pals case syllabi civil 2015

7/25/2019 PALS Case Syllabi CIVIL 2015

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/pals-case-syllabi-civil-2015 1/340

1

CIVIL

LAW

The Law on Persons and Family

Relations Course Outline

I. Preliminary Title; Human Relations;Personality; Domiile;

Art. ! "CC; Art.# La$or Code; %e. &'() * +, Ch. !,-oo VII, Administrati/e Code o0 (123; BSP Circular

799

45ets and a66liation o0 law

Tanada /s Tu/era, (&7 %CRA !3 '(12#)Article 2 of the NCC does not preclude the requirement of publication in the Ocial Gazette even if the law itself providesfor the date of its eectivit!

Tanada /s Tu/era,(+7 %CRA ++7 '(127)

"f the law provides for its own eectivit date# then it ta$eseect on the said date# sub%ect to the requirement of publication! &he clause 'unless otherwise provided( refers to thedate of eectivit and not the to the requirement of publication

itself# which cannot in an event be omitted!

-asa /s 8erado, 7( Phil 7&!

&o be a newspaper of )eneral circulation# it is enou)h that it ispublished for the dissemination of local news and )eneralinformation# that it has bona *de subscription list of pain)subscribers# and that it is published at re)ular intervals!

PA%4I /s. Torres, 9.R. "O. (:(!31,Au. :7, (11! !(!%CRA !12

Althou)h the questioned circulars are a valid e+ercise of the

police power as dele)ated to the e+ecutive branch of

Government# the are le)all invalid# defective and

unenforceable for lac$ of proper publication and *lin) in the

Oce of the National Administrative ,e)ister as required in

Article 2 of the Civil Code# Article - of the .abor Code and



2

/ections 01 and 3# Chapter 2# 4oo$ 5"" of the Administrative

Code of 1678

Re6. /s. 4<telom, 9.R. "O. (+3:17,=an. (#, !::!

&3& %CRA &(7 &hus# publication in the Ocial Gazette or a newspaper of )eneral circulation is a condition sine qua non before statutes#rules or re)ulations can ta$e eect! &here is nothin) in theAdministrative Code



of 1678 which implies that the *lin) of the rules with the 9:.aw Center is the operative act that )ives the rules force andeect!

Co>uano, =r. /s. Re6., 9.R. "O. (2:3:#, "o/.!3,!:(! 727 %CRA +3!

"n this case# while it incorporated the :CA;Co%uan)coAG!,!eement b reference# /ection 1 of :!<! 8-- did not inan wa reproduce the e+act terms of the contract in thedecree! Neither was acop thereof attached to the decreewhen published! =e cannot# therefore# e+tend to the saidAG!,!eement the status of a law!

"8%8I /s. D"D,9.R. "O. (23#23,=une #, !:(& 713%CRA &#1 >

&he Court cannot rel on a handwritten note that was not part of :roclamation No! 238? as published! =ithout publication# thenote never had an le)al force and eect!

Roy /s CA, 9.R. "O 2:3(2 =an. !1, (122

&he term 'laws( do not include decisions of the /upremeCourt because lawers in the active practice must $eepabreast of decisions# particularl where issues have beenclari*ed# consistentl reiterated and published in advancedreports and the /C,A!

Arts.&, +, #, 7, 3 "CC; Arts. (:#, !#7 Family Code;Vested Rihts; %u$stanti/e * Proedural Laws;Retroati/e A66liation; 4<6ress and Im6lied Re6eal;45et o0 delaration o0 ?nonstitutionality

8arella@-o$is /s -o$is, &&7 %CRA 3+3 '!:::)

&he accused is prosecuted for the crime of bi)am for notobtainin) a %udicial declaration of nullit of his *rst marria)ebefore enterin) into another marria)e! ")norance of thee+istence of article 3@ of the amil Code canno enve besuccessfull invo$ed as an e+cuse!

-erna$e /. Ale>o 9.R. "O. (+:#::, =an. !(, !::! &3+%CRA (2:

An ille)itimate child *led an action for reco)nition pursuantto article



27- of the NCC durin) the eectivit of the amil Code!

ille)itimate children who were still minors at the time the

amil Code too$ eect and whose putative parent died durin)

their minorit are thus )iven the ri)ht to see$ reco)nition

under Article 27- of the Civil Code for a period of up to four

ears from attainin) ma%orit a)e and this vested ri)ht was

not impaired or ta$en awa b the passa)e of the amil

Code!

Re6. /. 8iller 9.R. "O. (!#1&!, A6r. !(, (111 &:7%CRA (2&



=hether or not# an alien# who is quali*ed to adopt at the

time of *lin) the petition# can be disquali*ed b the new

provisions of the famil code! An alien quali*ed to adopt under

the Child and Bouth =elfare Code# which was in force at the

time of the *lin) of the petition# acquired a vested ri)ht

which could not be aected b the subsequent enactment

of a new law disqualifin) him! 5ested ri)hts include not onl

le)al or equitable title to the enforcement of a demand# but

also an e+emption from new obli)ations created after the

ri)ht has vested!

Atiena /s. -rillantes, A8 8T= 1!@3:7, 8ar. !1,(11#!+& %CRA &!

Article 3@ is applicable to remarria)es entered into after theeectivit of the amil Code on Au)ust 0# 1677 re)ardless of the date of the *rst marria)e! &he fact that procedural statutesma somehow aect the liti)ants ri)hts ma not preclude theirretroactive application to pendin) actions!

Ty /. Cam 9.R. "O. (!3+:7, "o/. !3, !:::

&he two marria)es involved in this case was entered durin)the eectivit of the New Civil Code! &he amil Code hasretroactive eect unless there be impairment of vested ri)hts!

Compare the case of TB /s CA and Atiena /s

-rillantes %ystems Fators Cor6 /s "LRC, &+7

%CRA (+1 '!:::)

&he retroactive application of procedural laws is not violative of an ri)htof a person who ma feel that he is adversel aected! &hereason is that as a )eneral rule# no vested ri)ht ma attach norarise from procedural laws!

Au>etas /s CA, !7( %CRA (3 '(117)

"mplied repeals are not to be favored because the rest onl onthe presumption that because the old and the new laws areincompatible with each other# there is an intention to repeal theold! &here must be a plain# unavoidable and irreconcilablerepu)nanc between the two!



Launa Lae De/elo6ment Authority /s CA, !#( %CRA +!'(11#)

=hen there is a conDict between a )eneral law and a specialstatute# the special statute should prevail since it evinces thele)islative intent more clearl than the )eneral statute! &he

special law is to be ta$en as an e+ception to the )eneral lawin the absence of special circumstances forcin) a contrarconclusion!

De A$ayani /s P"-, &2 %CRA +!1



&he /upreme Court declared the moratorium lawunconstitutional but it did not allow to toll the prescriptiveperiod of the ri)ht to foreclose the mort)a)e! &he courtadopted the view that before an act is declaredunconstitutional it is an operative fact which can be the source

of ri)hts and duties!

Artile 2. %tare Deisis; Case Law; %ee also Artile&7, FC; artile 1, (:, ((, (! , (&, (+ "CC

Tin /. Vele@Tin, 9.R. "O. (77#7!, 8ar. &(, !::1#2! %CRA 71+

&he rule of stare decisis is not inDe+ible# whether it shall befollowed or departed from# is a question entirel within thediscretion of the court# which is a)ain called upon to consider aquestion once decided! "t is onl when a prior rulin) of this Courtis overruled# and a dierent view is adopted# that the newdoctrine ma have to be applied prospectivel in favor of parties who have relied on the old doctrine and have actedin )ood faith# in accordance therewith under the familiar rule of Ele+ prospicit# non respicit

Floresa /s Phile< 8inin Cor6.,9.R. &:7+!, A6ril &:,(12#

&he application or interpretation placed b the /upreme

Court upon a law is part of the law as of the date of its

enactment since the courtFs application or interpretation merel

establishes the contemporaneous le)islative intent that the

construed law purports to carr into eect!

8endiola /s CA, !#2 %CRA +1!

quit# which has been described as '%ustice outside le)alit(is applied onl in the absence of# and never a)ainst statutorlaw or %udicial rules of procedure!



Artiles (#, (7, (3, #:, #( '"ew Ci/il Code); Artile

!7, Family Code DAVID A. "OV4RA% /s. L4TICIA T.

"OV4RA%, 9.R. "o. (22!21,Auust !:, !:(+

<avid and .eticia are 9/ citizens who own properties in the 9/A andin the :hilippines! .eticia obtained a decree of divorce from the/uperior Court of California in Hune 2@@- wherein the court awardedall the properties in the 9/A to .eticia! &he trial court erred inreco)nizin) the divorce decree &he forei)n



%ud)ment and its authenticit must be proven as facts under our ruleson evidence# to)ether with the alienFs applicable national law to showthe eect of the %ud)ment on the alien himself or herself! &hereco)nition ma be made in an action instituted speci*call for thepurpose or in another action where a part invo$es the forei)n decree

as an inte)ral aspect of his claim or defense! =ith respect to theirproperties in the :hilippines# .eticia *led a petition for %udicialseparation of con%u)al properties! &he Court ruled that the :hilippinecourts did not acquire %urisdiction over the California properties of<avid and .eticia! "ndeed# Article 1? of the Civil Code clearl statesthat real propert as well as personal propert is sub%ect to the law ofthe countr where it is situated! &hus# liquidation shall onl be limitedto the :hilippine properties!

"OR8A A. D4L %OCORRO, 0or and in $ehal0 o0 her minor hildROD4RI9O "OR=O VA" WIL%48, /s. 4R"%T =OHA" -RI"8A"

VA" WIL%48, 9.R. "o.(1&3:3 , Deem$er (:, !:(+

A forei)ner was sued for support! &he /upreme Court ruled that Article16- of the New Civil Code cannot appl to him# since Article 1- of theNew Civil Code stresses the principle of nationalit! :hilippine laws#speci*call the provisions of the amil Code relatin) to support# onlappl to ilipino citizens! 4 analo)# the same principle applies toforei)ners such that the are )overned b their national law withrespect to famil ri)hts and duties! 4e that as it ma# the accused#

who is residin) in the :hilippines# was held liable under under /ection-e and i of ,!A! No! 62?2 for un%ustl refusin) or failin) to )ivesupport to petitionerFs son on since respondent is currentl livin) inthe :hilippines# on the basis of the &erritorialit :rinciple in criminallaw# in relation to Article 13 of the New Civil Code# applies to theinstant case# which provides thatI EJpKenal laws and those of publicsecurit and safet shall be obli)ator upon all who live and so%ourn in:hilippine territor# sub%ect to the principle of public international lawand to treat stipulations!E

"OR8A A. D4L %OCORRO 0or and in $ehal0 o0 her 8inor

Child ROD4RI9O "OR=O VA" WIL%48 /s. 4R"%T =OHA"-RI"8A" VA" WIL%48, 9.R. "o.(1&3:3, Deem$er (:, !:(+



%A?DI ARA-IA" AIRLI"4% '%A?DIA) A"D -R4"DA V%. 8A. =OP4TT4 8. R4-4%4"CIO 8O"TA%%AH -. %ACAR@ADIO"9 4T.AL. 9.R. "O. (12#23. =anuary (+, !:(#

9nder the doctrine of processual presumption# if the forei)n lawinvolved is not properl pleaded and proved# our courts will presumethat the forei)n law is the same as our local or domestic or internallaw! Lence# pleadin) a forei)n law without provin) the same will bar itsapplication in the :hilippines



All told# the considerations for assumption of %urisdiction b :hilippinetribunals as outlined in Bank of America, NT&SA have been satis*ed!irst# all the parties are based in the :hilippines and all the materialincidents transpired in this %urisdiction! &hus# the parties maconvenientl see$ relief from :hilippine tribunals! /econd# :hilippine

tribunals are in a position to ma$e an intelli)ent decision as to the lawand the facts! &hird# :hilippine tribunals are in a position to enforcetheir decisions! &here is no compellin) basis for cedin) %urisdiction to aforei)n tribunal! Muite the contrar# the immense public policconsiderations attendant to this case behoove :hilippine tribunals tonot sh awa from their dut to rule on the case!

Van Dorn /s. Romillo 9.R. "O.L@72+3: Oto$er 2,(12# (&1 %CRA(&1

"t is true that owin) to the nationalit principle embodied in

Article 1- of the Civil Code# onl :hilippine nationals are covered

b the polic a)ainst absolute divorces the same bein)

considered contrar to our concept of public polic and moralit!

Lowe ver# aliens ma obtain divor ces abroad# which ma be

reco)nized in the :hilippines# provided the are valid accordin)

to their national law!

Pila6il /s. I$ay@%omera, 9.R. "O. 2:((7 =une &:,(121 (3+ %CRA7#!

=hether or not# the complainant# a forei)ner# qualif as anoended spouse havin) obtained a *nal divorce decree underhis national law prior to his *lin) the criminal complaint! &heperson who initiates the adulter case must be an oendedspouse# and b this is meant that he is still married to theaccused spouse# at the time of the *lin) of the complaint!

Reio /s. Reio 9.R. "O. (&2&!!. Oto$er !, !::( &77%CRA +&3

=hether or not the divorce must be proved before it is to bereco)nized in the :hilippines! 4efore a forei)n divorce decreecan be reco)nized b our courts# the part pleadin) it mustprove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformit to theforei)n law allowin) it! :resentation solel of the divorcedecree is insucient!



Roehr /. Rodriue,9.R. "O. (+!2!: ,=un. &:, !::&+:+ %CRA +1#

As a )eneral rule# divorce decrees obtained b forei)ners inother countries are reco)nizable in our %urisdiction# but thele)al eects thereof# e.g. on custod# care and support of the

children# must still be determined b our courts!

8orio /. Peo6le, 9.R. "O. (+#!!7 , Fe$. 7, !::+ +!!%CRA &37



&he mere private act of si)nin) a marria)e contract bears no

semblance to a valid marria)e and thus# needs no %udicial

declaration of nullit! /uch act alone# 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 *rst

secures a %udicial declaration of nullit before he contracts a

subsequent marria)e! 'Pro ha /ie ase)

Re6. /. Or$eido, 9.R. "O. (#+&2:, Ot. :#, !::# +3!%CRA ((+ >=hether or not# a ilipino /pouse can remarr under A,&"C.2? O &L A".B CO< where his#her spouse is laternaturalized as a forei)n citizen and obtains a valid divorce

decree capacitatin) him or her to remarr! &he rec$onin)point is not the citizenship of the parties at the time of thecelebration of the marria)e# but their citizenship at the time avalid divorce is obtained abroad b the alien spouse capacitatin)the latter to remarr.

Cor6u /. %to. Tomas, 9.R."O. (27#3(, Au. ((, !:(:7!2 %CRA!77

"n GerbertFs case# since both the forei)n divorce decree and

the national law of the alien# reco)nizin) his or her capacit

to obtain a divorce# purport to be ocial acts of a soverei)n

authorit# /ection 23# ,ule 102 of the ,ules of Court comes

into pla! &his /ection requires proof# either b 1 ocial

publications or 2 copies attested b the ocer havin) le)al

custod of the documents! "f the copies of ocial records are

not $ept in the :hilippines# these must be a accompanied b

a certi*cate issued b the proper diplomatic or consular

ocer in the :hilippine forei)n service stationed in the forei)ncountr in which the record is $ept and b authenticated b

the seal of his oce!

Human Relations; A$use o0 Rihts, ?n>ust 4nrihment;8aliious Proseution; Inde6endent Ci/il Ation;Arts. (3!+; !(+!; !(#+;



!(7+; !(37, "CC

%PO?%4% AL4=A"DRO 8A"A"ILLA A"D R484DIO% V4LA%CO /WAT4RFI4LD%I"D?%TRI4% CORPORATIO", re6resented $y its President,

ALIA 8A. 9.R "o. (33+2+, =uly (2, !:(+. =. D4L CA%TILLO=ater*elds Corp! and the spouses anzanilla entered into a contractof lease! =hen =ater*elds breached the contract b failin) to pa

rent# the lessors brou)ht an e%ectment suit! =ater*elds claims that if itwas e%ected prior to the e+piration of the lease# it would betantamount to un%ust enrichment as =ater*elds alread introducedsubstantial improvements on the propert!



&he principle of un%ust enrichment requires two conditionsI 1 that aperson is bene*ted without a valid basis or %usti*cation# and 2 thatsuch bene*t is derived at the e+pense of another!(

"t does not# however# appl in this case since an bene*t that the

spouses anzanilla ma obtain from the sub%ect premises cannot besaid to be without an valid basis or %usti*cation! "t is well to remind=ater*elds that the violated the contract of lease and that thefailed to vacate the premises upon demand! Lence# the spousesanzanilla are %usti*ed in recoverin) the phsical possession thereofand consequentl# in ma$in) use of the propert! 4esides# in violatin)the lease b failin) to pa the rent# =ater*elds too$ the ris$ of losin)the improvements it introduced thereon in favor of the spousesanzanilla!

RA?L %4%-R4"OV%. CO?RT OF APP4AL%, 9.R. "o. (7:721 8arh

!7, !:(+, =. -4R%A8I" &his case concerns the claim for dama)es of petitioner ,aul L! /esbreofounded on abuse of ri)hts! /esbreo accused the violation of contract5OC inspection team dispatched b the 5isaan lectric Compan 5COto chec$ his electric meter with conductin) an unreasonable search in hisresidential premises! "t is worth notin) that the 5OC inspectors decided toenter the main premises onl after *ndin) the meter of /esbreo turnedupside down# han)in) and its disc not rotatin)! &heir doin) so would enablethem to determine the unbilled electricit consumed b his household! &hecircumstances %usti*ed their decision# and their inspection of the mainpremises was a continuation of the authorized entr!

Althou)h the act is not ille)al# liabilit for dama)es ma arise should

there be an abuse of ri)hts! &he concept of abuse of ri)hts prescribes

that a person should not use his ri)ht un%ustl or in bad faithP

otherwise# he ma be liable to another who suers in%ur! There is an

abuse of rights if when the act is performed without prudence or in bad

faith! "n order that liabilit ma attach under the concept of abuse of

ri)hts# the followin) elements must be present# to witI a the e+istence

of a le)al ri)ht or dut# b which is e+ercised in bad faith# and c for

the sole intent of pre%udicin) or in%urin) another! &here is no hard andfast rule that can be applied to ascertain whether or not the principle of

abuse of ri)hts is to be invo$ed! &he resolution of the issue depends on

the circumstances of each case!

Lowever# /esbreo did not persuasivel demonstrate that there was an

intervention of malice or bad faith on the part of 5OC inspection team



durin) the inspection of the main premises# or an e+cessiveness

committed b them in the course of the inspection! 4ut /esbreo did

not! On the other hand# the CA correctl observed that the inspection

did not zero in on /esbreoFs residence because the other houses

within the area were similarl sub%ected to the routine inspection! &he

court eliminated an notion of malice or bad faith!

WILLAWAR4 PROD?CT% CORPORATIO" /s. =4%ICHRI%8A"?FACT?RI"9 CORPORATIO", 9.R. "o. (1##+1,%e6tem$er &, !:(+, =. Peralta



&he issue for resolution isI whether or not petitioner committed actsamountin) to unfair competition under Article 27 of the Civil Code!&heinstant case falls under Article 27 of the Civil Code on humanrelations# and not unfair competition under ,epublic Act No! 7260# asthe present suit is a dama)e suit and the products are not covered b

patent re)istration! A fortiori# the e+istence of patent re)istration isimmaterial in the present case!

&he concept of Eunfair competitionEunder Article 27 is ver muchbroader than that covered b intellectual propert laws! 9nder thepresent article# which follows the e+tended concept of EunfaircompetitionE in American %urisdictions# the term covers even cases ofdiscover of trade secrets of a competitor# briber of his emploees#misrepresentation of all $inds# interference with the ful*llment of acompetitorFs contracts# or an malicious interference with the latterFsbusiness!

Article 27 of the Civil Code provides that unfair competition ina)ricultural# commercial or industrial enterprises or in labor throu)hthe use of force# intimidation# deceit# machination or an other un%ust#oppressive or hi)h;handed method shall )ive rise to a ri)ht of action bthe person who thereb suers dama)e! =hat is bein) sou)ht to beprevented is not competition per se but the use of un%ust# oppressive orhi)hhanded methods which ma deprive others of a fair chance toen)a)e in business or to earn a livin)! &hus# when a manufacturer ofplastic $itchenware products emploed the former emploees of anei)hborin) partnership en)a)ed in the manufacture of plasticautomotive partsP deliberatel copied the latterFs products and evenwent to the e+tent of sellin) these products to the latterFs customers#there is unfair competition!

CARLO% A. LORIA /s. L?DOLFO P. 8?EO, 9.R. "o. (23!+:,Oto$er (#, !:(+, =.

Leonen &he principle of un%ust enrichment has two conditions! irst# a personmust have been bene*ted without a real or valid basis or %usti*cation!/econd# the bene*t was derived at another personFs e+pense ordama)e! "n this case# .oria received :2#@@@#@@@!@@ from uoz for asubcontract of a )overnment pro%ect to dred)e the asarawa) and/an rancisco ,ivers in Guinobatan# Alba! Lowever# contrar to thepartiesF a)reement# uoz was not subcontracted for the pro%ect!



Nevertheless# .oria retained the :2#@@@#@@@!@@! &hus# .oria wasun%ustl enriched! Le retained uozFs mone without valid basis or %usti*cation! 9nder Article 22 of the Civil Code of the :hilippines# .oriamust return the :2#@@@#@@@!@@ to uoz!

DO8I"9O 9O"ALO V%.=OH" TAR"AT4 =R., 9.R. "O. (7:7::, =A"?ARB (#,!:(+, =. -ersamin



1

Gonzalo# who was the sole contractor of the pro%ect in question#subcontracted the implementation of the pro%ect to &arnate in violationof the statutor prohibition! &heir subcontract was ille)al because itdid not bear the approval of the <:=L /ecretar! Necessaril# the

deed of assi)nment was also ille)al# because it sprun) from the

subcontract! &hus# &arnate and Gonzalo entered into an ille)alcontract!

=hile it is true that under Article 1312 1 of the Civil Code# the )uiltparties to an ille)al contract cannot recover from one another and arenot entitled to an armative relief because the are in pari delicto orin equal fault# the doctrine of in pari delicto is not alwas ri)id!

An accepted e+ception arises when its application contravenes well;established public polic! "n this %urisdiction# public polic has beende*ned as Ethat principle of the law which holds that no sub%ect or

citizen can lawfull do that which has a tendenc to be in%urious to thepublic or a)ainst the public )ood!E

9nder the principle of un%ust enrichment e+ists then# Gonzalo would beun%ustl enriched at the e+pense of &arnate# who provided thematerials# if the latter was to be barred from recoverin) because of theri)id application of the doctrine of in pari delicto! &he prevention ofun%ust enrichment called for the e+ception to appl in &arnateFs favor!

Amonoy /s 9utierre, &#( %CRA 3&( '!::()

One who merel e+ercises oneFs ri)hts does no actionable

in%ur and cannot be held liable for dama)es!

Al$enson 4nter6rises Cor6. /s CA,!(3 %CRA(2 '(11&)

&he elements of an abuse of ri)ht under article 16are thefollowin)I 1! &here is a le)al ri)ht or dutP 2! =hich ise+ercised in bad faithP 0! or the sole intent of pre%udicin) orin%urin) another!

RCPI /s CA, (+& %CRA 7#3 '(127)

<ionela *led a complaint for dama)es a)ainst ,C:" alle)in)

that the defamator words on the tele)ram sent to him not

onl wounded his feelin)s but also caused him undue

embarrassment and aected his business as well as because

other people have come to $now of said defamator words!

&here is a clear case of breach of contract b the petitioner in



1

addin) e+traneous and libelous matters in the messa)e sent

to <ionela!

Constantino /s 8ende !:1 %CRA (2 '(11!)

ere se+ual intercourse is not b itself a basis for recover!<ama)es could onl be awarded if se+ual intercourse isnot a product of voluntariness and mutual desire!



11

9ashme %hooat -ash /s CA,!(1 %CRA((# '(11&)

=here a manFs promise to marr is in fact the pro+imate cause of the acceptance of his love b a woman and his representation toful*ll that promise thereafter becomes the pro+imate cause of the )ivin) of herself unto him a se+ual con)ress# proof that hehad# in realit# no intention of marrin) her and that the promisewas onl a subtle scheme or deceptive device to entice orinvei)le her to accept him and to obtain her consent to these+ual act# could %ustif the award of dama)es pursuant toarticle 21 of the new civil code not because of such promiseto marr but because of the fraud and deceit behind it and thewilful in%ur to her honor and reputation which followedthereafter!

Fiueroa /s. -arrano, %-C Case "O. #(1. =uly &(,(113 !37 #CRA ++# ; Lis en)a)in) in premarital se+ual

relations with complainant and promises to marr su))ests adoubtful moral character on his part but the same does notconstitute )rossl immoral conduct!

?ni/ersity o0 the 4ast /s =ader, 9.R. NO. 132344, Feb.7, 2000 &!#%CRA 2:#

A law student was allowed to )raduate b his school with afailin) )rade but was later on prohibited b the said school to

ta$e the bar e+ams! &he ne)li)ent act of a professor who failsto observe the rules of the school# for instance b notpromptl submittin) a students )rade# is not onl imputableto the professor but is an act of the school# bein) hisemploer!

?P /. Phila$, 9.R. "O. (#!+((, %e6t. !1, !::+ +&1%CRA +73

=hether or not 9: is liable to pa :L".A4 considerin) that it is

onl a donee of # bein) the one which funded thepro%ect# and despite bein) a donee# un%ust enrichment stillapplies to 9:! "n order that accion in rem verso ma prosper#the essential elements must be presentI 1 that thedefendant has been enrihed# 2 that the plainti hassu5ered a loss# 0 that the enrichment of the defendant iswithout >ust or leal round# and 3 that the plainti hasno other ation $ased on ontrat, uasi@ontrat,rime or uasi@delit!



12

-eumer /s. Amores, 9.R. "O. (1#73:, De. :&, !:(!727 %CRA 33:

An action for recover of what has been paid without %ustcause has been desi)nated as an accion in rem verso! &hisprovision does not appl if# as



in this case# the action is proscribed b the Constitution or bthe application of the pari delicto doctrine!

Padalhin /s. La/iGa, 9.R. "O. (2&:!7,"o/. (+, !:(!

72# %CRA #+1

Nestor himself admitted that he caused the ta$in) of thepictures of .avinas residence without the latters $nowled)eand consent! Nestor violated the New Civil Code prescriptionsconcernin) the privac of ones residence and he cannot hidebehind the cloa$ of his supposed benevolent intentions to %ustif the invasion!

Ci/il Personality; -irth; Death; Arts &3, &2, &1 +:, +(,+!; &1:, &1(,3(!, 333 "CC; Art. +(, 17 *(!+, 11 * (!7, (+! FC

9elu /s CA, =uly !:, (17(

"t is unquestionable that the appellantFs act in provo$in) theabortion of appelleeFs wife# without medical necessit towarrant it# was a criminal and morall reprehensible act# that

cannot be to severel condemnedP and the consent of thewoman or that of her husband does not e+cuse it! 4ut theimmoralit or ille)alit of the act does not %ustif an award of dama)e that# under the circumstances on record# have nofactual or le)al basis!

uimiuin /s ICAO, &+ %CRA (&! '(13:

A conceived child# althou)h as et unborn# is )iven b law aprovisional personalit of its own for all purposes favorable toit# as e+plicitl provided under article 3@ of the civil code!

Continental %teel /. 8ontaGo, 9.R. "O. (2!2&7 ,Ot.(&, !::1 7:& %CRA 7!(

=hether or not# a death of a fetus is considered a death of a

dependent of the parent! One need not acquire civil

personalit *rst before heQshe could die! ven a child inside

the womb alread has life! No less than the Constitution



reco)nizes the life of the unborn from conception# that the

/tate must protect equall with the life of the mother! "f the

unborn alread has life# then the cessation thereof even prior

to the child bein) delivered# quali*es as death!



Domiile; Arts #: * #( "CC; Arts. 72 * 71, FC;Residene /. Domiile; Annulment or "ullity o0 8arriaes A8 :!@((@(: %C; %ettlement o0 4state

8arriae

DeJnition, 8arriae as ontrat and soial institution,Presum6tion o0 8arriae, Proo0 o0 8arriae,O5er o0

8arriae

Tuaon /s CA, !#7 %CRA (#2

Our amil .aw is based on the polic that marria)e is not amere contract# but a social institution in which the /tate isvitall interested!

Perido /s Perido, 7& %CRA 13

"t is the union and inviolable social institution of one manwith one woman for the reciprocal blessin)s of a domestichome life# and for the birth# rearin)# and education of children! "n one case# the /upreme Court ruled that marria)eis also a new relation in the maintenance of which the)eneral public is interested!

Peo6le /. Casao, !!: %CRA &7!

&he oer of the accused to marr the victim establishes his)uilt! As a rule in rape cases# an oer of marria)e is anadmission of )uilt

Peo6le /s. -orromeo,100 /C,A 1@?# 1@6 1673

:ersons livin) to)ether in apparent matrimon are presumed#

in the absence of an counter;presumption or evidence

special to the case# to be in fact married! &he reason is that

such is the common order of societ# and if the parties were

not what the thus hold themselves out as bein)# the would

be livin) in the constant violation of decenc and of law!

Peo6le /. Inaio, 2( %CAD (&2 '(113)



AppellantFs own admission that she was married to the victimwas a con*rmation of the semper praesumitur matrimonio and thepresumption that a man and a woman so deportin) themselvesas husband and wife had veril acted into a lawful contract of marria)e!



Proo0 o0 8arriae; 8arriae CertiJate /. Presum6tiono0 8arriae; Torrens Title 4ntry K%inle, Ci/il %tatus;

Villanue/a /s. CA, (12 %CRA +3! '(11()

&he best documentar evidence of a marria)e is themarria)e contract! A marria)e contract renders unnecessarthe presumption that a man and a woman deportin)themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawfulcontract of marria)e!

-alo$o /s. CA, !71 %CRA !#1, !77 '(113)

Althou)h a marria)e contract is considered primar evidence of marria)e# the failure to present it is not# however# proof that

no marria)e too$ place# as other evidence ma bepresented to prove marria)e!

Peo6le /s. -orromeo, (&& %CRA (:7, ((: '(12+)

&he mere fact that no record of the marria)e e+ists in there)istr of marria)e does not invalidate said marria)e# as lon)as in the celebration thereof# all requisites for its validit arepresent! &he forwardin) of a cop of the marria)e certi*cateto the re)istr is not one of said requisites!

Pueda /s. Trias, + %CRA 2+1, 2## '(17!)

&he defendants questioned the marria)e of plainti b

presentin) the records of the municipalit of ,osario# Cavite to

show that there is no record of the alle)ed marria)e! &he court

admitted evidence consistin) of the testimonies of witnesses!

Trinidad /s. Court o0 A66eals, et. al., !21 %CRA (22'(112)

&he /upreme Court held that the followin) ma be presented

as proof of marria)eI a testimon of a witness to the

matrimonP b the coupleFs public and open cohabitation as

husband and wife after the alle)ed wedloc$P c the birth and

baptismal certi*cate of children born durin) such unionP and

d the mention of such nuptial in subsequent documents!



Hernande /s. CA, &!: %CRA 37.

&he law favors the validit of marria)e because the /tate isinterested in the preservation of the famil and sanctit of the

famil is a matter of constitutional concern! &he burden of proof to show the nullit of the marria)e rests upon the partsee$in) its nullit



AGonue/o /. 4state o0 =alandoni 9.R. "O. (32!!(,De. (, !:(: 7&7%CRA +!:

&he birth certi*cate of /lvia was presented to prove themarria)e between "sabel and Hohn despite the absence of themarria)e certi*cate! &he court held that the birth certi*catema serve as evidence to prove the marria)e between "sabeland Hohn # as it contains the followin) notable entriesI a that"sabel and Hohn <esantis were EmarriedE and b that /lvia istheir Ele)itimateE child!

Villatuya /. Ta$alinos, A.C. "O. 77!! 737 %CRA &3

A lawer was married three times# while the *rst marria)e wasstill subsistin)# his marria)e contracts as certi*ed b the N/O

was presented in the disbarment proceedin) to prove hissubsequent marria)es! or purposes of disbarmentproceedin)# these marria)e contracts bearin) the name of respondent are competent and convincin) evidence provin)that he committed bi)am.

Com6are the ase o0 AGonue/o /. 4state o0 =alandoniand Villatuya/. Ta$alinos A.C. "O. 77!! 737 %CRA &3

CariGo /. CariGo, 9.R. "O. (&!#!1 , Fe$. :!, !::( &#(%CRA (!3

=hether or not the certi*cation b the re)istrar of the non;e+istence of marria)e license is enou)h to prove non;issuance thereof! &he records reveal that the marria)econtract of petitioner and the deceased bears no marria)elicense number and# as certi*ed b the .ocal Civil ,e)istrarof /an Huan# etro anila# their oce has no record of suchmarria)e license!

Reuirements o0

8arriae 4ssential

reuisite

Leal Ca6aity and

Consent Formal

Reuisite



8arriae Liense ; Ci/il W eddin /. Churh W eddin;CertiJate o0 Ci/il Reistrar;

Alantara /. Alantara, 9.R. "O. (733+7 , Au.

!2,!::3 #&( %CRA ++7=hether or not# a marria)e license issued b a municipalit orcit to a non;resident invalidates the license! "ssuance of amarria)e license in a



cit or municipalit# not the residence of either of thecontractin) parties# and issuance of a marria)e license despitethe absence of publication or prior to the completion of the 1@;da period for publication are considered mere irre)ularitiesthat do not aect the validit of the marria)e

A$$as /. A$$as, 9.R. "O. (2&217 , =an. &:, !:(& 721%CRA 7&7

&he unicipal Civil ,e)istrar of Carmona# Cavite# where the

marria)e license of Gloria and /ed was alle)edl issued#

issued a certi*cation to the eect that no such marria)e

license for Gloria and /ed was issued# and that the serial

number of the marria)e license pertained to another couple#

Arlindo Getalado and ra abilan)an! &he fact that the

names in said license do not correspond to those of Gloria and

/ed does not overturn the presumption that the re)istrarconducted a dili)ent search of the records of her oce!

Com6are the ase o0 A$$as /. A$$as and Alantara

/. Alantara %y /. CA, 9.R. "O. (!3!7& , A6r. (!,

!::: &&: %CRA ##:

"n this case the marria)e license was issued on

/eptember 18#1683#almost one ear after the ceremon too$ place on November1-# 1680! &he ineluctable conclusion is that the marria)e wasindeed contracted without a marria)e license!

8arriaes 4<em6ted 0rom the Liense Reuirement

Art. !3 &+ FC Cru /. Catandes, C.A., &1 O.9. "O.

(2, 6. &!+

"n a marria)e in articulo mortis# while it is advisable that awitness to themarria)e should si)n the din) partFs si)nature if the latterbe phsicall unable to do so# still if upon order of thesolemnizin) ocial# another person should so si)n# themarria)e is still valid! &he law as much as possible intends to)ive le)al eect to a marria)e! As a matter of fact# noparticular form for a marria)e celebration is prescribed!



%oriano /. Feli<, L@1::#, =une !:, (1#2

&he adavit is for the purpose of provin) the basis for

e+emption from the marria)e license! ven if there is failure

on the part of the solemnizin) ocer to e+ecute the

necessar adavit# such irre)ularit will not invalidate the

marria)e for the adavit is not bein) required of the parties!

People v. Dumpo, 62 Pil. 246



No %udicial notice can be ta$en of ohammedan rites andcustoms for marria)e! &he must be alle)ed and proved incourt!

-or>a@8anano /s. %anhe, &#+ %CRA (, # '!::()

&he solemnizin) ocer must e+ecute a sworn statement thathe had ascertained the quali*cations of the parties and thathe had found no le)al impediment to their marria)e!

"iGal /s. -ayado &!2 %CRA (!!, 8arh (+, !:::

"n this case# at the time of :epito and respondentFs marria)e# itcannot be said that the have lived with each other as husband

and wife for at least *ve ears prior to their weddin) dabecause their cohabitation is not e+clusive! &he Court ruled thatthe cohabitation contemplated under said provisions must be inthe 'nature of a perfect union that is valid under the law butrendered imperfect onl b the absence of the marria)econtract( and 'characterized b e+clusivit meanin) nothirdpart was involved at antime within the - earsandcontinuit that is unbro$en!

8arriae Ceremony

8orio /s Peo6le, +!! %CRA &37 '!::+)

:etitioner and .ucia 4arrette merel si)ned the marria)econtract on their own! &he mere act of si)nin) a marria)econtract b the contractin) parties without the presence of thesolemnizin) ocer will not result to marria)e!

In0ante /s Arenas, =une !1, (1#(

&he failure of the solemnizin) ocer to as$ the parties whether

the ta$e each other as husband and wife cannot be re)ardedas a fatal omission if the parties nonetheless si)ned themarria)e contract in the presence of the solemnizin) ocer!A declaration of word of mouth of what the parties andalread stated in writin) would be a mere repetition# so thatits omission should not be re)arded as fatal!

Peo6le /. O6eGa, L@&+1#+, Fe$. !:, (12(



"f a man and a woman deport themselves as if the werehusband and wife# the are presumed to be validl and le)allmarried to each other and this presumption is not rebutted ba mere denial b the man or woman of the fact of marria)e!



Persons who may solemnie 8arriaes

AraGes /. Oiano, A.8. :!@(&1: , A6ril ((, !::! &2:%CRA +:!

&he respondent Hud)e solemnized marria)e without therequisite marria)e license! =here a %ud)e solemnizes amarria)e outside his courtFs %urisdiction# there is a resultantirre)ularit in the formal requisite laid down in article 0#which while it ma not aect the validit of marria)e# masub%ect the ociatin) ocial to administrative liabilit!

OCA /s. =. "eessario et al, A.8. "O. :3@(71(,A6ril!, !:(& 71# %CRA

&he court does not accept the ar)uments of the respondent

%ud)es that the ascertainment of the validit of the marria)e

license is beond the scope of the dut of a solemnizin)

ocer especiall when there are )larin) pieces of evidence

that point to the contrar! As correctl observed b the OCA#

the presumption of re)ularit accorded to a marria)e license

disappears the moment the marria)e documents do not

appear re)ular on its face!

Com6are the rulin o0 the ourt in the ase o0 CariGo /.CariGo and OCA /s. =. "eessario et al as to the dutyo0 the solemniin oMer to e<amine the /alidity o0 marriae liense.

8arriae in ood 0aith

45et o0 A$sene o0 4ssential and Formal reuisite

Arts. (#@(3,#:@#, "CC; Art.!7, FC; Di/ore NFili6ino;Foreiner; Parentin; Children, Pro6erty Rihts;

%uession rihts; Delaratory Relie0; Rule (:2;; Art.+(! "CC

%OL4DAD L. LAVADIA /s. H4IR% OF =?A" L?C4% L?"A,re6resented $y 9R49ORIO . L?"A and 4?94"IA A-ALL4RO@L?"A, 9.R. "o. (3(1(+, =uly !&,!:(+, =. Luas P. -ersamin



<ivorce between ilipinos is void and ineectual under the nationalitrule adopted b :hilippine law! Lence# an settlement of propertbetween the parties of the *rst marria)e involvin) ilipinos submittedas an incident of a divorce obtained in a forei)n countr lac$scompetent %udicial approval# and cannot be enforceable a)ainst the

assets of the husband who contracts a subsequent marria)e!



