio# includin- a marria-e declared void breason of the pscholo-ical incapacit of the spouses! &he rules set up to-overn the liquidation of either the absolute communit or the con%u-alpartnership of -ains# the propert re-imes reco-nized for valid and voidablemarria-es @in the latter case until the contract is annulled# are irrelevant tothe liquidation of the coBownership that e=ists between commonBlawspouses!

Car5- v+ Car5-, +R+ NO+ 1"&"$, Fe:+ 0", "001 &1 SCRA 1"#

As to the propert re-ime of petitioner 1usan Nicdao and the deceased#Article 3E+ of the 9amil Code -overns! &his article applies to unions of parties who are le-all capacitated and not barred b an impediment tocontract marria-e# but whose marria-e is nonetheless void for other reasons#li$e the absence of a marria-e license


12/101

Civil Law

San Lu5s v+ San Lu5s +R+ NO+ 1#', Fe:+ 0!, "00# &1' SCRA "$'

"n the instant case# respondent would qualif as an interested person whohas a direct interest in the estate of 9elicisimo b virtue of their cohabitation#the e=istence of which was not denied b petitioners! "f she proves the

validit of the divorce and 9elicisimo:s capacit to remarr# but fails to provethat her marria-e with him was validl performed under the laws of theI!1!A!# then she ma be considered as a coBowner under Article 3EE +? ofthe Civil Code

SERCONSISION R+ MENDOA vs! AURORA MENDOA FERMIN+R+ N-+ 1##"&, .u2/ 0#, "01'

As Leonardo and 1erconsision were married sometime in 3,;# the

applicable provision -overnin- the propert relations of the spouses is Article3+2 of the Civil Code of the 5hilippines which states that the wife cannot bindthe con%u-al partnership without the husband:s consent! "n 9elipe vs! /eirs of a=imo Aldon# a case decided under the provisions of the Civil Code# the1upreme Court had the occasion to rule that the sale of a land belon-in- tothe con%u-al partnership made b the wife without the consent of thehusband is voidable! &he 1upreme Court further ruled that the view that thedisposal b the wife of their con%u-al propert without the husband:s consentis voidable is supported b Article 3+7 of the Civil Code which states thatcontracts entered b the husband without the consent of the wife when suchconsent is required are annullable at her instance durin- the marria-e and

within ten ears from the transaction questioned! "n the present case# the6ctitious


13/101

Civil Law

&here is no need to constitute the same %udiciall or e=tra%udiciall asrequired in the Civil Code! "f the famil actuall resides in the premises# it is#therefore# a famil home as contemplated b law

O25v5a De Mesa v+ A3er-, +R+ NO+ 1%&0!' .an+ 1!, "01" !! SCRA '0

&he famil home:s e=emption from e=ecution must be set up and proved tothe 1heri before the sale of the propert at public auction! &he petitionersnow are barred from raisin- the same! 9ailure to do so estop them from laterclaimin- the said e=emption!

Mana3-8 vs+ CA, "## SCRA (1$$#)

Articles 3;2 and 3;7 of the 9amil Code do not have a retroactive eect suchthat all e=istin- famil residences are deemed to have been constituted asfamil homes at the time of their occupation prior to the eectivit of the

9amil Code and are e=empt from e=ecution for the pament of obli-ationsincurred before the eectivit of the 9amil Code!

RODOLFO S+ AUILAR vs+ EDNA + SIASAT

+R+ N-+ "001!$, .anuar/ "%, "01&

As petitioner correctl ar-ues# Alfredo A-uilar:s 111 9orm *B3 satis6es therequirement for proof of 6liation and relationship to the A-uilar spousesunder Article 3+2 of the 9amil Code b itself# said document constitutes an

'admission of le-itimate 6liation in a public document or a privatehandwritten instrument and si-ned b the parent concerned!(

La:a72a vs+ San95a7-, +R+ NO+ 1"0&, De3+ 0', "001 #1 SCRA !0

A baptismal certi6cate# a private document# is not conclusive proof of 6liation! ore so are the entries made in an income ta= return# which onlshows that income ta= has been paid and the amount thereof!

Pun- v+ Pun- En9+ In3+, +R+ NO+ 1##0!!, Se89+ 11, "00$ &$$ SCRA&%&

A certi6cate of live birth purportedl identifin- the putative father is notcompetent evidence of paternit when there is no showin- that the putativefather had a hand in the preparation of the certi6cate! &he local civil re-istrarhas no authorit to record the paternit of an ille-itimate child on theinformation of a third person!

DE LA CRU v+ RACIA, +R+ N-+ 1###"%, .u2/ 1, "00$


14/101

Civil Law

3 )here the private handwritten instrument is the lone piece of evidencesubmitted to prove 6liation# there should be strict compliance with therequirement that the same must be si-ned b the ac$nowled-in- parentand

2 )here the private handwritten instrument is accompanied b otherrelevant and competent evidence# it suces that the claim of 6liation thereinbe shown to have been made and handwritten b the ac$nowled-in- parentas it is merel corroborative of such other evidence!

RACE M+ RANDE v+ PATRICIO T+ ANTONIO, +R+ N-+ "0!"'%+Fe:ruar/ 1%, "01'

An ille-itimate child ma use the surname of his father if the latter hase=pressl reco-nized their 6liation! /owever# the child is under nocompulsion to use his father:s surname! )hen Antonio reco-nized Andre

Lewis and Ferard 5atric$ as his sons# the two children had the ri-ht to use thesurname of Antonio! /owever# the were under no compulsion or mandate touse the same! &he law uses the word Sma:# which dictates that it is merelpermissive!

T-n-7 vs+ CA, +R+ NO+ 1""$0! , Fe:+ 0#, "00" #! SCRA &"

"n the case at bar# bearin- in mind that the welfare of the said minor as thecontrollin- factor# the appellate court did not err in allowin- her father toretain in the meantime parental custod over her! eanwhile# the childshould not be wrenched from her familiar surroundin-s# and thrust into a

stran-e environment awa from the people and places to which she hadapparentl formed an attachment!

A:ad522a vs+ Ta:525ran, .r+ A+M NO+ MT.$"#1!, O39+ "&, 1$$& "'$SCRA ''#

)hether or not# a child born out of wedloc$# b parents who have a le-alimpediment to marr each other# can be le-itimated! As a lawer and a %ud-e# respondent ou-ht to $now that# despite his subsequent marria-e to5riscilla# these three children cannot be le-itimated nor in an wa beconsidered le-itimate since at the time the were born# there was an e=istin-

valid marria-e between respondent and his 6rst wife# &eresita D! &abiliran!

ROSARIO MATA CASTRO AND .OANNE ENEDICTA C=ARISSIMA M+CASTRO, A+B+A+ MARIA SOCORRO M+ CASTROG AND .AYROSE M+CASTROG vs .OSE MARIA .ED LEMUEL REORIO AND ANA MARIAREINA REORIO+R+ NO+ 1%%%01, 1& O39-:er "01', SECOND DIVISION (Le-nen, .+)


15/101

Civil Law

9or the adoption to be valid# petitioners> consent was required b 8epublicAct No! ;;2! 5ersonal service of summons should have been eected on thespouse and all le-itimate children to ensure that their substantive ri-hts areprotected! "t is not enou-h to rel on constructive notice as in this case!

1urreptitious use of procedural technicalities cannot be privile-ed oversubstantive statutor ri-hts!

In reH Ad-895-n -< M534e22e M534ae2 L5 +R+ NO+1!%$$"$, Ma/"1, "00$ &%% SCRA $%

&he 6lin- of a case for dissolution of the marria-e between petitioner andOlario is of no moment! "t is not equivalent to a decree of dissolution of marria-e! Intil and unless there is a %udicial decree for the dissolution of themarria-e between petitioner and Olario# the marria-e still subsists! &hatbein- the case# %oint adoption b the husband and the wife is required!

an vs+ Re/es, +R+ NO+1'&&"#, Ma/+"%, "00" %" SCRA

A %ud-ment orderin- for support is immediatel e=ecutor despite pendencof appeal!