Att! .unaFs subsequent marria)e to /oledad was void for bein)

bi)amous# on the )round that the marria)e between Att! .una and

u)enia had not been dissolved b the <ivorce <ecree rendered b

the C" of /to! <omin)o in the <ominican ,epublic but had subsisted

until the death of Att! .una

Given the subsistence of the *rst marria)e between Att! .una and

u)enia# the presumption that Att! .una acquired the properties out of

his own personal funds and eort remained! "t should then be %ustl

concluded that the properties in litis le)all pertained to their con%u)al

partnership of )ains as of the time of his death! Consequentl# the sole

ownership of the 2-Q1@@ pro indiviso share of Att! .una in the

condominium unit# and of the law boo$s pertained to the respondents

as the lawful heirs of Att! .una!

EDELINA T. ANDO vs. DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, G.R. No.

195432, August 27, 2014, !. S"#"$o

:etitioner questions the decision of the ,&C# dismissin) her petition forthe reco)nition of her second marria)e as valid# for failin) to complwith the requirements set forth in Art! 10 of the amil Code > that isobtainin) a %udicial reco)nition of the forei)n decree of absolutedivorce in our countr! &he /C however ruled that a divorce obtained

abroad b an alien ma be reco)nized in our %urisdiction# provided thedecree is valid accordin) to the national law of the forei)ner! &hepresentation solel of the divorce decree is insucientP both thedivorce decree and the )overnin) personal law of the alien spouse whoobtained the divorce must be proven! 4ecause our courts do not ta$e %udicial notice of forei)n laws and %ud)ment# our law on evidencerequires that both the divorce decree and the national law of the alienmust be alle)ed and proven and li$e an other fact!Lence# instead of *lin) a petition for the reco)nition of her second

marria)e as valid# petitioner should have *led a petition for the %udicial

reco)nition of her forei)n divorce from her *rst husband!4D4LI"A T. A"DO / D4PART84"T OF FOR4I9" AFFAIR%, 9.R"o. (1#+&! Auust !3, !:(+. =. %4R4"O

delina &un)ol married a Hapanese man# Buichiro Robaashi# in 2@@1!"n 2@@3# Robaashi obtained a divorce valid under Hapanese law!4elievin) the divorce capacitated her to marr# delina marriedasatomi Ando in 2@@-! =hen delina applied for a renewal of her



passport usin) AndoFs last name# the <A told her that she needed toprove b a competent court decision that her second marria)e toAndo is valid until otherwise declared!

&here appears to be insucient proof or evidence presented onrecord of both the national law of her *rst husband# Robaashi# andof the validit of the divorce decree under that national law! Lence#an declaration as to the validit of the divorce can onl be madeupon her complete submission of evidence provin) the



2

divorce decree and the national law of her alien spouse# in an action

instituted in the proper forum!

Re6. /. Or$eido, 9.R. "O. (#+&2:, Ot. :#, !::# +3!%CRA ((+

=hether or not# a ilipino spouse of an alien# who is a ilipinoat the time of marria)e# remarr after the latter acquires a

forei)n divorce that allows her to remarr! &he rec$onin) point is

not the citizenship of the parties at the time of the celebration

of the marria)e# but their citizenship at the time a valid divorce

is obtained abroad b the alien spouse capacitatin) the latter to

remarr!

Cor6u /. %to. Tomas, 9.R. "O. (27#3(, Au. ((,!:(: 7!2 %CRA!77

A %ud)ment of divorce is a %udicial decree# althou)h a forei)none# aectin) a personFs le)al capacit and status that mustbe recorded! 4ut while the law requires the entr of thedivorce decree in the civil re)istr# the law and the submissionof the decree b themselves do not ipso facto authorize thedecreeFs re)istration!

ClassiJation o0 8arriaes, Relationshi6s.

Parties In Interest;"CC;FC;A8 :!@((@(: %C

Valid

Voida$le

Void

Termina$le

Others ClassiJations

Leal %e6aration

%e6aration in Fat

Common Law

Relationshi6

Void 8arriaes /s Voida$le 8arriaes



2

%untay /s. Con>uano@%untay, &:: %CRA 37:, 33:'(112)

&he fundamental distinction between void and voidable

marria)es is that a void marria)e is deemed never to have

ta$en place at all and cannot be the source of ri)hts! Onthe other hand# a voidable marria)e# is considered valid and

produces all its civil eects# until it is set aside b *nal

%ud)ment of a competent court in an action for annulment



21

Delaration o0 "ullity; "CC /. FC, A8 :!@((@(: %C; Ci/ilCode and 8uslim Code NPD (:2&

Pro6er 6arty to 6etition 0or nullity o0 marriae; A8

:!@((@(: %C A$laa /. Re6u$li, 9.R. "O. (#2!12 ,

Au. ((, !:(: 7!2 %CRA !3

"ndeed# a brother li$e the petitioner# albeit not a compulsorheir underthe laws of succession# has the ri)ht to succeed to the estateof a deceased brother under the conditions stated in Article1@@1 and Article 1@@0 of the Civil Code Necessaril# therefore#the ri)ht of the petitioner to brin) the action hin)es upon aprior determination of whether Cresenciano had andescendants# ascendants# or children le)itimate or ille)itimate#and of whether the petitioner was the late CresencianoFssurvivin) heir! /uch prior determination must be made b thetrial court# for the inquir thereon involves questions of fact!

=uliano@Lla/e /. Re6u$li, 9.R. "O. (71377 , 8ar.&:, !:(( 7+7%CRA 7&3

&he marria)e between the late /en! &amano and Sorada wascelebrated in 16-7# solemnized under civil and uslim rites!

&he onl law in force )overnin) marria)e relationshipsbetween uslims and non;uslims ali$e was the Civil Code of 16-@# under the provisions of which onl one marria)e cane+ist at an )iven time!

Proedure in delaration o0 nullity o0 marriae

Carlos /. %ando/al 9.R. "O. (311!! , De. (7, !::2#3+ %CRA ((7

=hether a marria)e ma be declared void ab initio throu)ha %ud)ment on the pleadin)s or a summar %ud)ment and

without the bene*t of a trial! &he )rounds for declaration of absolute nullit of marria)e must be proved! Neither

%ud)ment on the pleadin)s nor summar %ud)ment is allowed!/o is confession of %ud)ment disallowed!

-olos /. -olos, 9.R. "O. (27+:: , Ot. !:, !:(: 7&+%CRA +!1



22

=hether or not A!! NO! @2;11;1@;/C ',9. ON<C.A,A&"ON O A4/O.9& N9.."&B O 5O"<A,,"AG/ AN< ANN9.N& O5O"<A4. A,,"AG/( is applicable to marria)essolemnized before the eectivit of amil Code! NO! &he ,ule

on <eclaration of Absolute Nullit of 5oid arria)es andAnnulment of 5oidable arria)es as contained in A!! NO! @2;11;1@;/C which the Court promul)ated on arch 1-# 2@@0



Artile &7, FC; A8 :!@((@(: %C; %ee also Artiles +2,72@3(, !!:@!!(* !!# FC

Psyholoial Ina6aity

DeJnition %alita /s Hon.

8atolis ,=une (&, (11+

&he Committee did not )ive an e+amples of pscholo)ical

incapacit for fear that the )ivin) of e+amples would limit the

applicabilit of the provision under the principle of ejusdem

generis. ,ather# the Committee would li$e the %ud)e to interpret

the provision on a case;to;case basis# )uided b e+perience# the

*ndin)s of e+perts and researchers in pscholo)ical disciplines#

and b decisions of church tribunals which# althou)h not bindin)on the civil courts# ma be )iven persuasive eect since the

provision was ta$en from Canon .aw!(

Charateristis o0 Psyholoial Ina6aity

%antos /. Court o0 A66eals, !+: %CRA !:'(11#)

&he /upreme Court enumerated the three basic requirements of 'pscholo)ical incapacit( as a )round for declaration of nullitof the marria)eI a )ravitP b %uridical antecedenceP and cincurabilit!

9uidelines in the inter6retation and a66liation o0Artile &7; A8 :!@((@(: %C

VAL4RIO 4. ALAW /s. 8A. 4L4"A F4R"A"D4, 9.R. "o.(77&#3, =anuary (+,!:(#, =. Del Castillo

On reconsideration# the /upreme Court reversed its previous rulin)and reinstated the trial courtFs rulin) )rantin) the petition for nulliton the basis of Art! 0?!:scholo)ical incapacit is the downri)ht incapacit or inabilit to ta$eco)nizance of and to assume the basic marital obli)ations! &he burdenof provin) pscholo)ical incapacit is on the plainti! &he plainti mustprove that the incapacitated part# based on his or her actions orbehavior# suers a serious pscholo)ical disorder that completel



disables him or her from understandin) and dischar)in) the essentialobli)ations of the marital state! &he pscholo)ical problem must be)rave# must have e+isted at the time of marria)e# and must beincurable!

&he courts are %usti*ed in declarin) a marria)e null and void underArticle 0? o f the amil Code re)ardless of whether it is the petitioneror the respondent who imputes the pscholo)ical incapacit to theother as lon) as the imputation is full substantiated with proof!"ndeed# pscholo)ical incapacit ma e+ist in one part alone or inboth of them# and if pscholo)ical incapacit of either or both isestablished# the marria)e has to be deemed null and void!



RO-4RT F. 8ALLILI" /s. L? 9. =A84%OLA8I" A"D TH4R4P?-LIC OF TH4 PHILIPPI"4%, 9.R. "o. (1!3(2, Fe$ruary(2, !:(#, =. 8endoa

&he alle)ed failure of .uz to assume her duties as a wife and as a

mother# as well as her emotional immaturit# irresponsibilit andin*delit# cannot rise to the level of pscholo)ical incapacit that %usti*es the nulli*cation of the parties marria)e! :scholo)icalincapacit as required b Article 0? must be characterized b a)ravit# b %uridical antecedence and c incurabilit! &heinterpretations )iven b the National Appellate atrimonial &ribunal of the Catholic Church in the :hilippines# while not controllin) or decisive#should be )iven )reat respect b our courts! &he decision of the NA&#however# was based on the second para)raph of Canon 1@6- whichrefers to those who suer from a )rave lac$ of discretion of %ud)mentconcernin) essential matrimonial ri)hts and obli)ations to be mutuall

)iven and accepted ;;; a cause not of pscholo)ical nature underArticle 0? of the amil Code! A cause of pscholo)ical nature similar toArticle 0? is covered b the third para)raph of Canon 1@6- of the Codeof Canon .aw!

Re6u$li o0 the Phili66ines /s. Court o0 A66eals and8olina, !72 %CRA (12, !(! '(113)

&he burden of proof to show the nullit of the marria)e

belon)s to the plainti! An doubt should be resolved in favorof the e+istence and continuation of the marria)e and a)ainstits dissolution and nullit!

Re6u$li /s. uintero@Hamano, +!2 %CRA 3&# '!::+).

Accordin) to the appellate court# the requirements in Molina

and Santos do not appl here because the present case

involves a Tmi+ed marria)e#F the husband bein) a Hapanese

national! &he court held that in provin) pscholo)icalincapacit# we *nd no distinction between an alien spouse

and a ilipino spouse!



Failure to om6ly with the 4ssential 8arital

O$liations Chi 8in Tsoi /s CA, !77 %CRA

&!+ '(113)

"n this case# there was no se+ual contact between the partiessince their marria)e on a 22# 1677 up to ar! 1-# 1676 or for

almost a ear! &he senseless and protracted refusal of one of

the parties of se+ual cooperation for the procreation of

children is equivalent to pscholo)ical incapacit!



8ara$le /. 8ara$le 9.R. "O. (323+(, =an. (3, !:((7&1 %CRA ##3

&he appellate court correctl ruled that the report of <r! &aa)failed to e+plain the root cause of petitionerFs alle)edpscholo)ical incapacit! &he evaluation of <r! &aa) merelmade a )eneral conclusion that petitioner is suerin) from anAnti;social :ersonalit <isorder but there was no factual basisstated for the *ndin) that petitioner is a sociall deviantperson# rebellious# impulsive# self;centered and deceitful!

Ohosa /. Alano, 9.R. "O. (73+#1 , =an. !7, !:(( 7+:%CRA #(3

"n this case the court proved that respondent was the se+partner of man militar ocials! "n view of the fore)oin)# thebad)es of 4onaF s alle)ed pscholo)ical incapacit# i!e!# herse+ual in*delit and abandonment# can onl be convincin)ltraced to the period of time after her marria)e to Hose andnot to the inception of the said marria)e!

Bam$ao /. R4P., 9.R. "O. (2+:7& , =an. !+, !:(( 7+:%CRA &##

Article 0? contemplates ina6aity or ina$ility to ta$eco)nizance of and to assume basic marital obli)ations andnot merel dicult# refusal# or ne)lect in the performance of marital obli)ations or ill will!

Re6. /. 9alan 9.R. "O. (72&&# , =un. 7, !:(( 7#:%CRA #!+

"n li$e manner# HuvFs acts of 0alsi0yin the res6ondentssinature to encash a chec$# of stealin) the respondentFsA&# and of squanderin) a hu)e portion of the :1-#@@@!@@that the respondent entrusted to her# while no doubt

reprehensible# cannot automaticall be equated with apscholo)ical disorder# especiall when the evidence showsthat these were mere isolated inidents and notreurrin ats.



Aurelio /. Aurelio, 9.R. "O. (3#&73 , =un. 7, !:(( 7#:%CRA #7(

=hether or not a petition for nullit of marria)e on the )round of pscholo)ical incapacit ma be dismiss for failure to complwith the )uidelines set forth in the olina ,ulin)! .et it be

remembered that each case involvin) the application of Article0? must be treated distinctl and %ud)ed not on the basis of apriori assumptions# predilections or )eneralizations butaccordin) to its own attendant facts!

alaw /. Fernande, 9.R. "O. (77&#3 , %e6t (1, !:((7#3 %CRA 2!!



Le presented the testimonies of two supposed e+pert witnesseswho concluded that respondent is pscholo)icall incapacitated#but the conclusions of these witnesses were premised on thealle)ed acts or behavior of respondent which had not beensucientl proven! /e+ual in*delit per se is a G!,!ound for le)al

separation# but it does not necessaril constitutepscholo)ical incapacit!

Torin /. Torin, 9.R. "O. (7#&!( , Au. :&, !:(: 7!7%CRA &21

=e are in no wa convinced that a mere narration of thestatements of ,icardo and ,ichardson# coupled with the resultsof the pscholo)ical tests administered onl on ,icardo#without more# alread constitutes sucient basis for theconclusion that &eresita suered from Narcissistic :ersonalit<isorder! &his Court has lon) been ne)ativel critical in

considerin) pscholo)ical evaluations# presented in evidence#derived solel from one;sided sources# particularl from thespouse see$in) the nullit of the marria)e!

-aay /. -aay, 9.R. "o (3&(&2 , De, (, !:(: 7&7%CRA &#:

"n this case# the totalit of evidence presented b Noel wasnot sucient to sustain a *ndin) that aribel waspscholo)icall incapacitated! NoelFs evidence merelestablished that aribel refused to have se+ual intercourse with

him after their marria)e# and that she left him after theirquarrel when he confronted her about her alle)edmiscarria)e!

Ara/iador /. Ara/iador 9.R."O.(3:3!1 , De. :2,!:(: 7&3 %CRA #(1

"n the present case# the petitionerFs testimon failed to establishthat the respondentFs condition is a manifestation of adisordered personalit rooted on some incapacitatin) or

debilitatin) pscholo)ical condition that ma$es her completelunable to dischar)e the essential marital obli)ations! "f at all#the petitioner merel showed that the respondent had somepersonalit defects that showed their manifestation durin) themarria)eP his testimon sorel lac$ed details necessar toestablish that the respondentFs defects e+isted at the inceptionof the marria)e!



8endoa /. Re6u$li, 9.R. "O. (#37+1,"o/ (!, !:(!72# %CRA (7

Lere# the e+pertFs testimon on <ominicFs pscholo)ical pro*le

did not identif# much less prove# the root cause of hispscholo)ical incapacit because said e+pert did not e+amine

<ominic in person before completin) her report but simpl

relied on other peopleFs recollection and



opinion for that purpose! +pert evidence submitted heredid not establish the precise cause of the supposedpscholo)ical incapacit of <ominic# much less show that thepscholo)ical incapacit e+isted at the inception of themarria)e!

Re6u$li /. 4nelan, 9.R. "O. (3::!! , =an. 1, !:(&722 %CRA !(#

"n an event# se+ual in*delit and abandonment of the

con%u)al dwellin)# even if true# do not necessaril constitute

pscholo)ical incapacitP these are simpl )rounds for le)al

separation! &o constitute pscholo)ical incapacit# it must be

shown that the unfaithfulness and abandonment are

manifestations of a disordered personalit that completel

prevented the errin) spouse from dischar)in) the essential

marital obli)ations!

4/identiary reuirement

9L4"" VIEA% /s. 8ARB 9RAC4 PAR4L@VIEA%, 9.R. "o.!:231:, =anuary !(,!:(#, =. Reyes

&he lac$ of personal e+amination or assessment b a pscholo)ist orpschiatrist is not necessaril fatal in a petition for the declaration ofnullit of marria)e! "f the totalit of evidence presented is enou)h to

sustain a *ndin) of pscholo)ical incapacit# then actual medicale+amination of the person concerned need not be resorted to! "n thecase at bar# the assessment of the pscholo)ical incapacit of the wifewas based solel on the information provided b the husband > whosebias in favor of his cause cannot be doubted! =hile this circumstancealone does not disqualif the pscholo)ist for reasons of bias# herreport# testimon and conclusions deserve the application of a moreri)id and strin)ent set of standards! Lence# if the totalit of theevidence presented provides inadequate basis to warrant theconclusion that a pscholo)ical incapacit e+isted that prevented her

from complin) with the essential obli)ations of marria)e# thedeclaration of the nullit of the marria)e cannot be obtained! "t hasbeen settled that irreconcilable dierences# se+ual in*delit orperversion# emotional immaturit and irresponsibilit# and the li$e# donot b themselves warrant a *ndin) of pscholo)ical incapacit underArticle 0?# as the same ma onl be due to a personFs refusal orunwillin)ness to assume the essential obli)ations of marria)e and notdue to some pscholo)ical illness that is contemplated b said rule!



8aros /s 8aros, &+& %CRA 3## '!:::)

If the totalit of evidence presented is enou)h to sustain a*ndin) of pscholo)ical incapacit# then actual medicale+amination of the person concerned need not be resorted to!

Award o0 8oral Damaes



-uena/entura /s CA, +#+ %CRA !7( '!::#)

4 declarin) the petitioner as pscholo)icall incapacitated#the possibilit of awardin) moral dama)es on the same set of facts was ne)ated!

&he award of moral dama)es should be predicated# not on

the mere act of enterin) into the marria)e# but on speci*c

evidence that it was done deliberatel and with malice b a

part who had $nowled)e of his or her disabilit and et

willfull concealed the same!

Presri6tion

"iGal /. -ayado 9.R. "O. (&&332, 8ar. (+, !:::&!2 %CRA (!!

&he action or defense for nullit is imprescriptible# unli$evoidable marria)es where the action prescribes! Onl theparties to a voidable marria)e can assail it but an properinterested part ma attac$ a void marria)e!

Delaration o0 "ullity; Art.+:; Pre>udiial uestion@%etion 3, Rule ((3, !::: Rules o0 Criminal Proedure;Arts.&# '+) * +(, FC; Art.&+1 RPC; Ci/il * Criminal-iamy; Art. 2&, "CC

=udiial Delaration o0 nullity o0 marriaes

A$laa /. Re6u$li, 9.R. "O. (#2!12 , Au. ((, !:(:7!2 %CRA !3

Other than for purposes of remarria)e# no %udicial action is

necessar to declare a marria)e an absolute nullit! or other

purposes# such as but not limited to determination of heirship#

le)itimac or ille)itimac of a child# settlement of estate#

dissolution of propert re)ime# or a criminal case for that

matter# the court ma pass upon the validit of marria)e

even in a suit not directl instituted to question the same so lon)

as it is essential to the determination of the case!

Atiena /s. -rillantes, =r., !+& %CRA &!,&# '(11#)



Article 3@ is applicable to remarria)es entered into after theeectivit of the amil Code on Au)ust 0# 1677 re)ardless of the date of the *rst marria)e!

8erado /s. Tan, 008 /C,A 122 2@@@



A %udicial declaration of nullit of a previous marria)e is

necessar before a subsequent one can be le)all contracted

and that one who enters into a subsequent marria)e without

*rst obtainin) such %udicial declaration is )uilt of bi)am!

8orio /. Peo6le, 9.R. "O. (+#!!7, Fe$. :7, !::+ +!!%CRA &37

&he e+istence and the validit of the *rst marria)e bein) anessential element of the crime of bi)am# it is but lo)ical that aconviction for said oense cannot be sustained where there isno *rst marria)e to spea$ of!

=arillo /.Peo6le, 9.R. "O.(7++&# , %e6t. !1, !::1 7:(%CRA !&7

=hether or not the declaration of the *rst marria)e as voidab initio on the )round of pscholo)ical incapacit is adefense for the crime of bi)am! "n this case# even if petitioner eventuall obtained a declaration that his *rstmarria)e was void ab initio# the point is# both the *rst andthe second marria)e were subsistin) before the *rst marria)ewas annulled!

Tene$ro /. CA, 9.R. "O. (#:3#2 , Fe$. (2, !::+ +!&%CRA !3!

=hether or not# the nullit of the second marria)e on theG!,!ound of :" is a valid defense for the crime of bi)am! &hedeclaration of the nullit of the second marria)e on the )roundof pscholo)ical incapacit is not an indicator that petitionerFsmarria)e to Anca%as lac$s the essential requisites for validit!

Antone /. -eronilla, 9.R. "O.(2&2!+, De. :2, !:(:7&3 %CRA 7(#

&o conclude# the issue on the declaration of nullit of themarria)e between petitioner and respondent onl after the latter

contracted the subsequent marria)e is# therefore# immaterial forthe purpose of establishin) that the facts alle)ed in theinformation for 4i)am does not constitute an oense! ollowin)the same rationale# neither ma such defense be interposed bthe respondent in his motion to quash b wa of e+ceptionto the established rule that facts contrar to the alle)ationsin the information are matters of defense which ma beraised onl durin) the presentation of evidence!



Te/es /. Peo6le, 9.R. "O. (2233# , Au !+, !:(( 7#7%CRA &:3

&he crime of bi)am was committed b petitioner on 1@<ecember 2@@1 when he contracted a second marria)e withdita! &he *nalit on 28 Hune 2@@? of the %udicial

declaration of the nullit of his previous marria)e to &helmacannot be made to retroact to the date of the bi)amousmarria)e!



"ollora /. Peo6le, 9.R. "O.(1(+!# , %e6t. 3, !:(( 7#3%CRA &&:"ndeed# Article 102 of the Code of uslim :ersonal .aws

states that EJiKn case of a marria)e between a uslim and a

non;uslim# solemnized not in accordance with uslim law or

this Code# the Jamil Code of the :hilippines# or +ecutive Order

NO! 2@6# in lieu of the Civil Code of the :hilippinesK shall appl!E

&hus# re)ardless of his professed reli)ion# Nollora cannot

claim e+emption from liabilit for the crime of bi)am!

Villatuya /. Ta$alinos, A.C. "O. 77!! , =uly (:,!:(! 737 %CRA &3

,espondent e+hibited a deplorable lac$ of that deG!,!ee of moralit required of him as a member of the bar! Le made amoc$er of marria)e# a sacred institution demandin) respect

and di)nit!

%u$seuent -iamous 8arriae

under art. +( Arts. +(@ ++, +1 FC;

Art.2& '!) "CC;

=udiial Delaration o0 Presum6ti/e Death

Armas /. Calisterio, 9.R. "O.(&7+73, A6r. :7, !:::&&: %CRA !:(

=hether or not# the rule under the C# that a %udicial declarationof presumptive death of the absent spouse is necessar beforethe present spouse can remarr# has a retroactive eect! A %udicial declaration of absence of the absentee spouse is notnecessar as lon) as the prescribed period of absence is met!"t is equall noteworth that the marria)e in these e+ceptionalcases are# b the e+plicit mandate of Article 70# to be deemedvalid Euntil declared null and void b a competent court!E

Reuisites 0or delaration o0 6resum6ti/e Death

Re6. /. "olaso, 9.R. "O. 1+:#& , 8ar. (3, (11& !!:%CRA !:

"n the case at bar# the Court considers that the investi)ation

alle)edl conducted b respondent in his attempt to

ascertain Hanet onica :ar$ers whereabouts is too s$etch

to form the basis of a reasonable or well;founded belief that



she was alread dead! =hen he arrived in /an Hose# Antique

after learnin) of Hanet onicas departure# instead of see$in)

the help of local authorities or of the 4ritish mbass# he

secured another seamans contract and went to .ondon# a

vast cit of man millions of inhabitants# to loo$ for her there!

Retroati/e a66liation o0 Art. +(

Valde /. Re6u$li, 9.R. "O.(2:27& , %e6t. :2, !::1#12 %CRA 7+7



0

/ince death is presumed to have ta$en place b the seventhear of absence# /o*o is to be presumed dead startin) October1672! &o retroactivel appl the provisions of the amil Coderequirin) petitioner to e+hibit Ewell;founded beliefE will#ultimatel# result in the invalidation of her second marria)e#

which was valid at the time it was celebrated!45ets o0 Delaration o0 Presum6ti/e

Death 45ets o0 Reordin o0 AMda/it

o0 Rea66erane

Proedural rules o0 delaration o0 Presum6ti/e Death

&he proper remed for a %udicial declaration of presumptive deathobtained b e+trinsic fraud is an action to annul the %ud)ment! Anadavit of reappearance is not the proper remed when the persondeclared presumptivel dead has never been absent! C4L4RI"A =.%A"TO% /s. RICARDO T. %A"TO%, 9.R. "o. (23:7(,Oto$er :2, !:(+, =. Leonen

Re6. /. Tano, 9.R. "O.(7(:7! , =ul. &(, !::1 #1+%CRA #7:

4 e+press provision of law# the %ud)ment of the court in asummar proceedin) shall be immediatel *nal and e+ecutor!

As a matter of course# it follows that no appeal can be hadof the trial courtFs %ud)ment in a summar proceedin) for thedeclaration of presumptive death of an absent spouse underArticle 31 of the amil Code

"a/arro /. Domotoy, A.8. "O.8 T=@17@(:22, =ul. (1,(117 !#1 %CRA (!1

ven if the spouse present has a well;founded belief that theabsent spouse was alread dead# a summar proceedin) for thedeclaration of presumptive death is necessar in order to

contract a subsequent marria)e# a mandator requirementwhich has been precisel incorporated into the amil Code todiscoura)e subsequent marria)es where it is not proven that theprevious marria)e has been dissolved or a missin) spouse isfactuall or presumptivel dead# in accordance with pertinentprovisions of law!

Re6. /. -ermude@Lorino, 9.R. "O. (7:!#2 , =an. (1,!::# ++1%CRA #3



0

Althou)h the result of the Court of AppealsF denial of the appealwould apparentl be the same# there is a bi) dierence betweenhavin) the supposed appeal dismissed for lac$ of %urisdiction bvirtue of the fact that the ,&C decision sou)ht to be appealedis immediatel *nal and e+ecutor# and the denial of the appealfor lac$ of merit! "n the former# the supposed appellee can

immediatel as$ for the issuance of an ntr



01

of Hud)ment in the ,&C# whereas# in the latter# the appellant

can still raise the matter to this Court on petition for review

and the ,&C %ud)ment cannot be e+ecuted until this Court

ma$es the *nal pronouncement!

Re6. /. 9ranada, 9.R. "O. (23#(!, =une (&, !:(! 73!%CRA +&!As a matter of course# it follows that no appeal can be had of the trial courts %ud)ment in a summar proceedin) for thedeclaration of presumptive death of an absent spouse underArticle 31 of the amil Code! "t )oes without sain)#however# that an a))rieved part ma *le a petition for certiorarito question abuse of discretion amountin) to lac$ of %urisdiction!

Termina$le 8arriae; Art. +& ++ FC

45ets o0 termination o0 su$seuentmarriae 45ets o0 -ad Faith

Armas /. Calisterio, 9.R. "O.(&7+73, A6r. :7, !:::&&: %CRA !:(

4ad faith imports a dishonest purpose or some moralobliquit and conscious doin) of wron) it parta$es of thenature of fraud# a breach of a $nown dut throu)h somemotive of interest or ill;will!

Voida$le 8arriaes; Art.

+#@ +1 FC DeJnition

%untay /s. Co>uano@%untay, &:: %CRA 37:, 33('(112)

A voidable marria)e is considered valid and produces all its

civil eects until it is set aside b *nal %ud)ment of a

competent court in an action for annulment! &he terms'annul( and 'null and void( have dierent le)al connotations

and implications! Annul means to reduce to nothin)P to nullifP

to abolishP to do awa withP whereas# null and void is

somethin) that does not e+ist from the be)innin)!

Charateristis o0 Voida$le 8arriaes



02

Pro6er 6arty to Jle annulment o0

8arriae 9.R.ounds

RatiJation and 6resri6tion

Proedural rules o0 annulment o0 marriae anddelaration o0 nullity



Tuaon /s. Court o0 A66eals, !#7 %CRA (#2 '(117)

&he prosecutin) attorne or *scal ma oppose the application for

le)al separation or annulment or declaration of nullit of

marria)es throu)h the presentation of his own evidence# if in

his opinion# the proof adduced is dubious and fabricated!

45ets o0 >udiial delaration o0 nullity o0 8arriae ;

Art. #:@#+ Title II. L49AL %4PARATIO" 'Artiles ##@73)

Cone6t

Distintion o0 annulment and

a$solute di/ore 9roundsOn /. On, 9.R. "O. (#&!:7 , Ot. !&, !::7 #:#%CRA 37

Also without merit is the ar)ument of =illiam that since .ucitahas abandoned the famil# a decree of le)al separation shouldnot be )ranted# followin) Art! -?# par! 3 of the amil Codewhich provides that le)al separation shall be denied whenboth parties have )iven )round for le)al separation! &heabandonment referred to b the amil Code isabandonment without %usti*able cause for more than one

ear!

De 0ato %e6aration /s. Leal %e6aration,Artile 7&

8anano /s. %anhe, A.8. "O.::@(&!1, 8ar. :2,!::( &#+ %CRA (

&he fact that anzano and :aao had been livin) apart fromtheir respective spouses for a lon) time alread is immaterial!Article ?01 of the amil Code allows spouses who haveobtained a decree of le)al separation to live separatel fromeach other# but in such a case the marria)e bonds are notsevered!

%%% /. Auas, 9.R. "O. (7##+7 , Fe$. !3, !::7 +2&%CRA &2&

On the claims of ,osanna# it bears stressin) that for her toqualif as a primar bene*ciar# she must prove that she wasEthe le)itimate spouse dependent for support from theemploee# whether one is actuall dependent for support



upon the other is somethin) that has to be shownP it cannotbe presumed from the fact of marria)e alone! &he obviousconclusion then is that a wife who is alread separated defacto from her husband cannot be said to be Edependent forsupportE upon the husband# absent an showin) to thecontrar!

De0enses in Leal %e6aration Art. #7@ #3



Coolin o5 6eriod; Art. #2 #1

Paete /s. Carriaa, =r., 9.R. "O. L@#&22:, 8arh (3,(11+!

"n this interim# the court should ta$e steps toward )ettin) theparties to reconcile!

%omosa@Ramos /s. Vamenta, =r., 9.R. "O. L@&+(&!, =uly !1,(13!

<urin) this period# the court where the action is pendin) shallremain passive and is precluded from hearin) the suit!

Rule o0 Proedure on Leal %e6aration 'A.8. "O. :!@

((@(( %C); Rule on Pro/isional Orders 'A8 :!@((@(!

%C);

-aGe /s. -aGe, 9.R. "O. (&!#1! , =an. !&, !::! &3+%CRA &+:

&he eects of le)al separation# such as entitlement to live

separatel# dissolution and liquidation of the absolute

communit or con%u)al partnership# and custod of the minor

children# follow from the decree of le)al separation! &he are not

separate or distinct matters that ma be resolved b the court

and become *nal prior to or apart from the decree of le)al

separation!

Paete /s. Carriaa, 9.R. "O. #&22:, 8ar. (3, (11+!&( %CRA &!(

=hether or not# the order declarin) in de0ault a respondent in ale)al separation case amounts to )rave abuse of discretion! "n

case of non@ a66earane of the defendant# the court shallorder the prosecutin) attorne to inquire whether or not aollusion between the parties e+ists! "f there is no collusion#the prosecutin) attorne shall intervene for the /tate in orderto ta$e care that the evidence for the plainti is not fabricated!

uiao /s. uiao, 9.R. "O.(37##7 , =uly +, !:(! 73#%CRA 7+!



When the trial court issued its order dated November 7#

2@@?# it held that althou)h the <ecision dated October 1@#

2@@- has become Jnal and e<eutory# it ma still consider

the otion for Clari*cation because the petitioner simpl

wanted to clarif the meanin) of Enet pro*t earned!E

Title III. RI9HT% A"D O-LI9ATIO"% -4TW44"H?%-A"D * W IF4 'Arts 72@3&)

Ilusorio /. -ildner, 9.R. "O. (&1321 , 8ay (!, !:: &&!%CRA (71



arital ri)hts includin) coverture and livin) in con%u)al dwellin)ma not be enforced b the e+tra;ordinar writ of habeascorpus! =ith his full mental capacit coupled with the ri)ht of choice# :otenciano "lusorio ma not be the sub%ect of visitationri)hts a)ainst his free choice! Otherwise# we will deprive him

of his ri)ht to privac!9o /s. CA 9.R. "O.((+31(, 8ay !1, (113 !3! %CRA3#!

9nder Article 118 of the Civil Code now Article 80 of theamil Code# the wife ma e+ercise an profession#occupation or en)a)e in business without the consent of thehusband! "n the instant case# we are convinced that it wasonl petitioner Nanc Go who entered into the contract withprivate respondent!

Family e<6enses and manaement o0 the household

TITL4 IV. PROP4RTB R4LATIO"% -4T. H?%-A"D * WIF4 'Artiles 3+@ (+2)

CHAPT4R (. 94"4RAL PROVI%IO"%; Pre@nu6tial Areement; 'Artiles 3+@2(, FC; Art. ((1,"CC)

Cone6t

Pro6erty reime $y de0ault

8arriae settlement

Parties to 8arriae

settlement Laws o/ernin

Pro6erty Relations

CHAPT4R !. DO"ATIO"% -B R4A%O" OF 8ARRIA94'Artiles 2! @23)

Donation Pro6ter "u6tias

%errano /s. %olomon, 9.R. "O. L@(!:1&, =une !1,(1#1

&he followin) donations are not donations propter nuptiasI 1

those made in favor of the spouses after the celebration of

marria)eP 2 those e+ecuted in favor of the future spouses but



not in consideration of the marria)eP and 0 those G)ranted to

persons other than the spouses even thou)h the ma be

founded on the marria)e

Rules o/ernin Donation 6ro6ter nu6tias

Heirs o0 %eunda 8anindin /s. CA, !37 %CRA 7:('(113)



ven if the donation proper nuptias is void for failure to complwith formal requisites# it could still constitute as le)al basisfor adverse possession!

Valenia /. Louiao, 9.R. "O. (!!(&+, Ot. &, !::

+(! %CRA 7::9nder the Old Civil Code# donations propter nuptias must bemade in a public instrument in which the propert donatedmust be speci*call described! Lowever# Article 100@ of thesame Code provides that Eacceptance is not necessarto the validit of such )iftsE! "n other words# thecelebration of the marria)e between the bene*ciar couple# intandem with compliance with the prescribed form# wasenou)h to eectuate the donation propter nuptias under theOld Civil Code!

Donation $etween the

6arties Donation o0 0uture

6ro6erties

Re/oation o0 Donation Pro6ter

"u6tias Donation $etween %6ouses

Aa6ay /s. Palan, 9.R. "O. ((7772 , =ul. !2, (113!37 %CRA &+:

Article 78 of the amil Code e+pressl provides that the

prohibition a)ainst donations between spouses now applies to

donations between persons livin) to)ether as husband and wife

without a valid marria)e# for otherwise# the condition of those

who incurred )uilt would turn out to be better than those in

le)al union!

Ara$a /s. -atoael, 9.R. "O.(+772& , "o/.!!, !::(&3: %CRA +(+

,espondents havin) proven b a preponderance of evidencethat Cirila and rancisco lived to)ether as husband and wifewithout a valid marria)e# the inescapable conclusion is that thedonation made b rancisco in favor of Cirila is void underArt! 78 of the amil Code!



CHAPT4R &. %B%T48 OF A-%OL?T4 CO88?"ITB 'Artiles 22@(:+);R.A. 2&71

%etion (. 9eneral Pro/isions 'Artiles 22@1:)

%etion !. W hat onstitutes Community Pro6erty'Artiles 1(@1&)

%etion &. Chares ?6on * O$liations o0 the A$soluteCommunity 'Artiles 1+@1#)



%etion +. Ownershi6, Administration, 4n>oyment *Dis6osition o0 the Community Pro6erty 'Artiles 17@12)

%etion #. Dissolution o0 A$solute Community Reime'Arts 11@(:()

%etion7. Liuidation o0 the A$soluteCommunity Assets * Lia$ilities 'Arts (:!@

(:+); %uession; Pro$ate;

%e. &, Rule 23

Rules o/ernin

ACP

Commenement o0 the ACP

Prohi$ition on wai/er o0 Rihts, Interest, %hares

and 45ets A$alos /s 8aatanay =r., +&1 %CRA

7+1, 77!@77& '!::+).

:rior to the liquidation of the con%u)al partnership# the interest of

each spouse in the con%u)al assets is inchoate# a mere

e+pectanc# which constitutes neither a le)al nor an equitable

estate# and does not ripen into title until it appears that there

are assets in the communit as a result of the liquidation

and settlement! &he interest of each spouse is limited to the net

remainder or 'remanente liquido( haber ganancial resultin) from

the liquidation of the aairs of the partnership after its

dissolution!

CHAPT4R &. %B%T48 OF A-%OL?T4 CO88?"ITB

'Artiles 22@(:+);R.A. 2&71

%etion (. 9eneral Pro/isions 'Artiles 22@1:)

%etion !. W hat onstitutes Community Pro6erty'Artiles 1(@1&)



%etion &. Chares ?6on * O$liations o0 theA$solute Community 'Artiles 1+@1#)

%etion +. Ownershi6, Administration, 4n>oyment *Dis6osition o0 the Community Pro6erty 'Artiles 17@12)

%etion #. Dissolution o0 A$solute Community Reime'Arts 11 @(:()

%etion7. Liuidation o0 the A$soluteCommunity Assets * Lia$ilities 'Arts (:!@

(:+); %uession; Pro$ate;

%e. &, Rule 23



Cone6t

Homeowners %a/ins * Loan -an /s. Dailo, +#& %CRA!2&, !1: '!::#)

&he re)ime of con%u)al partnership of )ains is a specialtpe of partnership# where the husband and wife place in a

common fund the proceeds# products# fruits and income from

their separate properties and those acquired b either or both

spouses throu)h their eorts or b chance!

,ules )overnin) C:G

Commencement of C:G

Prohi$ition on wai/er o0 Rihts, Interest, %hares

and 45ets uiao /s. uiao 9.R. "O. (37##7 , =uly

+, !:(! 73# %CRA 7+!

"n this provision# net pro*ts Eshall be the increase in valuebetween the mar$et value of the communit propert at the timeof the celebration of the marria)e and the mar$et value atthe time of its dissolution!E

9eneral Pro/isions

FRA"CI%CO LI8 /s. 4?ITA-L4 PCI -A", now nown as the-A"CO D4 ORO?"I-A" I"C., =anuary (#, !:(+, =. del Castillo

All propert of the marria)e is presumed to be con%u)al# unless it isshown that it is owned e+clusivel b the husband or the wifeP thatthis presumption is not overcome b the fact that the propert isre)istered in the name of the husband or the wife alone 2and that theconsent of both spouses is required before a con%u)al propert mabe mort)a)ed! Lowever# we *nd it iniquitous to appl the fore)oin)presumption especiall since the nature of the mort)a)ed propertwas never raised as an issue before the ,&C# the CA# and even beforethis Court! "n fact# petitioner never alle)ed in his Complaint that thesaid propert was con%u)al in nature!



PHILIPPI"4 "ATIO"AL -A" / =O%4 9ARCIA and CHILDR4""ORA 9ARCIA, =O%4 9ARCIA, =R., -O--B 9ARCIA and =I88B9ARCIA and H4IR% OF RO94LIO 9ARCIA "A84LBQ C4L4DO"IO9ARCIA, DA"ILO 9ARCIA, 4L%A 9ARCIA, F4R8I" 9ARCIA,H4H4R%O" 9ARCIA, 9R49ORIO 9ARCIA, I84LDA 9ARCIA and

=A"4 9ARCIA, 9.R "o. (2!2&1, =une !, !:(+ =. -RIO"



,e)istration of a propert alone in the name of one spouse does notdestro its con%u)al nature! =hat is material is the time when thepropert was acquired! &he re)istration of the propert is notconclusive evidence of the e+clusive ownership of the husband or thewife! Althou)h the propert appears to be re)istered in the name of

the husband# it has the inherent character of con%u)al propert if it wasacquired for valuable consideration durin) marria)e! "n order to rebutthe presumptive con%u)al nature of the propert# the petitioner mustpresent stron)# clear and convincin) evidence of e+clusive ownershipof one of the spouses! &he burden of provin) that the propert belon)se+clusivel to the wife or to the husband rests upon the part assertin)it!

Dewara /. Lamela 9.R. "O. (31:(:, A6r. ((, !:(( 7+3%CRA +2&

All propert of the marria)e is presumed to belon) to thecon%u)al partnership# unless it be proved that it pertainse+clusivel to the husband or to the wife! ,e)istration in thename of the husband or the wife alone does not destrothis presumption!

De Leon /. De Leon 9.R. "O. (2#:7& , =ul. !&, !::1#1& %CRA 372 "n the case at bar# ownership over what was once a :LLC lotand covered b the :LLC;4onifacio Conditional Contract to

/ell was onl transferred durin) the marria)e of 4onifacio andAnita! videntl# title to the propert in question onl passedto 4onifacio after he had full paid the purchase price on Hune22# 168@!

%etion !. 4<lusi/e Pro6erty o0 4ah %6ouse

'Artiles (:1 @((#) Villeas /. Linan 9.R. "O.

(#&2&1 , =un. !1, !::3 #!7 %CRA 7&

Consequentl# as correctl held b the CA# arilou acquiredownershipof the sub%ect propert! All ri)hts and title of the %ud)mentobli)or are transferred upon the e+piration of the ri)ht of redemption! And where the redemption is made under a propertre)ime )overned b the con%u)al partnership of )ains# Article1@6 of the amil Code provides that propert acquired bri)ht of redemption is the e+clusive propert of the spousesredeemin) the propert!



%etion &. Con>ual Partnershi6 Pro6erty 'Artiles ((7@(!:); Artile (7: "CC

Presum6tion in Fa/or o0

Con>uality Tan /s. CA, !3&

%CRA !!1, !&7 '(113)



or the presumption to appl# it is not even necessar to prove

that the propert was acquired with funds of the partnership! "n

fact# even when the manner in which the propert was acquired

does not appear# the presumption applies and it will be

considered con%u)al propert!

Imani /. 8-TC, 9.R. "O.(23:!&,"o/. (3, !:(: 7&#%CRA &#3

&he part who invo$es it must *rst prove that the propert wasacquired durin) the marria)e! :roof of acquisition durin) thecoverture is a condition sine qua non to the operation of thepresumption in favor of the con%u)al partnership!

PisueGa /s. Heirs o0 Petra ?natin, 9.R. "O. (&!2:&, Au. &(, (111 &(& %CRA &2+

&he words Emarried toE were merel descriptive of :etra

9natin)s status at the time the lot was awarded and re)istered

in her name! /ince :etra 9natin) did not leave an other

propert# will or debt upon her demise in 1637# the propert in

question was thus inherited b her children# eli+ and

Catalina 5illarP and her husband# Aquilino 5illar!

Im6ro/ement on %e6arate

Pro6erty Determination o0

Ownershi6

Ferrer /. Ferrer, 9.R. "O.(77+17 , "o/. !1, !::7 #:2%CRA #3:

&he obli)ation to reimburse rests on the spouse upon whom

ownership of the entire propert is vested! &here is no

obli)ation on the part of the purchaser of the propert# in case

the propert is sold b the owner; spouse!

%etion +.Chares ?6on * O$li.o0 the Con>ual

Partnershi6 'Artiles (!(@(!&)

Ali6io /s. Court o0 A66eals, 9.R. "O. (&+(::, %e6t.!1, !:::.



A creditor cannot sue the survivin) spouse of a decedent in an

ordinar proceedin) for the collection of a sum of mone

char)eable a)ainst the con%u)al partnership and that the proper

remed is for him to *le a claim in the settlement of estate of

the decedent!

Homeowners %a/ins * Loan -an /s. Dailo, +#& %CRA!2& '!::#)



3

&he burden of proof that the debt was contracted for the bene*tof the con%u)al partnership of )ains lies with the creditor;partliti)ant claimin) as such!

Ayala In/estment * De/elo6ment Cor6. /s. Court o0 A66eals, !27 %CRA !3! '(112)

=here the husband contracts obli)ations on behalf of thefamil business# the law presumes# and ri)htl so# that suchobli)ation will redound to the bene*t of the con%u)alpartnership!

Chin /s. CA, 9.R. "O. (!+7+! , Fe$. !&, !::+ +!&%CRA &#7

&he barefaced fact that the shares of stoc$s were re)isteredin the corporate boo$s of Citcorp "nvestment :hilippinessolel in the name of the petitioner;husband does notconstitute proof that the petitioner; husband# not the con%u)alpartnership# owned the same!

Carlos /s. A$elardo, 9.R. "O. (+7#:+ , A6r. :1, !::!&2: %CRA &7(

On the same principle# ac$nowled)ment of the loan madeb the defendant;wife binds the con%u)al partnership sinceits proceeds redounded to the bene*t of the famil! Lence#defendant;husband and defendant;wife are %ointl andseverall liable in the pament of the loan!

%-TC /. 8ar Tierra Cor6., 9.R. "O. (+&&2! , "o/. !1,!::7 #:2 %CRA +(1

&o hold the con%u)al partnership liable for an obli)ation

pertainin) to the husband alone defeats the ob%ective of the CivilCode to protect the solidarit and well bein) of the famil asa unit! &he underlin) concern of the law is the conservation of the con%u)al partnership! Lence# it limits the liabilit of thecon%u)al partnership onl to debts and obli)ations contracted bthe husband for the bene*t of the con%u)al partnership!



3

Ros /. P"- Laoa -r., 9.R. "O.(3:(77, A6r. :7, !:((7+3 %CRA &&+

"t is enou)h that the bene*t to the famil is apparent at thesi)nin) of the contract! rom the ver nature of the contract of loan or services# the famil stands to bene*t from the loan

facilit or services to be rendered to the business orprofession of the husband!



31

Pana /. Heirs o0 =ose =uanite 9.R. "O. (7+!:(,De.(:, !:(! 723 %CRA +(+

Contrar to frenFs contention# Article 121 above allows pamentof the criminal indemnities imposed on his wife# elecia# out of the partnership assets even before these are liquidated! "ndeed#it states that such indemnities Ema be enforced a)ainst thepartnership assets after the responsibilities enumerated in theprecedin) article have been covered!E No prior liquidation of those assets is required!

%etion #. Administration o0 the Con>ualPartnershi6 Pro6erty 'Artiles (!+@(!#)

=oint Administration o0 CP9

Dis6osition or 4num$rane

o0 CP9 Rules under the Ci/il

Code

%4RCO"%I%IO" R. 84"DOA / A?RORA 84"DOA F4R8I",9.R "o. (33!&#,

=uly 3, !:(+. =. Peralta

As .eonardo and /erconsision were married sometime in 167-# the

applicable provision )overnin) the propert relations of the spouses isArticle 182 of the Civil Code of the :hilippines which states that thewife cannot bind the con%u)al partnership without the husbandFsconsent! &he disposal b the wife of their con%u)al propert withoutthe husbandFs consent is voidable under Article 180# which states thatcontracts entered b the husband without the consent of the wifewhen such consent is required are annullable at her instance durin)the marria)e and within ten ears from the transaction questioned!

"n the present case# the *ctitious <eed of Absolute /ale was e+ecutedon /eptember 22# 167?# one month after .eonardo died! Auroraas one

of the heirs and the dul appointed administratri+ of .eonardoFsestate# had the ri)ht therefore to see$ for the annulment of the <eed

of /ale as it deprived her and the other le)al heirs of .eonardo of theirhereditar ri)hts!

%OL4DAD L. LAVADIA / H4IR% OF =?A" L?C4% L?"A,re6resented $y 9R49ORIO . L?"A and 4?94"IA A-ALL4RO@L?"A, 9.R "o. (3(1(+, =uly !&, !:(+. =. -4R%A8I"



32

<ue to the second marria)e between Att! .una and the petitionerbein) void ab initio b virtue of its bein) bi)amous# the propertiesacquired durin) the bi)amous marria)e were )overned b the ruleson co;ownership# conformabl with Article 133 of the Civil Code!



"n such a situation# whoever alle)es co;ownership carried the burden of proof to con*rm such fact! &o establish co;ownership# therefore# itbecame imperative for the .avadia to oer proof of her actualcontributions in the acquisition of propert! Ler mere alle)ation of co;

ownership# without sucient and competent evidence# would warrant

no relief in her favor!

Tinitian /s. Tinitian, %r., "O. L@ +#+(2, Oto$er &:,(12:, (::%CRA 7(1!A husband ma sell propert belon)in) to the con%u)alpartnership even without the consent of the wife if the sale isnecessar to answer for a bi) con%u)al liabilit which mi)htendan)er the familFs economic standin)! &his is one

instance where the wifeFs consent is not required and#impliedl# no %udicial intervention is necessar!

%6ouses 9uian /s. Court o0 A66eals, 9.R. "o.(!#(3!. =une !7, (112,

9nder the Civil Code# the encumbrance or alienation of acon%u)al real propert b the husband absent the wifeFsconsent# is voidable and not void!

Ro<as /s. CA 9.R. "O. 1!!+#, =un. !7, (11( (12 %CRA#+(

&he %oinder of the wife# althou)h unnecessar for an orallease of con%u)al realt which does not e+ceed one ear induration# is required in a lease of con%u)al realt for a period of more than one ear# such a lease bein) considered aconveance and encumbrance within the provisions of theCivil Code requirin) the %oinder of the wife in the instrument bwhich real propert is conveed or encumbered

9uian /s. CA, 9.R. "O. (!#(3!, =un. !7, (112 !1(%CRA &3!

&he sale of a con%u)al propert requires the consent of both thehusband and the wife! &he absence of the consent of onerenders the sale null and void# while the vitiation thereof ma$esit merel voidable! Onl in the latter case can rati*cationcure the defect!



=ader@8analo /s. Camaisa, 9.R. "O. (+3132, =an.!&, !::! &3+%CRA +12

,espondent Norma Camaisa admittedl did not )ive her

written consent to the sale! ven G!,!antin) that respondent

Norma activel participated in ne)otiatin) for the sale of the

sub%ect properties# which she denied# her written consent

to the sale is required b law for its validit!



/i)ni*cantl# petitioner herself admits that Norma refused tosi)n the contracts to sell!

Rules under the Family Code?y /s. CA, 9.R. "O. (:1##, "o/. !1, !::: &+7 %CRA!+7

"n re)ular manner# the rules on summar %udicial proceedin)sunder the amil Code )overn the proceedin)s under Article123 of the amil Code! &he situation contemplated is onewhere the spouse is absent# or separated in fact or hasabandoned the other or consent is withheld or cannot beobtained! /uch rules do not appl to cases where the non ;consentin) spouse is incapacitated or incompetent to )ive

consent! "n this case# the trial court found that the sub%ectspouse Eis an incompetentE who was in comatose!

Ra/ina /. Villa A$rille 9.R. "O. (7:3:2, Ot. (7,!::1 7:+ %CRA(!:

=ust li$e the rule in absolute communit of propert# if thehusband# without $nowled)e and consent of the wife# sellscon%u)al propert# such sale is void! "f the sale was with the$nowled)e but without the approval of the wife# therebresultin) in a disa)reement# such sale is annullable at theinstance of the wife who is )iven *ve - ears from the datethe contract implementin) the decision of the husband toinstitute the case!

De la Cru /. %eo/ia, 9.R. "O. (+12:(, =un. !7,!::2 ### %CRA+#&

=hile lorindaFs husband did not a+ his si)nature to the

above; mentioned A)reement# we *nd no )round to disturb

the uniform *ndin)s of the trial court and appellate court that

,enato# b his actuations# a)reed and )ave his conformit to

the A)reement! As found b the courts below# ,enatoFs

consent to the A)reement was drawn from the fact that he

was present at the time it was si)ned b the sisters and their

witnessesP he had $nowled)e of the A)reement as it was

presented to him for his si)nature# althou)h he did not si)n

the same because his wife lorinda insisted that her si)nature



alread carried that of her husbandP ,enato witnessed the

fact that .eonila contributed her hard earned savin)s in the

amount of :0?#@@@!@@ to complete their share in the purchase

price of the properties in question in the total amount of

:17@#@@@!@@!

%etion 7. Dissolution o0 the Con>ual Partnershi6Reime 'Artiles (!7@(!2)



After the marria)e of petitioner and respondent has been declaredvoid# petitioner *led a complaint for the partition of the house and lotobtained b them durin) their marria)e! &he /C ruled that what)overns them is Art! 138 of the amil Code! 9nder this article#propert acquired b both spouses throu)h their wor$ and industr

shall be )overned b the rules on equal co;ownership! An propertacquired durin) the union is prima facie presumed to have beenobtained throu)h their %oint eorts! A part who did not participate inthe acquisition of the propert shall be considered as havin)contributed to the same %ointl if said parts eorts consisted in thecare and maintenance of the famil household! orts in the care andmaintenance of the famil and household are re)arded as contributionsto the acquisition of common propert b one who has no salar orincome or wor$ or industr! "n the case at bar since the former spousesboth a)reed that the acquired the sub%ect propert durin) thesubsistence of their marria)e# it shall be presumed to have beenobtained b their %oint eorts# wor$ or industr# thus# the propert is %ointl owned b them in equal shares! 8ARI4TTA ". -ARRIDO /s.L4O"ARDO V. "O"ATO, 9.R. "o. (37+1!, Oto$er !:, !:(+, =.Peralta

8-TC /. Pasual, 9.R. "O. (7&3++, Fe$. !1, !::2 #+3%CRA !+7

&ermination of Con%u)al :ropert ,e)ime does not ipso facto ndthe Nature of Con%u)al Ownership! =hile the declared nullit of marria)e of Nicholson and lorencia severed their marital bondand dissolved the con%u)al partnership# the character of theproperties acquired before such declaration continues tosubsist as con%u)al properties until and after the liquidationand partition of the partnership!

DiGo /. DiGo, 9.R. "O. (32:++, =an. (1, !:(( 7+:%CRA (32

&he trial court erred in orderin) that a decree of absolute nullit

of marria)e shall be issued onl after liquidation# partitionand distribution of the partiesF properties under Article 138 of the amil Code! &he rulin) has no basis because /ection 161of the ,ule does not appl to cases )overned under Articles 138and 137 of the amil Code!

4s6inosa /. OmaGa, AC. 1:2(, Ot (!, !:(( 7#1 %CRA(



+tra%udicial dissolution of the con%u)al partnership without %udicial approval is void! &he Court has also ruled that anotar public should not facilitate the disinte)ration of amarria)e and the famil b encoura)in) the separation of thespouses and e+tra%udiciall dissolvin) the con%u)alpartnership# which is e+actl what Omaa did in this case! &he ERasunduan N) :a)hihiwalaE has no le)al eect and isa)ainst public polic!



%etion 3. Liuidation o0 the Con>ual Partnershi6Assets * Lia$ilities 'Artiles (!1@(&&);

Atara6 /. Atara6, 9.R. "O. (33:11, =un. 2, !:((7#( %CRA +##

=e hold that the )eneral rule does not appl to the instantcase considerin) that the parties are all heirs of Hoaquin and thatno ri)hts of third parties will be impaired b the resolution of the ownership issue! ore importantl# the determination of whether the sub%ect properties are con%u)al is but collateral tothe probate courtFs %urisdiction to settle the estate of Hoaquin!

9o /. %er/aio, 9.R. "O. (#3#&3, %e6t. 3, !:(( 7#3

%CRA (: &here bein) no dispute that :rotacio# /r! and arta were marriedprior to the eectivit of the amil Code on Au)ust 0# 1677#their propert relation was properl characterized as one of con%u)al partnership )overned b the Civil Code! 9pon artaFsdeath in 1678# the con%u)al partnership was dissolved# pursuantto Article 18- 1 of the Civil Code# and an implied ordinarco;ownership ensued amon) :rotacio# /r! and the other heirsof arta with respect to her share in the assets of the con%u)alpartnership pendin) a liquidation followin) its liquidation!

CHAPT4R #.%4PARATIO" OF PROP. OF TH4%PO?%4% * AD8 I"I%TRATIO" OF CO88O"PROP4RTB -B O"4 %PO?%4 D?RI"9 TH4 8ARRIA94'Arts (&+@(+!)

CHAPT4R 7. R49I84 OF %4PARATIO" OF PROP4RTB 'Artiles (+& @ (+7)

9rounds

Voluntary %e6aration o0 Pro6erty

8auilan /. 8auilan, 9.R. "O. (##+:1, =un. :2,!::3 #!+ %CRA(77

9nder Article 130 of the amil Code# separation of propert mabe eected voluntaril or for sucient cause# sub%ect to



%udicial approval! &he questioned Compromise A)reement whichwas %udiciall approved is e+actl such a separation of propertallowed under the law!

45ets o0 Deree 9rantin %e6aration o0 Pro6erty



CHAPT4R 3. PROP4RTB R49I84% OF ?"IO"% W ITHO?T!"##$"%&

'Artiles (+3@(+2)

Valdes /s. RTC -r. (:!, C 9.R. "O. (!!3+1, =ul.

&(, (117 !7:%CRA !!(

=hether or not# Articles -@# -1 and -2 in relation to Articles1@2 and 126 of the amil Code )overn the disposition of thefamil dwellin) in cases where a marria)e is declared void abinitio# includin) a marria)e declared void b reason of thepscholo)ical incapacit of the spouses! &he rules set up to)overn the liquidation of either the absolute communit or thecon%u)al partnership of )ains# the propert re)imes reco)nizedfor valid and voidable marria)es in the latter case until the

contract is annulled# are irrelevant to the liquidation of the co;ownership that e+ists between common;law spouses!

8allilin, =r. /s. Castillo, 9.R. "O. (&72:&, =un. (7,!::: &&& %CRA7!2

&he amil Code# in addition to providin) that a co;ownershipe+ists between a man and a woman who live to)ether ashusband and wife without the bene*t of marria)e# li$ewiseprovides that# if the parties are incapacitated to marr eachother# properties acquired b them throu)h their %ointcontribution of mone# propert or industr shall be owned bthem in common in proportion to their contributions which# inthe absence of proof to the contrar# is presumed to be equal!

DiGo /. DiGo, 9.R. "O. (32:++,=an. (1, !:(( 7+:%CRA (32

:etitionerFs marria)e to respondent was declared void underArticle 0? of the amil Code and not under Article 3@ or 3-! &hus# what )overns the liquidation of properties owned incommon b petitioner and respondent are the rules on co;

ownership! "n Valdes# the Court ruled that the propertrelations of parties in a void marria)e durin) the period of cohabitation is )overned either b Article 138 or Article 137 of the amil Code! &he rules on co;ownership appl and theproperties of the spouses should be liquidated in accordancewith the Civil Code provisions on co; ownership! 9nder Article36? of the Civil Code# partition ma be made b aG!,!eementbetween the parties or b %udicial proceedin)s! "t is not



necessar to liquidate the properties of the spouses in thesame proceedin) for declaration of nullit of marria)e!

La$ayan /. %amoy, 9.R. "O. (7#+!3, 8ar. !(, !:((7+# %CRA 733

A careful perusal of the contents of the so;called :artitionAG!,!eement indicates that the document involves matterswhich necessitate prior settlement of questions of law# basicof which is a determination as to



whether the parties have the ri)ht to freel divide amon)themselves the sub%ect properties! oreover# to followpetitionerFs ar)ument would be to allow respondent not onl toadmit a)ainst his own interest but that of his le)al spouse aswell# who ma also be lawfull entitled co;ownership over the

said properties!CariGo /. CariGo, 9.R. "O. (&!#!1, Fe$. :!, !::( &#(%CRA (!3

As to the propert re)ime of petitioner /usan Nicdao and the

deceased# Article 138 of the amil Code )overns! &his article

applies to unions of parties who are le)all capacitated and

not barred b an impediment to contract marria)e# but

whose marria)e is nonetheless void for other reasons# li$e the

absence of a marria)e license

%an Luis /. %an Luis 9.R. "O. (&&3+&, Fe$. :7, !::3 #(+%CRA !1+

"n the instant case# respondent would qualif as aninterested person who has a direct interest in the estate of elicisimo b virtue of their cohabitation# the e+istence of which was not denied b petitioners! "f she proves thevalidit of the divorce and elicisimoFs capacit to remarr#but fails to prove that her marria)e with him was validl

performed under the laws of the 9!/!A!# then she ma beconside red as a co;owner under Article 133 8? of the CivilCode

TITL4 V. TH4 FA8ILB HO84

CHAPT4R (. TH4 FA8ILB A% A" I"%TIT?TIO"

'Artiles (+1@(#() Tuason /s. CA, !#7 %CRA (#2

'(117)

Our famil law is based on the polic that marria)e is not amere contract but a social institution in which the state isvitall interested!

Honti/eros /s. RTC Iloilo City, 9.R. "O. (!#+7#, =un.!1, (111 &:1%CRA &+:



,eli)ious relationship and relationship b anit are not )iven

an le)al eect in this %urisdiction! Consequentl# private

respondent Ason# who is described in the complaint as the

spouse of respondent Lontiveros# and petitioner aria

Lontiveros# who is admittedl the spouse of petitioner

Au)usto Lontiveros# are considered stran)ers to the

Lontiveros famil# for purposes of Art! 1-1!

9ayon /. 9ayon, &7 %CRA (:+ '(13:)



&he enumeration of Ebrothers and sistersE as member of thesame famil does not comprehend Esisters;in;law!E "n thatcase# then Chief Hustice Concepcion emphasized that Esisters;in;lawE hence# also Ebrother;in; lawE are not listed under Art!218 of the New Civil Code as members of the same famil!

8a$aleta /s. 9onon, 37 %CRA #((

orts to compromis are not a %urisdictional prerequisitefor the maintenance of an action whenever a stran)er to thefamil is a part thereto# whether as necessar orindispensable one!

Tianay /. W aas, A8 OCA :1@&!+&, A6ril (, !:(&71+ %CRA !7+

"ndeed# Ethere is no anit between the blood relatives of onespouse and the blood relatives of the other! A husband isrelated b anit to his wifeFs brother# but not to the wife of his wifeFs brother! &here is no anit between the husbandFsbrother and the wifeFs sisterP this is called affinitas affinitatis!E

CHAPT4R !. TH4 FA8ILB HO84 'Arts (#!@(7!)

Taneo, =r. /s. CA, CA, &:+ %CRA &:2

amil home is a real ri)ht# which is )ratuitous# inalienable

and free from attachment# constituted over the dwellin)

place and the land on which it is situated# which confers upon

a particular famil the ri)ht to en%o such properties# which

must remain with the person constitutin) it and his heirs!

Taneo /s. Court o0 A66eals, 9.R. "O. (:2#7!, 8ar.:1, (111 &:+%CRA &:2

4 the ver de*nition of the law that the 'famil home is thedwellin) house where a person and his famil resides and theland on which it is situated#( it is understood that the houseshould be constructed on a land not belon)in) to another!



Arriola /. Arriola, 9.R. "O. (333:&, =an. !2, !::2 #+!%CRA 777

urthermore# Articles 1-2 and 1-0 speci*call e+tend the scope

of the famil home not %ust to the dwellin) structure in whichthe famil resides



but also to the lot on which it stands! &hus# applin) theseconcepts# the sub%ect house as well as the speci*c portion of the sub%ect land on which it stands are deemed constitutedas a famil home b the deceased and petitioner 5ilma fromthe moment the be)an occupin) the same as a famil

residence 2@ ears bac$8odeuillo /s. -re/a, 9.R. "o. 27&##, 8ay &(, (11:.

&here is no need to constitute the same %udiciall ore+tra%udiciall as required in the Civil Code! "f the familactuall resides in the premises# it is# therefore# a familhome as contemplated b law

Patriio /s. Dario, 9.R. "O. (3:2!1, "o/em$er !:,!::7.

&hree requisites must concur before a minor bene*ciar is

entitled to the bene*ts of Art! 1-6I 1 the relationship

enumerated in Art! 1-3 of the amil CodeP 2 the live in the

famil home# and 0 the are dependent for le)al support

upon the head of the famil!

Ca$an /. -asay, 9.R. "O. (2:#23, 8ar. !:, !::1 #2!

%CRA (3! &he famil home must be established on the properties of a theabsolute communit# or b the con%u)al partnership# or c thee+clusive propert of either spouse with the consent of theother! "t cannot be established on propert held in co;ownership with third persons! Lowever# it can be establishedpartl on communit propert# or con%u)al propert andpartl on the e+clusive propert of either spouse with theconsent of the latter!

Oli/ia De 8esa /. Aero, 9.R. "O. (2#:7+ =an. (7,

!:(! 77& %CRA +:

&he famil homeFs e+emption from e+ecution must be set upand proved to the /heri before the sale of the propert atpublic auction! &he petitioners now are barred from raisin) thesame! ailure to do so estop them from later claimin) the saide+emption!

8anao6 /s. CA, !33 %CRA #3 '(113)



Articles 1-2 and 1-0 of the amil Code do not have a

retroactive eect such that all e+istin) famil residences are

deemed to have been constituted as famil homes at the time

of their occupation prior to the eectivit of the amil Code and

are e+empt from e+ecution for the pament of obli)ations

incurred before the eectivit of the amil Code!



-

TITL4 VI. PAT4R"ITB * FILIATIO"

Cha6ter I Leitimate

Children Ty6es o0 Filiation%tatus o0 Children

Distintion $etween Paternity and

Filiation Laws o/ernin Paternity

and Filiation

Presum6tion o0 Leitimay

How to im6un Childs Leitimay

-enite@-adua /s. CA 9.R. "O. (:#7!#, =an. !+, (11+!!1 %CRA +72

Article 18@ of the amil Code is inapplicable to this case

because this is not an action to impu)n the le)itimac of a

child# but an action of the private respondents to claim their

inheritance as le)al heirs of their childless deceased aunt!

&he do not claim that petitioner 5ioleta Cabatbat .im is an

ille)itimate child of the deceased# but that she is not the

decedents child at all!

Liyao /s. Tanhoti@Liyao,9.R. "O. (&217(, 8ar. :3,!::! &32 %CRA#7&

&he )rounds for impu)nin) the le)itimac of the child

mentioned in Article 2-- of the Civil Code ma onl be

invo$ed b the husband# or in proper cases# his heirs underthe conditions set forth under Article 2?2 of the Civil Code!

La$ala /s. %antiao, 9.R. "O. (&!&:#, De. :+, !::(&3( %CRA &7:

A baptismal certi*cate# a private document# is not conclusiveproof of *liation! ore so are the entries made in an income



-

ta+ return# which onl shows that income ta+ has been paidand the amount thereof!

8aadandan /s. Court o0 A66eals, (:: %CRA 3&

"n this case the husband and the wife continued to live in thesame province after their alle)ed separation# the Court did notdiscount the possibilit of phsical access to each otherconsiderin) their pro+imit to



-1

each other and considerin) further that the wife still visited andrecuperated in her motherFs house where her spouse residedwith their children!

Andal /s. 8aarai, 21 Phil (7#

&he court held that %ust because tuberculosis is advanced in a

man does not necessaril mean that he is incapable of

se+ual intercourse! &here are cases where persons suerin)

from tuberculosis can do the carnal act even in the most

crucial sta)e of health because then the seemed to be more

inclined to se+ual intercourse!

Tison /s CA, !37 %CRA #2! '(113)

&he issue of le)itimac cannot be attac$ed collaterall!

CHAPT4R !. PROOF OF FILIATIO" 'Artiles (3!@(3+)

RODOLFO %. A9?ILAR /s. 4D"A 9. %IA%AT, 9.R. "o. !::(71, =anuary !2, !:(#, =.Del Castillo

&he *liation of ille)itimate children# li$e le)itimate children# is

established b 1 the record of birth appearin) in the civil re)ister or a

*nal %ud)mentP or 2 an admission of le)itimate *liation in a public

document or a private handwritten instrument and si)ned b the

parent concerned! "n the absence thereof# *liation shall be proved b

1 the open and continuous possession of the status of a le)itimate

childP or 2 an other means allowed b the ,ules of Court and special

laws! &he due reco)nition of an ille)itimate child in a record of birth# a

will# a statement before a court of record# or in an authentic writin) is#in itself# a consummated act of ac$nowled)ment of the child# and no

further court action is required! "n fact# an authentic writin) is treated

not %ust a )round for compulsor reco)nitionP it is in itself a voluntar

reco)nition that does not require a separate action for %udicial

approval!



-2

"t must be concluded that ,odolfo> who was born durin) the marria)e

of Alfredo A)uilar and Candelaria /iasat;A)uilar and before their

respective deaths > has sucientl proved that he is the le)itimate

issue of the A)uilar spouses! Le correctl ar)ues# Alfredo A)uilarFs

/// satis*es the requirement for proof of *liation and relationship to

the A)uilar spouses under Article 182 of the amil CodeP b itself# said

document constitutes an 'admission of le)itimate *liation in a public

document or a private handwritten instrument and si)ned b the

parent concerned!(



%olina6 /s. Losin =r. 9.R. "O. (+73&3 , De. (:,!::( &3( %CRA3((

=hether or not the certi*cate of live birth +hibit < aspresented b the respondent# includin) the photo)raph showin)that he and his mother attended the deceased funeral# issucient to proof *liation of the petitioner to the deceased! Abirth certi*cate oers only 6rima 0aie e/idene o0 Jliationand ma be refuted b contrar evidence!

Vereles /. Posada, 9.R. "O.(#132#, A6r. !3, !::3#!! %CRA #(2

&he court held that the due reco)nition of an ille)itimate childin a record of birth# a will# a statement before a court of record#or in an authentic writin) is# in itself# a consummated act of

ac$nowled)ement of the child# and no further court action isrequired

De Asis /s CA, &:& %CRA (37

:aternit or *liation# or the lac$ of it# is a relationship that mustbe %udiciall established and it is for the court to declare itse+istence or absence!

Luas /. Luas, 9.R. "O. (1:3(:, =un. 7, !:(( 7#:%CRA 773

Althou)h a paternit action is civil# not criminal# theconstitutional prohibition a)ainst unreasonable searches andseizures is still applicable# and a proper showin) of sucient

%usti*cation under the particular factual circumstances of thecase must be made before a court ma order a compulsorblood test!

Rodriue /s. CA, 9.R. "O. 2#3!&, =un. (1, (11# !+#%CRA (#:

=hen a reco)nition has been made b one parent# the name of

the other parent ma be revealed in an action b the child tocompel such other parent to reco)nize him also!

Heirs o0 Ca$ais /s. CA, 9.R. "O. (:7&(+@(#,Ot. :2,(111 &(7 %CRA &&2

A baptismal certi*cate# a private document# which# bein)hearsa# is not a conclusive proof of *liation!



Cenido /s. A6aionado, 9.R ."O. (&!+3+, "o/. (1,(111 &(2 %CRA722

9nder the law# this statement must be made personall b theparent himself or herself# not b an brother# sister orrelativeP after all# the



concept of reco)nition spea$s of a voluntar declaration bthe parent# or if the parent refuses# b %udicial authorit# toestablish the paternit or maternit of children born outsidewedloc$!

Taya /. Taya@9allor, 9.R. "O. (3+72:, 8ar. !+, !::2#+1 %CRA 72

:etitioner# however# overloo$s the fact that respondentFssuccessional ri)hts ma be established not %ust b a %udicialaction to compel reco)nition but also b proof that she hadbeen voluntaril ac$nowled)ed and reco)nized as an ille)itimatechild! ,espondent in this case had not been )iven theopportunit to present evidence to show whether she had beenvoluntaril reco)nized and ac$nowled)ed b her deceased fatherbecause of petitionerFs opposition to her petition and motionfor hearin) on armative defenses!

Puno /. Puno 4nt. In., 9.R. "O. (33:77, %e6t. ((,!::1 #11 %CRA#2#

A certi*cate of live birth purportedl identifin) the putativefather is not competent evidence of paternit when there is no

showin) that the putative father had a hand in the preparationof the certi*cate! &he local civil re)istrar has no authorit torecord the paternit of an ille)itimate child on the informationof a third person!

9otardo /. -ulin, 9.R. "O. (7#(77, Au. (#, !:(!732 %CRA +&7

=e have held that such other proof of ones *liation ma be a

Ebaptismal certi*cate# a %udicial admission# a famil bible inwhich JhisK name has been entered# common reputationrespectin) his pediG!,!ee# admission b silence# thetestimonies of witnesses# and other $inds of proof admissible under ,ule 10@ of the ,ules of Court!E "n this case#the respondent established a prima facie case that thepetitioner is the putative father of Glize throu)h testimonthat she had been se+uall involved onl with one man# thepetitioner# at the time of her conception! ,odulfo



corroborated her testimon that the petitioner and therespondent had intimate relationship!

Luas /. Luas, 9.R . "O. (1:3(:, =un. 7, !:(( 7#:%CRA 773

Althou)h a paternit action is civil# not criminal# theconstitutional prohibition a)ainst unreasonable searchesand seizures is still



applicable# and a proper showin) of sucient %usti*cationunder the particular factual circumstances of the case mustbe made before a court ma order a compulsor blood test!

CHAPT4R &. ILL49ITI8 AT4 CHILDR4" 'Artiles (3#@(37)

Rihts o0 Illeitimate Children

Tono /s. CA, 9.R. "O. (!!1:7 , Fe$. :3, !::! &37%CRA #!&

"n the case at bar# bearin) in mind that the welfare of thesaid minor as the controllin) factor# the appellate court didnot err in allowin) her father to retain in the meantimeparental custod over her! eanwhile# the child should not be

wrenched from her familiar surroundin)s# and thrust into astran)e environment awa from the people and places towhich she had apparentl formed an attachment!

9uy /. CA, 9.R. "O. (7&3:3, %e6t. (#, !::7 #:! %CRA(#(

"t is clear therefore that the resolution of the issue of prescription depends on the tpe of evidence to be adduced bprivate respondents in provin) their *liation! Lowever# it wouldbe impossible to determine the same in this case as there hasbeen no reception of evidence et!

De La Cru /. 9raia 9.R. "O. (333!2, =ul. &(, !::1#1+ %CRA 7+2

=here the private handwritten instrument is the lone piece of evidence submitted to prove *liation# there should be strictcompliance with the requirement that the same must be si)ned

b the ac$nowled)in) parent! =here the private handwritteninstrument is accompanied b other relevant and competentevidence# it suces that the claim of *liation therein be shownto have been made and handwritten b the ac$nowled)in)parent as it is merel corroborative of such other evidence!



?y /. Chu, 9.R. "O. (2&17#, %e6t. (2, !::1 7:: %CRA2:7

"t is settled# then# in law and %urisprudence# that the status

and *liation of a child cannot be compromised! :ublic polic

demands that there be no compromise on the status and*liation of a child! :aternit and *liation or the lac$ of the

same# is a relationship that must be %udiciall



established# and it is for the Court to declare its e+istence orabsence! "t cannot be left to the will or aG!,!eement of theparties!

CHAPT4R +. L49ITI8 AT4D CHILDR4" 'Artiles

(33@(2!); %ee RA 12#2

Leitimation

Cone6t and

DeJnition Who an

$e Leitimated

Proedure and e5ets o0 LeitimationA$adilla /s. Ta$iliran, =r. A.8 "O. 8T=@1!@3(7, Ot.!#, (11# !+1 %CRA ++3

=hether or not# a child born out of wedloc$# b parents whohave a le)al impediment to marr each other# can bele)itimated! As a lawer and a %ud)e# respondent ou)ht to$now that# despite his subsequent marria)e to :riscilla# thesethree children cannot be le)itimated nor in an wa beconsidered le)itimate since at the time the were born# therewas an e+istin) valid marria)e between respondent and his

*rst wife# &eresita 4! &abiliran!

TITL4 VII. ADOPTIO"

Domesti Ado6tion At o0 (122 'RA

2##!) as amended $y RA 1#!&

'8arh !::1)

A.8 . "O. :!@7@:!@%C @ ReQ Pro6osed Rule on Domesti

Ado6tion Inter ountry Ado6tion At o0 (11# 'RA

2:+&)

Amended IRR on Inter@Country Ado6tion ' =anuary 2,!::+)



DeJnition and one6t o0 Ado6tion

Domesti Ado6tion and Inter ountry

Ado6tion Law o/ernin Domesti

Ado6tion

Who are ualiJed to ado6t and to $e ado6ted45ets o0 Ado6tion

Resission o0

Ado6tion



Proedure under ICA and DAA

Re6u$li /s. Verara, 9.R. "O. 1###(, 8ar. !:, (113!3: %CRA !:7

&he law here does not provide for an alien who is married to aformer ilipino citizen see$in) to adopt %ointl with his or herspouse a relative b consan)uinit# as an e+ception to the)eneral rule that aliens ma not adopt!

,osalina <e cannot# on her own# adopt her brother andsister for the law mandates %oint adoption b husband andwife# sub%ect to e+ceptions!

Re6u$li /s. 8iller, 9.R. "O.(!#1&!, A6r. !(, (111&:7 #CRA (2&

An alien quali*ed to adopt under the Child and Bouth =elfareCode# which was in force at the time of the *lin) of the petition#acquired a vested ri)ht which could not be aected b thesubsequent enactment of a new law disqualifin) him!

Re6u$li /s. Toledano, 9.R. "O.1+(+3, =un. :2, (11+!&& %CRA 1

&he amil Code reiterated the rule b requirin) that husband

and wife EmustE %ointl adopt# e+cept in the cases mentionedbefore! 9nder the said new law# %oint adoption b husbandand wife is mandator

Can /s. CA, 9.R. "O.(:#&:2, %e6t. !#, (112 !17%CRA (!2

:hsical estran)ement alone# without *nancial and moraldesertion# is not tantamount to abandonment! =hile

admittedl# petitioner was phsicall absent as he was thenin the 9nited /tates# he was not remiss in his natural andle)al obli)ations of love# care and support for his children!