De As5s vs+ CA, +R+ NO+1"#%, Fe:+ 1&, 1$$$ 0 SCRA 1#!

)hether or not# a renunciation of the e=istence of 6liation of the child andthe putative father# made b the mother# is valid! "t is true that in order toclaim support# 6liation andQor paternit must 6rst be shown between the

claimant and the parent# however# paternit and 6liation or the lac$ of thesame is a relationship that must be %udiciall established and it is for thecourt to declare its e=istence or absence!

La6aana v+ La6aana, +R+ NO+ 1''#!, Se89+ , "00" %% SCRA"$!

"t is clear that ever child hasP ri-hts which are not and should not bedependent solel on the wishes# much less the whims and caprices# of hisparents! /is welfare should not be sub%ect to the parents> saBso or mutuala-reement alone! )here# as in this case# the parents are alread separated

in fact# the courts must step in to determine in whose custod the child canbetter be assured the ri-hts -ranted to him b law! &he need# therefore# topresent evidence re-ardin- this matter# becomes imperative!

S9+ Mar/*s A3ade/ v+ Car859an-s, +R+ NO+ 1'!, Fe:+ !, "00"#! SCRA '#


16/101

Civil Law

&he liabilit for the accident# whether caused b the ne-li-ence of the minordriver or mechanical detachment of the steerin- wheel -uide of the %eep#must be pinned on the minor:s parents primaril! &he ne-li-ence of petitioner1t! ar:s Academ was onl a remote cause of the accident!

Ner5 v+ =e5rs -< =adJ5 Yus-8, +R+ N- 1$'!!, O39+ 10, "01" !% SCRA"&

Administration includes all acts for the preservation of the propert and thereceipt of fruits accordin- to the natural purpose of the thin-! An act of disposition or alienation# or an reduction in the substance of the patrimonof child# e=ceeds the limits of administration! &hus# a father or mother# as thenatural -uardian of the minor under parental authorit# does not have thepower to dispose or encumber the propert of the latter!

FE FLORO VALINO vs+ ROSARIO D+ ADRIANO, FLORANTE D+ ADRIANO,

RUEN D+ ADRIANO, MARIA TERESA ADRIANO ONOCO, VICTORIAADRIANO AYONA, AND LEA= ANTONETTE D+ ADRIANO+R+ N-+ 1%"%$', "" A8r52 "01', EN ANC (Mend-?a .+)

&he law -ives the ri-ht and dut to ma$e funeral arran-ements to 8osario#she bein- the survivin- le-al wife of Att! Adriano! &he fact that she waslivin- separatel from her husband and was in the Inited 1tates when hedied has no controllin- si-ni6cance! &o sa that 8osario had# in eect# waivedor renounced# e=pressl or impliedl# her ri-ht and dut to ma$earran-ements for the funeral of her deceased husband is baseless! &he ri-ht and dut to ma$e funeral arran-ements# li$e an other ri-ht# will

not be considered as havin- been waived or renounced# e=cept upon clearand satisfactor proof of conduct indicative of a free and voluntar intent tothat end!

"t is -enerall reco-nized that the corpse of an individual is outside thecommerce of man! /owever# the law reco-nizes that a certain ri-ht of possession over the corpse e=ists# for the purpose of a decent burial# and forthe e=clusion of the intrusion b third persons who have no le-itimateinterest in it! &his quasiBpropert ri-ht# arisin- out of the dut of thoseobli-ated b law to bur their dead# also authorizes them to ta$e possessionof the dead bod for purposes of burial to have it remain in its 6nal restin-

place# or to even transfer it to a proper place where the memor of the deadma receive the respect of the livin-! T45s 5s a


17/101

Civil Law

&here can be no cavil that petitioner emploed reasonable means todisseminate noti6cations intended to reach the relatives of the deceased! &he onl question that remains pertains to the sucienc of time allowed fornotices to reach the relatives of the deceased!

PROPERTY Laure2 vs+ A:r-7ar, +R+ NO+ 1&&0#!, .an+ 1, "00$

"nternational telephone calls placed b Da 1uper Orient Card holders# thetelecommunication services provided b 5L


18/101

Civil Law

5roperties of public dominion is not susceptible to private appropriation andcannot be acquired b acquisitive prescription and thus the cannot bere-istered under the Land 8e-istration Law and be the sub%ect of a torrentstitle!

Man52a In9erna95-na2 A5r8-r9 Au94-r59/ vs CA, '$& SCRA &$15roperties of public dominion# bein- for public use# are not sub%ect to lev#encumbrance or disposition throu-h public or private sale! Anencumbrance# lev on e=ecution or auction sale of an propert of publicdominion is void for bein- contrar to public polic!

eran Mana7een9 Serv53es, In3+ v+ CA+ 1## SCRA '$& (1$%$)

&he doctrine of selfBhelp can onl be e=ercised at the time of actual orthreatened dispossession# and not when possession has alread been lost!

Pa2er-Tan v+ Urdane9a AM NO+ PK0#K"$$, .un+ 1%, "00%

)hen a person who 6nds a thin- that has been lost or mislaid b the ownerta$es the thin- into his hands# he acquires phsical custod onl and doesnot become vested with le-al possession! "n assumin- such custod# the6nder is char-ed with the obli-ation of restorin- the thin- to its owner! "t isthus respondent:s dut to report to his superior or his ocemates that hefound somethin-!

Mer3ad- v+ CA, 1!" SCRA #&, %& 1$%%

&o be deemed a builder in -ood faith# it is essential that a person asserts titleto the land on which he builds# i.e!# it is essential that he be a possessor inconcept of owner and that he be unaware that there e=ists in his title ormode of acquisition an Jaw which invalidates it!

Nu7u5d v+ CA, '&" SCRA "', "&" ("00&)

&he ri-ht of retention is considered as one of the measures devised b thelaw for the protection of builders in -ood faith! "ts ob%ect is to -uarantee fulland prompt reimbursement as it permits the actual possessor to remain in

possession while he has not been reimbursed @b the person who defeatedhim in the case for possession of the propert for those necessar e=pensesand useful improvements made b him on the thin-s possessed!

PI v+ SANC=EES, +R+ N-+ 1#$&1%, N-ve:er 11, "01'

&he 1anchezes have the followin- optionsM @3 acquire the propert with thetownhouses and other buildin-s and improvements that ma be thereon


19/101

Civil Law

without indemnifin- &1*" or the intervenors @2 demand from &1*" or theintervenors to demolish what has been built on the propert at the e=penseof &1*" or the intervenors or @7 as$ the intervenors to pa the price of theland! As such# the 1anchezes must choose from amon- these options withinthirt @74 das from 6nalit of this


20/101

Civil Law

proper remed because petitioner no lon-er had an le-al or equitable titleto or interest in the lots! &he petitioner:s status as possessor and owner of the lots had been settled in the 6nal and e=ecutor Y+ OC=AN III, LOUISE Y+ OC=AN,ESTEAN Y+ OC=AN, .R+, and DOMINIC Y+ OC=AN v+ C=ARLESMANCAO, +R+ N-+ 1%"1', N-ve:er 1, "01

Onl 94e redee5n7 3--ner and 94e :u/er are the indispensableparties in an action for le-al redemption# to the e=clusion of the sellerQcoBowner A part who is not the coBowner of a land sub%ect of a compromisea-reement cannot claim that he was defrauded when the parties in thecompromise a-reement entered into the same! As a third part to thea-reement# he is not indispensable for the a-reement to materialize!


21/101

Civil Law

Par522a v+ P52ar, +R+ NO+ 1!#!%0, N-v+ 0, "00!