In reQ Ado6tion o0 8ihelle * 8ihael Lim 9.R."O.(7211!@1&, 8ay !(, !::1 #22 %CRA 12

&he *lin) of a case for dissolution of the marria)e between

petitioner and Olario is of no moment! "t is not equivalent to a



decree of dissolution of marria)e! 9ntil and unless there is a

%udicial decree for the dissolution of the marria)e between

petitioner and Olario# the marria)e still subsists! &hat bein)

the case# %oint adoption b the husband and the wife is

required!



Re6u$li /s. CA * -o$iles, 9.R. "O.1!&!7, =an. !+,(11! !:# %CRA&#7

9nder the Child and Bouth =elfare Code# private respondenthad the ri)ht to *le a petition for adoption b herself#without %oinin) her husband therein! =hen rs! 4obiles *ledher petition# she was e+ercisin) her e+plicit andunconditional ri)ht under said law!

Lahom /s. %i$ulo, 9.R. "O. (+&121, =uly (+, !::&

,!A! NO! 7--2 has unquali*edl withdrawn from an adoptera consequential ri)ht to rescind the adoption decree even incases where the adoption mi)ht clearl turn out to beundesirable!

TITL4 VIII. %?PPORTCone6t o0 %u66ort

9.R.ounds 0or Ation 0or

%u66ort Riht to su66ort

Order o0 lia$ility 0or su66ort

Contratual su66ort /s Leal

%u66ort

8anonon /. CA, 9.R. "O. (!#:+1 # Hune!0@# 2@@? 363/C,A 1

&he )randparents are liable to support their )randchildren if theparent cannot )ive support or sucient support!

Lim /. Lim, 9.R. "O. (7&!:1, Ot. &:, !::1 7:+ %CRA71(

&he inabilit of the parents to sucientl provide for theirchildren shifts a portion of their obli)ation to the ascendants in

the nearest de)ree# both in the paternal petitioners andmaternal lines# followin) the orderin) in Article 166!

9an /s. Reyes, 9.R. "O.(+##!3, 8ay.!2, !::! &2!%CRA &#3A %ud)ment orderin) for support is immediatel e+ecutordespite pendenc of appeal!De Asis /s. CA, 9.R. "O.(!3#32, Fe$. (#, (111 &:&%CRA (37



=hether or not# a renunciation of the e+istence of *liation of the child and the putative father# made b the mother# isvalid! "t is true that in order to claim support# *liation and#orpaternit must *rst be shown between the claimant and theparent# however# paternit and *liation or the lac$ of thesame is a relationship that must be %udiciall established andit is for the court to declare its e+istence or absence!



TITL4 I. PAR4"TAL A?THORITB

CHAPT4R (. 94"4RAL PROVI%IO"% 'Artiles !:1@!(#)

Cone6t45ets o0 Parental Authority

%antos %r. /. CA, 9.R. "O. ((&:#+, 8ar. (7, (11# !+!%CRA +:3

=hen a parent entrusts the custod of a minor to another#

such as a friend or )odfather# even in a document# what is

)iven is merel temporar custod and it does not constitute

a renunciation of parental authorit! ven if a de*nite

renunciation is manifest# the law still disallows the same!Parents who e<erises Parental

Authority =oint Parental

Authority

Rule in ase o0 %e6aration o0 Parents

Pere /. CA, 9.R. "O. ((223:, 8ar. !1, (117 !##%CRA 77(

Onl the most compellin) of reasons shall %ustif the courtsawardin) the custod of such a child to someone other than

his mother# such as her un*tness to e+ercise sole parentalauthorit! "n the past the followin) )rounds have beenconsidered ample %usti*cation to deprive a mother of custodand parental authoritI ne)lect# abandonment# unemplomentand immoralit# habitual drun$enness# dru) addiction#maltreatment of the child# insanit and bein) sic$ with acommunicable disease!

La<amana /. La<amana, 9.R. "O. (++37&, %e6t. &,

!::! &22 %CRA!17

"t is clear that ever child JhasK ri)hts which are not andshould not be dependent solel on the wishes# much less thewhims and caprices# of his parents! Lis welfare should notbe sub%ect to the parents sa;so or mutual a)reement alone!=here# as in this case# the parents are alread separated infact# the courts must step in to determine in whose custod



the child can better be assured the ri)hts )ranted to him blaw! &he need# therefore# to present evidence re)ardin) thismatter# becomes imperative!

-eett /. %armiento, =r. A8 "O. RT=@(!@!&!7, =an.

&:, !:(& 721 %CRA +1+"n a ver real sense# then# a %ud)ment involvin) the custod of a minor child cannot be accorded the force and eect of res %udicata! Now to



another point! "n disputes concernin) post;separation custod

over a minor# the well;settled rule is that no child under seven

8 ears of a)e shall be separated from the mother# unless

the court *nds compellin) reasons to order otherwise!

CHAPT4R !. %?-%TIT?T4 * %P4CIAL PAR4"TALA?THORITB 'Arts !(7@!(1)

Parental Pre0erene Rule

Cone6t

Who may e<erise %u$stitute Parental

Authority Lia$ility o0 6ersons e<erisin

s6eial Parental Authority

%t. 8arys Aademy /. Car6itanos, 9.R. "O. (+&&7&,Fe$. 7, !::! &37 %CRA +3&

&he liabilit for the accident# whether caused b thene)li)ence of the minor driver or mechanical detachment of the steerin) wheel )uide of the %eep# must be pinned on the

minorFs parents primaril! &he ne)li)ence of petitioner /t!arFs Academ was onl a remote cause of the accident!

CHAPT4R &. 4FF4CT OF PAR4"TAL A?THORITB ?PO"TH4 P4R%O"% OF TH4 CHILDR4"

Riht to Childs Custody

%aala@4slao /s. CA, !77 %CRA &(3, &!& '(113).

"t is a rule lon) accepted b the courts that the ri)ht of parentsto the custod of their minor children is one of the natural ri)hts

incident to parenthood# a ri)ht supported b law and soundpublic polic!

Can /s. CA, !17 %CRA (!2 '(112).

:arental authorit cannot be entrusted to a person simplbecause he could )ive the child a lar)er measure of materialcomfort than his natural parent!



Duty to Pro/ide %u66ort

---, /s. AAA, 9.R. "o. (1&!!#, Fe$ruary :1, !:(#, =. Reyes



?

"t was improper for 444# $nowin) that CCC was not his biolo)ical son#to have CCC le)itimated after the celebration of 444 and AAAFsmarria)e! &he le)al process of le)itimation was triDed with when 444voluntaril but falsel ac$nowled)ed CCC as his son! &he principle ofestoppel under Article 1301 thus applies# and it now bars 444 from

ma$in) an assertion contrar to his previous representations! Leshould not be allowed to evade a responsibilit arisin) from his ownmisrepresentations!

Le is bound b the eects of the le)itimation process! CCC remains to

be 444Fs son# and pursuant to Article 186 of the amil Code# the

former is entitled to the same ri)hts as those of a le)itimate child#

includin) the receipt of his fatherFs support!

Duty o0 Re6resentation

O$edenio /s. 8urillo, A.8. "O. RT=@:&@(3#&. Fe$. #,!::+ +!! %CRA !(

.icel was onl 13 ears old# de*nitel a minor# on a 22#2@@1# when she was presented before respondentFs sala toarm the e+ecution of her adavit of desistance! &his bein)the case# said adavit should have been e+ecuted with theconcurrence of her parents! .icel could not validl )iveconsent to an adavit of desistance# for a minor isincompetent to e+ecute such an instrument!

Lia$ility o0 Parents 0or damaes aused $y their minorhildren

CHAPT4R+. 4FF4CT OF PAR4"TALA?THORITB ?PO" TH4 PROP4RTB OF TH4 CHILDR4"

'Artiles !!#@!!3)

Lindain /. CA, 9.R. "O. 1#&:# , Au. !:, (11 !(!%CRA 3!#

9nder the law# a parent# actin) merel as the le)al as

distin)uished from %udicial administrator of the propert of

hisQher minor children# does not have the power to dispose of#

or alienate# the propert of said children without %udicial

approval!



?

"eri /. Heirs o0 Had>i Buso6, 9.R. "o (1+&77, Ot.(:, !:(! 72&%CRA !#&

Administration includes all acts for the preservation of thepropert and the receipt of fruits accordin) to the natural

purpose of the thin)! An act of disposition or alienation# or

an reduction in the substance of the patrimon of child#

e+ceeds the limits of administration! &hus# a father or



?1

mother# as the natural )uardian of the minor under parentalauthorit# does not have the power to dispose or encumberthe propert of the latter

CHAPT4R #. %?%P4"%IO" ORT4R8I"ATIO" OF PAR4"TAL A?THORITB

'Arts !!2@!&&)

9.R.ounds 0or termination and sus6ension o0 6arentalauthority

-onda>y /s. -onda>y, 9.R. "O. (+:2(3, De. :3,!::( &3( %CRA7+

"ndeed# what determines the *tness of an parent is the

abilit to see to the phsical# educational# social and moral

welfare of the children# and the abilit to )ive them a health

environment as well as phsical and *nancial support ta$in)

into consideration the respective resources and social and

moral situations of the parents!

Can /s CA,!17 %CRA (!2

"n reference to abandonment of a child b his parent# the act

of abandonment imports 'an conduct of the parent which

evinces a settled purpose to fore)o all parental duties and

relinquish all parental claims to the child!( "t means 'ne)lect

or refusal to perform the natural and le)al obli)ations of care

and support which parents owe their children!(

Title . 48A"CIPATIO" A"D A94 OF 8A=ORITB; %eeRA 72:1; !(37 * !(2: "CC

Cone6t45ets o0 4mani6ation

Title I %?88ARB =?DICIAL PROC44DI"9% I" TH4 FA8ILB LAW



?2

Family Courts At and %C A8 Orders and

Cirulars CHAPT4R (. %COP4 OF

APPLICATIO" 'Artile !&2)

CHAPT4R !. %4PARATIO" I" FACT -4TW44" H?%-A"DA"D W IF4'Artiles !&1@!+2)

%ee RA 1!7! 'Anti Violene aainst W omen and

Children NVAWC) and Im6lementin Rules *

Reulations

CHAPT4R &. I"CID4"T% I"VOLVI"9 PAR4"TALA?THORITB 'Artiles !+1@!#!)



%ee RA 1!7! 'Anti Violene aainst W omen and Children

NVAW C) * IRR

A.8 . "O. :!@((@(!@%C@ ReQ Pro6osed Rule onPro/isional Orders '8arh +, !::&)

A.8 . "O. :&@:!@:#@%C@ ReQ Pro6osed Rule on9uardianshi6 o0 8inors 'A6ril (, !::&)

A.8 . "O. :&@:+@%C@ ReQ Pro6osed Rule on Custody o0 8inors and Writ o0

Ha$eas Cor6us in Relation to Custody o0 8inors 'A6ril&:, !::&)

CHAPT4R +. OTH4R 8ATT4R% %?-=4CT TO %?88ARB PROC44DI"9% 'Artile !#&)

?y ' =ardelea) /s. CA, 9.R. "O. (:1##3, "o/. !1,!::: &+7 %CRA

!+7

,ule 6- of the ,OC# not the ,ule on /ummar :roceedin)s inthe amil Code# shall appl in a sale of a con%u)al propertwhere one spouse is is an incompetent! A comatose spouse isincompetent!

Re6u$li /. Tano, 9.R. "O.(7(:7!, =ul. &(, !::1 #1+%CRA #7:

4 e+press provision of law# the %ud)ment of the court in asummar proceedin) shall be immediatel *nal and e+ecutor!As a matter of course# it follows that no appeal can be hadof the trial courtFs %ud)ment in a summar proceedin) for thedeclaration of presumptive death of an absent spouse underArticle 31 of the amil Code!

Re6. /. -ermude@Lorino 9.R. "O. (7:!#2 , =an. (1,!::# ++1 %CRA#

"n /ummar Hudicial :roceedin)s under the amil Code# there isno re)lementar period within which to perfect an appeal#precisel because %ud)ments rendered thereunder# b e+press



provision of /ection 238# amil Code# supra# are Eimmediatel*nal and e+ecutorE! "t was erroneous# therefore# on the part of the ,&C to )ive due course to the ,epublicFs appeal and orderthe transmittal of the entire records of the case to the Courtof Appeals!



Title . F?"4RAL 'Artiles &:# @&(:, "CC)

&he petitioner alle)es that bein) a common law spouse who too$ careof the deceased# she has the ri)ht to ma$e funeral arran)ements forthe deceased! &he /upreme Court ruled that the dut and the ri)ht to

ma$e funeral arran)ements are con*ned within the famil of thedeceased particularl the spouse of the deceased to the e+clusion of acommon law spouse! F4 FLORO VALI"O /s. RO%ARIO D. ADRIA"O,FLORA"T4 D. ADRIA"O, R?-4" D. ADRIA"O, 8ARIA T4R4%AADRIA"O O"9OCO, VICTORIA ADRIA"O -ABO"A, and L4AHA"TO"4TT4 D. ADRIA"O, 9.R. "o. (2!21+, A6ril !!, !:(+, =.8endoa

Title II. CAR4 A"D 4D?CATIO" OF CHILDR4"

'Artiles &#7 &7&, "CC)PD 7:& KThe Child and Bouth W el0are CodeS

RA 1!7! 'Anti Violene aainst W omen and Children

NVAW C) and IRR; RA 1#!&

Title III. ?%4 OF %?R"A84% 'Artiles &7+@&2:, "CC)

RA 1!## KAn At Allowin Illeitimate Children

to ?sethe %urname o0 their Father 'Amendin Art.

(37 o0 the Family Code)S; IRR o0 1!##; Pass6ort

Law 'RA 2!&1) Title IV. A-%4"C4 'Artiles &2(@

&17, "CC);

%ee Artile +( FC; Rules '%etion +) 3&, 3+,(:3,Re/ised Rules o0 Court;

Arts.33+ * 333; Art. (+#7; Arts !!, !(+!@!(3#; Wills *%uession

Cha6ter (. Pro/isional 8easures in Case o0

A$sene Cha6ter !. Delaration o0 A$sene



Cha6ter &. Administration o0 the Pro6erty o0 the

A$sentee Cha6ter +. Presum6tion o0 Death

Cha6ter #. 45et o0 A$sene ?6on the ContinentRihts o0 the

A$sentee

TITL4 II FI"AL PROVI%IO"% 'Artiles !#+@!#3)



P ROP 4RTB

Title I. CLA%%IFICATIO" OFPROP4RTB PR4LI8 I"ARBPROVI%IO"%

Cone6t o0 Pro6erty

ClassiJation o0 Pro6erty

Immo/a$le /s 8o/a$le

Pro6erties

Laurel /s. A$roar, 9.R. "O. (##:37, =an. (&,!::1

"nternational telephone calls placed b 4a /uper Orient Card

holders# the telecommunication services provided b :.<&

and its business of providin) said services are not personal

properties under Article 0@7 of the ,evised :enal Code! &he

construction b the respondents of Article

0@7 of the said Code to include# within its covera)e# theaforesaid international telephone calls# telecommunicationservices and business is contrar to the letter and intent of the law!

&he words E:ersonal propertE under the ,evised :enal Code

must be considered in tandem with the word Eta$eE in the law!

&he statutor de*nition of Eta$in)E and movable propert

indicates that# clearl# not all personal properties ma be theproper sub%ects of theft! &he )eneral rule is that# onl

movable properties which have phsical or material

e+istence and susceptible of occupation b another are

proper ob%e cts of theft!

inds o0 Immo/a$le Pro6erties



-ierra /s. Tenea, 7 %CRA 7+1, 7#( '(17!).

A house or a buildin) is classi*ed as immovable propert breason of its adherence to the soil on which it is built! &hus# abuildin) which is merel superimposed on the soil is not a

real propert!

Punalan, =r. /. Vda. De Lasamana, (!( %CRA &&('(12&)



A buildin) treated separatel from the land on which it stood

is immovable propert and the mere fact that the parties to a

contract seem to have dealt with it separate and apart from

the land on which it stood in no wise chan)ed its character

as immovable propert!

Tsai /s. CA, &77 %CRA &!+

"n the instant case# the partiesI 1 e+ecuted a contract stled

as ',eal state ort)a)e and Chattel ort)a)e#( instead of

%ust ',eal state ort)a)e( if indeed their intention is to treat

all properties included therein as immovable# and 2 attached

to the said contract a separate '."/& O ACL"N,"/ U

M9":N&(! &hese facts# ta$en to)ether# evince the

conclusion that the partiesF intention is to treat these units of

machiner as chattels!

Calte< Phils., In., /s. C-AA, 8ay &(, (12!

/C held that the said equipment and machiner# asappurtenances to the )as station buildin) or shed owned bCalte+ as to which it is sub%ect to realt ta+ and which*+tures are necessar to the operation of the )as station# for

without them the )as station would be useless# and whichhave been attached or a+ed permanentl to the )as stationsite or embedded therein# are ta+able improvements andmachiner within the meanin) of the Assessment .aw and the,eal :ropert &a+ Code!

84RALCO /s. C-AA, 8ay &(, (12!

=hile the two stora)e tan$s are not embedded in the land# the

ma# nevertheless# be considered as improvements on the land#

enhancin) its utilit and renderin) it useful to the oil industr! "t

is undeniable that the two tan$s have been installed with some

deG!,!ee of permanence as receptacles for the considerable

quantities of oil needed b eralco for its operations!

Rihts as 6ro6erty

8-TC /. Ale>o, &7+ %CRA 2(!, 2(1 '!::()



A real estate mort)a)e is a real ri)ht and a real propert b

itself!

Cha6ter ! 8o/a$le

Pro6erty Cone6t



inds o0 8o/a$le Pro6erty

Cha6ter & Pro6erty in Relation to the Person to

whom it $elons Pu$li Dominion /s Pri/ate

Ownershi6

ClassiJation o0 Pro6erty de6endin on

ownershi6 Constitutional $asis o0 %tate

Ownershi6 =ura Realia Cha/e /. Pu$li

4states Authority, +(# %CRA +:& '!::&)

/ubmer)ed lands are part of the /tateFs inalienable naturalresources and classi*ed as propert of public dominion!

Re6u$li /.%antos, 9.R. "O. (2::!3,=uly (2, !:(!733 %CRA (++

Hura ,e)alia simpl means that the /tate is the ori)inal

proprietor of all lands and# as such# is the )eneral source of

all private titles! &hus# pursuant to this principle# all claims of

private title to land# save those acquired from native title#

must be traced from some )rant# whether e+press or implied#from the /tate! Absent a clear showin) that land had been let

into private ownership throu)h the /tateFs imprimatur# such

land is presumed to belon) to the /tate

Pu$li ownershi6 /s %tate

Ownershi6 Pu$li %er/ie /s

Pu$li ?se

Villario /. %armiento, ++! %CRA ((:, ((#!::+

:ublic use( means 'use which is not con*ned to privile)edindividuals# but is open to the inde*nite public!



Charateristis o0 Pro6erties o0 Pu$li

Dominion 8enha/e /s Te/es, =r, ++1

%CRA &2:

:roperties of public dominion ma not be alienated but ma besub%ect to %oint venture# or production;sharin) a)reements with privateindividuals or corporations for their e+ploration# developmentand utilization!

Daanay /s Asistio,=r !:2 %CRA +:+



:roperties of public dominion is outside the commerce of mendand it cannot be alienated or leased or otherwise be the sub%ectmatter of contracts!

8anila Lode 37( /s CA, 3& %CRA (7!

An intention to devote it to public use or to public service issucient and it is not necessar that it must actuall beused as such!

Re6u$li /s CA, (&! %CRA #(+

:roperties of public dominion is not susceptible to private

appropriation and cannot be acquired b acquisitive

prescription and thus the cannot be re)istered under the

.and ,e)istration .aw and be the sub%ect of a torrents title!

8anila International Air6ort Authority /s CA, +1# %CRA#1(

:roperties of public dominion# bein) for public use# are not

sub%ect to lev# encumbrance or disposition throu)h public or

private sale! An encumbrance# lev on e+ecution or auction

sale of an propert of public dominion is void for bein)

contrar to public polic!

Tu0e<is /. Olauera &! Phil. 7#+.

&he usufruct of the public mar$et was not sub%ect toattachment on account of its bein) of a public character!

inds o0 Pro6erties o0 Pu$li

Dominion %antos /s 8oreno, !(

%CRA ((+(

Canals constructed b private persons within their private landsand devoted e+clusivel for private use are of privateownership!

Almaro /s. wan, 9.R. "O. (3#2:7, Ot. !:,!:(:



&o qualif as foreshore land# it must be shown that the land

lies between the hi)h and low water mar$s and is alternatel

wet and dr accordin) to the Dow of the tide! &he lands

pro+imit to the waters alone does not automaticall ma$e it

a foreshore land!

-inalay /. 8analo, (1# %CRA &3+, &2+ '(11()



&he buer did not acquire private ownership of the bed of the

eastern branch of the Ca)aan ,iver even if it was included in

the deeds of absolute sale e+ecuted b the sellers since the

sellers 'could not have validl sold land that constituted

propert of public dominion!(

Hilario /s City o0 8anila, 9.R. "o. L@(1#3:, A6ril !3,(173

&he phrase 'ban$s of a river( is understood to be those “lateral strips orzones of its beds which are washed by the stream only during suchhighfloods as do not cause inundations.” "n other words# the ban$srefer to the lateral lines or strips reached b the waters whenthe river is at hi)h tide!

8anila International Air6ort Authority /s. CA, +1# %CRA#1(

No one can dispute that properties of public dominion

mentioned in Article 32@ of the Civil Code# li$e Troads# canals#

rivers# torrents# ports and brid)es constructed b the /tate#F

are owned b the /tate! &he term TportsF includes seaports

and airports! &he "AA Airport .ands and 4uildin)s constitute

a TportF constructed b the /tate!

Relaimed Pro6erties

Re6u$li /s. ParaGaue, 9.R."O. (1((:1,=uly (2, !:(! 733 %CRA !+7

&he sub%ect reclaimed lands are still part of the public

domain# owned b the /tate and# therefore# e+empt from

pament of real estate ta+es! Lere# the sub%ect lands are

reclaimed lands# speci*call portions of the foreshore and

oshore areas of anila 4a! As such# these lands remain

public lands and form part of the public domain!

Patrimonial Pro6erty o0 the %tate



Con/ersion o0 Pro6erty o0 Pu$li Dominion to

Patrimonial Pro6erty Bu Chan /. Re6u$li, 9.R. "O.

(3(3!7. Fe$. !&, !:((

&he classi*cation of land is descriptive of its le)al nature orstatus anddoes not have to be descriptive of what the land actuall

loo$s li$e! &he fact that the area within which the sub%ect parcels

of land are located is bein) used for residential and commercial

purposes does not serve to convert the sub%ect parcels of

land into aG!,!icultural land! "t is



fundamental that before an land ma be declassi*ed from

the forest G!,!oup and converted into alienable or disposable

land for aG!,!icultural or other purposes# there must be a

positive act from the )overnment!

Laurel /. 9aria,(23 %CRA 313

An conveance of a real propert fallin) under thepatrimonial propert of the /tate must be authorized andapproved b a law enacted b the Con)ress!

Pro6erty 0or 6u$li use o0 Pro/ines, Cities, and

8unii6alities Patrimonial Pro6erty o0 Politial

%u$di/ision

Title II Ownershi6

Ownershi6 in 9eneral

D4PART84"T OF 4D?CATIO", re6resented $y its R49IO"ALDIR4CTOR T4R4%ITA DO8ALA"TA /s. 8ARIA"O T?LIAO, 9.R."o. !:#77+, =une 1, !:(+, =.8endoa

"n actions for recover of possession# the plainti must show proof tosupport his claim of his ri)ht to possession of the propert! &hedefendant in turn must show proof to controvert the plaintiFs claimPotherwise the court will rule for the plainti! &hus# when a landowner*led an action for recover of possession a)ainst a public school whichbuilt a )mnasium on a parcel of land which the owner allowed theschool to use as an access road for the schoolchildren# and the plaintishowed as evidence ta+ declarations and a certi*cate of title over the

propert# the lone testimonial evidence the <epd presented is notsucient to controvert the landownerFs case! "n addition# thelandownerFs claim is not barred b laches when the schoolFs possessionof the propert is not adverse# and when the landowner brou)ht suittwo ears after he learned that the school is constructin) a )mnasiumover the propert!



H4IR% OF PACIA"O BA-AO, re6resented $y R484DIO% CHA" /s.PA L4"T4=A% VA" D4R OL, 9.R. "o. !:3!77, =une !#, !:(+, =.8endoa

A ta+ declaration is not a proof of ownershipP it is not a conclusiveevidence of ownership of real propert! "n the absence of actual#public# and adverse possession# the declaration of the land for ta+purposes does not prove ownership!



8

8IDWAB 8ARITI84 A"D T4CH"OLO9ICAL FO?"DATIO",re6resented $y itsChairmanPresident PhD in 4duation DR. %A-I"O 8.8A"9LIC8OT /s. 8ARI%%A 4. CA%TRO, 4T AL., 9.R. "o.(21:7(, Auust 7, !:(+, =. Reyes

&he petitioner is a lessee of a parcel of land and disputes the title of theowners of the buildin) built on the land the are leasin)! &he /upremeCourt ruled that it is settled that EJoKnce a contact of lease is shown toe+ist between the parties# the lessee cannot b an proof# howeverstron)# overturn the conclusive presumption that the lessor has a validtitle to or a better ri)ht of possession to the sub%ect premises than thelessee!E /ection 2b# ,ule 101 of the ,ules of Court prohibits a tenantfrom denin) the title of his landlord at the time of the commencementof the relation of landlord and tenant between them!

%?-IC -AB L494"D R4%ORT% A"D CA%I"O%, I"C 'S. -4R"ARDC.F4R"A"D4, 9.R. "o. (1&+!7, %e6tem$er !1, !:(+, =. DelCastillo

&hou)h casino chips do not constitute le)al tender# there is no lawwhich prohibits their use or trade outside of the casino which issuesthem! "n an case# it is not unusual > nor is it unli$el > that respondentcould be paid b his Chinese client at the former s car shop with thecasino chips in questionP said transaction# if not common# isnonetheless not unlawful! &hese chips are paid for anwaP petitioner

would not have parted with the same if their correspondin)representative equivalent ; in le)al tender# )oodwill# or otherwise > wasnot received b it in return or e+chan)e! Given this premise ; thatcasino chips are considered to have been e+chan)ed with theircorrespondin) representative value ; it is with more reason that thisCourt should require petitioner to prove convincin)l and persuasivelthat the chips it con*scated from .udwin and <eoven were indeedstolen from itP if so# an &om# <ic$ or Larr in possession of )enuinecasino chips is presumed to have paid for their representative value ine+chan)e therefor! "f petitioner cannot prove its loss# then Article --6

cannot applP the presumption that the chips were e+chan)ed for valueremains!!

ROLA"DO %. A-ADILLA, =R. /s. %PO?%4% -O"IFACIO P.O-R4RO and -4R"A-4LA ". O-R4RO, 9.R. "o. (11++2,"o/em$er (!, !:(+, =. Reyes



8

&he petitioner claims that the are the ri)htful owners of the disputedpropert! &hus# an e%ectment proceedin) cannot be commenceda)ainst them! &he /upreme Court ruled that Ee%ectment proceedin)sare summar proceedin)s intended to provide an e+peditious means of protectin) actual possession or ri)ht to possession of propert! &itle is

not involved! &he sole issue to be resolved is who is entitled to thephsical or material possession of the premises or possession defacto!E E"ssues as to the ri)ht of possession or ownership are notinvolved in the actionP evidence



81

thereon is not admissible# e+cept onl for the purpose of determinin)

the issue of possession!E

Cone6t o0 Ownershi6

Attri$utes o0 Ownershi6

Reo/ery o0 Pro6erty

Aion Rein/indiatoria; 4>etment

T%E %EIRS OF E&GENIO LOPE', SR. NAMEL(, OSAR M. LOPE',

MAN&EL M. LOPE' AND PRESENTAION L. PSINA)IS, vs. T%E

%ONORA*LE FRANISO +&ER&*IN, IN %IS APAIT( AS PRESIDING

!&DGE OF T%E REGIONAL TRIAL O&RT OF ANTIPOLO, *RAN% 74, T%E

%EIRS OF ALFONSO SANDOAL AND %IS -IFE ROSA R&I',

REPRESENTED *( T%EIR ATTORNE(INFAT, MRS. IMELDA RIERA,

G.R. No. 155405/%EIRS OF E&GENIO LOPE', vs. ALFONSO SANDOAL AND

ROMAN O'AETA, !R., G.R. No. 14092, MAR% 1, 2015, !. L"o$#o"

st#o

One who claims to be the owner of a propert that is possessed b

another must brin) the appropriate %udicial action for its phsicalrecover! &he term E%udicial processE could mean no less than ane%ectment suit or reinvindicator action in which the ownership claims

of the contendin) parties ma be properl heard and ad%udicated!

Del Fierro /. %euiran 9.R. "O. (#!(+(,Au. 2, !:(( The Jrst requisite in an accion reinvindicatoria requires thatthe person who claims that he has a better ri)ht to thepropert must *rst *+ the identit of the land he is claimin) bdescribin) the location# area and boundaries thereof! Anent thesecond requisite# i!e!# the claimants title over the disputedarea# the rule is that a part can claim a ri)ht of ownership onlover the parcel of land that was the ob%ect of the deed!

Del Rosario /. Ro<as Foundation, 9."O. (3:#3#,=une !:((

"n forcible entr# the possession is ille)al from the be)innin) and

the onl issue is who has the prior possession de facto! "n

unlawful detainer# possession was ori)inall lawful but became

unlawful b the e+piration or termination of the ri)ht to

possess and the issue of ri)htful possession is the one



82

decisive# for in such action# the defendant is the part

in



actual possession and the plaintis cause of action is thetermination of the defendants ri)ht to continue inpossession!

=ose /. Al0uerto, 9.R. "o (71&2:, "o/. !7, !:(!

Acts merel tolerated are Ethose which b reason of

nei)hborliness or familiarit# the owner of propert allows his

nei)hbor or another person to do on the propertP the are

)enerall those particular services or bene*ts which oneFs

propert can )ive to another without material in%ur or

pre%udice to the owner# who permits them out of friendship

or courtes!

-arrientos /.Ra6al, 9.R. "O. (71#1+,=uly !:, !:((

A person who occupies the land of another at the latterstolerance or permission# without an contract between them#is necessaril bound b an implied promise that he will vacatethe same upon demand# failin) which a summar action fore%ectment is the proper remed a)ainst them!

Dotrine o0 %el0 Hel6

9erman 8anaement * %er/ies, In. /. CA. (33 %CRA+1# '(121)

&he doctrine of self;help can onl be e+ercised at the time of actual or threatened dispossession# and not when possessionhas alread been lost!

Riht to 4nlose or

Fene Limitations on

Ownershi6

Riht to su$@sur0ae and airs6ae

Re6u$li o0 the Phili66ines /. Court o0 A66eals, (7:%CRA !!2



,i)hts to the sub;surface or sub;soil are indivisible# and#consequentl# require a de*nitive and cate)oricalclassi*cation!

"ational Power Cor6oration /. I$rahim, #!7 %CRA (+1

'!::3)

&he landownersF ri)ht e+tends to such hei)ht or depth where

it is possible for them to obtain some bene*t or en%oment#

and it is e+tin)uished beond such limit as there would be no

more interest protected b law! "n this case# the landowners

could have du) upon their



propert motorized deep wells but were prevented from doin)so b the authorities precisel because of the constructionand e+istence of the tunnels underneath the surface of theirpropert!

Riht to Hidden Treasure

Palero@Tan /. ?rdaneta A8 "O. P@U:3@U!&11, =un. (2,!::2 @ =hen a person who *nds a thin) that has been lost or

mislaid b the owner ta$es the thin) into his hands# he

acquires phsical custod onl and does not become

vested with le)al possession! "n assumin) such custod# the

*nder is char)ed with the obli)ation of restorin) the thin) toits owner! "t is thus respondentFs dut to report to his superior

or his ocemates that he found somethin)!

Riht to Airs6ae

Cha6ter ! Riht o0

Aession 9eneral Pro/ision

Aession

ILLASI S. GARIA, G.R. No. 19010, !$u# 15, 2014, !. P"#"

=hile it is a hornboo$ doctrine that the accessor follows the principal#that is# the ownership of the propert )ives the ri)ht b accession toeverthin) which is produced thereb# or which is incorporated orattached thereto# either naturall or arti*ciall# such rule is not withoute+ception! "n cases where there is a clear and convincin) evidence toprove that the principal and the accessor are not owned b one andthe same person or entit# the presumption shall not be applied andthe actual ownership shall be upheld! &o set the record strai)ht# whilepetitioner ma have proven his ownership of the land# as there can beno other piece of evidence more worth of credence than a &orrenscerti*cate of title# he failed to present an evidence to substantiate hisclaim of ownership or ri)ht to the possession of the buildin)!

&he rule on accession is not an iron;clad dictum! On instances wherethis Court was confronted with cases requirin) %udicial determination of



the ownership of the buildin) separate from the lot# it never hesitatedto disre)ard such rule! &he case at bar is of similar import! =hen thereare factual and evidentiar evidence to prove that the buildin) and thelot on which it stands are owned b dierent persons# the shall betreated separatel! As such# the buildin) or the lot# as the case ma

be# can be made liable to answer for the obli)ation of its respectiveowner!



-A" OF TH4 PHILIPPI"4 I%LA"D% /s. VIC4"T4 VICTOR C.%A"CH4 4T AL.; 94"4RO%O T?LA9A" 4T AL. /s. VIC4"T4VICTOR C. %A"CH4 4T AL.; R4B"ALDO V. 8A"IWA"9 /s.VIC4"T4 VICTOR C. %A"CH4 and F4LI%A 9ARCIA BAP, 9.R."o. (31#(2; 9.R. "o. (312&#; 9.R. "o. (311#+, "o/em$er (1,

!:(+, =. Velaso =r.Article 3-0 of the Civil Code clearl reads that a landowner isconsidered in bad faith if he does not oppose the unauthorizedconstruction thereon despite $nowled)e of the same! &he fact that the/anchezes did ta$e action to oppose the construction on their propertb writin) the L.9,4 and the Cit 4uildin) Ocial of Muezon Cit! &heCourt a)rees with both the ,&C and the CA that Garcia and &/" arebuilders in bad faith! &he $new for a fact that the propert stillbelon)ed to the /anchezes and et proceeded to build the townhousesnot %ust without the authorit of the landowners# but also a)ainst their

will!

:revailin) %urisprudence reveals the followin) established

rulesI

1!=ell settled is the rule that all persons dealin) with propert coveredb a torrens certi*cate of title are not required to )o beond whatappears on the face of the title! =hen there is nothin) on the certi*cateof title to indicate an cloud or vice in the ownership of the propert# oran encumbrance thereon# the purchaser is not required to e+plorefurther than what the torrens title upon its face indicates in quest foran hidden defect or inchoate ri)ht that ma subsequentl defeat hisri)ht thereto!

2!&his rule# however# admits of an e+ception as where the purchaser ormort)a)ee has $nowled)e of a defect or lac$ of title in the vendor# orthat he was aware ofsucient facts to induce a reasonabl prudentman to inquire into the status of the propert in liti)ation!

0!.i$ewise# one who bus propert withfull $nowled)e of the Daws anddefects in the title of the vendor is enou)h proof of his bad faith andestopped from claimin) that he acquired the propert in )ood faith

a)ainst the owners!

3!&o prove )ood faith# the followin) conditions must be presentI a theseller is the re)istered owner of the landP b the owner is in possessionthereofP and 0 at the time of the sale# the buer was not aware of anclaim or interest of some other person in the propert# or of an defect



or restriction in the titleof the seller or in his capacit to conve title tothe propert! All these conditions must be present# otherwise# thebuer is under obli)ation to e+ercise e+tra ordinar dili)ence bscrutinizin) the certi*cates of title and e+aminin) all factualcircumstances to enable him to ascertain the sellerFs title and capacit

to transfer an interest in the propert!



DeJnition

inds o0 Aession

Riht o0 Aession with res6et to what is 6rodued

$y 6ro6erty Aession Disreta

inds o0 Fruits

Riht o0 Aession with res6et to

immo/a$le 6ro6erty Aession Continua

Fundamental

rules Industrial

Aession

-uildin, Plantin, and %owin '-P%)

Rules in -P% in the 6resene o0 ood 0aith and

$ad 0aith Cone6t o0 9ood Faith

Rules o/ernin -P%

Florea /. 4/anelista, 17 %CRA (&:

&he rule under article 337 of the NCC applies onl when thebuilder# planter or sower believes he had the ri)ht so to build#plant or sow because he thin$s he owns the land or believeshimself to have a claim of title!

8erado /. CA, (7! %CRA 3#, 2# (122

&o be deemed a builder in )ood faith# it is essential that a

person asserts title to the land on which he builds# i.e!# it is

essential that he be a possessor in concept of owner and that

he be unaware that there e+ists in his title or mode of

acquisition an Daw which invalidates it!

-ulaana /. Franiso, (!! %CRA +12, #:! '(12&)



Article 337 applies onl to a case where one builds on land inthe belief that he is the owner thereof and it does not applwhere oneFs onl interest in the land is that of a lesseeunder a rental contract!



P"- /s De =esus, +(( %CRA ##3

&he landowner cannot refuse to e+ercise either option andcompel instead the owner of the buildin) or improvement to

remove it from the land!

=a/ier /. Cone6ion, =r 1+ %CRA !(! '(131)

&he value of the useful improvements consistin) of variousfruits# bamboos# a house and camarin made of stron)materials based on the mar$et value of the saidimprovements!

"uuid /. CA, +#! %CRA !+&, !#! '!::#)

&he ri)ht of retention is considered as one of the measures

devised b the law for the protection of builders in )ood faith!

"ts ob%ect is to )uarantee full and prompt reimbursement as it

permits the actual possessor to remain in possession while he

has not been reimbursed b the person who defeated him in

the case for possession of the propert for those necessar

e+penses and useful improvements made b him on the

thin)s possessed!

-allatan /. Court o0 A66eals &:+ %CRA &3 '(111)@ "n the

event the landowner elects to sell the land to the builder in

)ood faith# the price must be *+ed at the prevailin) mar$et

value at the time of pament! "n the event of the failure of

the builder to pa the land# after the owner thereof has

chosen this alternative# the builderFs ri)ht of retention

provided in Article -3? is also lost!

"atural Aession

inds o0 "atural

Aession Allu/ion

Rules o/ernin Allu/ion



Heirs o0 4miliano "a/arro /. IAC, !72 %CRA 3+, 2#'(113)

,iparian owners are# strictl spea$in)# distinct from owners# thelatter bein) owners of lands borderin) the shore of the sea or

la$es or other tidal waters!

Vda. de "aareno /. CA, !#3 %CRA #12 '(117)



/ince the sub%ect land was the direct result of the dumpin)of sawdust b the /un 5alle .umber Co!# the accretion wasman;made# hence# Art! 3-8 does not appl! rgo# the sub%ectland is part of the public domain!

Ro<as /. Tuason, 1 Phil. +:2.

&he ri)ht of the owners of the ban$ ad%acent to rivers to theaccretion which the receive b virtue of the action of thewaters of the river is ipso jure and there is no need of anaction of the owner of the ban$ to possess the new additionsince it belon)s to him b the ver fact of the addition!

Cure /. IAC, (33 %CRA &(& '(121)

&he accretion to re)istered land does not precludeacquisition of the additional area b another person throu)hprescription!