One whose interest is merel that of a holder# such as a mere tenant# a-entor usufructuar# is not quali6ed to become a possessor builder in -ood faith!

un/5 v+ Fa39-r, +R+ NO+ 1#"&'#, .un+ 0, "00$ &$1 SCRA &09or one to be considered in possession# one need not have actual or phsicaloccupation of ever square inch of the propert at all times! 5ossession canbe acquired not onl b material occupation# but also b the fact that a thin-is sub%ect to the action of one:s will or b the proper acts and le-alformalities established for acquirin- such ri-ht# possession can be acquiredb %uridical acts!

EDCA Pu:2+ V+ San9-s, +R+ NO+ %0"$%, A8r+ "!, 1$$0 1%' SCRA !1'

Actual deliver of the boo$s havin- been made# Cruz acquired ownershipover the boo$s which he could then validl transfer to the privaterespondents! &he fact that he had not et paid for them to *


22/101

Civil Law

=5da27- En9er8r5ses v+ a2andan, e9+ a2, +R+ N-+ L'"" .un+ 1, 1$&"

Nature has created streams# la$es and pools which attract children! Lur$in-in their waters is alwas the dan-er of drownin-! A-ainst this dan-er children

are earl instructed so that the are sucientl presumed to $now thedan-er and if the owner of private propert creates an arti6cial pool on hisown propert# merel duplicatin- the wor$ of nature without addin- an newdan-er# ! ! ! @he is not liable because of havin- created an .attractivenuisance!.

an3a/3- v+ @ue?-n C59/, +R+ NO+ 1##%0#,O39 11, "011

&he win- walls do not per se immediatel and adversel aect the safet of persons and propert! &he fact that an ordinance ma declare a structureille-al does not necessaril ma$e that structure a nuisance!

SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC+, v+ ARSENIO ALDECOA, ET+ AL+, +R+N-+ 1!!0, Se89e:er 11, "01

Commercial and industrial activities which are lawful in themselves mabecome nuisances if the are so oensive to the senses that the render theen%oment of life and propert uncomfortable! &he fact that the cause of thecomplaint must be substantial has often led to e=pressions in the opinionsthat to be a nuisance the noise must be deafenin- or loud or e=cessive andunreasonable! &he determinin- factor when noise alone is the cause of complaint is not its intensit or volume! "t is that the noise is of such

character as to produce actual phsical discomfort and annoance to aperson of ordinar sensibilities# renderin- ad%acent propert less comfortableand valuable! "f the noise does that it can well be said to be substantial andunreasonable in de-ree# and reasonableness is a question of fact dependentupon all the circumstances and conditions! &here can be no 6=ed standard asto what $ind of noise constitutes a nuisance+

Re8u:253 v+ u?an, +R+ N-+ 1"$!', Fe:ruar/ 1%, "000

&he donation is null and void when @a the deed of donation fails to show theacceptance# or @b where the formal notice of the acceptance made in a

separate instrument is either not -iven to the donor or else noted in thedeed of donation# and in the separate acceptance!

V522anueva vs+ S8-uses ran-3-, +R+ N-+ 1#"%0', .anuar/ "', "011

)hen the donor used the words that the -ift .does not pass title durin- mlifetime but when " die# she shall be the true owner of the twoaforementioned parcels.P the donor meant nothin- else than that she


23/101

Civil Law

reserved of herself the possession and usufruct of said two parcels of landuntil her death# at which time the donee would be able to dispose of themfreel!

@u5Jada vs+ CA, +R+ NO+ 1"!''', De3+ ', 1$$%

1ince no period was imposed b the donor on when must the donee complwith the condition# the latter remains the owner so lon- as he has tried tocompl with the condition within a reasonable period! Onl then B when thenonBful6llment of the resolutor condition was brou-ht to the donor>s$nowled-e B that ownership of the donated propert reverted to the donor asprovided in the automatic reversion clause of the deed of donation!

LAND TITLES AND DEEDS

Le7arda vs+ Sa2ee:/, +R+ NO+ %$!, O39+ ", 1$1&

&he real purpose of the &orrens sstem of re-istration is to quiet title to landto put a stop forever to an question of the le-alit of the title# e=cept claimswhich were noted at the time of re-istration# in the certi6cate# or which maarise subsequent thereto!

S9a+ Lu35a vs+ Pas57, +R+NO+ 1!!%%, .une 1&, "011

)hile a certi6cate of title is conclusive as to its ownership and location# thisdoes not preclude the 6lin- of an action for the ver purpose of attac$in- the

statements therein! ere reliance therefore on the face of the &C&s will notsuce as the can onl be conclusive evidence of the sub%ect properties>locations if both the stated and described locations point to the same area!

Re8u:253 vs+ San9-s, +R+NO+ 1%00"#, .u2/ 1%, "01"

Fura 8e-alia simpl means that the 1tate is the ori-inal proprietor of all landsand# as such# is the -eneral source of all private titles! &hus# pursuant to thisprinciple# all claims of private title to land# save those acquired from nativetitle# must be traced from some -rant# whether e=press or implied# from the1tate! Absent a clear showin- that land had been let into private ownership

throu-h the 1tate:s imprimatur# such land is presumed to belon- to the1tate!

SPOUSES ERNADETTE AND RODULFO VILAR v+ ANELITO L+OPINION, +R+ N-+ 1#!0'+ .anuar/ 1&, "01'

8e-istration is the operative act which -ives validit to the transfer orcreates a lien upon the land! A certi6cate of title serves as evidence of an


24/101

Civil Law

indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the propert in favor of the personwhose name appears therein! 1ince the spouses Hilbar did not cause thetransfer of the certi6cate title in their name# or at the ver least# annotate orre-ister such sale in the ori-inal title in the name of

On7 C45n7 P- v+ C-ur9 -< A88ea2s +R+ NO+ 11'#", De3+ "0, 1$$',"$ SCRA '1+

&he capacit to acquire private land is made dependent upon the capacit toacquire or hold lands of the public domain! 5rivate land ma be transferredor onl to individuals or entities quali6ed to acquire lands of the publicdomain!

=a2525 vs+ C-ur9 -< A88ea2s, "%# SCRA '!&

A naturalBborn citizen of the 5hilippines who has lost his citizenship ma be atransferee of private lands# sub%ect to limitations provided b law!

D5re39-r -< Lands vs+ In9ered5a9e A88e22a9e C-ur9 and A3e, 1'!SCRA &0$

&he time to determine whether a person acquirin- land is quali6ed is thetime the ri-ht to own it is acquired and not the time to re-ister ownership!

Tan vs+ Re8u:253 A8r52 1!, "01"


25/101

Civil Law

5ossession is open when it is patent# visible# apparent# notorious and notclandestine! "t is continuous when uninterrupted# unbro$en and notintermittent or occasional e=clusive when the adverse possessor can showe=clusive dominion over the land and an appropriation of it to his own useand bene6t and notorious when it is so conspicuous that it is -enerall

$nown and tal$ed of b the public or the people in the nei-hborhood!

REPULIC OF T=E P=ILIPPINES vs+ EMETERIA + LUAL=ATI

+R+ N-+ 1%&11, Mar34 "&, "01&

"t is not enou-h for the 5*N8O or C*N8O to certif that a land is alienableand disposable! &he applicant for land re-istration must prove that the


26/101

Civil Law

must be a complete chain of re-istered titles! &his means that all thetransfers startin- from the ori-inal ri-htful owner to the innocent holder forvalue and that includes the transfer to the for-er must be dul re-istered#and the title must be properl issued to the transferee!

Ma2a:anan vs+ Re8u:253, &%# SCRA 1#"Onl when the propert has become patrimonial can the prescriptive periodfor the acquisition of propert of the public domain be-in to run!

A2vare? vs+ PICOP Res-ur3es, In3+, !0! SCRA '''

9orest lands cannot be alienated in favor of petitioner private persons orentities!