A/ulsion

DeJnition

A/ulsion /s Allu/ion

Rules 9o/ernin

A/ulsion Chane o0

ourse o0 Ri/er

Ane /. Diretor o0 Lands, (2( %CRA 31&, 2:# '(11:)

&here need be no act on their part to sub%ect the old river bed

to their ownership# as it is sub%ect thereto ipso jure from the

moment the mode of acquisition becomes evident# withoutneed of an formal act of acquisition! /uch abandoned

riverbed had fallen to the private ownership of the owner of

the land throu)h which the new river bed passes even

without an formal act of his will and an unauthorized

occupant thereof will be considered as a trespasser!



Formation o0 Island

Riht o0 Aession with res6et to 8o/a$le

Pro6erty Ad>untion or Con>untion

Rules o/ernin Ad>untion or

Con>untion Presene and a$sene

o0 $ad0aith



Commi<tion or

Con0usion

%6eiJationCha6ter & uietin o0

Title Ation to uiet

Title

H4IR% OF PACIFICO POCIDO, 4T AL. V%. AR%4"IA AVILA A"D484LI"DA CH?A 9.R. "o.(11(+7, 8arh (1, !:(+, =. Car6io

&he <N, <ecision was armed b the Oce of the :resident which

held that lands within the 4a)uio &ownsite ,eservation belon) to the

public domain and are no lon)er re)istrable under the .and

,e)istration Act! &he Oce of the :resident ordered the disposition of

the disputed propert in accordance with the applicable rules of

procedure for the disposition of alienable public lands within the 4a)uio

&ownsite ,eservation# particularl Chapter V of Commonwealth Act No!

131 on &ownsite ,eservations and other applicable rules! Lavin)

established that the disputed propert is public land# the trial court was

therefore correct in dismissin) the complaint to quiet title for lac$ of

%urisdiction! &he trial court had no %urisdiction to determine who amon)

the parties have better ri)ht over the disputed propert which is

admittedl still part of the public domain!

or an action to quiet title to prosper# two indispensable requisitesmust concur# namelI 1 the plainti or complainant has a le)al orequitable title to or interest in the real propert sub%ect of the actionPand 2 the deed# claim# encumbrance# or proceedin) claimed to becastin) cloud on the title must be shown to be in fact invalid orinoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validit or ecac! &he *rst requisite was not complied with! :etitionersF alle)ed open#



continuous# e+clusive# and uninterrupted possession of the sub%ectpropert is belied b the fact that respondents# in 2@@-# entered into aContract of .ease with the Avico .endin) "nvestor Co! over the sub%ectlot without an ob%ection from the petitioners!:etitionersF inabilit to oer evidence tendin) to prove that

4ienvenido and scolastica "barra transferred the ownershipover the propert in favor of petitioners is li$ewise fatal to the

latterFs claim!

=?A"ARIO 9. CA8PIT / I%IDRA -. 9RIP A, P4DRO -ARDIA9A,and %4V4RI"O-ARDIA9A, re6resented $y his son ROLA"DO -ARDIA9A, 9.R"o. (1#++&, %e6tem$er (3, !:(+. =. -RIO"



Considerin) that the action for annulment and cancellation of title *ledb the respondents is substantiall in the nature of an action forreconveance based on an implied or constructive trust# combinedwith the fact that the respondents have alwas been in possession ofthe sub%ect propert# the Court treated Civil Case No!

17321 as an action to quiet title# the *lin) of which does not prescribe!

Reuisites

H4R8I"IO 8. D4 9?8A", FOR HI8%4LF A"D A% ATTOR"4B@I"@FACT OFQ "ILO 8. D4 9?8A", A"94LI"O D4 9?8A",

=O%4FI"O 8. D4 9?8A", 4%TR4LLA 8. D4 9?8A", T4R4%ITAD4 9?8A", 4L%A 8AR9ARITA 8. D4 9?8A", 4V4LB" 8. D49?8A", 8A. "I8IA 8. D4 9?8A", A"TOLI" 8. D4 9?8A",

A"D F4RDI"A"D 8. D4 9?8A" /s. TA-A"9AOR4ALTB I"CORPORAT4D, 9.R. "o. (#+!7!, Fe$ruary ((, !:(#, =.Leonardo@De Castro

&he petitioners alle)e that the are the owners of the disputedpropert! &his alle)ation is anchored on the assertion that at the time of the death of their parents# the disputed propert is still under thelatterFs name! &he /upreme Court ruled that for an action to quiet titleto prosper# two indispensable requisites must concurI 1 the plainti orcomplainant has a le)al or equitable title or interest in the real propert

sub%ect of the actionP and 2 the deed# claim# encumbrance# orproceedin) claimed to be castin) a cloud on his title must be shown tobe in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validit or le)al ecac! :etitionersF Complaint in Civil Case No! &;1117 failed to alle)e these two requisites for an action to quiet title!

CLT R4ALTB D4V4LOP84"T CORPORATIO" /s. PHIL@VILL4D4V4LOP84"T A"D HO?%I"9 CORPORATIO", R4P?-LIC OF TH4PHILIPPI"4% 'THRO?9H TH4 OFFIC4 OF TH4 %OLICITOR94"4RAL) A"D TH4 R49I%T4R OF D44D% OF 84TRO 8A"ILADI%TRICT III, CALOOCA", 9.R. "o. (7:3!2, 8arh ((, !:(#, =.

Leonardo@De Castro

&hus# both requisites in order for an action for quietin) of title toprosper have been met in this caseI 1 :hil;5ille had established its

equitable title or interest in the 1? parcels of land sub%ect of the actionPand 2 &C& No! &;188@10# found to overlap titles to said properties of :hil;5ille# was previousl declared invalid!



Chun =r. /s. 8ondraon, 9.R. (313#+,"o/. !(,!:(!

&he issues in a case for quietin) of title are fairl simpleP theplainti need to prove onl two thin)s# namelI E1 the

plainti or complainant has a le)al or an equitable title to orinterest in the real propert sub%ect of the actionP and 2 thatthe deed# claim# encumbrance or proceedin) claimed to becastin) a cloud on his title must be shown to be in fact



7

invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of

validit or le)al ecac! /tated dierentl# the plainti must

show that he has a le)al or at least an equitable title over

the real propert in dispute# and that some deed or

proceedin) beclouds its validit or ecac!E

-ahais /. Pasual, 9.R. (71!3!,=uly ((, !:(!

9nder Articles 38? and 388 of the Civil Code# the two 2

indispensable requisites in an action to quiet title areI 1

that the plainti or complainant has a le)al or an equitable

title to or interest in the real propert sub%ect of the actionP

and 2 that a deed# claim# encumbrance or proceedin) is

claimed to be castin) cloud on his title!

"n this case# an action to quiet title is not the proper remed

because petitioner no lon)er had an le)al or equitable title to

or interest in the lots! &he petitionerFs status as possessor and

owner of the lots had been settled in the *nal and e+ecutor

<ecember 3# 167- decision of the 4ureau of .ands that the

<N, /ecretar and the O: armed on appeal! &hus# the

petitioner is not entitled to the possession and ownership of

the lots!

Vda.de A/iles /. CA, !7+ %CRA +3&

TAn action for quietin) of title ma not be brou)ht for thepurpose of settlin) a boundar dispute!

Title III@ Co@ownershi6

DeJnition

Reuisites

"ature o0 Co@ownershi6



7

LO?RD4% C. F4R"A"D4 / "OR8A VILL49A% and any 6ersonatin in her $ehal0 inludin her 0amily, 9.R "o. !::(1(,Auust !:, !:(+. =. P4RLA%@ -4R"A-4Article 378 of the Civil Code e+plicitl provides that an of the co;owners ma brin) an action for e%ectment# without the necessit of %oinin) all the other co;owners as co;plaintis because the suit isdeemed to be instituted for the bene*t of all! &o reiterate# both.ourdes and Cecilia are co;plaintis in the e%ectment suit! &hus# theshare a commonalit of interest and cause of action as a)ainstrespondents! Lence#



71

the lone si)nature of .ourdes on the veri*cation attached to the

CA petition constituted substantial compliance with the rules!

4TRAORDI"ARB D4V4LOP84"T CORPORATIO" /s. H4R8I"IAF. %A8%O"@ -ICO and 4LB -. FL4%TADO, 9.R. "o. (1(:1:,

Oto$er (&, !:(+, =. PereA co;owner cannot ri)htfull dispose of a particular portion of a co;owned propert prior to partition amon) all the co;owners! Lowever#this should not si)nif that the vendee does not acquire anthin) at allin case a phsicall se)re)ated area of the co;owned lot is in fact soldto him! /ince the co;ownerQvendorFs undivided interest could properlbe the ob%ect of the contract of sale between the parties# what thevendee obtains b virtue of such a sale are the same ri)hts as thevendor had as co ; owner# in an ideal share equivalent to theconsideration )iven under their transaction! "n other words# the

vendee steps into the shoes of the vendor as co ; owner and acquiresa proportionate abstract share in the propert held in common!

VIC4"T4 TORR4%, =R., CARLO% V4L4, A"D TH4 H4IR% OF8ARIA"O V4L4, "A84LBQ A"ITA CHIO"9 V4L4, RO-4RTO%CAR CHIO"9 V4L4, %ARAH =4A" CHIO"9 V4L4 A"D T4DCHIO"9 V4L4 /s. LOR4"O LAPI"ID A"D =4%?% V4L4, 9.R."o. (23123, "o/em$er !7, !:(+, =. Pere

9nder Article 360 of the New Civil Code# a co;owner has an absoluteownership of his undivided and pro;indiviso share in the co;owned

propert! Le has the ri)ht to alienate# assi)n and mort)a)e it# even tothe e+tent of substitutin) a third person in its en%oment provided thatno personal ri)hts will be aected! "n this case# Hesus can validlalienate his co;owned propert in favor of .apinid# free from anopposition from the co;owners! .apinid# as a transferee# validlobtained the same ri)hts of Hesus from the date of the e+ecution of avalid sale! Absent an proof that the sale was not perfected# thevalidit of sale subsists! "n essence# .apinid steps into the shoes of Hesus as co;owner of an ideal and proportionate share in the propertheld in common! &hus# from the perfection of contract on 6 November1668# .apinid eventuall became a co;owner of the propert! ven

assumin) that the petitioners are correct in their alle)ation that thedisposition in favor of .apinid before partition was a concrete orde*nite portion# the validit of sale still prevails!

Ale>andrino /. Court o0 A66eals, !1# %CRA #&7, #+2,%e6t. (3, 1667



72

ach co;owner of propert which is held pro indiviso e+ercises hisri)hts over the whole propert and ma use and en%o the samewith no other limitation than that he shall not in%ure theinterests of his co;owners!

%oures o0 Co@

ownershi6 Rules

9o/ernin Co@ownershi6



A stipulation in a contract requirin) a co;owner to secure an authoritfrom his co; owners for the alienation of his share# as seemin)lindicated in this case# should be considered mere surplusa)e and doesnot# in an wa# aect the validit or the enforceabilit of the contract!:ursuant to Article 360# a co;owner has the ri)ht to alienate his

proindiviso share in the co;owned propert even without the consentof his co;owners!

R4B"ALDO D4LA RO%A, "amelyQ T4OFI%TA D4LA RO%A, =O%4PHI"4 %A"TIA9O A"D =O%4PH D4LA RO%A / 8ARIO A. -ATO"9-ACAL, IR4"4O -ATO"9-ACAL, =OC4LB" -A TO"9-ACAL,"4%TOR -ATO"9-ACAL A"D LO?RD4% -A TO"9-ACAL, 9.R "o.(31!:#, =uly &:, !:(+ =. P4R4

A contract of sale is a consensual contract# which becomes valid andbindin) upon the meetin) of minds of the parties on the price and the

ob%ect of the sale! &he mere inadequac of the price docs not aect itsvalidit when both parties are in a position to form an independent %ud)ment concernin) the transaction# unless fraud# mista$e or undueinDuence indicative of a defect in consent is present! A contract maconsequentl be annulled on the )round of vitiated consent and notdue to the inadequac of the price! "n the case at bar# however# noevidence to prove fraud# mista$e or undue inDuence indicative ofvitiated consent is attendant!

RA?L V. ARA8-?LO A"D T4R4%ITA D4LA CR? V%. 94"ARO"OLA%CO A"D =4R48B %P4"C4R "OLA%CO, 9.R. "o. (21+!:

8arh !7, !:(+, =. Pere

&he issue in this case is whether respondents# as co>owners# can becompelled b the court to )ive their consent to the sale of their sharesin the co>owned properties! &he ultimate authorities in civil law#reco)nized as such b the Court# a)ree that co> owners such asrespondents have over their part# the ri)ht of full and absoluteownership! /uch ri)ht is the same as that of individual owners which isnot diminished b the fact that the entire propert is co>owned withothers! &hat part which ideall belon)s to them# or their mentalportion# ma be disposed of as the please# independent of the

decision of their co>owners! &herefore the respondents cannot beordered to sell their portion of the co>owned properties!

De 9uia /. CA, +(& %CRA ((+, (!+ '!::&).



A co;owner of an undivided thin) or ri)ht is an owner of thewhole and over the whole he e+ercises the ri)ht ofdominion!

-ailon@Casilao /. CA, (7: %CRA 3&2, 3+#, A6ril (#,

(122

&he appropriate recourse of co;owners in cases where their

consent were not secured in a sale of the entire propert as well

as in a sale merel of the undivided shares of some of the co;

owners is an action for partition under ,ule ?6 of the ,evised

,ules of Court!



9a6aan /. Omi6et, &23 %CRA &2&.

A state of co;ownership e+ists onl because there is unit ofthe ob%ect or propert and pluralit of sub%ects!

4<tinuishment o0 Co@ownershi6

VIL8A ?I"TO%, re6resented $y her Attorney@in@Fat FID4L I.?I"TO%, =R.; FLOR4"CIA I. DA"C4L, re6resented $y herAttorney@in@Fat FLOVB I. DA"C4L; and CATALI"O L. I-ARRA /P4LA9IA I. "ICOLA%, "OLI L. I-ARRA, %A"TIA9O L. I-ARRA,P4DRO L. I-ARRA, DAVID L. I-ARRA, 9IL-4RTO L. I-ARRA,H4IR% OF A?9?%TO L. I-ARRA, namely CO"CHITA R., I-ARRA,

APOLO"IO I-ARRA, and "ARCI%O I-ARRA, and the s6ousesR4CTO CA"D4LARIO and RO%48ARI4 CA"D4LARIO. 9.R "o.!(:!#!, =une (7, !:(+. =. V4LA%CO, =R.

A partition case of a land co;owned b ten siblin)s was dismissed forthe failure of the parties and counsels to appear despite due noticeunder ,ule 18# /ection 0 of the ,ules of Court! .ater# in a quietin) oftitle case involvin) the same propert# the siblin)s demanded partition! &he occupant of the lot claimed that the action for partition is barred

b res %udicata!

"t is indeed true that dismissal with pre%udice under the above;citedrule ampl satis*es one of the elements of res %udicata! Lowever#dismissal with pre%udice under ,ule 18# /ec! 0 of the ,ules of Courtcannot defeat the ri)ht of a co;owner to as$ for partition at an time#provided that there is no actual ad%udication of ownership of shareset!

A perusal of Article 363 of the Civil Code shows that the law )eneralldoes not favor the retention of co;ownership as a propert relation#and is interested instead in ascertainin) the co;ownersF speci*c shares

so as to prevent the allocation of portions to remain perpetuall inlimbo! &hus# the law provides that each co;owner ma demand at antime the partition of the thin) owned in common!

4etween dismissal with pre%udice under ,ule 18# /ec! 0 and the ri)ht)ranted to co ; owners under Art! 363 of the Civil Code# the latter mustprevail! &o construe otherwise would diminish the substantive ri)ht of aco;owner throu)h the promul)ation of procedural rules! /uch aconstruction is not sanctioned b the principle# which is too well



settled to require citation# that a substantive law cannot be amendedb a procedural rule! &his is supported b Art! 36? of the New CivilCode!

&hus /C held that Art! 363is an e+ception to ,ule 18# /ec! 0 of the

,ules of Court to the eect that even if the order of dismissal forfailure to prosecute is silent on



whether or not it is with pre%udice# it shall be deemed to be without

pre%udice!

&his is not to sa# however# that the action for partition will never bebarred b res %udicata! &here can still be res %udicata in partition cases

concernin) the same parties and the same sub%ect matter once therespective shares of the co;owners have been determined with *nalitb a competent court with %urisdiction or if the court determines thatpartition is improper for co;ownership does not or no lon)er e+ists!

Adille /. Court o0 A66eals, (#3 %CRA +##, =an. !1,(122.

&he rule in this %urisdiction is that the redemption b one co;heir or co; owner of the propert in its totalit does not vest in

him ownership over it since redemption is not a mode of terminatin) a co;ownership!

%anhe /. Court o0 A66eals, +:+ %CRA #+(, #+2, =une!:, !::&

Co;ownership is a form of trust and ever co;owner is atrustee for the others# hence# the relationship of such co;owner to the other co;owners is *duciar in character and

attribute!

Panan /. Court o0 A66eals, (77 %CRA &3#, &2!, Ot.(3, (122

"f the co;owner actuall holdin) the propert asserts e+clusive

dominion over it a)ainst the other co;owners# the corollar of

the rule is that he can acquire sole title to it after the lapse of

the prescribed prescriptive period!

Heirs o0 Flores Restar /. Heirs o0 Dolores R. Cihon +3#%CRA 3&(, "o/. !!, !::#

=hile the action to demand partition of a co;owned propertdoes not prescribe# a co;owner ma acquire ownership thereof b prescription where there e+ists a clear repudiation of the co;ownership# and the co; owners are apprised of the claim of adverse and e+clusive ownership!



Delima /. Court o0 A66eals, !:( %CRA 7+(, %e6t. !+,(11(

rom the moment one of the co;owners claims that he is the

absolute and e+clusive owner of the properties and denies theothers an share therein# the question involved is no lon)er one

of partition but of ownership

8ariteui /. Court o0 A66eals !:# %CRA &&3,



=hen a co;owner or co;heir re)istered the properties in his

name in fraud of other co;owners or co;heirs# prescription can

onl be deemed to have commenced from the time the latter

discovered the formerFs act of defraudation!

La$ayan /. %amoy, 9.R. "O. (7#+!3, 8ar. !(,!:((

&he *rst phase of a partition and#or accountin) suit is ta$en up

with the determination of whether or not a co;ownership in fact

e+ists# and a partition is proper i!e!# not otherwise le)all

proscribed and ma be made b voluntar aG!,!eement of all

the parties interested in the propert! &his phase ma end with

a declaration that plainti is not entitled to have a partitioneither because a co;ownership does not e+ist# or partition is

le)all prohibited!

Cru /. Cata6an 9.R. (7+((:, Fe$. (!,!::2

Alterations include an act of strict dominion or ownership

and an encumbrance or disposition has been held implicitl

to be an act of alteration! &he construction of a house on theco;owned propert is an act of dominion!

%antos /. Heirs o0 Lustre,9.R. "O. (#(:(7, Au. :7,

!::2 ; an adverse rulin) in the earlier case will not# in an

wa# pre%udice the heirs who did not %oin# even if such case

was actuall *led in behalf of all the co;owners! "n fact# if an

action for recover of propert is dismissed# a subsequent

action b a co; heir who did not %oin the earlier case should

not be barred b prior %ud)ment!

Title V Possession

%PO?%4% R4B"ALDO A"D HILLB 9. %O8-ILO" / ATTB. R4B F4RDI"A"D 9ARAB A"D PHILIPPI"4 "ATIO"AL -A", 9.R "o.(311(+, =une (7, !:(+. D4L CA%TILLO



&he spouses /ombilon e+ecuted a mort)a)e over their propert tosecure a loan from :N4# who upon the /ombilonsF default# foreclosedthe mort)a)e and acquired the propert! &he spouses then approachedtheir nei)hbor Att! Gara if he could advance the mone needed to

repurchase the lot! Lowever# the spouses later found out that :N4 soldthe lot to Att! Gara! :N4 applied for a writ of possession! &he/ombilons claim that :N4 has no le)al personalit to appl for the writsince the lot had alread been sold to Att! Gara# who is disquali*edfrom purchasin) the sub%ect propert pursuant to para)raph -# Article1361 of the Civil Code!



&he Court ruled that :N4 has the ri)ht to the writ! &he alle)edlinvalidit of the sale between :N4 and Att! Gara is not a )round tooppose or defer the issuance of the =rit of :ossession as this does not

aect :N4Fs ri)ht to possess the sub%ectpropert! As the re)istered owner# :N4 is entitled to the possession

of the sub%ect propert as a matter of ri)ht!

"OR8A V. =AVAT4 /s. %PO?%4% R4"ATO =. TIOT?ICO A"D L4R8AC. TIOT?ICO,9.R. "o. (237:7, 8arh :1, !:(## =. Peralta

"f the purchaser is a third part who acquired the propert after theredemption period# a hearin) must be conducted to determine whetherpossession over the sub%ect propert is still with the mort)a)or or is

alread in the possession of a third part holdin) the same adverselto the defaultin) debtor or mort)a)or! "n the instant case# whilerespondents petition for the issuance of a writ of possession was *lede+;parte# a 'hearin)( was# nonetheless# conducted when the ,&C )avepetitioner her da in court b )ivin) her the opportunit to *le variouspleadin)s to oppose respondents petition! oreover# there is nodispute that petitioner remained in possession of the sub%ect propertprior to the issuance of the questioned writ of possession! "t is# thus#clear that respondents resort# as a subsequent or third;partpurchaser# the petition for the issuance of a writ of possession isproper!

8ARC4LA 8. D4LA CR? V%. A"TO"IO O. H4R8A"O, 4T AL.9.R. "o. (7:1(+.8arh !#, !:(#, =. %ereno

&o prove their claim of havin) a better ri)ht to possession# respondentssubmitted their title thereto and the latest &a+ <eclaration prior to theinitiation of the e%ectment suit! &he CA erred in considerin) thosedocuments sucient to prove respondentsF prior phsical possession!/imilarl# ta+ declarations and realt ta+ paments are not conclusiveproofs of possession! &he are merel )ood indicia of possession in the

concept of owner based on the presumption that no one in oneFs ri)htmind would be pain) ta+es for a propert that is not in oneFs actual orconstructive possession!

&he respondents have claimed from the inception of the controvers upto now that the are usin) the propert as their vacation house# this

claim# however# is not substantiated b an corroborative evidence! &heir uncorroborated claim of that fact# even if made under oath# is



self;servin)! ! &he respondents failed to dischar)e their burden of provin) the element of prior phsical possession!

Cone6t o0 Possession

4lements o0

Possession



inds o0 Possession

Possession in 9ood Faith and -ad Faith

P"- /. De =esus, 9.R. "O. (+1!1#, %e6tem$er !&, !::&; One is considered in )ood faith if he is not aware that theree+ists in his title or mode of acquisition an Daw whichinvalidates it!

Parilla /. Pilar, 9.R. "O. (7372:, "o/. &:, !::7 @ Onewhose interest is merel that of a holder# such as a meretenant# a)ent or usufructuar# is not quali*ed to become apossessor builder in )ood faith!

A$alos /. Heirs o0 Torio,9.R. "O. (3#+++, De. (+, !:(( @ Acts of possessor character e+ecuted due to license or b meretolerance of the owner are inadequate for purposes of acquisitive prescription! :ossession# to constitute thefoundation of a prescriptive ri)ht# must be en concepto dedueo# or# to use the common law equivalent of the term#that possession should be adverse# if not# such possessoracts# no matter how lon)# do not start the runnin) of theperiod of prescription!

Cha6ter ! Auisition o0 Possession

A"ACL4TO C. 8A"9A%4R, R4PR4%4"T4D -B HI% ATTOR"4B@I"@FACT 4?%TA?IO D?94"IA/s! DIO"I%IO ?9AB, 9.R. "o. !:+1!7,Deem$er :&, !:(+,

=. 8endoa

or a forcible entr suit to prosper# the plaintis must alle)e and proveIa that the have prior phsical possession of the propertP b thatthe were deprived of possession either b force# intimidation# threat#

strate) or stealthP and# c that the action was *led within one 1ear from the time the owners or le)al possessors learned of theirdeprivation of the phsical possession of the propert!

&here is onl one issue in e%ectment proceedin)sI who is entitled tophsical or material possession of the premises# that is# topossession de facto# not possession de HureW "ssues as to the ri)ht ofpossession or ownership are not involved in the actionP evidence



thereon is not admissible# e+cept onl for the purpose of determinin)the issue of possession!

As a rule# the word EpossessionE in forcible entr suits indeed refers tonothin) more than prior phsical possession or possession de facto# not

possession de Hure or le)al possession in the sense contemplated incivil law! &itle is not the issue# and the absence of it Eis not a )round forthe courts to withhold relief from the parties in an e%ectment case!E



:ossession can be acquired b %uridical acts! &hese are acts to whichthe law )ives the force of acts of possession! +amples of these aredonations# succession# e+ecution and re)istration of public instruments#inscription of possessor information titles and the li$e! &he reason forthis e+ceptional rule is that possession in the ees of the law does not

mean that a man has to have his feet on ever square meter of )roundbefore it can be said that he is in possession! "t is sucient thatpetitioner was able to sub%ect the propert to the action of his will!

CAR84"CITA %?AR4 V%. 8R. A"D 8R%. F4LI 4. 48-OB =R. A"D8ARILO? P. 48-OB@ D4LA"TAR 9.R. "o. (231++ 8arh (!, !:(+, =.Reyes

"n a complaint for unlawful detainer# the followin) $e %urisdictional

facts must be alle)ed and sucientl establishedI 1 initiall#possession of propert b the defendant was b contract with or btolerance of the plaintiP2 eventuall# such possession became ille)alupon notice b plainti to defendant of the termination of the latterFsri)ht of possessionP 0 thereafter# the defendant remained inpossession of the propert and deprived the plainti of the en%omentthereofP and 3 within one ear from the last demand on defendant tovacate the propert# the plainti instituted the complaint fore%ectment!

"n the case at bar# the *rst requisite mentioned above is

mar$edl absent! Carmencita failed to clearl alle)e and prove how

and when the respondents entered the sub%ect lot and constructed a

house upon it! Carmencita was li$ewise conspicuousl silent about the

details on who speci*call permitted the respondents to occup the

lot# and how and when such tolerance came about! "nstead#

Carmencita cavalierl formulated a le)al conclusion# sans factual

substantiation# that a the respondentsF initial occupation of the

sub%ect lot was lawful b virtue of tolerance b the re)istered owners#

and b the respondents became deforciants unlawfull withholdin) the

sub%ect lotFs possession after Carmencita# as purchaser and newre)istered owner# had demanded for the former to vacate the propert!

"t is worth notin) that the absence of the *rst requisite assumes even

more importance in the li)ht of the respondentsF claim that for

decades# the have been occupin) the sub%ect lot as owners thereof .



%PO?%4% 4D8?"DO D4LA CR? A"D A84LIA CO"CIO@D4LACR? V%. %PO?%4% R?FI"O R. CAPCO A"D 8ARTB C. CAPCO9.R. "o. (37:##, 8arh (3, !:(+

E&he onl issue in an e%ectment case is the phsical possession of real

propert > possession de facto and not possession de %ure!E 4utEJwKhere the parties to an e%ectment case raise the issue of ownership#

the courts ma pass upon that issue to determine who between the

parties has the better ri)ht to possess the propert!E Lere# both parties

anchor their ri)ht to possess based on ownership# i!e!# the spouses

<ela Cruz b their own ownership while the spouses Capco b the

ownership of ,u*no as one of the heirs of the alle)ed true owner of the

propert! &hus# the e&C



and the ,&C correctl passed upon the issue of ownership in this case

to determine the issue of possession! Lowever# it must be emphasized

that EJtKhe ad%udication of the issue of ownership is onl provisional#

and not a bar to an action between the same parties involvin) title to

the propert!E

*ONIFAIO PIEDAD, MARIA PIEDAD #"6#"s"$t" INSPIRAION DANAO

v SPO&SES ITORIO G&RIE'A $ EMETERIA M. G&RIE'A, G.R No.

207525, !u$" 1, 2014. !. PERLAS*ERNA*E

9nlawful detainer is an action to recover possession of real propertfrom one who unlawfull withholds possession thereof after thee+piration or termination of his ri)ht to hold possession under ancontract# e+press or implied! An e%ectment case# based on the

alle)ation of possession b tolerance# falls under the cate)or ofunlawful detainer! =here the plainti allows the defendant to usehisQher propert b tolerance without an contract# the defendant isnecessaril bound b an implied promise that heQshe will vacate ondemand# failin) which# an action for unlawful detainer will lie! "nunlawful detainer actions# the Court shall solel resolve the issue as towho between the parties has the better ri)ht of possession de factoover the sub%ect lot! Corollar thereto# issues pertainin) to ownershipare better threshed out in another action instituted for such purpose!

F4 ?. ?I=A"O / ATTB. DARBLL A. A8A"T4, 9.R "o. (7+!33,

Oto$er 2, !:(+. =. -4R%A8I"

=here the plainti does not prove her alle)ed tolerance of thedefendants occupation# the possession is deemed ille)al from thebe)innin)! Lence# the action for unlawful detainer is an improperremed! 4ut the action cannot be considered as one for forcible entrwithout an alle)ation in the complaint that the entr of the defendantwas b means of force# intimidation# threats# strate) or stealth!

RO-4RT A"D "4"ITA D4 L4O", /s. 9IL-4RT A"D A"ALB" D4LALLA"A, 9.R."o. !(!!33, Fe$ruary ((, !:(#, =. Perlas@-erna$e

An unlawful detainer complaint was *led b Gilbert dela .lana a)ainstpetitioner ,obert de .eon and Gil de .eon! ,obert and Gil contend thatthe lease contract was simulated! "t is quite apparent that the C&C;Nabunturan;awab actuall intended to mean that the undated lease



contract sub%ect of this case was absolutel simulated! "tspronouncement that the parties did not intend to be bound b theira)reement is simpl inconsistent with relative simulation!

-unyi /. Fator, 9.R. (3!#+3, =un. &:, !::#1( &#:



6

or one to be considered in possession# one need not have

actual or phsical occupation of ever square inch of the

propert at all times! :ossession can be acquired not onl b

material occupation# but also b the fact that a thin) is

sub%ect to the action of oneFs will or b the proper acts and

le)al formalities established for acquirin) such ri)ht#

possession can be acquired b %uridical acts!

Peo6le /. PeGaorida, 9.R. "O. (3#7:+, A6r.(:, !::2

Rnowled)e refers to a mental state of awareness of a fact!

/ince courts cannot penetrate the mind of an accused and

thereafter state its perceptions with certaint# resort to otherevidence is necessar! !nimus possidendi # as a state of mind#

ma be determined on a case;to;case basis b ta$in) into

consideration the prior or contemporaneous acts of the

accused# as well as the surroundin) circumstances!

%oledad /. Peo6le, 9.R. "O. (2+!3+, Fe$ !&, !:(( ;

&he acquisition of possession involves two elementsI the

corpus or the material holdin) of the thin)# and the animus

possidendi or the intent to possess it! Animus possidendi is astate of mind# the presence or determination of which is

lar)el dependent on attendant events in each case! "t ma

be inferred from the prior or contemporaneous acts of the

accused# as well as the surroundin) circumstances!

Chua@U-rue /. CA, 9.R. "O. (:1#1#, A6r.!3, !:::

Huridical possession means a possession which )ives the

transferee a ri)ht over the thin) which the transferee ma

set up even a)ainst the owner!"n this case# petitioner was a

cash custodian who was primaril responsible for the cash;in;

vault! Ler possession of the cash belon)in) to the ban$ is

a$in to that of a ban$ teller# both bein) mere ban$

emploees



6

45ets o0 Possession

PA&L P. GA*RIEL, !R, "t 8. vs. ARMELING RISOLOGO, G.R. No. 2042,

!u$" 9, 2014, !. M"$o

=hen it is shown that the plainti in a case of accion publiciana had avalid title issued in her name in 16?8# within the period which the/upreme Court held that titles issued over the same properties werevalidP that she has been pain) the realt ta+es on the said propertiessince l6?6P that she li$ewise appointed an administrator of thedisputed lands# and more importantl# there is no question that sheoered to sell to petitioners the portions of the sub%ect propertiesoccupied b



61

them# then she deserves to be respected and restored to her lawful

possession as provided in Article -06 of the New Civil Code!

%?-IC -AB L494"D R4%ORT% A"D CA%I"O%, I"C. /s. -4R"ARDC. F4R"A"D4,

9.R. "o. (1&+!7, %e6tem$er !1, !:(+, =. DelCastillo

&hou)h casino chips do not constitute le)al tender# there is no lawwhich prohibits their use or trade outside of the casino which issuesthem! "n an case# it is not unusual > nor is it unli$el > that respondentcould be paid b his Chinese client at the formers car shop with thecasino chips in questionP said transaction# if not common# isnonetheless not unlawful! &hese chips are paid for anwa petitionerwould not have parted with the same if their correspondin)representative equivalent > in le)al tender# )oodwill# or otherwise > was

not received b it in return or e+chan)e! Given this premise > thatcasino chips are considered to have been e+chan)ed with theircorrespondin) representative value > it is with more reason that theCourt should require petitioner to prove convincin)l and persuasivelthat the chips it con*scated from the ernandez brothers were indeedstolen from itP if so# an &om# <ic$ or Larr in possession of )enuinecasino chips is presumed to have paid for their representative value ine+chan)e therefor! "f /4. cannot prove its loss# then Art! --6 cannotapplP the presumption that the chips were e+chan)ed for valueremains!

P4"TA PACIFIC R4ALTB CORPORATIO" /s. L4B CO"%TR?CTIO" A"D D4V4LOP84"T CORPORATIO",

9.R. "o. (7(#21, "o/em$er !+, !:(+, =.-ersamin

:enta :aci*c leased its properties to .e Construction! 4oth partiesthen entered into a contract to sell! .e Construction failed to paits amortizations promptin) :enta :aci*c to *le an action fore%ectment!

&he e&C correctl e+ercised its authorit in *ndin) for the petitioneras the plainti! "n unlawful detainer# the possession was ori)inalllawful but became unlawful b the e+piration or termination of the

ri)ht to possessP hence# the issue of ri)htful possession is decisive for#in the action# the defendant is in actual possession and the plaintiscause of action is the termination of the defendants r i)ht to continuein possession!



62

A defendants claim of possession de %ure or his averment of ownershipdoes not render the e%ectment suit either accion publiciana or accionreivindicatoria! &he suit remains an accion interdictal# a summarproceedin) that can proceed independentl of an claim of ownership!ven when the question of possession cannot be resolved without

decidin) the issue of ownership# the issue of ownership is to beresolved onl to determine the issue of possession!



HO84R C. =AVI4R, re6resented $y his mother and naturaluardian, %?%A" 9. CA"4"CIA, /s. %?%A" L?8O"TAD, 9.R."o. !:&37:, Deem$er &, !:(+, =.Perlas@-erna$e

"n forcible entr# the complaint must necessaril alle)e that one inphsical possession of a land or buildin) has been deprived of thatpossession b another throu)h force# intimidation# threat# strate) orstealth! "t is not essential# however# that the complaint shoulde+pressl emplo the lan)ua)e of the law# but it would suce thatfacts are set up showin) that dispossession too$ place under saidconditions!

4DCA V. %antos, 9.R. 2:!12, A6r. !7, (11(2+ %CRA 7(+

Actual deliver of the boo$s havin) been made# Cruz acquired

ownership over the boo$s which he could then validl

transfer to the private respondents! &he fact that he had not

et paid for them to <CA was a matter between him and

<CA and did not impair the title acquired b the private

respondents to the boo$s!

-PI Family /. Frano, 9.R. "O. (!&+12, "o/.!&, !::3

4ad faith does not simpl connote bad %ud)ment or

ne)li)enceP it imports a dishonest purpose or some moral

obliquit and conscious doin) of wron)P it parta$es of the

nature of fraud! =e have held that it is a breach of a $nown

dut throu)h some motive of interest or ill will!

Title VI ?su0rut

Charateristis and"ature

Rihts and O$liations o0 the

Parties Title VII. 4asements or

%er/itude



Di5erent ind o0 4asement

DEMETRIA DE G&'MAN, AS S&*STIT&TED *( %ER %EIRS OLGA .

*AR*ASO AND NOLI G. EMENTTNA

:

LOLITA A. DE G&'M AN EST%ER G.MILAN *ANAAG A. DE G&'MAN AMOR G. APOLO, AS S&*STIT&TED

*( %IS %EIRS AL*ERTO T. APOLO, MAR) APOLO AND GEORGE APOLO:

%ERMINIO A. DE G&'M AN LEONOR G. TENIO NORMA A. DEG&'MAN AND !OSEFINA G. %ERNANDE', vs. F*LINEST



DEELOPMENT ORPORATION,G.R. No. 191710, !$u# 14, 2015, !. "8

st;88o

:etitioners sou)ht to establish a permanent easement upon thesubservient estate! :ursuant to the second para)raph of Article ?36#

the proper indemnit in this case shall consist of the value of the landplus the dama)es caused to the servient estate!

ALICIA -. R4B4% /s. %PO?%4% VAL4"TI" RA8O%, FRA"CI%CO %.A"D A"ATALIA,9.R. "o. (1++22, Fe$ruary ((, !:(#, =. Leonen

An easement of ri)ht of wa is a real ri)ht! =hen an easement of ri)htof wa is )ranted to another person# the ri)hts of the propertFs owner

are limited! An owner ma not e+ercise some of his or her propertri)hts for the bene*t of the person who was )ranted the easement ofri)ht of wa!

Lence# the burden of proof to show the e+istence of the above

conditions is imposed on the person who see$s the easement of ri)ht

of wa!

Lere the petitioner failed to establish that there was no adequateoutlet to the public hi)hwa and that the proposed easement wasthe least pre%udicial to respondentsF estate!

ere convenience for the dominant estate is not what is required b

law as the basis of settin) up a compulsor easement! ven in the face

of necessit# if it can be satis*ed without imposin) the easement# the

same should not be imposed!

4ased on the Ocular "nspection ,eport# petitionerFs propert hadanother outlet to the hi)hwa! "n between her propert and the

hi)hwa or road# however# is an irri)ation canal# which can betraversed b constructin) a brid)e# similar to what was done b theowners of the nearb properties!

&here is# therefore# no need to utilize respondentsF propert to servepetitionerFs needs! Another adequate e+it e+ists! :etitioner can usethis outlet to access the public roads!

Restriti/e Co/enant



Fa>ardo /. Freedom to -uild, 9.R. "O.(&+71!, Au. (, !:::

=hile it ma be correct to state that restrictive covenants on

the use of land or the location or character of buildin)s or other

structures thereon ma broadl be said to create easements orri)hts# it can also be contended that such covenants#

bein) limitations on the manner in



which one ma use his own propert# do not result in trueeasements# but a case of servitudes burden# sometimescharacterized to be ne)ative easements or reciprocal ne)ativeeasements!

A$ellana /. CA, 9.R. "O. 13:&1, A6r.!+, (11!

&he use of a footpath or road ma be apparent but it is not a

continuous easement because its use is at intervals and

depends upon the acts of man! "t can be e+ercised onl if a

man passes or puts his feet over somebod elses land!

-iol Aro@UInd /. O$ias, 9.R. "O. (3!:33,Ot. :1, !::1 @ &he easement of ri)ht of wa > the

privile)e of persons or a particular class of persons to passover anotherFs land# usuall throu)h one particular path or

linen > is characterized as a discontinuous easement

because its use is in intervals and depends on the act of man!

4ecause of this character# an easement of a ri)ht of wa ma

onl be acquired b virtue of a title!

uintanilla /. A$anan, 9.R. "O. (7:7(&, Fe$.(!,!::2

As between a ri)ht of wa that would demolish a fence of stron) materials to provide in)ress and e)ress to a publichi)hwa and another ri)ht of wa which althou)h lon)er willonl require a van or vehicle to ma$e a turn# the secondalternative should be preferred! ere convenience for thedominant estate is not what is required b law as the basis forsettin) up a compulsor easement!

uimen /. CA, 9.R. "O. ((!&&(, 8ay !1,(117

As between a ri)ht of wa that would demolish a store of

stron) materials to provide e)ress to a public hi)hwa# and

another ri)ht of wa which althou)h lon)er will onl require an

avocado tree to be cut down# the second alternative should

be preferred!



?nisoure /. Chun, 9.R. "O. (3&!#!, =ul.(3, !::1

,e)istration of the dominant estate under the &orrens sstem

without the annotation of the voluntar easement in its favordoes not e+tin)uish the easement! On the contrar# it is the

re)istration of the servient estate as free# that is# without

the annotation of the voluntar easement# which e+tin)uishes

the easement!

Title VIII "uisane



ClassiJation o0 "uisane

LINDA RANA vs. TERESITA LEE -ONG, SPS. S%IRLE( LEE ONG $

R&*EN ANG ONG $ SPS. ROSARIO $ -ILSON &( SPS. ROSARIO $-ILSON &( -ILSON &( s tto#$";$<=t o< TERESITA LEE -ONG, $

SPS. S%IRLE( LEE ONG $ R&*EN ANG ONG vs. SPS. RE(NALDO $

LINDA LANA, G.R. No. 1921 G.R. No. 1922, !u$" 30, 2014, !. P"#8s*"#$"

"t is a standin) %urisprudential rule that unless a nuisance is a nuisanceper se# it ma not be summaril abated! Aside from the remed ofsummar abatement which should be ta$en under the parametersstated in Articles 8@3 for public nuisances and 8@? for privatenuisances of the Civil Code# a private person whose propert ri)ht

was invaded or unreasonabl interfered with b the act# omission#establishment# business or condition of the propert of another ma*le a civil action to recover personal dama)es! Abatement ma be %udiciall sou)ht throu)h a civil action therefor if the pertinentrequirements under the Civil Code for summar abatement# or therequisite that the nuisance is a nuisance per se# do not concur! &o note#the remedies of abatement and dama)es are cumulativeP hence# bothma be demanded!

LI"DA RA"A / T4R4%ITA WO"9, 9.R "o. (1!27(, =une &:,!:(+. =. P4RLA%@ -4R"A-4

&he spouses =on) and the spouses ,ana are nei)hbors who liveacross a road from each other! &he ,anas elevated and cemented theroad without consultation from the spouses =on)! =on) et al availedof the remed of %udicial abatement and dama)es a)ainst /pouses,ana# claimin) that the elevated and cemented portion are nuisancesthat curtailed their use and en%oment of their properties!

=ith respect to the elevated and cemented sub%ect portion# the Court

*nds that the same is not a nuisance per se! 4 its nature# it is notin%urious to the health or comfort of the communit! "t was builtprimaril to facilitate the in)ress and e)ress of /ps! ,ana from theirhouse which was admittedl located on a hi)her elevation than thesub%ect road and the ad%oinin) 9 and =on);On) properties! /incethe sub%ect portion is not a nuisance per se# it cannot be summarilabated! &he demolition order secured b =on) was thus unwarranted#entitlin) the spouses ,ana to nominal and temperate dama)es!



CRI%O%TO8O -. A?I"O / 8?"ICIPALITB OF 8ALAB, ALA",re6resented $y HO". 8ABOR =OH" P. BAP, %A"99?"IA"9 -A

BA" OF 8ALAB, ALA", re6resented $y HO". 44L FLOR4%,DA"T4 PA%?9?IRO", ROW4" A9?IRR4, WIL-4C 94LITO,

=?PIT4R 9ALL4"4RO, OFFIC4 OF TH4 8?"ICIPAL 4"9I"44R,



OFFIC4 OF TH4 8?"ICIPAL TR4A%?R4R, -ORACAB P"P CHI4F,-ORACAB FO?"DATIO", I"C., re6resented $y "4"4TT49RAF, 8?"ICIPAL A?ILIARB POLIC4, and =OH" and =A"4DO4%. 9.R "o. !((&#7, %e6tem$er !1, !:(+. =. V4LA%CO

Article ?63 of the Civil Code de*nes 'nuisance( as an act# omission#establishment# business# condition or propert# or anthin) else that1 in%ures or endan)ers the health or safet of othersP 2 annos oroends the sensesP 0 shoc$s# de*es or disre)ards decenc ormoralitP 3 obstructs or interferes with the free passa)e of an publichi)hwa or street# or an bod of waterP or - hinders or impairs theuse of propert!

Challen)in) the validit of the public respondentsF actuations#petitioner posits that the hotel cannot summaril be abated because itis not a nuisance per se# )iven the hundred million peso;worth of

capital infused in the venture! :etitioner also ar)ues that respondentsshould have *rst secured a court order before proceedin) with thedemolition!

/C said that the propert involved cannot be classi*ed as a nuisance per se, but not for the reason he so oers! :ropert valuation# after all#

is not the litmus test for such a determination! ore controllin) is thepropertFs nature and conditions# which should be evaluated to see ifit quali*es as a nuisance as de*ned under the law!

Nuisances are of two $indsI nuisance per se and nuisance per

accidens! &he *rst is reco)nized as a nuisance under an and allcircumstances# because it constitutes a direct menace to publichealth or safet# and# for that reason# ma be abated summarilunder the unde*ned law of necessit! &he second is that whichdepends upon certain conditions and circumstances# and its e+istencebein) a question of fact# it cannot be abated without due hearin)thereon in a tribunal authorized to decide whether such a thin) doesin law constitute a nuisance! cralawlawlibrar

"n the case at bar# the hotel# in itself# cannot be considered as anuisance per se since this tpe of nuisance is )enerall de*ned as an

act# occupation# or struture, which is a nuisane at all times andunder an circumstances# reardless o0 loation or surroundin)!Lere# it is merel the hotelFs particular incident>>its location>>and notits inherent qualities that rendered it a nuisance! Otherwise stated# hadit not been constructed in the no build zone# 4oraca =est Cove couldhave secured the necessar permits without issue! As such# petitioneris correct that the hotel is not a nuisance per se# but# it is still anuisance per accidens!



Remedies

Telmo /. -ustamante, 9.R. "O. (2!#73, =ul.

(&, !::1



A nuisance per se is that which aects the immediate safet of

persons and propert and ma be summaril abated under

the unde*ned law of necessit! videntl# the concrete posts

summaril removed b petitioner did not at all pose a hazard

to the safet of persons and properties# which would have

necessitated immediate and summar abatement!

9anayo /. ueon City, 9.R. "O. (332:3,Ot((, !:((

&he win) walls do not per se immediatel and adverselaect the safet of persons and propert! &he fact that anordinance ma declare a structure ille)al does not necessarilma$e that structure a nuisance!

Pere /. 8adrona 9.R. "O. (2++32, 8ar. !(, !:(!; ,espondentsF fence is not a nuisance per se! 4 its nature# itis not in%urious to the health or comfort of the communit! "twas built primaril to secure the propert of respondents andprevent intruders from enterin) it!

Donation

CHARL4% -?8A9AT, =?LIA" -AC?DIO, RO%ARIO PADR4,%PO?%4% RO94LIO and O%I8A PADR4, and F4LIP4 DO8I"CIL /R49ALADO ARRI-AB, 9.R "o. (1+2(2, =une 1, !:(+. =. D4LCA%TILLO

9nder Article 836 and 8@6 of the Civil Code# it ma be inferred that asbetween the parties to a donation of an immovable propert# all that isrequired is for said donation to be contained in a public document!,e)istration is not necessar for it to be considered valid and eective!Lowever# in order to bind third persons# the donation must bere)istered in the ,e)istr of .and &itles and <eeds! Althou)h the non;re)istration of a deed of donation shall not aect its validit# thenecessit of re)istration comes into pla when the ri)hts of thirdpersons are aected# as in the case at bar!

"n this case# the donation e+ecuted b Gonzales in favor of his)randchildren# althou)h in writin) and dul notarized# has not beenre)istered in accordance with law! Lence# while the deed of donation isvalid between the donor and the donees# such deed# however# did notbind the tenants;farmers who were not parties to the donation! Non;re)istration of a deed of donation does not bind other parties i)norantof a previous transaction! "t is of no moment that the ri)ht of thetenant; farmers in this case was created b virtue of a decree or law!



&he are still considered Ethird personsE contemplated in our laws onre)istration# for the fact remains that these tenant;farmers had noactual $nowled)e of the deed of donation!

R4P?-LIC OF TH4 PHILIPPI"4%, R4PR4%4"T4D -B TH4%4CR4TARB OF A9RIC?LT?R4 /s. F4D4RICO DACLA", =O%4FI"ACOLLADO, A"D H4R H?%-A"D F4D4RICO DACLA" A"D8I"VIL? DACLA", A% %?RVIVI"9 H4IR% OF



D4C4A%4D =O%4 DACLA", 9.R. "o. (13((# 'onsolidated), 8arh!&, !:(#, =.Del Castillo

&he <aclans lament the supposed failure of the :rovince to provide'a)ricultural e+tension and on;site research services and facilities( asrequired under the ",, of the .GC of 1661# which failure the believe#constituted a violation of the stipulation contained in the deeds of donation to develop and improve the livestoc$ industr of the countr! Bet this cannot be made a )round for the reversion of the donatedlandsP on the contrar# to allow such an ar)ument would condoneundue interference b private individuals in the operations of )overnment! &he deeds of donation merel stipulated that the donatedlands shall be used for the establishment of a breedin) station and shallnot be used for an other purpose# and that in case of non;use#

abandonment or cessation of the activities of the 4A"# possession orownership shall automaticall revert to the <aclans! "t was neverstipulated that the ma interfere in the mana)ement and operation of the breedin) station! ven then# the could not directl participate inthe operations of the breedin) station!

"ature o0 Donations

ClassiJation o0

Donations

Persons who may i/er or reei/e a

Donation Formalities o0 Donation

4%P4RA"A C. CARI"A" /s. %PO?%4% 9AVI"O C?4TO and CAR84LITAC?4TO, 9.R. "o.(127&7, Oto$er 2, !:(+, =. Reyes

"n order to sucientl substantiate her claim that the mone paid b

the respondents was actuall a donation# petitioner should have also

submitted in court a cop of their written contract evincin) such

a)reement! As earlier ruled b the Court# a donation must compl withthe mandator formal requirements set forth b law for its validit!

=hen the sub%ect of donation is purchase mone# Article 837 of the

NCC is applicable! Accordin)l# the donation of mone as well as its

acceptance should be in writin)! Otherwise# the donation is invalid for

non;compliance with the formal requisites prescribed b law!



45ets and limitation o0 Donation

Re6u$li /. 9uman, 9.R. "o. (&!17+, Fe$ruary (2,!:::

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



a separate instrument is either not )iven to the donor or elsenoted in the deed of donation# and in the separateacceptance!

Villanue/a /s. %6ouses -ranoo, 9.R. "o. (3!2:+, =anuary !+, !:((

=hen the donor used the words that the )ift Edoes not passtitle durin) m lifetimeP but when " die# she shall be the trueowner of the two aforementioned parcelsEK the donor meantnothin) else than that she reserved of herself the possessionand usufruct of said two parcels of land until her death# atwhich time the donee would be able to dispose of them freel!

Central Phili66ines ?ni/ersity /s. CA, 9.R. "o.((!(!3 =uly (3, (11#

"f there was no ful*llment or compliance with the condition#the donation ma now be revo$ed and all ri)hts which the doneema have acquired under it shall be deemed lost ande+tin)uished!

Insular Li0e /. 4$rado, 9.R. "O. ++:#1, Ot.!2, (133

"n essence# a life insurance polic is no dierent from a civil

donation insofar as the bene*ciar is concerned! 4oth arefounded upon the same considerationI liberalit! A bene*ciar

is li$e a donee# because from the premiums of the polic

which the insured pas out of liberalit# the bene*ciar will

receive the proceeds or pro*ts of said insurance!

am$oana /. Plaata, 9.R. "O. (+2+&&, %e6t.&:, !::2

/ince Article 10@? of said Code authorizes the parties to acontract to establish such stipulations# ! ! ! not contrar tolaw# ! ! ! public order or public polic# we are of the opinionthat# at the ver least# that stipulation of the partiesprovidin) for automatic revocation of the deed of donation#without prior %udicial action for that purpose# is valid sub%ectto the determination of the propriet of the rescission sou)ht!=here such propriet is sustained# the decision of the court



will be merel declarator of the revocation# but it is not initself the revocator act!

ui>ada /s. CA, 9.R. "O. (!7+++, De. +,(112.

/ince no period was imposed b the donor on when must the

donee compl with the condition# the latter remains the owner

so lon) as he has tried to compl with the condition within a

reasonable period! Onl then ; when the non;ful*llment of

the resolutor condition was brou)ht



1@

to the donors $nowled)e ; that ownership of the donatedpropert reverted to the donor as provided in the automaticreversion clause of the deed of donation!

:,/C, ":&"ON

84TROPOLITA" FA-RIC% I"C. 4T AL. V%. PRO%P4RITB CR4DITR4%O?RC4% 4"C. 4T AL. 9.R. "o. (#+&1: 8arh (3, !:(+, =.-ersamin

=ith the contract bein) voidable# petitionersF action to annul the real

estate mort)a)e alread prescribed! Article 106@# in relation to Article

1061 of the Civil Code, provides that if the consent of the contractin)

parties was obtained throu)h fraud# the contract is considered voidable

and ma be annulled within four ears from the time of the discover

of the fraud! &he discover of fraud is rec$oned from the time the

document was re)istered in the ,e)ister of <eeds in view of the rule

that re)istration was notice to the whole world! &hus# because the

mort)a)e involvin) the seven lots was re)istered on /eptember -#

1673# the had until /eptember -# 1677 within which to assail the

validit of the mort)a)e! 4ut their complaint was instituted in the ,&C

onl on October 1@# 1661!Lence# the action# bein) b then alread

prescribed# should be dismissed!

R?RAL -A" OF CA-AD-ARA", I"C / =OR9ITA A. 84L4CIO@BAP,LILIA84L4CIO PACIFICO 'deeased, su$stituted $y her only hild4RILLX I%AAC 8. PACIFICO, =R.), R4B"ALDO A. 84L4CIOD4LO%O, and %ARAH 84L4CIO PAL8A@ 9IL, 9.R "o. (32+#(,

=uly &:, !:(+. =. P4RLA%@-4R"A-4

"n this case# the complaint for nulli*cation of the /:A was *led before

the ,&C on April 18#166?# or barel three ears from the discover of the averred for)er in 1660# which is within the four;ear prescriptiveperiod provided under Article 113? of the Civil Code to institute anaction upon the in%ur to their ri)hts over the sub%ect properties! Adela within the prescriptive period is sanctioned b law and is notconsidered to be a dela that would bar relief! .aches applies onl inthe absence of a statutor prescriptive period!



1@

%PO?%4% FRA"CI%CO %I4RRA 'su$stituted $y DO"ATO,T4R4%ITA, T4ODORA, LOR4"A, L?CI"A, I84LDA, VIL8A, and8ILA9RO% %I4RRA) and A"TO"I"A %A"TO%, %PO?%4% RO%ARIO%I4RRA and 4?%4-IO CAL?8A L4BVA, and %PO?%4% %ALO84%I4RRA and F4LI 9ATLA-ABA" 'su$stituted $y -?4"A

V4"T?RA, 4LPIDIO, PA?LI"O, CATALI"A, 9R49ORIO, and4D9ARDO 9ATLA-ABA", LOR4TO R4ILLO, F4R8I"A P4R49RI"A,and "IDA HA%HI8OTO) /s. PAIC %AVI"9% A"D 8ORT9A94-A", I"C., 9.R. "o. (132#3, %e6tem$er (:,!:(+, =. Perlas@ -erna$e



1@

/ince the complaint for annulment was anchored on a claim ofmista$e# i!e!# that petitioners are the borrowers under the loan securedb the mort)a)e# the action should have been brou)ht within four 3ears from its discover! As mort)a)ors desirin) to attac$ a mort)a)eas invalid# petitioners should act with reasonable promptness# else its

unreasonable dela ma amount to rati*cation! 5eril# to allowpetitioners to assert their ri)ht to the sub%ect properties now after theirun%usti*ed failure to act within a reasonable time would be )rosslunfair to :/4# and perforce should not be sanctioned! As such#petitioners action is alread barred b laches# which# as case lawholds# operates not reall to penalize ne)lect or sleepin) on onesri)hts# but rather to avoid reco)nizin) a ri)ht when to do so wouldresult in a clearl inequitable situation!

I"T4LL4CT?AL PROP4RTB

%HA"9 PROP4RTI4% R4ALTB CORPORATIO" '0ormerly TH4%HA"9 9RA"D TOW4R CORPORATIO") and %HA"9PROP4RTI4%, I"C. '0ormerly 4D%A PROP4RTI4% HOLDI"9%,I"C.), / %T. FRA"CI% D4V4LOP84"T CORPORATIO",9.R "o. (1:3:7, =uly !(, !:(+. =. P4RLA%@-4R"A-4

/t! rancis <evelopment Corporation /<C uses the mar$ '/&!

,ANC"/( to identif numerous development pro%ects at Orti)asCenter! =hen /han) :roperties ,ealt /:, used the mar$s '&he /t!

rancis &owers( and '&he /t! rancis /han)ri; .a :lace#( /<C *led acomplaint for intellectual propert violation for unfair competition anddama)es!

or unfair competition to be established# there must be a showin)that /:, emploed means to induce the public towards a falsebelief that it was oerin) /<CFs )oodsQservices! Lere# this wasnot proven!

On the contrar# the Court upheld /:,Fs use of the '/t! rancis( mar$since the use was meant not to ride on /<CFs )oodwill# but merel to

identif# or at least associate# their real estate pro%ectQs with its)eo)raphical location! "n the real estate business# here can be nodescription of its )eo)raphical ori)in as precise and accurate as that of the name of the place where the are situated!

ILLAWAR4 PROD?CT% CORPORATIO" V =4%ICHRI%8A"?FACT?RI"9 CORPORATIO", 9.R "o. (1##+1,%e6tem$er &, !:(+. =. P4RALTA



1@

"n order to qualif the competition as Eunfair#E it must have twocharacteristicsI 1 it must involve an in%ur to a competitor or traderival# and 2 it must involve acts which are characterized as Econtrarto )ood conscience#E or Eshoc$in) to %udicial sensibilities#E or otherwiseunlawfulP in the lan)ua)e of our law# these include force# intimidation#

deceit# machination or an other un%ust# oppressive or hi)h;handed



method! &he public in%ur or interest is a minor factorP the essence

of the matter appears to be a private wron) perpetrated b

unconscionable means!

"t is evident that petitioner =illaware is en)a)ed in unfair competition

as shown b his act of suddenl shiftin) his business frommanufacturin) $itchenware to plastic; made automotive partsP hislurin) the emploees of the respondent to transfer to his emplo andtrin) to discover the trade secrets of the respondent!

A-%@C-" CORPORATIO", /s. F4LIP4 9OO", 9IL-4RTO R.D?AVIT, =R., 8ARI%%A L. FLOR4%, =4%%ICA A. %OHO, 9RAC4D4LA P4EA@R4B4%, =OH" OLIV4RT. 8A"ALA%TA%, =OH" DO4% A"D =A"4 DO4%, 9.R. "o. (1#1#7,8arh ((, !:(#,

=. Leonen

/everal emploees of GA;8 were char)ed with copri)htinfrin)ement! A4/;C4N claims that news foota)e is sub%ect tocopri)ht and prohibited use of copri)hted material is punishableunder the "ntellectual :ropert Code! "t ar)ues that the new foota)e isnot a Enewsworth eventE but Emerel an account of the arrival ofAn)elo dela Cruz in the :hilippines X the latter bein) the newswortheventE!

&he /upreme Court held that the news foota)e is copri)htable! henews foota)e is copri)htable!

&he "ntellectual :ropert Code is clear about the ri)hts aorded toauthors of various $inds of wor$! 9nder the Code# Ewor$s are protected

b the sole fact of their creation# irrespective of their mode or form of

expression, as well as of their content# qualit and purpose!E &heseinclude EJaudio;visual wor$s and cinemato)raphic wor$s and wor$sproduced b a process analo)ous to cinemato)raph or an processfor ma$in) audiovisual recordin)s!E

"t is true that under /ection 18- of the "ntellectual :ropert Code#

Enews of the da and other miscellaneous facts havin) the character

of mere items of press informationE are considered unprotectedsub%ect matter! Lowever# the Code does not state that expression ofthe news of the da# particularl when it underwent a creativeprocess# is not entitled to protection!

GA;8s rebroadcast of A4/;C4Ns news foota)e without the lattersconsent is not an issue! &he mere act of rebroadcastin) withoutauthorit from the owner of the broadcast )ives rise to the probabilitthat a crime was committed under the "ntellectual :ropert Code!



,espondents cannot invo$e the defense of )ood faith to ar)ue that noprobable cause e+ists!"nfrin)ement under the "ntellectual :ropertCode is malum prohibitum. &he "ntellectual :ropert Code is a speciallaw!

TAIWA" OLI" CORPORATIO", LTD V%. OLI" 4L4CTRO"IC% CO.,I"C 9.R. "o.!:12+&. 8arh !#, !:(#, =. Velaso =r.



&he issue to be resolved in the case at bar is whether or not petitioneris entitled to its trademar$ re)istration of 'RO."N( over its speci*c)oods of television sets and <5< plaers! :etitioner postulates# in themain# that its )oods are not closel related to those of Rolin lectronics!On the other hand# respondent hin)es its case on the CAFs *ndin)s that

its and petitionerFs products are closel;related! &hus# )rantin)petitionerFs application for trademar$ re)istration# accordin) torespondent# would cause confusion as to the public!

&he /upreme Court held that identical mar$s ma be re)istered forproducts for the same classi*cation! ere uniformit in cate)orization#b itself# does not automaticall preclude the re)istration of whatappears to be an identical mar$# if that be the case! "n fact# /C# in alon) line of cases# has held that such circumstance does notnecessaril result in an trademar$ infrin)ement! "t is hornboo$doctrine that emphasis should be on the similarit of the products

involved and not on the arbitrar classi*cation or )eneral description of their properties or characteristics! &he mere fact that one person hasadopted and used a trademar$ on his )oods would not prevent theadoption and use of the same trademar$ b others on unrelatedarticles of a dierent $ind!

"t is erroneous to conclude that all electronic products are related andthat the covera)e of one electronic product necessaril precludes there)istration of a similar mar$ over another! "n this di)ital a)e whereinelectronic products have not onl diversi*ed b leaps and bounds# andare )eared towards interoperabilit# it is dicult to assert readil# asrespondent simplisticall did# that all devices that require plu))in) intosoc$ets are necessaril related )oods! "n addition# /upreme court rulethat there is no confusin) similarit between the mar$s# )iven that theproducts covered b the trademar$# i!e!# %eans# were# at that time#considered price# tpicall purchased b intelli)ent buers familiar withthe products and are more circumspect# and# therefore# would noteasil be deceived!Lence# petitioners trademar$ re)istration not onlcovers unrelated )ood# but is also incapable of deceivin) the ordinarintelli)ent buer!

O4."GA&"ON/

I. D4FI"ITIO"

8AATI %TOC 4CHA"94 /s. CA8PO%, 9.R. "O.(&22(+, A6ril (7, !::1



,espondent used the terms Eri)ht and obli)ationE in his:etition from which he concluded that that such :etitionsucientl states a cause of action! ,i)ht and obli)ation arele)al terms with speci*c le)al meanin)P



A ri)ht is a claim or title to an interest in anthin) whatsoever

that is enforceable b law# while an obli)ation is de*ned in the

Civil Code as a %uridical necessit to )ive# to do or not to do and

in the words of Arias ,amos EAn obli)ation is a %uridical relation

whereb a person called the creditor ma demand from

another called the debtor the observance of a determinative

conduct the )ivin)# doin) or not doin)# and in case of breach#

ma demand satisfaction from the assets of the latter!E

II. 4L484"T% OF A" O-LI9ATIO"

D49AEO% /s. P4OPL4 OF TH4 PHILIPPI"4%, 9.R."O. (7!2!7,Oto$er (+, !:(&

<e)aos claims that his partial paments to the

complainants novated his contract with them from a)enc to

loan# thereb convertin) his liabilit from criminal to civil! &he

incompatibilit in novation must ta$e place in an of the

essential elements of the obli)ation# such as its ob%ect# cause or

principal conditions thereofP otherwise# the chan)e would be

merel modi*cator in nature and insucient to e+tin)uish the

ori)inal obli)ation!

A%?"CIO" /s. CA, 9.R. "O. (:1(!#, Deem$er !,(11+

An obli)ation is a %uridical necessit to )ive# to do or not to do

Art! 11-?# Civil Code and is constituted upon the

concurrence of the essential elements thereof# vizI a &he

vinculum %uris or %uridical tie which is the ecient cause

established b the various sources of obli)ations law#

contracts# quasi;contracts# delicts and quasi;delictsP b the

ob%ect which is the prestation or conductP required to be

observed to )ive# to do or not to doP and c the sub%ect;

persons who# viewed from the demandabilit of the

obli)ation# are the active obli)ee and the passive obli)or

sub%ects!



III. DIFF4R4"T I"D% OF PR4%TATIO"%

%%% /s 8OO"WAL D4V4LOP84"T * HO?%I"9CORPORATIO", 9.R. "O. 3&&+#. A6ril 3, (11&.

or failure to pa on time the amortization# /// imposed the12Y penalt contained in the penal clause of the contractentered into between the parties! "npositive obli)ations# to)ive and to do# the penalt is demandable when the debtoris in moraP hence# the necessit of demand b the debtorunless the same is e+cused!



A%IA" CO"%TR?CTIO" A"D D4V4LOP84"TCORPORATIO" /s. PHILIPPI"4 CO884RCIALI"T4R"ATIO"AL -A", 9.R. "O. (#&2!3A6ril !#, !::7

&he JpetitionerK ma have e+perienced *nancial diculties

because of the E1668 economic crisisE that ensued in Asia#

however# the same does not constitute a valid %usti*cation for

the JpetitionerK to rene)e on its obli)ations to the JrespondentK#

and JpetitionerK cannot even *nd solace in Articles 12?? and

12?8 of the New Civil Code# since it is applicable onl to

obli)ations Eto do#E and not obli)ations Eto )ive!E An obli)ation

Eto doE includes all $inds of wor$ or serviceP while an obli)ation

Eto )iveE is a prestation which consists in the deliver of amovable or an immovable thin) in order to create a real ri)ht#

or for the use of the recipient# or for its simple possession# or

in order to return it to its owner!

IV. CLA%%IFICATIO" OFO-LI9ATIO"% A% TO -A%I%A"D 4"FORC4A-ILITB(."AT?RAL O-LI9ATIO"%

A"%AB /s. -OARD OF DIR4CTOR%, 9.R. "O. L@(&773,A6ril !1, (17:

Appellants *led a)ainst appellees in the C" a complaint

prain) for a 2@Y Christmas bonus# contendin) that there

e+ists a cause of action in their complaint because their claim

rests on moral )rounds or what in brief is de*ned b law as a

natural obli)ation!

Article 1320 of the New Civil Code classi*es obli)ations intocivil or natural# ECivil obli)ations are a ri)ht of action tocompel their performance# while Natural obli)ations# notbein) based on positive law but on equit and natural law# donot )rant a ri)ht of action to enforce their performance# butafter voluntar ful*llment b the obli)or# the authorize theretention of what has been delivered or rendered b reasonthereofE!



D-P /s. CO"F4%%OR, 9.R. "O. L@+2221 8ay ((, (121

Appellee refuses to pa his obli)ation despite his e+ecution of a

new promissor note in consideration of a previous promissornote which remained unpaid even after the lapse of 1@ ears onthe )round of prescription! =hen a debt is alread barred bprescription# it cannot be enforced b the creditor but a newcontract reco)nizin) and assumin) the prescribed debt withfull $nowled)e of the prescription would be valid and enforceableand he thereb waives the bene*t of prescription!



!. CIVIL O-LI9ATIO"%

A"%AB /s. "DC, 9.R. "O. L@(&773, A6ril !1, (17:

Appellants contend that there e+ists a cause of action in their

complaint because their claim rests on moral )rounds or what

in brief is de*ned b law as a natural obli)ation! Article 1320

of the New Civil Code classi*es obli)ations into civil or

natural! ECivil obli)ations are a ri)ht of action to compel their

performance! 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 ful*llment b the obli)or# the authorize theretention of what has been delivered or rendered b reason

thereofE!

V.%O?RC4% OF O-LI9ATIO"%

A-%@C-" /s. OFFIC4 OF TH4 O8-?D%8A", 9.R."O. (&&&+3A6ril !&, !:(:

:etitioner asserts that a criminal complaint ma continue and

be prosecuted as an independent civil action! &he claim for civil

liabilit survives notwithstandin) the death of accused# if the

same ma also be predicated on a source of obli)ation other

than delict! Article 11-8 of the Civil Code enumerates these

other sources of obli)ation from which the civil liabilit ma

arise as a result of the same act or omissionI a law! b contracts!

c quasi;contracts! d +++ +++ +++! e quasi;delicts!

(.O-LI9ATIO"% ARI%I"9 FRO8 LAW

%AL4" /s. -ALC4, 9.R. "O. L@(++(+, A6ril !3, (17:

<el*n# the father# was held %ointl and severall liable with hisminor son <ante arisin) from the criminal act committed b



the latter! &he civil liabilit which the law imposes upon thefather and# in case of his death or incapacit# the mother# foran dama)es that ma be caused b the minor children wholive with them# is a necessar consequence of the parentalauthorit the e+ercise over them which imposes upon the

parents the Edut of supportin) them# $eepin) them in theircompan# educatin) them in proportion to their meansE#while# on the other hand# )ives them the Eri)ht to correct andpunish them in moderationE !

!.O-LI9ATIO"% ARI%I"9 FRO8 CO"TRACT%



84TROPOLITA" -A" A"D TR?%T CO8PA"B /s. A"A 9RAC4RO%AL4% A"D

BO B? TO, 9.R. "o. (2&!:+, =anuary (&, !:(+ =. del Castillo

:etitioner ban$ uses as basis for its refusal &he 'Lold Out( clausefound in the a)reement it entered into with respondents! &he /upremeCourt held that the 'Lold Out( clause applies onl if there is a validand e+istin) obli)ation arisin) from an of the sources of obli)ationenumerated in Article 11-886of the Civil Code# to witI law# contracts#quasi;contracts# delict# and quasi;delict! No such )round e+ists in thiscase# hence the ban$ is )uilt of breach of contract when itun%usti*abl refused to release respondentsF deposit despite demand!

%AL?DA9A /s. F4?, 9.R. "O. (31&&3 A6ril &:, !::2

/aluda)a# a sophomore law student of respondent 9 *led a

case for dama)es a)ainst it after he was shot b one of the

securit )uards on dut at the school premises! =hen an

academic institution accepts students for enrollment# there is

a established contract between them# resultin) in bilateral

obli)ations which both parties are bound to compl with but

which 9 failed to perform when it did not provide a safe and

secure environment to its students!

84RALCO /s RA8OB, 9.R. "O. (#21((, 8arh +, !::2

&he respondents cause of action a)ainst ,A.CO is anchoredon culpa contractual or breach of contract for the lattersdiscontinuance of its service to respondents! "n culpacontractual the mere proof of the e+istence of the contract

and the failure of its compliance %ustif# prima facie# acorrespondin) ri)ht of relief from law# reco)nizin) the obli)atorforce of contracts# the law will not permit a part to be set freefrom liabilit for an $ind of misperformance of thecontractual underta$in) or a contravention of the tenorthereof!



&.O-LI9ATIO"% ARI%I"9 FRO8 ?A%I

CO"TRACT CR? /s.T?A%O", 9.R. "O. L@

!&3+1 A6ril !1, (133

Cruz alle)ed that &uason had been enriched at the e+pense of

Cruz b virtue of an a)reement made b Cruz and the <eudors

in the clearin)# improvin)# subdividin) and sellin) the lar)e tract

of land for the reasons that said improvements are bein)

used and en%oed b &uason! A



presumed quasi;contract cannot emer)e as a)ainst one partwhen the sub%ect matter thereof is alread covered b ane+istin) contract with another part!

A. "49OTIOR?8 94%TIO

ADILL4 /s. CA, 9.R. "O. L@++#+7 =anuary !1, (122

:etitioner claims e+clusive ownership on a land after

e+ercisin) his ri)ht of repurchase to the pre%udice of the co

owners! &he redemption b one co;heir or co;owner of the

propert in its totalit does not vest in him ownership over it

but the petitioner# in ta$in) over the propert# did so either on

behalf of his co;heirs# in which event# he had constituted

himself a ne)otiorum )estor under Article 2133 of the Civil

Code# or for his e+clusive bene*t# in which case# he is )uilt

of fraud# and must act as trustee# the private respondents

bein) the bene*ciaries# under the Article 13-?!

-. %OL?TIO I"D4-ITI

A"DR4% /s. 8A"?FACT?R4R% HA"OV4R * TR?%T

CORPORATIO",9.R. "O. 2!73: %e6tem$er (#, (121

:etitioner refuses to return the second remittance to the

respondent ban$ when the respondent ban$ mista$enl

remitted a certain amount for a speci*c transaction twice on

behalf of the buer on the premise that the buer still owes

the petitioner mone! or quasi;contract of solutio indebiti to

appl the followin) requisites must concurI E1 that he whopaid was not under obli)ation to do soP and# 2 that pament

was made b reason of an essential mista$e of factE# hence

petitioner must return to the ban$ the amount which was

mista$enl remitted for it is the buer not the respondent

ban$ who has the obli)ation to the petitioner and not the

ban$!



P?BAT * %O"%, I"C. /s. CITB OF 8A"ILA, 9.R. "O. L@(3++3, A6ril &:, (17&

&he Cit &reasurer of anila refused to refund the retaildealers ta+ erroneousl paid b the petitioner on its belief

that it was not e+empted from such# on the )round that the

ta+ was voluntaril paid and not under protest which was a

condition sine qua non in order that a le)al basis ma arise!

5oluntariness is incompatible with mista$e bein) a



case of solutio indebiti# protest is not required as a conditionsine qua non for its application!

+.O-LI9ATIO"% ARI%I"9 FRO8 D4LICT

CI"CO /s. CA"O"OB, 9.R. "O. L@&&(3(,8ay &(, (131

,espondent Hud)e acted with )rave abuse of discretion when

he upheld the <ecision of the .ower court suspendin) the civil

action based on a quasi;delict until after the criminal case is

*nall terminated! =hen the civil action is based on an

obli)ation not arisin) from the act or omission complained of as

a felon# such civil action ma proceed independentl of the

criminal proceedin)s and re)ardless of the result of the latter!

#.O-LI9ATIO"% ARI%I"9 FRO8 ?A%I

D4LICT "APOCOR /s. CA, 9.R. "O.

(!+&32, 8arh 2, !::#

&he ne)li)ence of N:C as a result of its inabilit to maintain

the level of water in its dams has been satisfactoril ande+tensivel established! "n crimes and quasi;delicts# the

defendant shall be liable for all dama)es# which are the

natural and probable consequences of the act or omission

complained of and it is not necessar that such dama)es

have been foreseen or could have reasonabl been foreseen

b the defendant!

"APOCOR /s. TH4 HO"ORA-L4 CO?RT OF APP4AL%,9.R. "O. (!+&32. 8arh 2, !::#

N:C as a result of its inabilit to maintain the level of water in

its dam brou)ht dama)es to defendants but asserts that the

dama)es# if an# were due to the heav rains and should be



re)arded as a fortuitous event! Ne)li)ence or imprudence is

human factor which ma$es the whole occurrence humanized#

as it were# and removed from the rules applicable to acts of

God

=I84"4 /s. CITB OF 8A"ILA, 9.R. "O. 3(:+1, 8ay!1, (123

,espondent alle)ed that it is the Asiatic "nte)ratedCorporation that is mana)in) the public mar$et! Lence# itcannot be liable for the in%uries sustained b the petitionerwhen he fell into an open draina)e hole! &he



11

Cit of anila is li$ewise liable for dama)es under Article 2176

of the Civil Code# respondent Cit havin) retained control and

supervision over the /ta! Ana :ublic ar$et and as tort;feasor

under Article 218? of the Civil Code on quasi;delicts

,espondent Cit of anila and Asiatic "nte)rated

Corporation bein) %oint tort;feasors are solidaril liable under

Article 2163 of the Civil Code!

=I84"4 /s. CITB OF 8A"ILA, 9.R. "O. 3(:+1, 8ay!1, (123

:etitioner fell into the open draina)e holes# causin) him

phsical in%uries# in a public mar$et bein) mana)ed b

Asiatic "nte)rated Corporation but such public mar$et is stillunder the control and supervision of the Cit of anila! As a

defense a)ainst liabilit on the basis of a quasi;delict# one

must have e+ercised the dili)ence of a )ood father of a famil!

Art! 1180 of the Civil Code!

VI. "AT?R4 A"D 4FF4CT% OF O-LI9ATIO"

A.O-LI9ATIO" TO 9IV4 A D4T4R8I"AT4 THI"9 /s A

94"4RIC THI"9

%A"CH4 /s. RI9O%, 9.R. "O. L@!#+1+ =une (+, (13!

"n his complaint# plainti alle)es that# b virtue of the option

under consideration# Edefendant a)reed and committed to sellE

and Ethe plainti a)reed and committed to buE the land

described in the option# hence# plainti maintains that the

promise contained in the contract is Ereciprocall demandable!

EA promise to bu and sell a determinate thin) for a price

certain is reciprocall demandable and an accepted unilateral

promise to bu or to sell a determinate thin) for a price certain

is bindin) upon the promissor if the promise is supported b a

consideration distinct from the price!



11

9AI%A"O CA9ABA", I"C. /s I"%?RA"C4 CO8PA"B OF "ORTH A84RICA, 9.R. "O. (+32&1, =une 2, !::7

:etitionerFs ar)ument is that it is not liable for the unpaid

accounts because the *re is a fortuitous event! "f theobli)ation is )eneric in the sense that the ob%ect thereof isdesi)nated merel b its class or )enus without an particulardesi)nation or phsical se)re)ation from all others of thesame class# the loss or destruction of anthin) of the same$ind even without the debtorFs fault and before he hasincurred in dela will not have the eect of e+tin)uishin) theobli)ation# based on the principle



11

that the )enus of a thin) can never perish# Genus nunquanperit and an obli)ation to pa mone is )enericP therefore# it isnot e+cused b fortuitous loss of an speci*c propert of thedebtor!

9AI%A"O CA9ABA", I"C. /s I"%?RA"C4 CO8PA"B OF "ORTH A84RICA, 9. R. "O. (+32&1, =une 2, !::7

:etitionerFs ar)ument is that it is not liable for the unpaid

accounts because the *re is a fortuitous event! &he rule that an

obli)or should be held e+empt from liabilit when the loss

occurs thru a fortuitous event onl holds true when the

obli)ation consists in the deliver of a determinate thin) and

there is no stipulation holdin) him liable even in case of

fortuitous event and it does not appl when the obli)ation is

pecuniar in nature!

-.FAIL?R4 OF

P4RFOR8A"C4 ART ((3:

ARRI4TA /s. "ARIC, 9.R. "O. L@(#7+#, =anuary &(,(17+

"t is clear upon the records that the sole and principal reason for

the cancellation of the allocation of rice contracted b the

appellee herein in 4urma# was the failure of the letter of credit

to be opened b NA,"C within the contemplated period

which resulted in the consequent dama)e! ver debtor who

fails in performance of his obli)ations due to fraud# ne)li)ence#

or dela is bound to indemnif for the losses and dama)es

caused thereb!