Tan vs+ Re8u:253, +R+ N-+ 1$'' +R+ N-+ 1$'', A8r52 1!, "01"

&here must be an e=press declaration b the 1tate that the public dominionpropert is no lon-er intended for public service or the development of thenational wealth or that the propert has been converted into patrimonial!)ithout such e=press declaration# the propert# even if classi6ed as alienableor disposable# remains propert of the public dominion# pursuant to ArticleE24@2# and thus incapable of acquisition b prescription!9or one to invo$e the provisions of 1ection 3E@2 and set up acquisitiveprescription a-ainst the 1tate# it is primordial that the status of the propertas patrimonial be 6rst established! 9urthermore# the period of possessionprecedin- the classi6cation of the propert as patrimonial cannot be

considered in determinin- the completion of the prescriptive period!

ANAR ROT=ERS REALTY COMPANY vs+ SPOUSES .OSE ANDMADALENA YAE+R+ N-+ 1!1%0, "1 A8r52 "01' FIRST DIVISION (ersa5n .+)

Althou-h a deed or instrument aectin- unre-istered lands would be validonl between the parties thereto# third parties would also be aected b there-istered deed or instrument on the theor of constructive notice once itwas further re-istered in accordance with 1ection 3,E# i!e!# the deed orinstrument was written or inscribed in the da boo$ and the re-ister boo$ for

unre-istered lands in the Oce of the 8e-ister of


27/101

Civil Law

in para-raph @b of 1ection 337 of 5!

)hether or not# the intrinsic validit of the testamentar disposition should

be -overned b 5hilippine Law# when the national law of the testator refers

bac$ to the 5hilippine Law! *dward is domiciled in the 5hilippines hence#

5hilippine court must appl its own laws which ma$es natural children le-all

ac$nowled-e as forced heirs of the parent reco-nizin- them!

V59u7 vs+ C-ur9 -< A88ea2s, +R+NO+ %"0"#, Mar+ "$, 1$$0 1% SCRA#&&

A will has been de6ned as .a personal# solemn# revocable and free act b

which a capacitated person disposes of his propert and ri-hts and declares

or complies with duties to ta$e eect after his death!.

Ca/a9ena- vs Le-n5das, 1"$ SCRA &"'

&he law which -overns Adoracion Campo:s will is the law of 5ennslvania#

I1A which is the national law of the decedent! "t is settled that as re-ards to

the intrinsic validit of the provisions of the wills as provided for b article 3?and 347, of the New Civil Code# the national law of the decedent must appl!

Par5s4 Pr5es9 -< V539-r5a vs+ R57-r, %$ SCRA '%

&he issue in this case is whether or not a male relative referred in the will

should include those who are born after the testator:s death! &o construe it

as referrin- to the nearest male relative at an time after his death would

render the provisions dicult to appl and create uncertaint as to the

disposition of the estate!

De -rJa vs De -rJa, +R+ N-, L"%0'0, Au7us9 1%, 1$#"

&here is no le-al bar to a successor to dispose his or her share immediatel

after such death# even if the actual e=tent of such share is not determined

until the subsequent liquidation of the estate! &he eect of such alienation is

to be deemed limited to what is ultimatel ad%udicated to the vendor heir!


28/101

Civil Law

-n522a vs Le-n ar3ena, +R+ L'1#1&, .une 1%, 1$#!

&he ri-ht of the heirs to the propert of the deceased vests in them even

before the %udicial declaration of their bein- declared as heirs! )hen

9ortunata died# her claim or ri-ht to the parcel of land in liti-ation in civil

case number ;? was not e=tin-uished b her death but was transmitted toher heirs upon her death!

-rr-e-=errera vs -rr-e-, 1&" SCRA 1#1

&he properties included in an e=istin- inheritance cannot be the sub%ect of a

contract! &he heirs acquire a ri-ht to succession from the moment of death

of the decedent! "n this case# the purported 'waiver of hereditar ri-hts(

cannot be considered eective!

a29a?ar v+ La6a, +R+NO+ 1#''%$, A8r52, 11, "01"

"t is an established rule that .aP testament ma not be disallowed %ust

because the attestin- witnesses declare a-ainst its due e=ecution neither

does it have to be necessaril allowed %ust because all the attestin-

witnesses declare in favor of its le-alization what is decisive is that the court

is convinced b evidence before it# not necessaril from the attestin-

witnesses# althou-h the must testif# that the will was or was not dul

e=ecuted in the manner required b law!.

E34ave? vs+ D-?en C-ns+, +R+NO+ 1$"$1!, O39+ 11, "010

An attestation must state all the details the third para-raph of Article 4;

requires! "n the absence of the required avowal b the witnesses themselves#

no attestation clause can be deemed embodied in the Ac$nowled-ement of

the


29/101

Civil Law

will! On the other hand# the si-natures to the attestation clause establish

that the witnesses are referrin- to the statements contained in the

attestation clause itself!

Lee v+ Ta:a7-, &'' SCRA $

An ac$nowled-ment is the act of one who has e=ecuted a deed in -oin-

before some competent ocer or court and declarin- it to be his act or deed!

"t involves an e=tra step underta$en whereb the si-nator actuall declares

to the notar public that the same is his or her own free act and deed! &he

ac$nowled-ment in a notarial will has a twoBfold purposeM @3 to safe-uard

the testator:s wishes lon- after his demise and @2 to assure that his estate is

administered in the manner that he intends it to be done!

Sur-?a vs+ =-nrad-, 110 SCRA %%

"n the openin- para-raph of the will# it was stated that *n-lish was a

lan-ua-e .understood and $nown. to the testatri= but in its concludin-

para-raph# it was stated that the will was read to the testatri= .and

translated into 9ilipino lan-ua-e.! &hat could onl mean that the will was

written in a lan-ua-e not $nown to the illiterate testatri= and# therefore# it is

void because of the mandator provision of article 4E of the Civil Code that

ever will must be e=ecuted in a lan-ua-e or dialect $nown to the testator!

ar35a vs+ Vasue?, " SCRA '%$

&he rationale behind the requirement of readin- the will to the testator if he

is blind or incapable of readin- the will himself @as when he is illiterate# is to

ma$e the provisions thereof $nown to him# so that he ma be able to ob%ect

if the are not in accordance with his wishes! &hat the aim of the law is to

insure that the dispositions of the will are properl communicated to and

understood b the handicapped testator# thus ma$in- them trul reJective of

his desire# is evidenced b the requirement that the will should be read to

the latter# not onl once but twice# b two dierent persons# and that the

witnesses have to act within the ran-e of his @the testator>s other senses!

A2varad- vs+ av5-2a, .r+, ""! SCRA '%

&his Court has held in a number of occasions that substantial compliance is

acceptable where the purpose of the law has been satis6ed# the reason

bein- that the solemnities surroundin- the e=ecution of wills are intended to

protect the testator from all $inds of fraud and tric$er but are never


30/101

Civil Law

intended to be so ri-id and inJe=ible as to destro the testamentar

privile-e!

"n the case at bar# private respondent read the testator>s will and codicil

aloud in the presence of the testator# his three instrumental witnesses# and

the notar public! 5rior and subsequent thereto# the testator armed# uponbein- as$ed# that the contents read corresponded with his instructions! Onl

then did the si-nin- and ac$nowled-ement ta$e place! &here is no evidence#

and petitioner does not so alle-e# that the contents of the will and codicil

were not sucientl made $nown and communicated to the testator! On the

contrar# with respect to the ./ulin- /abilin#. the da of the e=ecution was

not the 6rst time that Dri-ido had armed the truth and authenticit of the

contents of the draft! &he uncontradicted testimon of Att! 8ino is that

Dri-ido Alvarado alread ac$nowled-ed that the will was drafted in

accordance with his e=pressed wishes even prior to ; November 3,++ when

Att! 8ino went to the testator>s residence precisel for the purpose of securin- his conformit to the draft!

.ave22ana vs+ Ledesa R+ N-+ L#1#$, $# P452 "&%

&he subsequent si-nin- and sealin- b the notar of his certi6cation that the

testament was dul ac$nowled-ed b the participants therein is no part of

the ac$nowled-ment itself nor of the testamentar act! /ence their separate

e=ecution out of the presence of the testatri= and her witnesses cannot be

said to violate the rule that testaments should be completed without

interruption! 7+

Cru? vs+ V522as-r NO+L""1, &' SCRA 1

&he notar public before whom the will was ac$nowled-ed cannot be

considered as the third instrumental witness since he cannot ac$nowled-e

before himself his havin- si-ned the will! &his cannot be done because he

cannot split his personalit into two so that one will appear before the other

to ac$nowled-e his participation in the ma$in- of the will!

Caneda vs+ CA, """ SCRA #%1

&he rule on substantial compliance in Article 4, cannot be revo$ed or relied

on b respondents since it presupposes that the defects in the attestation

clause can be cured or supplied b the te=t of the will or a consideration of

matters apparent therefrom which would provide the data not e=pressed in

the attestation clause or from which it ma necessaril be -leaned or clearl


31/101

Civil Law

inferred that the acts not stated in the omitted te=tual requirements were

actuall complied within the e=ecution of the will!

L-8e? v+ L-8e?, !%& SCRA "0$

&he statement in the Ac$nowled-ment portion of the sub%ect last will andtestament that it .consists of + pa-es includin- the pa-e on which the

rati6cation and ac$nowled-ment are written. cannot be deemed substantial

compliance! &he will actuall consists of pa-es includin- its

ac$nowled-ment which discrepanc cannot be e=plained b mere

e=amination of the will itself but throu-h the presentation of evidence

aliunde!

uerrer- v+ 545s, &"1 SCRA $'

&he issue in this case whether the will 'ac$nowled-ed( b the testatri= andthe instrumental witnesses before a notar public actin- outside the place of

his commission satis6es the requirement under Article 4? of the Civil CodeV

Outside the place of his commission# he is bereft of power to perform an

notarial act he is not a notar public! An notarial act outside the limits of

his %urisdiction has no force and eect!

Ce2ada v+ A:ena, &&! SCRA &!$

)hile it is true that the attestation clause is not a part of the will# error in the

number of pa-es of the will as stated in the attestation clause is not material

to invalidate the sub%ect will! "t must be noted that the sub%ect instrument is

consecutivel lettered with pa-es A# D# and C which is a sucient safe-uard

from the possibilit of an omission of some of the pa-es! 7

R-de2as vs+ Aran?a, 11$ SCRA 1!

&he photostatic or =ero= cop of a lost or destroed holo-raphic will ma be

admitted because then the authenticit of the handwritin- of the deceased

can be determined b the probate court!

C-d-/ vs+ Ca2u7a/, 1" SCRA

&he word 'shall( connotes a mandator order! )e have ruled that 'shall( in a

statute commonl denotes an imperative obli-ation and is inconsistent with

the idea of discretion and that the presumption is that the word 'shall#( when

used in a statute is mandator!.


32/101

Civil Law

AJer- vs+ CA, "! SCRA '%%

&hus# unless the unauthenticated alterations# cancellations or insertions were

made on the date of the holo-raphic will or on testator>s si-nature# their

presence does not invalidate the will itself! &he lac$ of authentication will

onl result in disallowance of such chan-es!

Ba2a vs+ Re2-va, 1" SCRA "#

&o state that the )ill as 6rst written should be -iven ecac is to disre-ard

the seemin- chan-e of mind of the testatri=! Dut that chan-e of mind can

neither be -iven eect because she failed to authenticate it in the manner

required b law b a=in- her full si-nature!

R-6as vs+ De .esus, 1' SCRA "'&

As a -eneral rule# the .date. in a holo-raphic )ill should include the da#

month# and ear of its e=ecution! /owever# when as in the case at bar# there

is no appearance of fraud# bad faith# undue inJuence and pressure and the

authenticit of the )ill is established and the onl issue is whether or not the

date .9*D!#?3. appearin- on the holo-raphic )ill is a valid compliance with

Article 34 of the Civil Code# probate of the holo-raphic )ill should be

allowed under the principle of substantial compliance!

La:rad-r vs+ CA, 1%' SCRA 1#0

&he law does not specif a particular location where the date should be

placed in the will! &he onl requirements are that the date be in the will itself

and e=ecuted in the hand of the testator!

Sean75- v+ Re/es, &0% SCRA 1#"

/olo-raphic wills bein- usuall prepared b one who is not learned in the

law# as illustrated in the present case# should be construed more liberall

than the ones drawn b an e=pert# ta$in- into account the circumstances

surroundin- the e=ecution of the instrument and the intention of the testator!

Pa2a7anas v+ Pa2a7anas, "011 !'0 SCRA &%

A forei-n will can be -iven le-al eects in our %urisdiction! Dut# reprobate or

reBauthentication of a will alread probated and allowed in a forei-n countr

is dierent from that probate where the will is presented for the 6rst time

before a competent court!


33/101

Civil Law

Vda+De Pere? vs+ T-2e9e, "" SCRA #""

)hat the law e=pressl prohibits is the ma$in- of %oint wills either for the

testator:s reciprocal bene6t or for the bene6t of a third person @Civil Code of

the 5hilippines# Article 3! "n the case at bench# the Cunanan spouses

e=ecuted separate wills! 1ince the two wills contain essentiall the sameprovisions and pertain to propert which in all probabilit are con%u-al in

nature# practical considerations dictate their %oint probate!

Cas5an- vs CA 1&% SCRA '&1

8evocation under this condition to be eective must have complied with the

two requirementsM the overt act as mentioned under the law the intent to

revo$e on the part of the testator! &he document or paper burned b one of

the witnesses was not satisfactoril established to be the will at all# much

less the will of Adriana!

Adr5ana Ma2-9- vs+ CA, 1&% SCRA '&1

9or one# the document or papers burned b Adriana>s maid# Guadalupe# was

not satisfactoril established to be a will at all# much less the will of Adriana

aloto! 9or another# the burnin- was not proven to have been done under

the e=press direction of Adriana! And then# the burnin- was not in her

presence!

a7- vs+ Mau/a3 NO+ L"!1#, '$ P452 $0"

)here a will which cannot be found is shown to have been in the possession

of the testator# when last seen# the presumption is# in the absence of other

competent evidence# that the same was cancelled or destroed! &he same

presumption arises where it is shown that the testator had read access to

the will and it cannot be found after his death! "t will not be presumed that

such will has been destroed b an other person without the $nowled-e or

authorit of the testator!

Sean75- v+ Re/es, "00! &0% SCRA 1#"

9or disinheritance to be valid# Article ,3? of the Civil Code requires that the

same must be eected throu-h a will wherein the le-al cause therefor shall

be speci6ed! )ith re-ard to the reasons for the disinheritance that were

stated b 1e-undo in his document# the Court believes that the incidents#

ta$en as a whole# can be considered a form of maltreatment of 1e-undo b


34/101

Civil Law

his son# Alfredo# and that the matter presents a sucient cause for the

disinheritance of a child or descendant under Article ,3, of the Civil Code!

M-2- vs+ M-2- NO+ L "&%, $0 P452 #

&he failure of a new testamentar disposition upon whose validit therevocation depends# is equivalent to the nonBful6llment of a suspensive

conditions# and hence prevents the revocation of the ori-inal will! Dut a mere

intent to ma$e at some time a will in the place of that destroed will not

render the destruction conditional!

an vs Ya8, 10' P452+ &0$

&he loss of the holo-raphic will entail the loss of the onl medium of proof if

the ordinar will is lost# the subscribin- witnesses are available to

authenticate! "n case of holo-raphic will if oral testimon were admissibleonl one man could en-ineer the fraud this wa!