T4L4FA%T /s. CA%TRO, 9.R. "O. 3&273, Fe$ruary !1,(122

:etitioner and private respondent entered into a contract

whereb# for a fee# petitioner undertoo$ to send said private

respondents messa)e overseas b tele)ram but which



11

petitioner did not do# despite performance b said private

respondent of her obli)ation b pain) the required char)es!

&hose who in the performance of their obli)ations are )uilt of

fraud# ne)li)ence or dela# and those who in an manner

contravene the tenor thereof# are liable for dama)es!

C.D4LAB (.8ORA %OLV4"DI

ART ((



%A"TO% V4"T?RA HOCOR8A FO?"DATIO", I"C., /s.%A"TO%, 9.R. "O. (#&::+, "o/em$er #, !::+

=hen respondents wrote a demand letter to petitioner# the

obli)ation was alread due and demandable# and when thepetitioner failed to pa its due obli)ation after the demand

was made# it incurred dela! <ela as used in this article is

snonmous to default or mora solvendi which means dela in

the ful*llment of obli)ations with respect to time and in order

for the debtor to be in default# it is necessar that the

followin) requisites be presentI 1 that the obli)ation be

demandable and alread liquidatedP 2 that the debtor delas

performanceP and 0 that the creditor requires the

performance %udiciall or e+tra%udiciall!

!.8ORA ACCIPI4"DI

8A"?4L /s. CA, 9.R. "O. 1#+71 =uly !#, (11(

:etitioner contends that private respondents are in mora

accipiendi! &he failure of the owners to collect or their refusal

to accept the rentals are not valid defenses# sinceconsi)nation under such circumstances# is necessar# and b

this we mean one that is eected in full compliance with the

speci*c requirements of the law therefor!

&.CO8P4"%ATIO 8ORA4

CORT4% /s. CA, 9.R. "O. (!7:2&, =uly (!, !::7

CortesF admission a)reed that the CorporationFs full pament of the sum would depend upon his deliver of the &C&s of thethree lots! Considerin) that their obli)ation was reciprocal#performance thereof must be simultaneous and the mutualinaction of Cortes and the Corporation therefore )ave rise to acompensation morae or default on the part of both partiesbecause neither has completed their part in their reciprocalobli)ation!



:etitioners contend that the have full complied with their

obli)ation under the emorandum of A)reement but due to

respondentsF failure to increase the capital stoc$ of the

corporation to an amount that will accommodate their

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 perform the obli)ation renders the other part to

demand ful*llment of the obli)ation or as$ed for the rescission of

the contract# but not simpl not performin) their part of the

A)reement!

D. "49LI94"C4(.D49R44 OF DILI94"C4

%ICA8 /s. =OR94, 9.R. "O. (#17(3, Auust 2, !::3

/icam e+empts himself from liabilit on the )round that the

robber of his pawnshop is a fortuitous event which is b

de*nition is an e+traordinar event not foreseeable or

avoidable! "n order for a fortuitous event to e+empt one from

liabilit# it is necessar that one has committed no ne)li)ence

or misconduct that ma have occasioned the loss and robber

per se# %ust li$e carnappin)# is not a fortuitous event for itdoes not foreclose the possibilit of ne)li)ence on the part of

herein petitioners!

84RALCO /s. RA8OB, 9.R. "O. (#21((, 8arh +, !::2

&he respondents cause of action a)ainst ,A.CO isanchored on culpa contractual or breach of contract for thelatters discontinuance of its service to respondents! Article

1180 also provides that the fault or ne)li)ence of the obli)orconsists in the omission of that dili)ence which is required bthe nature of the obli)ation and corresponds with thecircumstances of the persons# of the time and of the place#hence# as a public utilit# ,A.CO has the obli)ation todischar)e its functions with utmost care and dili)ence!



8I"DA"AO T4R8 I"AL A"D -RO4RA94 %4RVIC4,I"C. /s.PHO4"I A%%?RA"C4 CO8PA"B OF "4W BOR,8C944 * CO., I"C., 9.R. "O. (7!+73, 8ay 2,!::1



indanao &erminal was required to observe ordinar dili)ence

onl in loadin) and stowin) the car)oes of <el onte :roduce

aboard #5 istrau since there is nothin) in the contract which

requires a hi)her de)ree of dili)ence! "f the law or contract

does not state the de)ree of dili)ence which is to be observed

in the performance of an obli)ation then that which is

e+pected of a )ood father of a famil or ordinar dili)ence

shall be required!

!.FORT?ITO?% 4V4"T

CO89LA%CO CORPORATIO"A9?ILA 9LA%% /s. %A"TO% CARCH4C C4"T4R CORPORATIO", 9.R. "o. !:!121, 8arh !#,!:(#, =. Reyes

&he principle of rebus sic stantibus neither *ts in with the facts of thecase! 9nder this theor# the parties stipulate in the li)ht of certainprevailin) conditions# and once these conditions cease to e+ist# thecontract also ceases to e+ist! &his theor is said to be the basis ofArticle 12?8 of the Civil Code! &his article# which enunciates thedoctrine of unforeseen events# is not# however# an absoluteapplication of the principle of rebus sic stantibus# which wouldendan)er the securit of contractual relations! &he parties to thecontract must be presumed to have assumed the ris$s of unfavorable

developments! "t is therefore onl in absolutel e+ceptional chan)es of circumstances that equit demands assistance for the debtor!

,elin) on Article 12?8 of the Civil Code to %ustif its decision topre;terminate its lease with respondent# petitioner invo$es the 1668Asian currenc crisis as causin) it much dicult in meetin) itsobli)ations! "n :hilippine National Construction Corporation v! CA# theCourt held that the pament of lease rentals does not involve aprestation 'to do( envisa)ed in Articles 12?? and 12?8 which has beenrendered le)all or phsicall impossible without the fault of the

obli)or; lessor! Article 12?8 spea$s of a prestation involvin) servicewhich has been rendered so dicult b unforeseen subsequent eventsas to be manifestl beond the contemplation of the parties! &o besure# the Asian currenc crisis befell the re)ion from Hul 1668 and forsometime thereafter# but petitioner cannot be permitted to blame itsdiculties on the said re)ional economic phenomenon because itentered into the sub%ect lease onl on Au)ust 1?# 2@@@# more thanthree ears after it be)an# and b then petitioner had $nown whatbusiness ris$s it assumed when it opened a new shop in "loilo Cit!



"APIL * %O"% /. CA, 9.R. "O. L@+32#( A6ril (#,

(122



&here was an earthqua$e which caused the buildin) heav

dama)e but the other nearb structures had less dama)es as

compared to the said buildin)# the architects# en)ineers and

contractors are claimin) fortuitous event as a defense! &o be

e+empt from liabilit due to an act of God# the must occurI

1 cause of breach must be independent of the will of the debtor2 event must be unforeseeable or unavoidable0 event must be such that it would render it impossible for the

debtor to ful*ll the obli)ation3 debtor must be free from an participation or a)G!,!avation of

the industr to the creditor!

&.4TRAORDI"ARB I"FLATIO"

AL84DA /s. -ATHALA 8AR4TI"9,9.R."O.(#:2:7, =anuary !2, !::2

&he lower court denied petitionerFs ri)ht to pass on to

respondent the burden of pain) the 5A& and their ri)ht to

collect the demanded increase in rental# there bein) no

e+traordinar inDation or devaluation as provided for in the

seventh clause of the contract! +traordinar inDation e+ists

when there is a decrease or increase in the purchasin) powerof the :hilippine currenc which is unusual or beond the

common Ductuation in the value of said currenc# and such

increase or decrease could not have been reasonabl foreseen

or was manifestl beond the contemplation of the parties at

the time of the establishment of the obli)ation!

+.-R4ACH FOR R4%CI%%IO"

?"IV4R%AL FOOD CORPORATIO" /s. TH4 CO?RT OFAPP4AL%, 9.R. "O. L@!1(## 8ay (&, (13:

,espondent patentee was dismissed as the permanent chief

chemist of the corporation without an fault or ne)li)ence on

his part after the e+ecution of the 4ill of Assi)nment# promptin)

him to rescind the contract! &he )eneral rule is that rescission



of a contract will not be permitted for a sli)ht or casual breach#

but onl for such substantial and fundamental breach as would

defeat the ver ob%ect of the parties in ma$in) the

a)reement!

VII. I"D% OF CIVIL O-LI9ATIO"%



A.P?R4 O-LI9ATIO"%

ART ((31HO"9O"9 A"D %HA"9HAI -A"I"9 CORP. /s.-RO?4A, 9.R. "O. (327(: "o/em$er (3, !:(:

,espondents e+ecuted undated promissor notes! &he were not

able to pa the monthl amortizations of their respective loans#

which were suppose to be paid throu)h salar deduction# to the

petitioner because of their dismissal! .oans secured b their

future retirement bene*ts to which the are no lon)er entitled

are reduced to unsecured and pure civil obli)ations and the

absence of a period within which to pa the obli)ation# the

ful*llment of which is demandable at once!

PAB /s. PALA"CA, 9.R. "O. L@!11::=une !2, (13+

Oppositor;appellee alle)ed that the ri)hts of the petitioner;

creditor had alread prescribed when the action based on a

dated promissor note was *led 1- ears after! &he wordin)s

of the promissor note bein) Eupon demand#E the obli)ation was

immediatel due and had prescribed upon the lapse of ten

ears from the date on the promissor note!

-.CO"DITIO"ALO-LI9ATIO"%%?%P4"%IV4 CO"DITIO"(2& %CRA (3(Art. ((2(

=AVI4R /s. CA, 9.R. "o. L@+2(1+ 8arh (#, (11:

=hen a contract is sub%ect to a suspensive condition# its birthand eectivit can ta$e place onl if and when the eventwhich constitutes the condition happens or is ful*lled# and if the suspensive condition does not ta$e place# the partieswould stand as if the conditional obli)ation had nevere+isted!

H4IR% OF PA?LI"O ATI4"A /s. 4%PIDOL, 9.R. "O.(2:77#



irst# since spidol failed to pa the installment on a da certain

*+ed in their a)reement# the Atienzas can afterwards validl

cancel and i)nore the contract to sell because their

obli)ation to sell under it did not arise! /ince the

suspensive condition did not arise# the parties stood as if

the conditional obli)ation had never e+isted!

/econd# it was not a pure suspensive condition in the sensethat the Atienzas made no underta$in) while theinstallments were not et



due! r! Hustice d)ardo .! :aras )ave a *ttin) e+ample of

suspensive conditionI '"Fll bu our land for :1#@@@!@@ if ou

pass the last bar e+aminations!( &his he said was suspensive

for the bar e+aminations results will be awaited! eantime

the buer is placed under no immediate obli)ation to the

person who too$ the e+aminations!

Lere# however# althou)h the Atienzas had no obli)ation as et

to turn over title pendin) the occurrence of the suspensive

condition# it was implicit that the were under immediate

obli)ation not to sell the land to another in the meantime!

=hen spidol failed to pa within the period provided in their

a)reement# the Atienzas were relieved of an obli)ation to

hold the propert in reserve for him!

R4B4% /s. T?PARA", 9.R. "O. (22:7+, =une (, !:((

&he petitioner was rescindin) the sub%ect <eed of Conditional

/ale pursuant to Article 1161 of the Civil Code because of the

respondentFs failure#refusal to pa the balance of the total

purchase price of the petitionerFs properties within the

stipulated period! &he full pament of the purchase price is

the positive suspensive condition# the failure of which is not a

breach of contract# but simpl an event that prevented the

obli)ation of the vendor to conve title from acquirin) bindin)

force!

%P%. %A"TO% /s. CA, 9.R. "O. (!:2!:, Auust (,!:::

"n view of our *ndin) in the present case that theaG!,!eement between the parties is a contract to sell# it

follows that the appellate court erred when it decreed that a

%udicial rescission of said aG!,!eement was necessar! "n a

contract to sell# the pament of the purchase price is a

positive suspensive condition and failure to pa the price

a)reed upon is not a mere breach# casual or serious# but a



condition is imposed# the compliance of which cannot beeected e+cept when the ri)ht is deemed acquired# suchcondition cannot be a condition precedent but a conditionsubsequent!

R4%OL?TORB

CO"DITIO" ART ((2(

C4"TRAL PHILIPPI"4 ?"IV4R%ITB /s. CA, 9.R. "O.((!!&:. =uly (3, (11#

:etitioner failed to compl to build a school on the donated

land )iven b the private respondent# which prompted theprivate respondent to rescind the donation! On conditional

obli)ations# the acquisition of ri)hts as well the

e+tin)uishment or loss of those alread acquired shall depend

upon the happenin) of the event which constitutes the

condition# thus# when a person donates land to another on

the condition that the latter would build upon the land a

school is such a resolutor one and if there was no ful*llment

with the condition such as what obtains in the instant case#

the donation ma be revo$ed U all ri)hts which the doneema have acquired shall be deemed lost U e+tin)uished!

C.O-LI9ATIO"% W ITH A P4RIOD

ROW4"A R. %ALO"T4 /s. CO88I%%IO" O" A?DIT,CHAIRP4R%O" 8A. 9RACIA P?LIDO@TA", CO88I%%IO"4R

=?A"ITO 9. 4%PI"O, =R., CO88I%%IO"4R H4IDIL. 84"DOA, and FORT?"ATA 8. R?-ICO, DIR4CTOR IV, COACO88I%%IO" %4CR4TARIAT, 9.R. "o. !:3&+2, Auust (1, !:(+,

=. Velaso, =r.,

Obli)ations with a resolutor period ta$e eect at once# but terminate

upon arrival of the da certain! A da certain is understood to be that

which must necessaril come# althou)h it ma not be $nown when! "f

the uncertaint consists in whether the da will come or not# the

obli)ation is conditional! "n the instant case# a plain readin) of the

Contract of ,eclamation reveals that the si+ ?;ear period provided



for pro%ect completion# or termination of the contract was a mere

estimate and cannot be considered a period or a Eda certainE in the

conte+t of Art! 1160! &o be clear# par! 1- of the Contract of ,eclamation

statesI Ethe pro%ect is estimated to be completed in si+ ? ears!E &he

lapse of si+ ? ears from the perfection of the contract did not# ma$e

the obli)ation to *nish the reclamation pro%ect demandable# such as to

put the obli)or in a state of actionable dela for its inabilit to *nish!

&hus# !! Cruz cannot be deemed to be in dela!



RADIOW4ALTH FI"A"C4 CO8PA"B /s. %6ouses D4LRO%ARIO, 9.R. "O. (&23&1. =uly 7, !:::

:etitioner claimed that respondents are liable for the whole

amount of their debt and the interest thereon# after thedefaulted on the monthl installments# due to accelerationclause therein! ,espondents# on the other hand# counteredthat the installments were not et due and demandable#evidenced b the blan$ space left for the date on which theinstallments should have commenced and theorized thatful*llment of the obli)ation is dependent on the sole will of the debtor# hence proper court should *rst *+ a period forpament! &he act of leavin) blan$ the due date of the *rstinstallment did not necessaril mean that the debtors wereallowed to pa as and when the could# since the presence of

an acceleration clause and a late pament penalt# showedthe intention of the parties that the installments should bepaid at a de*nite date# this is an obli)ation with a period!

LI8 /s.P4OPL4 OF TH4 PHILIPPI"4%, 9.R. "O. L@&+&&2"o/em$er !(, (12+

:etitioner see$s the reversal of the decision of the lower court

which convicted her of the crime of stafa when she failed to

)ive the proceeds of the sale of the tobacco in accordance withtheir a)reement which sas that !!!pament should be )iven

as soon as the tobaccos are sold!!! and contended that the court

should *rst *+ the period! "t is clear in the aG!,!eement# that

the obli)ation was immediatel demandable as soon as the

tobacco was disposed of hence# Article 1168 of the New Civil

Code# which provides that the courts ma *+ the duration of the

obli)ation if it does not *+ a period# does not appl!

ART ((13

ARA"4TA, I"C., /s.PHILIPPI"4 %?9AR 4%TAT4%, 9.R."O. L@!!##2 8ay &(, (173

Araneta# who was not able to compl with his obli)ation to

create side streets on the sides of the land which were sold to

the :/ due to the presence of squatters# questions the



decision of the lower court orderin) him to compl with his

obli)ation within 2 ears from the *nalit of the decision! "t

must be recalled that Article 1168 of the Civil Code involves a

two;step process# the Court must *rst determine that Ethe

obli)ation does not *+ a periodE# or from the nature and the

circumstances it can be inferred that a period was intended#

because courts can not *+ a period merel because in its

opinion it is or should be reasonable and the



12

complaint not havin) sou)ht that the court should set aperiod# but must set the time that the parties are shown tohave intended!

+. O-LI9ATIO"% W ITH A P4"AL CLA?%4

%%% /s. 8OO"WAL D4V4LOP84"T * HO?%I"9CORPORATIO", 9.R. "O. 3&&+#, A6ril 3, (11&.

"s the penalt demandable even after the e+tin)uishment of the principal obli)ationW or all purposes the principalobli)ation of defendant; appellee was deemed e+tin)uishedas well as the accessor obli)ation of real estate mort)a)e#the penal clause which is also an accessor obli)ation mustalso be deemed e+tin)uished# it would be otherwise# if thedemand for the pament of the penalt was made prior to the

e+tin)uishment of the obli)ation because b then the debtorwould be in mora and therefore liable for the penalt!

TH4 -ACHRACH 8OTOR CO., I"C., /s. 4%PIRIT?, 9.R."O. L@!2+13"o/em$er 7, (1!2

<efendant alle)ed that the decision of the lower court to pa

2- percent of the amount of the truc$s in addition to the

amount of the truc$s plus 12 per cent per annum is

unconscionable and e+ceeds the rate *+ed b law! &he penalt

a)reed upon does not include the interest# and which ma

be demanded separetel and the penalt is not to be added to

the interest for the determination of whether the interest

e+ceeds the rate *+ed b the law# since said rate was *+ed

onl for the interest!

RO-4%@FRA"CI%CO R4ALTB * D4V4LOP84"T

CORPORATIO" /s. CFI, 9.R. "O. L@+(:1&, Oto$er &:,(132

:etitioner corporation questions the award for nominal dama)es

and attornes fee since the contract a)reed upon indicated an

interest at 3Y per annum of the total amount to be paid which

should be considered as penalt clause for failure to compl with



12

the obli)ation hence# the vendee cannot recover more than what

is a)reed upon! &hose who in the performance of their

obli)ations are )uilt of fraud# ne)li)ence# or dela# and those

who in an manner contravene the tenor thereof# are liable for

dama)es and nominal dama)es are not intended for

indemni*cation of loss suered but for the vindication or

reco)nition of a ri)ht violated or invaded!

#. R4CIPROCAL O-LI9ATIO"



12

9OLD4" VALL4B 4PLORATIO", I"C. /s! PI"IA" 8I"I"9 CO8PA"B and COPP4R VALL4B, I"C., 9.R. "o. (1::2:, =une ((, !:(+, =. Perlas@-erna$e

"n reciprocal obli)ations# either part ma rescind the contract upon the

otherFs substantial breach of the obli)ationQs he had assumedthereunder! &he basis therefor is Article 1161 of the Civil Code! :C

rescinded the operatin) a)reement with G5" due to failure of the latter

to advance pament for actual cost! &he court ruled that in reciprocal

obli)ations# either part ma rescind the contract upon the otherFs

substantial breach of the obli)ationQs he had assumed thereunder!

S-IRE REALT( DEELOPMENT ORPORATION vs. !A(NE (&, G.R. No.

207133, M#=> 09, 2015, !. P"#8t

&he ri)ht of rescission of a part to an obli)ation under Article 1161 of the Civil Code is predicated on a breach of faith b the other partwho violates the reciprocit between them! &he breach contemplatedin the said provision is the obli)orFs failure to compl with an e+istin)obli)ation! =hen the obli)or cannot compl with what is incumbentupon it# the obli)ee ma see$ rescission and# in the absence of an %ust cause for the court to determine the period of compliance# thecourt shall decree the rescission! &hus# the dela in the completion ofthe pro%ect as well as of the dela in the deliver of the unit arebreaches of statutor and contractual obli)ations which entitle

respondent to rescind the contract# demand a refund and pament ofdama)es!

A9CAOILI /s. 9%I%, 9.R. "O. L@&::#7, Auust &:,(122

G/"/ sold a house to A)caoili# and required him toimmediatel occup it under pain of cancellation of the sale#but A)caoili found out that the house was uninhabitablehence pament was suspended which prompted G/"/ tocancel the sale! "t is a+iomatic that Ein reciprocalobli)ations# neither part incurs in dela if the other does notcompl or is not read to compl in a proper manner withwhat is incumbent upon him!E

?"LAD R4%O?RC4% D4V4LOP84"T CORPORATIO"/s. DRA9O", 9.R. "O. (+1&&2, =uly !2, !::2



demand ful*llment of the obli)ation or as$ed for the rescissionof the contract# but not simpl not performin) their part of theA)reement!

A9CAOILI /s. 9%I%, 9.R. "O. L@&::#7, Auust &:,

(122

G/"/ sold a house to A)caoili# and required him to

immediatel occup it under pain of cancellation of the sale#

but A)caoili found out that the house was uninhabitable

hence pament was suspended which prompted G/"/ to

cancel the sale! "t is a+iomatic that Ein reciprocal

obli)ations# neither part incurs in dela if the other does not

compl or is not read to compl in a proper manner withwhat is incumbent upon him!E

VIII. =OI"T A"D %OLIDARB

O-LI9ATIO"% %OLIDARB

O-LI9ATIO"

%PO?%4% RODOLFO -4ROT A"D LILIA -4ROT /s.F4LIP4 C.%IAP"O, 9.R. "o.

(221++, =uly 1, !:(+, C=. %ereno

As previous ruled b the Court# '&he well entrenched rule is that

solidar obli)ations cannot be inferred li)htl! &he must be positivel

and clearl e+pressed! A liabilit is solidar Tonl when the obli)ation

e+pressl so states# when the law so provides or when the nature of the

obli)ation so requires!F( ,espondent was not able to prove b a

preponderance of evidence that petitioners obli)ation to him was

solidar! Lence# applicable to this case is the presumption under the

law that the nature of the obli)ation herein can onl be considered as %oint! "t is incumbent upon the part alle)in) otherwise to prove with a

preponderance of evidence that petitioners obli)ation under the loan

contract is indeed solidar in character!

OLONGAPO IT( vs. S&*I -ATER AND SE-ERAGE O., IN., G.R. No.

1712, August , 2014, !. *#;o$



/olidar liabilit must be e+pressl stated! "n the present case# the %oint and several liabilit of /ubic =ater and OC=< was nowhere clearin the a)reement! &he a)reement simpl and plainl stated thatOlon)apo Cit and OC=< were onl requestin) /ubic =ater to be a co;ma$er# in view of its assumption of OC=<Fs water operations! 9nder

these circumstances# Olon)apo Cit cannot proceed after /ubic =aterfor OC=<Fs unpaid obli)ations! &he law e+plicitl states that solidarliabilit is not presumed and must be e+pressl provided for! Not bein)a suret# /ubic =ater is not an insurer of OC=<Fs obli)ations underthe compromise a)reement!



,espondent *led a modi*cation of the order of the lower court in

a collection case prain) for the Ee+ecution of the decision in its

entiret a)ainst all defendants# %ointl and severall!E "n the

absence of a *ndin) of facts that the defendants made

themselves individuall liable for the debt incurred the are

each liable onl for one;fourth of said amount# the obli)ation

bein) described as Eindividuall and %ointlE!



=OI"T and %OLIDARB O-LI9ATIO"%

%PO?%4% CHI" O"9 WO"9 CHOI A"D A"A O. CH?A V%.

?"IT4D COCO"?T PLA"T4R% -A", 9.R. "o. !:33+3. 8arh((, !:(#, =. Car6io

/pouses Choi entered into contract to sell with :rimetown :ropertGroup# "nc! a domestic corporation en)a)ed in the business ofcondominium construction and real estate development! :rimetownon the other hand assi)ned its receivables to 9nited Coconut :lanters4an$! <espite full pament :rimetown failed to deliver thecondominium unit! /pouses Choi sued 9C:4 and :rimetown! 9C:4was not :rimetownFs successor;in;interest and was not %ointl andseverall liable with :rimetown for the latterFs failure to deliver thecondominium unit! &he /upreme Court held that considerin) that9C:4 is a mere assi)nee of the ri)hts and receivables under theA)reement# 9C:4 did not assume the obli)ations and liabilities of:rimetown under its contract to sell with /pouses Choi!

CALA"9 /s. P4OPL4 OF TH4 PHILIPPI"4%, 9.R."O. (1:717Auust &, !:(:

:hiltranco 4us has been held solidaril liable with its bus

driver# Calan)# when Calan) accidentall collided with a

%eepne $illin) a bstander and two %eepne passen)ers while

other passen)ers were seriousl in%ured! /ince the cause of

action a)ainst Calan) was based on delict# :hiltranco cannot

be held %ointl and severall liable with Calan)# based on

quasi; delict under Articles 218? and 217@ of the Civil Code

which pertain to the vicarious liabilit of an emploer for

quasi;delicts that an emploee has committed!

I. 4TI"9?I%H84"T OFO-LI9ATIO"% 8OD4% OF4TI"9?I%HI"9 O-LI9ATIO"%



%A?RA I8PORT and 4PORT CO., I"C. /s.D4V4LOP84"T -A" OF TH4 PHILIPPI"4%, 9.R. "O.L@!+172 A6ril !3, (13!

,C turned down the request of /aura# "nc! for an additional

loan which prompted /aura# "nc! to as$ that the mort)a)e be

cancelled# which was done! &he action thus ta$en b both

parties was in the nature mutual desistance X what anresa

terms Emutuo disensoE X which is a mode of e+tin)uishin)

obli)ations# a concept that derives from the principle that

since mutual aG!,!eement can create a contract# mutual

disaG!,!eement b the parties can cause its e+tin)uishment!



A. 4TI"9?I%H84"T -B PAB84"T ORP4RFOR8A"C4

RIV4LI%A R4ALTB, I"C. V%. FIR%T %TA. CLARA -?ILD4R%CORPORATIO" 9.R.

"o. (217(2, =anuary (#, !:(+, =. Perlas@-erna$e

irst /ta! Clara is entitled to be compensated for the developmentwor$s it had accomplished on the pro%ect based on the principle of quantum meruit! Case law instructs that under this principle# acontractor is allowed to recover the reasonable value of the thin) orservices rendered despite the lac$ of a written contract# in order toavoid un%ust enrichment! Muantum meruit means that# in an action forwor$ and labor# pament shall be made in such amount as the plainti reasonabl deserves! &he measure of recover should relate to the

reasonable value of the services performed because the principle aimsto prevent undue enrichment based on the equitable postulate that it isun%ust for a person to retain an bene*t without pain) for it! "n thiscase# it is undisputed that irst /ta! Clara alread performed certainwor$s on the pro%ect with an estimated value of :3#-87# 1-2!1@! Clearl#to completel den it pament for the same would result in ,ivelisa,ealts un%ust enrichment at the former s e+pense! 4esides# as mabe )leaned from the parties correspondence# ,ivelisa ,ealt obli)ateditself to unconditionall reimburse irst /ta! Clara the amount of :0#@@@#@@@!@@ representin) irst /ta! Claras valuation of itsaccomplished wor$s at :3#-87#1-2!1@# less the cash advances and

subcontractors fees after the H5 A had alread been terminated bthem throu)h mutual assent! As such# ,ivelisa ,ealt cannotunilaterall rene)e on its promise b citin) irst /ta! Claras non;ful*lment of the terms and conditions of the terminated H5A! or allthese reasons# the CA s rulin) must be upheld!

PHILIPPI"4 CO884RCIAL I"T4R"ATIO"AL -A" 'now -DO?"I-A", I"C.),/s. ART?RO P. FRA"CO, su$stituted $y his heirs, namelyQ8A?RICIA P. FRA"CO, FLORI-4L P. FRA"CO, A"D AL4A"D4RP. FRA"C:,9.R. "o. (2::71,8arh #, !:(+, =. Peralta

:amentI Althou)h Article 1281 of the Civil Code provides for a le)alpresumption of renunciation of action in cases where a privatedocument evidencin) a credit was voluntaril returned b the creditorto the debtor# this presumption ismerel prima facie and is not conclusiveP the presumption losesecac when faced



with evidence to the contrar! &he provision merel raises apresumption# not of pament# but of the renunciation of the creditwhere more convincin) evidence would be required than whatnormall would be called for to prove pament!

"4TLI" CO8P?T4R I"CORPORAT4D /s. 4RIC D4L8O, 9.R "o.(7:2!3, =une(2, !:(+, =. -ersamin

One who pleads pament has the burden of provin) it! ven where theplainti must alle)e non;pament# the )eneral rule is that the burdenrests on the defendant to prove pament# rather than on the plainti toprove non;pament! =hen the



creditor is in possession of the document of credit# he need not provenon;pament for it is presumed! &he creditors possession of theevidence of debt is proof that the debt has not been dischar)ed bpament! "n this case# respondents possession of the ori)inal copies of the sub%ect &rust "ndenture Certi*cate stron)l supports his claim that

petitioner 4an$s obli)ation to return the principal plus interest of themone placement has not been e+tin)uished!

As a )eneral rule# all obli)ations shall be paid in :hilippine currenc!Lowever# the contractin) parties ma stipulate that forei)ncurrencies ma be used for settlin) obli)ations! &his notwithstandin)#the practice of a compan of pain) its sales a)ents in 9/ dollarsmust be ta$en into consideration!

&hus# in the absence of a written a)reement between the emploerand the emploee that sales commissions shall be paid in a forei)n

currenc# the latter has the ri)ht to be paid in such forei)n currenconce the same has become an established practice of the former! &herate of e+chan)e at the time of pament# not the rate of e+chan)e atthe time of the sales# controls!

=ith the pament of 9/ dollar commissions havin) ripened into acompan practice# there is no wa that the commissions due to <elmowere to be paid in 9/ dollars or their equivalent in :hilippine currencdetermined at the time of the sales! &o rule otherwise would be tocause an un%ust diminution of the commissions due and owin) to<elmo!

4LIA-4TH D4L CAR84" /s. %PO?%4% R4%TIT?TO%A-ORDO and 8I8A 8AHIL?8@%A-ORDO, 9.R. "o.(2(3!&, Auust ((, !:(+, =. Peralta

"t is settled that compliance with the requisites of a valid consi)nationis mandator! ailure to compl strictl with an of the requisites willrender the consi)nation void! One of these requisites is a valid priortender of pament! "n the instant case# the /C *nds no co)ent reasonto depart from the *ndin)s of the CA and the ,&C that <el Carmen andher co;heirs failed to ma$e a prior valid tender of pament to /abordo!

9nder Article 12-?# the onl instances where prior tender of pament ise+cused areI 1 when the creditor is absent or un$nown# or does notappear at the place of pamentP 2 when the creditor is incapacitated



to receive the pament at the time it is dueP 0 when# without %ustcause# the creditor refuses to )ive a receiptP 3 when two or morepersons claim the same ri)ht to collectP and - when the title of theobli)ation has been lost! None of these instances are present in theinstant case!

Lence# the fact that the sub%ect lots are in dan)er of bein) forecloseddoes not



e+cuse petitioner and her co;heirs from tenderin) pament to

respondents# as directed b the court!

L4O"ARDO -O9"OT v(. RRI L4"DI"9 CORPORATIO",R4PR4%4"T4D -B IT% 94"4RAL 8A"A94R, DARIO =.-4R"ARD4, 9.R. "o. (2:(++, %e6tem$er !+,!:(+, =. -rion

NovationI "n order to )ive novation le)al eect# the creditor should

consent to the substitution of a new debtor! Novation must be

clearl and unequivocall shown# and cannot be presumed!

RODRI9O RIV4RA V%. %PO?%4% %ALVADOR C. CH?A A"DVIOL4TA %. CH?A %PO?%4% %ALVADOR C. CH?A A"D VIOL4TA%. CH?A V%. RODRI9O RIV4RA, 9.R."os. (2++#2(2++3!. =anuary (+, !:(#, =. Pere

&here are four instances when demand is not necessar to constitutethe debtor in defaultI 1 when there is an e+press stipulation to thateectP 2 where the law so providesP 0 when the period is thecontrollin) motive or the principal inducement for the creation of theobli)ationP and 3 where demand would be useless! "n the *rst twopara)raphs# it is not sucient that the law or obli)ation *+es a date forperformanceP it must further state e+pressl that after the periodlapses# default will commence! 4ased on a promissor note the partiesevidentl a)reed that the maturit of the obli)ation at a date certain#01 <ecember 166-! 9ntil 01 <ecember 166-# demand was not

necessar before ,ivera could be held liable for the principal amountof :12@#@@@!@@! &hereafter# on 1 Hanuar 166?# upon default# ,iverabecame liable to pa the /pouses Chua not onl the principalobli)ation but also dama)es# in the form of stipulated interest!

TH4 W4LL4 9RO?P I"C. V%. ?@LA"D AIRLI"4% CO. LTD. 9.R."o. (73#(1.

=anuary (+, !:(#, =. Leonen

:etitioner =elle+ and respondent 9;.and bound themselves tone)otiate with each other within a 3@;da period to enter into a sharepurchase a)reement! "f no share purchase a)reement was enteredinto# both parties would be freed from their respective underta$in)s! "tis the non;occurrence or non;e+ecution of the share purchasea)reement that would )ive rise to the obli)ation to both parties to freeeach other from their respective underta$in)s! &his includes returnin)to each other all that the received in pursuit of enterin) into the sharepurchase a)reement! At the lapse of the 3@;da period# the partiesfailed to enter into a share purchase a)reement! &his lapse is the *rst



"ATIO"AL POW4R CORPORATIO" /s. L?C8A" 8. I-RAHI8 et al.,9.R. "o.(3#27&, Fe$ruary (2, !:(#, =. Pere

Article 1232 of the Civil Code is an e+ception to the rule that a valid

pament of an obli)ation can onl be made to the person to whomsuch obli)ation is ri)htfull owed! "t contemplates a situation where adebtor pas a 'possessor of credit( i!e!# someone who is not the realcreditor but appears# under the circumstances# to be the real creditor!"n such scenario# the law considers the pament to the 'possessor ofcredit( as valid even as a)ainst the real creditor ta$in) into accountthe )ood faith of the debtor! Lence# NA:OCO,Fs pament toan)ondato of the fees and indemnit due for the sub%ect land as aconsequence of the e+ecution of Civil Case No! ?@- ;62 and Civil CaseNo! ?1@;62 could still validl e+tin)uish its obli)ation to pa for thesame even as a)ainst the "brahims and aruhoms!

ACO"A /s. =A8A"DR4, 9.R. "O. L@&:#13, %CRA, =une &:, (123

&he rental stipulated therein was :8#2@@!@@ but pament

bein) ac$nowled)ed in the receipt was :8#@@@!@@ onl# et no

mention was made in the receipt of the discrepanc and# on

the contrar# the pament was ac$nowled)ed Eas per

contractE! =hen the obli)ee accepts the performance#$nowin) its incompleteness or irre)ularit# and without

e+pressin) an protest or ob%ection# the obli)ation is deemed

full complied with!

=. 8. Tuason * Co., In. /s. =a/ier, "O. L@!2#71,Fe$ruary !3, (13:

Apart from the initial installment of :06?!12# paid upon the

e+ecution of the contract# the defendant reli)iousl satis*ed

the monthl installments accruin) thereafter# for a period of

almost ei)ht 7 ears and althou)h the principal obli)ation

under the contract was :0#?61!2@# the total paments made

b the defendant includin) stipulated interest# a))re)ated

:3#103!@7!



"f the obli)ation has been substantiall performed in )oodfaith# the obli)or ma recover as thou)h there had been astrict and complete ful*llment# less dama)es suered b theobli)ee!

ART (!+:TO W HO8 PAB84"T %HO?LD -4 8AD4

%PO?%4% 8I"IA": /s. CO"C4PCIO", 9.R. (3!2!#,Oto$er ((, !:(!



Admittedl# pament of the remainin) balance of :2@@#@@@!@@

was not made to the creditors themselves# but rather# it was

alle)edl made to a certain .osloso who was the authorized

a)ent of petitioners! ,espondentFs obli)ation consists of

pament of a sum of mone# and in )eneral# a pament in order

to be eective to dischar)e an obli)ation# must be made to

the proper person# thus# pament must be made to the obli)ee

himself or to an a)ent havin) authorit# e+press or implied# to

receive the particular pament! :ament 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 its

receipt! "f pament is made to one who b law is authorized

to act for the creditor# it will wor$ as a dischar)e!

ARA"A% /s. T?TAA", (!3 %CRA 2!2

All dividends accruin) to the said shares after the rendition of

%ud)ment belon)ed to Aranas but 9&V paid the co;

defendants despite its $nowled)e and understandin) of the

*nal %ud)ment! "t is elementar that pament made b a

%ud)ment debtor to a wron) part cannot e+tin)uish the

obli)ation of such debtor to its creditor!

PAB84"T "OT I" PHIL C?RR4"CB

HBDRO R4%O?RC4% /s. "ATIO"AL IRRI9ATIO" AD8I"I%TRATIO",9.R. "O. (7:!(#, "o/em$er (:, !::+

&he contract between N"A and Ldro is an internationall

tendered contract considerin) that it was funded b the

"nternational 4an$ for ,econstruction and <evelopment

"4,<! As a contract funded b an international or)anization#

particularl one reco)nized b the :hilippines#0 the contract is

e+empt from the provisions of ,!A! No! -26# as amended b!

,!A! No! 31@@ Act &o Assure 9niform 5alue to :hilippine

Coin And Currenc!

PO"C4 /s. TH4 HO"ORA-L4 CO?RT OF APP4AL%, 9.R."O. L@+1+1+ 8ay &(, (131



&he promissor note in question provided on its face forpament of the obli)ation in :hilippine currenc# but theaG!,!eement between the parties ori)inall involved a dollar

transaction!

"f there is an a)reement to pa an obli)ation in a currenc

other than :hilippine le)al tender# the same is null and void as

contrar to public polic# pursuant to ,epublic Act No! -26# and

the most that could be demanded is to pa said obli)ation

in :hilippine currenc# hence# a



10

creditor herein cannot obli)e the debtor to pa him in dollars#even if the loan were )iven in said currenc!

ALALO /s. L?, 9.R. "O. L@!332!, =uly &(, (13:

Appellant claims that lower court erred in declarin) andholdin) that the balance owin) from defendant;appellant to

plainti;appellee on the ",," :ro%ect should be paid on the

basis of the rate of e+chan)e of the 9!/! dollar to the

:hilippine peso at the time of pament of %ud)ment! ven if

the obli)ation assumed b the defendant was to pa the

plainti a sum of mone e+pressed in American currenc# the

indemnit to be allowed should be e+pressed in :hilippine

currenc at the rate of e+chan)e at the time of %ud)ment

rather than at the rate of e+chan)e prevailin) on the date of defendants breach!

L49AL T4"D4R

TI-A=IA /s. CA, 9.R. "O. (::!1:, =une +, (11&

Chec$s representin) deposit mone do not have le)al tenderpower and their acceptance in the pament of debts# both

public and private# is at the option of the creditor!

RO8A" CATHOLIC /s. I"T4R84DIAT4 APP4LLAT4CO?RT, 9.R. "O. 3!((:. "o/em$er (7, (11:.