R-de2as vs Aran?a 11$ SCRA 1!

"f the holo-raphic will has been lost or destroed and no other cop is

available# the will cannot be probated because the best and onl evidence is

the handwritin- of the testator! Dut a photostatic cop or Wero= cop of the

holo-raphic will ma be allowed because comparison can be made with the

standard writin-s of the testator!

A?a-2a vs S5n7s-n 10$ P452+ 10"

1ince the authenticit of the will was not contested# the appellant is not

required to produce more than one witness! *ven if the -enuiness of the

holo-raphic will were contested# article 33 cannot be interpreted as to

require the compulsor presentation of three witnesses to identif the

handwritin- of the testator# under penalt of havin- denied the probate!

C-d-/ vs Ca2u7a/, 1" SCRA

)e cannot eliminate the possibilit that if the will is contested# the lawrequires that three witnesses to declare that the will was in the handwritin-

of the deceased! A visual e=amination of the holo-raphic will convince us

that the stro$es are dierent when compared with other documents written

b the testator!

a22an-sa vs Ar3an7e2, % SCRA !#!


35/101

Civil Law

After the 6nalit of the allowance of a will# the issue as to the voluntariness

of its e=ecution cannot be raised anmore! "t is not onl the 3,7, probate

proceedin- that can be interposed as res %udicata with respect to private

respondents complaint!

R-:er9s vs Le-n5das, 1"$ SCRA

"t is anomalous that the estate of a person who died testate should be

settled in an intestate proceedin-! &herefore# the intestate case should be

consolidated with the testate proceedin- and the %ud-e assi-ned to the

testate proceedin- should hearin- the two cases!

Ne8-u3en- vs CA, 1$ SCRA "0!

&he -eneral rule is that in probate proceedin-s# the court:s area of inquir is

limited to an e=amination and resolution of the e=trinsic validit of the will!)here practicall considerations demand that the intrinsic validit of the will

be passed upon# even before it is probated# the court should meet the issue!

A?nar vs+ Dun3an, 1# SCRA &$0

&o constitute preterition# the omission must be total and complete# such that

nothin- must be -iven to the compulsor heir!

A3a5n vs+ IAC, 1&& SCRA 100

5reterition annuls the institution of an heir and annulment throws open tointestate succession the entire inheritance! &he onl provisions which do not

result in intestac are the le-acies and devises made in the will for the

should stand valid and respected# e=cept insofar as the le-itimes are

concerned!

Nu7u5d vs+ Nu7u5d, 1# SCRA ''$

&he will here does not e=plicitl disinherit the testatri=>s parents# the forced

heirs! "t simpl omits their names alto-ether! 1aid will rather than be labeled

ineective disinheritance is clearl one in which the said forced heirs suerfrom preterition!

Sean75- v+ Re/es +R+NO+ 1'0#1#", N-v+ "#, "00! &0% SCRA 1#"

&he mere mention of the name of one of the petitioners# Hir-inia# in the

document did not operate to institute her as the universal heir! /er name


36/101

Civil Law

was included plainl as a witness to the altercation between 1e-undo and his

son# Alfredo!

Le7595e and S5u2a9ed C-n9ra39s S8-usa2 Mar59a2 Es9ran7een9

Fran35s3- vs+ Fran35s3-A2


37/101

Civil Law

became of no le-al eect and the reservable propert sub%ect matter thereof

passed in e=clusive ownership to Cipriana!

-n?a2es vs+ CFI, 10' SCRA '#$

rs! Le-arda could not conve in her holo-raphic will to her si=teen-randchildren the reservable properties which she had inherited from her

dau-hter 9ilomena because the reservable properties did not form part of her

estate @Cabardo vs! Hillanueva# EE 5hil! 3?# 3,3! &he reservor cannot ma$e

a disposition mortis causa of the reservable properties as lon- as the

reservees survived the reservor!

V5?3-nde v+ CA, "%! SCRA "1#

*strellita# it should be stressed# died ahead of 8afael# in fact# it was 8afael

who inherited from *strellita an amount more than the value of theHalenzuela propert! /ence# even assumin- that the Halenzuela propert

ma be collated collation ma not be allowed as the value of the Halenzuela

propert has lon- been returned to the estate of 8afael!

Pa2a35-s vs Ra5re?, 111 SCRA #0'

&he word 'de-ree( means -eneration and the present code has obviousl

followed this interpretation b providin- that the substitution shall not -o

beond one de-ree from the heir ori-inall instituted! &he code thus clearl

indicates that the second heir must be related to and one -eneration from

the 6rst heir!

Cr5s-2-7- vs S5n7?-n, '$ SCRA '$1

"n 6deicommissar substitution clearl impose an obli-ation upon the 6rst

heir to preserve and transmit to another the whole or part of the estate

bequeathed to him# upon his death or upon the happenin- of a particular

event!

R-sa2es vs R-sa2es, 1'% SCRA !$

&he dau-hterBinBlaw is not an intestate heir of her spouse:s parents! &here is

no provision in the civil code which states that a widow is an intestate heir of

her motherBinBlaw!

De2-s San9-s vs De2a Cru?, # SCRA &&&


38/101

Civil Law

"n an intestate succession# a -randniece of the deceased cannot participate

in the inheritance with the survivin- nieces and nephews because the

e=istence of the latter e=cluded the more distant relatives! "n the collateral

line# the ri-ht of representation does not -o beond the children of brothers

and sisters!

C-r8u? vs C-r8u?, %& SCRA &!#

1ince# &eodoro was an ac$nowled-ed natural child or was ille-itimate and

since Fuanita was the le-itimate child of &omas# himself was a le-itimate

child# appellant &omas has no cause of action to recover of the supposed

hereditar share of his dau-hter# Fuanita as a le-al heir# in an-co:s estate+

San9522-n vs M5randan, 1' SCRA &!

"f there is onl one le-itimate child survivin- with the spouse since the shallequall# oneBhalf of the estate -oes to the child and the other half -oes to

the survivin- spouse! Althou-h the law refers to children or descendants# the

rule in the statutor construction that the plural can be understood to include

the sin-ular!

a3a/- vs -rr-e-, 1' SCRA $%!

A decedent:s uncle and aunt ma not succeed intestate so lon- as nephews

and nieces of the decedent survive and are willin- and quali6ed to succeed!

"n this case# the nephews and nieces were not inheritin- b ri-ht of

representation because the onl do so if the concur with the brothers and

sisters of the decedent!

a7unu vs+ P5edad, '# SCRA

&he rule on pro=imit is a concept that favors the relatives nearest in de-ree

to the decedent and e=cludes the more distant ones e=cept when and to the

e=tent that the ri-ht of representation can appl! "n the collateral line# the

ri-ht of representation ma onl ta$e place in favor of the children of

brothers or sisters of the decedent when such children survive with their

uncles or aunts!

Sa/s-n vs+ CA, "0& SCRA "1

&he relationship created b the adoption is between onl the adoptin-

parents and the adopted child and does not e=tend to the blood relatives of

either part!


39/101

Civil Law

C-r8us vs+ C-r8us, %& SCRA &!#

"n default of natural ascendants# natural and le-itimated children shall be

succeeded b their natural brothers and sisters in accordance with the rules

established for le-itimate brothers and sisters!. /ence# &eodoro 8! an-co>s

half brothers on the Corpus side# who were le-itimate# had no ri-ht tosucceed to his estate under the rules of intestac!

Sun9a/ v+ C-Juan73-Sun9a/, !"1 SCRA 1'"

5etitioner:s ar-ument that the successional bar between the le-itimate and

ille-itimate relatives of a decedent does not appl in this instance where

facts indubitabl demonstrate the contrar *milio """# an ille-itimate

-randchild of the decedent# was actuall treated b the decedent and her

husband as their own son# reared from infanc# educated and trained in their

businesses# and eventuall le-all adopted b decedent:s husband# theori-inal oppositor to respondent:s petition for letters of administration!

D5a? vs+ IAC, 1&0 SCRA !'&

"t is therefore clear from Article ,,2 of the New Civil Code that the phrase

.le-itimate children and relatives of his father or mother. includes 1imona

5amuti Hda! de 1antero as the word .relative. includes all the $indred of the

person spo$en of! &he record shows that from the commencement of this

case the onl parties who claimed to be the le-itimate heirs of the late

1imona 5amuti Hda! de 1antero are 9elisa 5amuti Fardin and the si= minor

natural or ille-itimate children of 5ablo 1antero!

D5a? vs+ IAC, 1%" SCRA '"#

&he term relatives, althou-h used man times in the Code# is not de6ned b

it! "n accordance therefore with the canons of statutor interpretation# it

should be understood to have a -eneral and inclusive scope# inasmuch as

the term is a -eneral one!

=e5rs -< Ur5ar9e vs+ CA, "%' SCRA &11

A nephew is considered a collateral relative who ma inherit if no

descendant# ascendant# or spouse survive the decedent! &hat private

respondent is onl a halfBblood relative is immaterial!

De2-s San9-s vs Ferrar5s-rr-e-, 1' SCRA $%!


40/101

Civil Law

Nephews and nieces alone do not inherit b ri-ht of representation unless

concurrin- with the brothers or sisters of the deceased which is provided in

article ,+; when children of one or more brothers or sisters of the deceased

survive with their uncles and aunts but if the alone survive# the shall

inherit in equal portions!

OLIATIONS AND CONTRACTS

DEAOS vs+ PEOPLE OF T=E P=ILIPPINES, +R+ NO+ 1!"%"!,O39-:er 1', "01

PRESS CARD CORPORATION vs+ MA+ ANTONIA R+ ARMOVIT+R+ N-+ 1!!&', 0% O39-:er "01', FIRST DIVISION (ERSAMIN, .+)

&he relationship between the credit card issuer and the credit card holder isa contractual one that is -overned b the terms and conditions found in thecard membership a-reement! 1uch terms and conditions constitute the lawbetween the parties! "n case of their breach# moral dama-es ma berecovered where the defendant is shown to have acted fraudulentl or in bad

faith! alice or bad faith implies a conscious and intentional desi-n to do awron-ful act for a dishonest purpose or moral obliquit! /owever# a consciousor intentional desi-n need not alwas be present because ne-li-ence maoccasionall be so -ross as to amount to malice or bad faith! /ence# bad faithin the conte=t of Article 2224 of the Civil Code includes -ross ne-li-ence!

FILESTATE PROPERTIES, INC+ AND FILESTATE NETWORB, INC+, v+SPOUSES CONRADO AND MARIA VICTORIA RON@UILLO, , +R+NO+1%$%+ .anuar/ 1, "01' &he 3,,+ Asian 9inancial Crisis cannot be said to be unforeseeable andbeond the control of a business corporation# especiall a corporationen-a-ed in real estate enterprise! 1uch corporation is considered a master inpro%ections of commodities and currenc movements and business ris$s! "thas the abilit to foresee such situation! &hus# the 3,,+ Asian 9inancial Crisisis not an instance of caso fortuito!

ANSAY vs+ OARD OF DIRECTORS, +R+ NO+ L1!!#, A8r52 "$, 1$!0


41/101

Civil Law

Appellants 6led a-ainst appellees in the C9" a complaint prain- for a 24XChristmas bonus# contendin- that there e=ists a cause of action in theircomplaint because their claim rests on moral -rounds or what in brief isde6ned b law as a natural obli-ation! Article 3E27 of the New Civil Codeclassi6es obli-ations into civil or natural# .Civil obli-ations are a ri-ht of

action to compel their performance# while Natural obli-ations# not bein-based on positive law but on equit and natural law# do not -rant a ri-ht of action to enforce their performance# but after voluntar ful6llment b theobli-or# the authorize the retention of what has been delivered or renderedb reason thereof.!

SALEN vs+ ALCE, +R+ NO+ L1''1', A8r52 "#, 1$!0


42/101

Civil Law

class# the loss or destruction of anthin- of the same $ind even without thedebtor:s fault and before he has incurred in dela will not have the eect of e=tin-uishin- the obli-ation# based on the principle that the -enus of a thin-can never perish# @Genus nunquan perit and an obli-ation to pa mone is-eneric therefore# it is not e=cused b fortuitous loss of an speci6c propert

of the debtor!

TELEFAST vs+ CASTRO, +R+ NO+ #%!#, Fe:ruar/ "$, 1$%%

5etitioner and private respondent entered into a contract whereb# for a fee#petitioner undertoo$ to send said private respondent>s messa-e overseas btele-ram but which petitioner did not do# despite performance b saidprivate respondent of her obli-ation b pain- the required char-es! &hosewho in the performance of their obli-ations are -uilt of fraud# ne-li-ence ordela# and those who in an manner contravene the tenor thereof# are liablefor dama-es!

MANUEL vs+ CA, +R+ NO+ $&'!$ .u2/ "&, 1$$1

5etitioner contends that private respondents are in mora accipiendi! &hefailure of the owners to collect or their refusal to accept the rentals are notvalid defenses# since consi-nation under such circumstances# is necessar#and b this we mean one that is eected in full compliance with the speci6crequirements of the law therefor!

UNLAD RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs+ DRAON, +R+NO+ 1'$%, .u2/ "%, "00%

5etitioners contend that the have full complied with their obli-ation underthe emorandum of A-reement but due to respondents: failure to increasethe capital stoc$ of the corporation to an amount that will accommodatetheir underta$in-# it had become impossible for them to perform their end of the A-reement! "n reciprocal obli-ations# failure of the other part to performthe obli-ation renders the other part to demand ful6llment of the obli-ationor as$ed for the rescission of the contract# but not simpl not performin-their part of the A-reement!

=ONBON AND S=AN=AI ANBIN CORP+ vs+ RO@UEA, +R+ NO+

1#%!10 N-ve:er 1#, "010

8espondents e=ecuted undated promissor notes! &he were not able to pathe monthl amortizations of their respective loans# which were suppose tobe paid throu-h salar deduction# to the petitioner because of theirdismissal! Loans secured b their future retirement bene6ts to which the areno lon-er entitled are reduced to unsecured and pure civil obli-ations and


43/101

Civil Law

the absence of a period within which to pa the obli-ation# the ful6llment of which is demandable at once!

.AVIER vs+ CA, +R+ N-+ L'%1$' Mar34 1&, 1$$0

)hen a contract is sub%ect to a suspensive condition# its birth and eectivitcan ta$e place onl if and when the event which constitutes the conditionhappens or is ful6lled# and if the suspensive condition does not ta$e place#the parties would stand as if the conditional obli-ation had never e=isted!

PARBS vs+ PROVINCE OF TARLAC, +R+ NO+ L"'1$0, .u2/ 1, 1$"!

Appellant contends that a condition precedent havin- been imposed in thedonation and the same not havin- been complied with# the donation neverbecame eective! &he characteristic of a condition precedent is that theacquisition of the ri-ht is not eected while said condition is not complied

with or is not deemed complied with# consequentl# when a condition isimposed# the compliance of which cannot be eected e=cept when the ri-htis deemed acquired# such condition cannot be a condition precedent but acondition subsequent!

ALILEO A+ MALASAN v+ NORT=WESTERN UNIVERSITY, INC+, +R+N-+ 1%%$%!, Mar34 "0, "01

&he court ruled that the power to rescind the obli-ations of the in%ured partis implied in reciprocal obli-ations# such as in this case! On this score# the CAcorrectl applied Article 33,3# which provides thusM the power to rescind

obli-ations is implied in reciprocal ones# in case one of the obli-ors shouldnot compl with what is incumbent upon him! &he in%ured part ma choosebetween the ful6llment and the rescission of the obli-ation# with thepament of dama-es in either case! /e ma also see$ rescission# even afterhe has chosen ful6llment# if the latter should become impossible! &he courtshall decree the rescission claimed# unless there be %ust cause authorizin-the 6=in- of a period!

EDS MANUFACTURIN, INC+ v+ =EALT=C=ECB INTERNATIONAL INC++R+ N-+ 1!"%0", O39-:er $, "01

&he -eneral rule is that rescission of a contract will not be permitted for asli-ht or casual breach# but onl for such substantial and fundamentalviolations as would defeat the ver ob%ect of the parties in ma$in- thea-reement! "t must be pointed that in the absence of a stipulation# a partcannot unilaterall and e=tra %udiciall rescind a contract! A %udicial ornotarial act is necessar before a valid rescission can ta$e place!


44/101

Civil Law

*ven if Article 33,3 were applicable# petitioner would still not be entitled to

automatic rescission! Inder Article 33,3of the Civil Code# the ri-ht to resolve

reciprocal obli-ations# is deemed implied in case one of the obli-ors shall fail

to compl with what is incumbent upon him! Dut that ri-ht must be invo$ed %udiciall! Consequentl# even if the ri-ht to rescind is made available to the

in%ured part# the obli-ation is not ipso facto erased b the failure of the

other part to compl with what is incumbent upon him! &he part entitled to

rescind should appl to the court for a decree of rescission! &he ri-ht cannot

be e=ercised solel on a part:s own %ud-ment that the other committed a

breach of the obli-ation! &he operative act which produces the resolution of

the contract is the decree of the court and not the mere act of the vendor+

UP vs+ DE LOS ANELES, +R+ NO+ L"%!0", Se89e:er "$,

"n the 6rst place# I5 and ALICO had e=pressl stipulated in the.Ac$nowled-ment of


45/101

Civil Law

common sub%ectM the 1hares the 3+!E illion *5C"D common shares#which# as a necessar consequence of the D


46/101

Civil Law

5ament made to one havin- apparent authorit to receive the mone will#as a rule# be treated as thou-h actual authorit had been -iven for itsreceipt! "f pament is made to one who b law is authorized to act for thecreditor# it will wor$ as a dischar-e!

TIA.IA vs+ CA, +R+ NO+ 100"$0, .une ', 1$$Chec$s representin- deposit mone do not have le-al tender power and theiracceptance in the pament of debts# both public and private# is at the optionof the creditor!

SPS+ NAMAEL AND LOURDES ONROSTRO v+ SPS+ .UAN ANDCONSTACIA LUNA, +R+ N-+ 1#"'!+ .u2/ "', "01

&ender of pament .is the manifestation b the debtor of a desire to complwith or pa an obli-ation! "f refused without %ust cause# the tender of pament will dischar-e the debtor of the obli-ation to pa but onl after a

valid consi-nation of the sum due shall have been made with the propercourt!. Consi-nation is the deposit of the proper amount with a %udicialauthorit in accordance with rules prescribed b law# after the tender of pament has been refused or because of circumstances which render directpament to the creditor impossible or inadvisable!

&ender of pament# without more# produces no eect! &o have the eect of pament and the consequent e=tin-uishment of the obli-ation to pa# thelaw requires the companion acts of tender of pament and consi-nation!

S8-uses Os3ar and T4e2a Ca3a/-r5n v+ Ared F-r3es and P-253e

Mu9ua2 ene9 Ass-35a95-n, In3+, +R+ N-+ 1#1"$%+ A8r52 1&, "01

Consi-nation is necessaril %udicial! Article 32; of the Civil Code speci6callprovides that consi-nation shall be made b depositin- the thin- or thin-sdue at the disposal of %udicial authorit! &he said provision clearl precludesconsi-nation in venues other than the courts!

DALTON vs+ F+R+ and DEVELOPMENT CORP, +R+ NO+ 1#"# .anuar/1$, "011

&he withdrawal b the creditor of the amounts consi-ned was sub%ect to the

e=press reservation of assailin- the validit of the consi-nation! "n such case#the creditor is not deemed to have waived the claims he reserved a-ainst hisdebtor! )hen the amount consi-ned does not cover the entire obli-ation# thecreditor ma accept it# reservin- his ri-ht to the balance!

FRANCIA vs+ IAC, +R+ NO+ L!#!'$ .une "%, 1$%%


47/101

Civil Law

9rancia contends that his ta= delinquenc has been e=tin-uished b le-alcompensation and claims that the -overnment owed him when a portion of his land was e=propriated# hence# his ta= obli-ation had been setBo boperation of law!

&he -eneral rule based on -rounds of public polic is wellBsettled that no setBo admissible a-ainst demands for ta=es levied for -eneral or local-overnmental purposes because ta=es are not in the nature of contractsbetween the part and part but -row out of dut to# and are the positiveacts of the -overnment to the ma$in- and enforcin- of which# the personalconsent of individual ta=paers is not required!

CALIFORNIA US LINES, INC+ vs+ STATE INVESTMENT =OUSE, INC+,+R+ NO+ 1'#$&0+ De3e:er 11, "00 &here was no chan-e in the ob%ect of the prior obli-ations in therestructurin- a-reement since it merel provided for a new schedule of

paments and additional securit -ivin-


48/101

Civil Law

&he issue here is whether or not the unnotarized deed of sale can beconsidered as a valid instrument for eectin- the alienation b wa of sale of a parcel of land re-isterd under the &orrens 1stem! &he -eneral ruleenunciated in said Art! 37;? is that contracts are obli-ator# in whateverform the ma have been entered# provided all the essential requisites for

their validit are present# e=cept when the law so requires requirin- acontract to be in some form for validit or enforceabilit!

SANC=E vs+ RIOS, +R+ NO+ L"&'$' .une 1', 1$#"

1ince there ma be no valid contract without a cause or consideration# thepromisor is not bound b his promise and ma# accordin-l# withdraw it# andpendin- notice of its withdrawal# his accepted promise parta$es# however# of the nature of an oer to sell which# if accepted# results in a perfectedcontract of sale!

TIU vs+ PLATINUM PLANS P=IL+, INC+, +R+ NO+ 1!&1" Fe:ruar/ "%,"00#

8espondent contends that the inclusion of the twoBear nonBinvolvementclause in petitioner:s contract of emploment was reasonable and neededsince her %ob -ave her access to the compan:s con6dential mar$etin-strate-ies! A nonBinvolvement clause is not necessaril void for bein- inrestraint of trade as lon- as there are reasonable limitations as to time#trade# and place!

CAA=U vs NAPOCOR, +R+ NO+ 1%!0!$, .anuar/ 0, "01

s attempt tocollect further sums b wa of additional easement fee and#or %ustcompensation is violative of said contract! "t is settled that a contractconstitutes the law between the parties who are bound b its stipulationswhich# when couched in clear and plain lan-ua-e# should be appliedaccordin- to their literal tenor and the courts cannot suppl materialstipulations# which contradict the intent of the parties!

SPOUSES FLORENDO vs+ COURT OF APPEALS, +R+ NO+ 101##1De3e:er 1#, 1$$!

"n order that obli-ations arisin- from contracts ma have the force of lawbetween the parties# there must be mutualit between the parties based ontheir essential equalit# hence# a contract containin- a condition whichma$es its ful6llment dependent e=clusivel upon the uncontrolled will of oneof the contractin- parties# is void!

DBC =OLDINS CORPORATION vs+ COURT OF APPEALS, +R+ NO+11%"'% A8r52 &, "000


49

civil law must read cases

Documents