/ince a ne)otiable instrument is onl a substitute for mone

and not mone# the deliver of such an instrument does not#

b itself# operate as pament! A chec$# whether a mana)erFs

chec$ or ordinar chec$# is not le)al tender# and an oer of a

chec$ in pament of a debt is not a valid tender of pament

and ma be refused receipt b the obli)ee or creditor!

PAPA /s. VAL4"CIA, 9.R. "O. (:#(22, =anuary !&,(112

:etitioner received the pament partl in cash and partl in

chec$ but was not able to encash the chec$# and now



10

questions the said pament after 1@ ears! ,espondents# on

the other hand# want the petitioner to deliver to them the

ownerFs duplicate of the title and the peaceful possession

and en%oment of the lot in question!

&he )eneal rule is deliver of a chec$ produces the eect of

pament onl when it is cashed# pursuant to Art! 1236 of the

Civil Code! &he rule does not appl# however# if the debtor is

pre%udiced b the creditorFs unreasonable dela in the

presentment of the chec$! Acceptance of a chec$ implies an

underta$in) of due dili)ence in presentin) it for



10

pament# and if he from whom it is received sustains loss bwant of such dili)ence# it will be held to operate as actualpament of the debt or obli)ation for which it was )iven!

-. CO"%I9"ATIO

" ART (!#3%OCO /s. 8ILITA"T4, 9.R. "O. L@#217( =une !2, (12&

<efendant authorized the Commercial 4an$ and &rust

Compan to issue chec$s to the plainti for the pament of

rentals# but the plainti refused to accept them! "n view of

such refusal# defendant instructed said ban$ to ma$e

consi)nation with the Cler$ of Court of the Cit Court# but the

ban$ did not send notice to /oco that the chec$s will be

deposited in consi)nation with the Cler$ of Court!

&he purpose of the notice# which is essential to the validit of

the consi)nation# is in order to )ive the creditor an

opportunit to reconsider his un%usti*ed refusal and to

accept pament thereb avoidin) consi)nation and the

subsequent liti)ation# hence# failure to )ive such notice

renders the consi)nation void!

DALTO" /s. F9.R. and D4V4LOP84"T CORP, 9.R."O. (3!#33 =anuary (1, !:((

&he withdrawal b the creditor of the amounts consi)ned wassub%ect to the e+press reservation of assailin) the validit of the consi)nation! "n such case# the creditor is not deemed tohave waived the claims he reserved a)ainst his debtor! =henthe amount consi)ned does not cover the entire obli)ation#the creditor ma accept it# reservin) his ri)ht to the balance!

ART (!#2

%OCO /s. 8ILITA"T4, 9.R. "O. L@#217( =une !2, (12&

"f the creditor to whom tender of pament has been made

refuses without %ust cause to accept it# the debtor shall be

released from responsibilit b consi)nation which is the act of



un$nown# or does not appear at the place of pamentP or is

incapacitated to receive the pament at the time it is dueP or

when# without %ust cause# he refuses to )ive a receiptP or

when two or more persons claim the same ri)ht to collectP or

when the title of the obli)ation has been lost!

%PO?%4% T4OFILO /s. R4B4%, 9.R. "O. (#:1(&,Fe$ruary !:, !::&

:etitioners failed to a oer a valid and unconditional tenderof pamentPb notif respondents of the intention to deposit the amountwith the courtP and c show the acceptance b thecreditor of the amount



deposited as full settlement of the obli)ation# or in thealternative# a declaration b the court of the validit of theconsi)nation!

"n order that consi)nation ma be eective the debtor must

show that a there was a debt dueP b the consi)nation of the obli)ation had been made because the creditor to whom a

valid tender of pament was made refused to accept itP c

previous notice of the consi)nation had been )iven to the

person interested in the performance of the obli)ationP d the

amount due was placed at the disposal of the courtP and# e

after the consi)nation had been made the person interested

was noti*ed thereof!

%PO?%4% CACABORI" /s. AR84D FORC4% A"DPOLIC4 8?T?AL -4"4FIT A%%OCIATIO", I"C., 9.R."O.(3(!12 Q A6ril (#, !: (&

:etitioner alle)ed that the lac$ of prior tender of pament to

their consi)nation case was because the were at a loss as to

which between the two the ,ural 4an$ or A:4A" was

entitled to such a tender of pament!

Article 12-? authorizes consi)nation alone# without need of

prior tender of pament# where the )round for consi)nation is

that the creditor is un$nown# or does not appear at the place

of pamentP or is incapacitated to receive the pament at the

time it is dueP or when# without %ust cause# he refuses to )ive

a receiptP or when two or more persons claim the same ri)ht

to collectP or when the title of the obli)ation has been lost!

C. DACIO" 4" PA9O

CALT4 'PHILIPPI"4%), I"C., /s. CA, 9.R. "O. 3!3:&,"o/em$er (&, (11!

<ation in pament does not necessaril mean total

e+tin)uishment of the obli)ation but onl up to the value of



the thin) )iven and the obli)ation is totall e+tin)uished onl

when the parties# b aG!,!eement# e+press or implied# or b

their silence# consider the thin) as equivalent to the

obli)ation!

P"- /s. PI"4DA, 9.R. "O. L@+77#2 8ay (&, (11(

<ation in pament is the deliver and transmission of

ownership of a thin) b the debtor to the creditor as an

accepted equivalent of the performance of the obli)ation! &he

repossession of the machiner and equipment in question was

merel to secure the pament of &CCs loan



obli)ation and not for the purpose of transferrin) ownershipthereof to :N4 in satisfaction of said loan!

FILI"V4%T /s PHILIPPI"4 AC4TBL4"4, 9.R. "O. L@

#:++1 =anuary &:, (12!

"n the absence of clear consent of appellee to the proferredspecial mode of pament# there can be no transfer of ownership from appellant to appellee b mere deliver to andacceptance b him of the vehicle and should not be construedas actual pament or more speci*call# dacion en pa)o!

CITI4"% %?R4TB /s. CO?RT OF APP4AL%, 9.R. "O.L@+21#2 =une !2, (122

"n opposin) the mone claim# ,espondent alle)ed that the

suret bonds and the indemnit a)reements had been

e+tin)uished b the e+ecution of the deed of assi)nment#

because this amounted to dation in pament whereb the

former is considered to have alienated his propert in favor of

the latter in satisfaction of a monetar debt Artide 123-!

&he transaction could not be dation in pament because

the deed of assi)nment was e+ecuted on <ecember 3# 16-6#

the obli)ation of the assi)nor to refund the assi)nee had not

et arisen# hence# there was no obli)ation et on the part of

the petitioner!

D.CO8P4"%ATIO"

FIR%T ?"IT4D CO"%TR?CTIO"% CORPORATIO" A"D -L?4 %TARCO"%TR?CTIO" CORPORATIO" /s. -AHA"IHA" A?TO8OTIV4CORPORATIO",9.R. "o. (7+12#, =anuary (#, !:(+, =. -ersamin

A debt is liquidated when its e+istence and amount are determined!Accordin)l# an unliquidated claim set up as a counterclaim b adefendant can be set o a)ainst the plaintiFs claim from the momentit is liquidated b %ud)ment! Article 126@ of the Civil Code providesthat when all the requisites mentioned in Article 1286 of the Civil Codeare present# compensation ta$es eect b operation of law# ande+tin)uishes both debts to the concurrent amount! =ith petitionersFe+penses for the repair of the dump truc$ bein) alread established



and determined with certaint b the lower courts# it follows that le)alcompensation could ta$e place because all the requirements werepresent! &he le)al interest rate to be imposed from ebruar 11#1660#the time of the e+tra%udicial demand b respondent# should be?Y per annum in the absence of an stipulation in writin) in

accordance with Article 22@6 of the Civil Code!



&he relationship of the depositors and the 4an$ or similar institution isthat of creditor;debtor! Article 167@ of the New Civil Code provides that*+ed# savin)s and current deposits of mone in ban$s and similarinstitutions shall be )overned b the provisions concernin) simple

loans! &he ban$ is the debtor and the depositor is the creditor! &hedepositor lends the ban$ mone and the ban$ a)rees to pa thedepositor on demand! &he savin)s deposit a)reement between theban$ and the



depositor is the contract that determines the ri)hts and obli)ations of

the parties!

:etitioners are not liable for the deposit of the altered chec$s! &he4an$# as the depositar and collectin) ban$ ultimatel bears the loss!

&hus# there bein) no indebtedness to the 4an$ on the part ofpetitioners# le)al compensation cannot ta$e place!9nder Art! 1287 ofthe New Civil Code# compensation shall ta$e place when two persons#in their own ri)ht# are creditors and debtors of each other!

F4D4RAL -?ILD4R%, I"C. /s.FO?"DATIO" %P4CIALI%T%, I"C., 9.R. "o.(1+#:3,%e6tem$er 2, !:(+, =. Peralta

"n the landmar$ case of astern /hippin) .ines# "nc! v! Court of Appeals#

as re)ards particularl to an award of interest in the concept of actual

and compensator dama)es# the rate of interest# as well as the accrualthereof# is imposed# as followsI '=hen the obli)ation is breached# and it

consists in the pament of a sum of mone# i!e!# a loan or forbearance

of mone# the interest due should be that which ma have been

stipulated in writin)! urthermore# the interest due shall itself earn le)al

interest from the time it is %udiciall demanded! "n the absence of

stipulation# the rate of interest shall be 12Y per annum to be

computed from default# i!e!# from %udicial or e+tra%udicial demand

under and sub%ect to the provisions of Article 11?6 of the Civil Code!( "n

line with the recent circular of the onetar 4oard of the 4an)$o/entral n) :ilipinas No! 866 Hul 1# 2@10# the Court has modi*ed the

)uidelines in Nacar v! Galler rames# wherein 'the interest due shall

itself earn le)al interest from the time it is %udiciall demanded and in

the absence of stipulation# the rate of interest shall be ?Y per annum

to be computed from default# i!e!# from %udicial or e+tra%udicial demand

under and sub%ect to the provisions of Article 11?6 of the Civil Code!(

&his case# however# does not involve acquiescence to the temporar

use of a partFs mone but a performance of a particular service#

speci*call the construction of the diaphra)m wall# cappin) beam# and)uide walls of the &rafal)ar :laza! &hus# in the absence of an

stipulation as to interest in the a)reement between the parties herein#

the matter of interest award arisin) from the dispute in this case would

actuall fall under the second para)raph of the above; quoted

)uidelines in the landmar$ case of astern /hippin) .ines# which

necessitates the imposition of interest at the rate of ?Y# instead of the

12Y imposed b the courts below! As to the rate of interest due



thereon# however# the Court notes that the same should be reduced to

?Y per annum considerin) the fact that the obli)ation involved herein

does not parta$e of a loan or forbearance of mone!

%OLI"AP /s. D4L RO%ARIO, 9.R. "o. L@#:7&2 =uly !#,(12&

or compensation to ta$e place# it is required that the amountinvolved be certain and liquidated! Compensation cannot ta$eplace where ones claim a)ainst the other is still the sub%ectof court liti)ation!

ART (12:-PI /s CA, 9.R. "O. (&7!:!, =anuary !#, !::3



:etitioner# as a collectin) a)ent# debited /alazars account! &he

account was dierent from the ori)inal account to which the

proceeds of the chec$ were credited but both accounts

belon)ed to /alazar! &he debited account was the account of the

sole proprietorship she owns! &he other account was her

personal account!

A ban$ )enerall has a ri)ht of set;o over the deposits

therein for the pament of an withdrawals on the part of a

depositor# because *+ed# savin)s# and current deposits of

mone in ban$s and similar institutions are )overned b the

provisions concernin) simple loan# hence# the relationship

between ban$s and depositors is that of creditor and debtor!

.e)al compensation under Article 1287 of the Civil Code ma

ta$e place when all the requisites mentioned in Article 1286

are present!

9A" TIO" /s. HO". CO?RT OF APP4AL%, 9.R. "O. L@!!+1:, 8ay !(, (171

&he award for attornes fees is made in favor of the liti)ant#

not of his counsel# hence# it is the liti)ant# not his counsel#who is the %ud)ment creditor and who ma enforce the

%ud)ment b e+ecution# such credit# therefore# ma properl

be the sub%ect of le)al compensation!

ART (!32

P"- /s VDA. D4 O"9 AC4RO, 9.R. "O. L@71!##,Fe$ruary !3, (123

:N4s main thesis is that when it opened a savin)s account

for "/A4.A# it :N4 became indebted to "/A4.A# so that

when "/A4.A itself subsequentl came to be indebted to it

on account of "/A4.As breach of the terms of the Credit

A)reement# "/A4.A and :N4 became at the same time

creditors and debtors of each other# thus compensation



automaticall too$ place between them# in accordance with

Article 1287 of the Civil Code!

Compensation shall ta$e when two persons# in their own ri)ht#

are creditors and debtors of each other and thatcompensation ma transpire b operation of law# as when all

the requisites therefor# set out in Article 1286# are present!

Nonetheless these le)al provisions can not appl if it has not

proven b competent evidence that :N4 is a creditor of

"/A4.A!

FRA"CIA /s. IAC, 9.R. "O. L@737+1 =une !2, (122



rancia contends that his ta+ delinquenc has been

e+tin)uished b le)al compensation and claims that the

)overnment owed him when a portion of his land was

e+propriated# hence# his ta+ obli)ation had been set;o b

operation of law!

&he )eneral rule based on )rounds of public polic is well;settled

that no set;o admissible a)ainst demands for ta+es levied for

)eneral or local )overnmental purposes because ta+es are not in

the nature of contracts between the part and part but )row out

of dut to# and are the positive acts of the )overnment to the

ma$in) and enforcin) of which# the personal consent of

individual ta+paers is not required!

%BCIP /s. HO"ORA-L4 CO?RT OF APP4AL%, 9.R."O. L@&23((, =anuary &(, (12#

:etitioner contends that respondent Court of Appeals erred

in not applin) the provisions on compensation or settin);o

debts despite evidence showin) that .apuz# an a)ent of

Albert /mith andQor <r! <wi)ht <ill# owed him! Compensation

ta$es place onl when two persons in their own ri)ht arecreditors and debtors of each other# and that each one of the

obli)ors is bound principall and is at the same time a

principal creditor of the other!

8I"DA"AO PORTLA"D C484"T CORPORATIO" /s. CA,9.R. "O. L@7!(71, Fe$ruary !2, (12&

"t is clear from the record that both corporations# petitioner

indanao :ortland Cement Corporation appellant and

respondent :acweld /teel Corporation appellee# were

creditors and debtors of each other# their debts to each other

consistin) in *nal and e+ecutor %ud)ments of the Court of

irst "nstance in two 2 separate cases# orderin) the pament

to each other of the sum of :1@#@@@!@@ b wa of attornes

fees! &he two



2 obli)ations# therefore# respectivel oset each other#compensation havin) ta$en eect b operation of law ande+tin)uished both debts to the concurrent amount of :1@#@@@!@@# pursuant to the provisions of Arts! 1287# 1286and 126@ of the Civil Code# since all the requisites provided inArt! 1286 of the said Code for automatic compensation Eeventhou)h the creditors and debtors are not aware of thecompensationE were dul present!

TH4 I"T4R"ATIO"AL CORPORAT4 -A" I"C. /s. IAC,9.R. "O. L@ 71#7: =une &:, (122

:etitioner contended that# after e+tra%udiciall foreclosin) themort)a)e# private respondent still owes the former anamount# b wa of de*cienc!



:etitioner also claimed that it has the ri)ht to appl or set o

private respondents mone mar$et claim despite the fact that

the validit of the e+tra%udicial foreclosure sale and petitioners

claim for de*cienc are still in question!

Article 1286 of the Civil Code requires amon) others# that in

order that le)al compensation shall ta$e place# Ethe two debts

be dueE and Ethe be liquidated and demandableE# because

compensation is not proper where the claim of the person

assertin) the set;o a)ainst the other is not clear nor

liquidated!

8O"DRA9O" /s. %OLA, =R., 9.R. "O. (3+22! =anuary !(, !:(&

,espondent rene)ed on his promise to pa petitioner!:etitioner thereafter withheld the pament of respondentsservice fees and applied the same as partial paments of thedebt b wa of compensation!

Compensation is a mode of e+tin)uishin) to the concurrent

amount the obli)ations of persons who in their own ri)ht and

as principals are reciprocall debtors and creditors of each

other! .e)al compensation ta$es place b operation of law

when all the requisites are present# as opposed to

conventional compensation which ta$es place when the

parties aG!,!ee to compensate their mutual obli)ations even

in the absence of some requisites!

8O"T48ABOR /s. 8 ILLORA, 9.R. "O. (72!#(. =uly!3, !:((

Hesus contends that osettin) cannot be made because the %ud)ment of the ,&C failed to specif the amount of

attorneFs fees and maintains that for osettin) to appl# the

two debts must be liquidated or ascertainable and the trial

court merel awarded to 5icente attorneFs fees based on

quantum meruit without specifin) the e+act amount thereof!

A debt is considered liquidated# not onl when it is e+pressed



alread in de*nite *)ures which do not require veri*cation#

but also when the determination of the e+act amount depends

onl on a simple arithmetical operation!

4. "OVATIO"

ARCO P?LP A"D PAP4R CO., I"C. and CA"DIDA A. %A"TO%/s. DA" T. LI8,doin $usiness under the name and style o0 ?ALITB PAP4R% *PLA%TIC PROD?CT% 4"T4RPRI%4%, 9.R. "o. !:72:7, =une !#,!:(+, =. Leonen

Arco :ulp and :aper had an alternative obli)ation whereb it would

either pa <an

&! .im the value of the raw materials or deliver to him their *nished

products of



13

equivalent value! =hen petitioner Arco :ulp and :aper tendered achec$ to .im in partial pament for the scrap papers# the e+ercisedtheir option to pa the price! &his choice was also shown b the termsof the memorandum of a)reement which declared in clear terms thatthe deliver of petitioner Arco :ulp and :aperFs *nished products would

be to a third person# thereb e+tin)uishin) the option to deliver the*nished products of equivalent value to respondent! &he trial courterroneousl ruled that the e+ecution of the memorandum of a)reementconstituted a novation of the contract between the parties! Novatione+tin)uishes an obli)ation between two parties when there is asubstitution of ob%ects or debtors or when there is subro)ation of thecreditor! &he consent of the creditor must be secured for the novationto be valid! "n this case# .im was not priv to the memorandum ofa)reement# thus# his conformit to the contract need not be secured! "f the memorandum of a)reement was intended to novate the ori)inala)reement between the parties# respondent must have *rst a)reed tothe substitution of ric / as his new debtor!

TH4 W4LL4 9RO?P, I"C. /s. ?@LA"D AIRLI"4%, CO., LTD.,9.R. "o. (73#(1.


4ecause novation requires that it be clear and unequivocal# it is neverpresumed! &he parties did not enter into an subsequent writtena)reement that was couched in unequivocal terms! &he transaction ofthe irst emorandum of A)reement involved lar)e amounts of mone

from both parties! An subsequent a)reement would be e+pected to beclearl a)reed upon with their counselsF assistance and in writin)# aswell! &hus there was no e+press novation! &here was also no impliednovation of the ori)inal obli)ation! &here was no incompatibilitbetween the ori)inal terms of the irst emorandum of A)reementand the remittances made b respondent 9;.and for the shares ofstoc$! &hese remittances were actuall made with the view that bothparties would subsequentl enter into a share purchase a)reement! "tis clear that there was no subsequent a)reement inconsistent with theprovisions of the irst emorandum of A)reement!

FORT -O"IFACIO D4V4LOP84"T CORPORATIO" /s. VAL4"TI" L.FO"9., 9.R."o. !:1&3:, 8arh !#, !:(#, =. Perlas@-erna$e

4 virtue of the <eed of Assi)nment# the assi)nee is deemedsubro)ated to the ri)hts and obli)ations of the assi)nor and is boundb e+actl the same conditions as those which bound the assi)nor!Accordin)l# an assi)nee cannot acquire )reater ri)hts than thosepertainin) to the assi)nor! &he )eneral rule is that an assi)nee of a



13

non; ne)otiable chose in action acquires no )reater ri)ht than what waspossessed b his assi)nor and simpl stands into the shoes of thelatter!-- Applin) the fore)oin)# the Court *nds that / a+co# as the &rade Contractor# cannot assi)n or transfer an of its ri)hts#obli)ations# or liabilities under the &rade Contract without the written

consent of 4<C!



13

-A" OF TH4 PHILIPPI"4 I%LA"D% V%. A8ADOR DO8I"9O'D4C4A%4D) %?-%TIT?T4D -B HI% CHILDR4", =OA"" 8OBA, 4TAL. 9.R. "o. (71+:3. 8arh!#, !:(#, =. Leonardo@De Castro

&he acceptance b a creditor of paments from a third person# who hasassumed the obli)ation# will result merel to the addition of debtorsand not novation! &he creditor ma therefore enforce the obli)ationa)ainst both debtors! As the Court pronounced in a)dalena states#"nc! v! ,odri)uez# 00 'JtKhe mere fact that the creditor receives a)uarant or accepts paments from a third person who has a)reed toassume the obli)ation# when there is no a)reement that the *rst debtorshall be released from responsibilit# does not constitute a novation#and the creditor can still enforce the obli)ation a)ainst the ori)inaldebtor!( A stran)er to a contract ma a)ree to assume an obli)ationPand while this ma have the eect of addin) to the number of persons

liable# it does not necessaril impl the e+tin)uishment of the liabilit of the *rst debtor! Neither would the fact alone that the creditor receives)uarant or accepts paments from a third person who has a)reed toassume the obli)ation# constitute an e+tinctive novation absent ana)reement that the *rst debtor shall be released from responsibilit!

Absent proof that 4:" )ave its clear and unmista$able consent torelease the spouses <omin)o from the obli)ation to pa the car loan#Carmelita is simpl considered an additional debtor! Consequentl# 4:"can still enforce the obli)ation a)ainst the spouses <omin)o even 0@months after it had started acceptin) paments from Carmelita!

L-P /s. O"9, , 9.R. "O. (1:3##, "o/em$er !+, !:(:

.and 4an$ faults the CA for *ndin) that novation )iven that

substitution of debtors was made without its consent# thus# it

was not bound to reco)nize the substitution under the rules

on novation! Novation which consists in substitutin) a new

debtor in the place of the ori)inal one# ma be made even

without the $nowled)e or a)ainst the will of the latter# but notwithout the consent of the creditor!

-OB%AW /s. I"T4RPHIL PRO8OTIO"%, 9.R. "O. L@!!#1:, 8arh !:, (123

&he assi)nment and transfer# *rst to Araneta# and

subsequentl# to appellant Bulo# Hr!# of the mana)erial ri)hts



13

over 4osaw is without the $nowled)e or consent of "nterphil!

&he consent of the creditor to the chan)e of debtors#

whether in e+promision or dele)acion is an# indispensable

requirement # since substitution of one debtor for another

ma dela or prevent the ful*llment of the obli)ation b

reason of the



inabilit or insolvenc of the new debtor# hence# the creditorshould a)ree to accept the substitution in order that it ma bebindin) on him!

CALIFOR"IA -?% LI"4%, I"C. /s. %TAT4 I"V4%T84"T

HO?%4, I"C.,9.R. "O. (+31#:. Deem$er ((, !::&

&here was no chan)e in the ob%ect of the prior obli)ations inthe restructurin) a)reement since it merel provided for anew schedule of paments and additional securit )ivin)<elta authorit to ta$e over the mana)ement and operationsof C4." in case C4." fails to pa installments equivalent to?@ das! =ith respect to obli)ations to pa a sum of mone#this Court has consistentl applied the well;settled rule that

the obli)ation is not novated b an instrument thate+pressl reco)nizes the old# chan)es onl the terms of pament# and adds other obli)ations not incompatible withthe old ones# or where the new contract merel supplementsthe old one!

A=A 8AR4TI"9 /s. HO". CO?RT OF APP4AL%, 9.R."O. ((2#2#%e6tem$er (+, (11#

"n their interrelated *rst and second assi)nment of errors#petitioners ar)ue that a novation occurred when their three

0 loans# which are all secured b the same real estate

propert were consolidated into a sin)le loan of :1 million

under :romissor Note# thereb e+tin)uishin) their monetar

obli)ations and releasin) the mort)a)ed propert from

liabilit! &he well settled rule is that novation is never

presumed and it will not be allowed unless it is clearl shown

b e+press a)reement# or b acts of equal import# thus# to

eect an ob%ective novation it is imperative that the newobli)ation e+pressl declare that the old obli)ation is thereb

e+tin)uished# or that the new obli)ation be on ever point

incompatible with the new one!

F. R4%CI%%IO"



%A"99?"IA"9 PA"L?"9%OD "9 -A9?IO CITB V%. =AD4W4LLPARI"9 %B%T48%CORPORATIO" 9.R. "O%(7::!#(7&:#!(7+(:3(7##7+(3!!(#(3!!(7(3&:+&(3 A6ril !&,!:(+, =. %4R4"O

,escission under Article 1161 ta$es place throu)h either of two modesI1 throu)h an e+tra%udicial declaration of rescissionP or 2 upon the)rant of a %udicial decree of rescission!

+tra%udicial declaration of rescission is reco)nized as a power whichdoes not require %udicial intervention! "f the rescission is notopposed# e+tra%udicial



declaration of rescission produces le)al eect such that the in%ured

part is alread relieved from performin) the underta$in)! Lowever#

the power of declarin) e+tra%udicial rescission conferred upon the

in%ured part is re)ulated b the Civil Code! "f the e+tra%udicial

rescission is impu)ned b the other part# it shall be sub%ect to a

%udicial determination where court action must be ta$en# and the

function of the court is to declare the rescission as havin) been

properl or improperl made# or to )ive a period within which the

debtor must perform the obli)ation alle)ed to be breached! A unilateral

cancellation of a contract ma be questioned in courts b the aected

part to determine whether or not cancellation is warranted! &hus# in

an e+tra%udicial decree of rescission# revocation cannot be completel

e+ercised solel on a partFs own %ud)ment that the other has

committed a breach of the obli)ation but alwas sub%ect to the ri)ht of

the other part to %udiciall impu)n such decision!

METROPOLITAN *AN) AND TR&ST OMPAN( S. -ILFRED N. %IO)/

*AN) OF T%E P%ILIPPINE ISLANDS S. -ILFRED N. %IO)/ GLO*AL

*&SINESS *AN) IN. S. -ILFRED N. %IO) G.R. Nos.

17252/175302/175394. Nov"?"# 2, 2014 !. LEONARDODE ASTRO

&he in%ured part ma choose between the ful*lment and the

rescission of the obli)ation# with the pament of dama)es in either

case! Le ma also see$ rescission# even after he has chosen ful*lment#if the latter should become impossible!

&he court shall decree the rescission claimed# unless there be %ustcause authorizin) the *+in) of a period! &his is understood to bewithout pre%udice to the ri)hts of third persons who have acquired thethin)# in accordance with Articles 107- and 1077 and the ort)a)e.aw!

&he cause of action supplied b the above article# however# is clearlpredicated upon the reciprocit of the obli)ations of the in%ured part

and the )uilt part! ,eciprocal obli)ations are those which arise fromthe same cause# and in which each part is a debtor and a creditor of the other# such that the obli)ation of one is dependent upon theobli)ation of the other! &he are to be performed simultaneousl suchthat the performance of one is conditioned upon the simultaneousful*llment of the other! =hen Nu)uid failed to deliver the a)reedamount to Chio$# the latter had a cause of action a)ainst Nu)uid to as$for the rescission of their contract! On the other hand# Chio$ did not



have a cause of action a)ainst etroban$ and Global 4an$ that wouldallow him to rescind the contracts of sale of the mana)erFs or cashierFschec$s# which would have resulted in the creditin) of the amountsthereof bac$ to his accounts!

TH4 W4LL4 9RO?P, I"C. /s. ?@LA"D AIRLI"4%, CO., LTD., 9.R."o. (73#(1.




=elle+ and 9;.and bound themselves to ne)otiate with each otherwithin a 3@;da period to enter into a share purchase a)reement! "f noshare purchase a)reement was entered into# both parties would befreed from their respective underta$in)s! or Article 1161 to beapplicable# however# there must be reciprocal prestations as

distin)uished from mutual obli)ations between or amon) the parties! Aprestation is the ob%ect of an obli)ation# and it is the conduct requiredb the parties to do or not to do# or to )ive! :arties ma be mutuallobli)ated to each other# but the prestations of these obli)ations arenot necessaril reciprocal! &he reciprocal prestations must necessarilemanate from the same cause that )ave rise to the e+istence of thecontract! 9;.and correctl sou)ht the principal relief of rescission orresolution under Article 1161! &he obli)ations of the parties )ave rise toreciprocal prestations# which arose from the same causeI the desire ofboth parties to enter into a share purchase a)reement that would allowboth parties to e+pand their respective airline operations in the:hilippines and other nei)hborin) countries!

%WIR4 R4ALTB D4V4LOP84"T CORPORATIO" V%. =AB"4 B?.9.R. "o. !:3(&&. 8arh 1, !:(#, =. P4RALTA

4ased on the ocular inspection conducted on the sub%ectcondominium pro%ect and sub%ect unit shows that the amenities underthe approved plan have not et been provided as of a 0# 2@@2# andthat the sub%ect unit has not been delivered to respondent as ofAu)ust 27# 2@@2# which is beond the period of development of

<ecember 1666 under the license to sell! "ncontrovertibl# petitionerhad incurred dela in the performance of its obli)ation amountin) tobreach of contract as it failed to *nish and deliver the unit torespondent within the stipulated period! &he dela in the completionof the pro%ect as well as of the dela in the deliver of the unit arebreaches of statutor and contractual obli)ations which entitlerespondent to rescind the contract under Article 1161# demand arefund and pament of dama)es!

?"IV4R%AL FOOD CORPORATIO" /s. CA, 9.R. "O. L@!1(##, 8ay (&, (13:

,espondent patentee was dismissed as the permanent chief

chemist of the corporation without an fault or ne)li)ence on

his part after the e+ecution of the 4ill of Assi)nment# promptin)

him to rescind the contract! &he )eneral rule is that rescission

of a contract will not be permitted for a sli)ht or casual breach#

but onl for such substantial and fundamental breach as would



defeat the ver ob%ect of the parties in ma$in) the

a)reement!

ART ((1(

D4L CA%TILLO Vda. D4 8I%TICA /s. %PO?%4%"A9?IAT, 9.R. "O.(&31:1, Deem$er ((, !::&



"n the present case# the failure of respondents to pa the

balance of the purchase price within ten ears from the

e+ecution of the <eed did not amount to a substantial breach!

9nder Article 1161 of the Civil Code# the ri)ht to rescind an

obli)ation is predicated on the violation of the reciprocit

between parties# brou)ht about b a breach of faith b one of

them however# rescission is allowed onl where the breach is

substantial and fundamental to the ful*llment of the

obli)ation!

PALAB /s. CLAV4 , 9.R. "O. L@#7:37 %e6tem$er !(,(12&

&he contract a)reed upon b the parties provided for

automatic e+tra%udicial rescission upon default in pament

without need of notice and with forfeiture of all installments

paid! 9pon default of the respondent# petitioner rescinded

the contract! ,esponde nt questioned the validit of the

rescission! &he %udicial action for the rescission of a contract is

not necessar where the contract provides that it ma be

revo$ed and cancelled for violation of an of its terms andconditions# however there should be at least a written notice

sent to the defaulter informin) him of the rescission!

ART ((71,((1(

RODRI9O RIV4RA /s. %PO?%4% %ALVADOR CH?A A"D VIOL4TA%. CH?A, 9.R."o. (2++#2 'onsolidated), =anuary (+, !:(#, =. Pere

&here are four instances when demand is not necessar to constitutethe debtor in defaultI 1 when there is an e+press stipulation to thateectP 2 where the law so providesP 0 when the period is thecontrollin) motive or the principal inducement for the creation of theobli)ationP and 3 where demand would be useless! "n the *rst twopara)raphs# it is not sucient that the law or obli)ation *+es a date forperformanceP it must further state e+pressl that after the periodlapses# default will commence!



Corollar thereto# Art! 22@6 solidi*es the consequence of pament of

interest as an indemnit for dama)es when the obli)or incurs in dela!

Art! 22@6 is speci*call applicable in this instance whereI 1 theobli)ation is for a sum of moneP 2 the debtor# ,ivera# incurred in

dela when he failed to pa on or before 01 <ecember 166-P and 0the :romissor Note provides for an indemnit for dama)es upondefault of ,ivera which is the pament of a -Y monthl interest fromthe date of default!



%OLAR HARV4%T, I"C., /s DAVAO CORR?9AT4DCARTO" CORPORATIO", 9.R. "O. (37272. =uly!7, !:(:

&he CA added that even assumin) that the a)reement wasfor respondent to deliver the bo+es# respondent would not beliable for breach of contract as petitioner had not etdemanded from it the deliver of the bo+es! =ithout aprevious demand for the ful*llment of the obli)ation#petitioner would not have a cause of action for rescission a)ainstrespondent as the latter would not et be considered in breachof its contractual obli)ation# since the ri)ht to rescind acontract arises once the other part defaults in theperformance of his obli)ation!

O%84EA III /s %%%, %e6tem$er (&, !::3

&he .etter;A)reement# the /:A# the //C resolutions assailed

in this recourse# and the "nvitation to 4id sent out to

implement said resolutions# all have a common sub%ectI the

/hares > the 178!73 illion :C"4 common shares# which# as a

necessar consequence of the 4<O; :C"4 mer)er which saw

:C"4 bein) absorbed b the survivin) 4<O# have been

transferred to 4<O and converted into 4<O common sharesunder the e+chan)e ratio set forth in the 4<O;:C"4 :lan of

er)er! As thus converted# the sub%ect /hares are no

lon)er equit securit issuances of the now defunct :C"4#

but those of 4<O;:C"# which# needless to stress# is a totall

separate and distinct entit from what used to be :C"4!

9nder the law on obli)ations and contracts# the obli)ation to

)ive a determinate thin) is e+tin)uished if the ob%ect is lost

without the fault of the debtor# and per Art! 1162 2 of theCivil Code# a thin) is considered lost when it perishes or

disappears in such a wa that it cannot be recovered!

VILLA8AR /s. 8A"9AOIL, 9.R. "O. (2277( Q A6ril ((,!:(!



:etitioner alle)ed that the absence of stipulations in the

aG!,!eement and absolute deed of sale entered into b

:etitioner and ,espondent e+pressl indicatin) the

consequences of the formers failure to deliver the phsical

possession of the sub%ect propert and the certi*cate of title

coverin) the same# the ,espondent is not entitled to demand

for the rescission of their contract pursuant to Article 1161 of

the NCC!

&he power to rescind obli)ations is implied in reciprocal ones# incase one of the obli)ors should not compl with what isincumbent upon himE#



this remains true notwithstandin) the absence of e+pressstipulations in the a)reement indicatin) the consequences of breaches which the parties ma commit!

AB%O"@%I8 O" /s. ADA8O%, 9.R. "O. L@&1&32,

Auust !2, (12+

<efendants contend 1 that the ful*llment and the rescission

of the obli)ation in reciprocal ones are alternative remedies#

and plainti havin) chosen ful*llment in the Civil Case# she

cannot now see$ rescissionP and 2 that even if plainti

could see$ rescission the action to rescind the obli)ation has

prescribed! &he rule that the in%ured part can onl choose

between ful*llment and rescission of the obli)ation# and

cannot have both# applies when the obli)ation is possible of ful*llment# if the ful*llment has become impossible# Article

1161 0 allows the in%ured part to see$ rescission even after

he has chosen ful*llment!

ART (!&+A"94L4%, 4T AL /s. CALA%A", 9.R. "O. L@+!!2&,8arh (2, (12#

&he breach of the contract adverted to b the defendants;appellants is so sli)ht and casual when we consider that

apart from the initial downpament of :062!@@ the plaintis;

appellees had alread paid the monthl installments for a

period of almost nine 6 ears! "f the obli)ation has been

substantiall performed in )ood faith# the obli)or ma

recover as thou)h there had been a strict and complete

ful*llment# less dama)es suered b the obli)ee!

?P /s. D4 LO% A"94L4%, 9.R. "O. L@!27:!,%e6tem$er !1,

"n the *rst place# 9: and A.9CO had e+pressl stipulated in the

EAc$nowled)ment of <ebt and :roposed anner of :amentsE

that# upon default b the debtor A.9CO# the creditor 9: has



Ethe ri)ht and the power to consider# the .o))in) A)reement

dated as rescinded without the necessit of an %udicial suit!E

&he part who deems the contract violated ma consider it

resolved or rescinded# and act accordin)l# without previous

court action# but it proceeds at its own ris$# for it is onl the

*nal %ud)ment of the correspondin) court that will conclusivel

and *nall settle whether the action ta$en was or was not

correct in law!

9.R4%TIT?TIO"



?"IV4R%AL FOOD CORPORATIO" /s. TH4 CO?RT OFAPP4AL%, 8A9DALO V. FRA"CI%CO, %R., andVICTORIA"O ". FRA"CI%CO, 9.R. "O. L@!1(##, 8ay(&, (13:

:etitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred in

orderin) the corporation to return to the respondents the

trademar$ and formula for afran sauce! ,escission creates

the obli)ation to return the thin)s which were the ob%ect of

the contract!

C O " T R A C T %

%8 LA"D, I"C. 'S. -A%4% CO"V4R%IO" A"D D4V4LOP84"TA?THORITB A"D AR"4L PACIA"O D. CA%A"OVA, 4%., I" HI%OFFICIAL CAPACITB A% PR4%ID4"T A"D C4O OF -CDA, 9.R."o. !:&7##, Auust (&, !:(+, =. Velaso

=r.

4C<A and /." have a)reed to sub%ect /."Fs Ori)inal :roposal toCompetitive Challen)e! &his a)reement is the law between thecontractin) parties with which the are required to compl in )oodfaith! 5eril# it is 4C<AFs subsequent unilateral cancellation of thisperfected contract which this Court deemed to have been tainted with)rave abuse of discretion! 4C<A could not validl rene)e on itsobli)ation to sub%ect the unsolicited proposal to a competitive challen)ein view of this perfected contract# and especiall so after 4C<A )ave itsassurance that it would respect the ri)hts that accrued in /."Fs favorarisin) from the same!

GID-ANI S. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 19504, !$u# 15, 2014, !. S"#"$o

Considerin) that there was a lawful Order from the /C# the contract isdeemed suspended! =hen a contract is suspended# it temporaril

ceases to be operativeP and it a)ain becomes operative when acondition occurs > or a situation arises > warrantin) the termination of the suspension of the contract!

AV4LI"A A-ARI4"TO% R4-?%?ILLO Nsu$stituted $y her heirs,e<e6t 4melinda R. 9ual/e and %ALVADOR A. ORO%CO / %P%.DO8I"9O and 484LI"DA R4-?%?ILLO 9?ALV4 and the CITB A%%4%%OR OF L49API CITB,9.R "o. !:+:!1, =une +, !:(+. =. V4LA%CO, =R.



"n absolute simulation# there is a colorable contract but it has nosubstance as the parties have no intention to be bound b it! &he main

characteristic of an absolute simulation is that the apparent contract isnot reall desired or intended to produce le)al eect or in an waalter the %uridical situation of the parties! As a result# an



absolutel simulated or *ctitious contract is void# and the parties ma

recover from each other what the ma have )iven under the

contract!

"n the present case# the true intention of the parties in the e+ecution of

the <eed of Absolute /ale is immediatel apparent from respondentsFver own Answer wherein the admitted that the purpose of the <eedof Absolute /ale was simpl to 'facilitate the titlin) of the sub%ectpropert!( considerin) that the <eed of Absolute /ale has been shownto be void for bein) absolutel simulated# petitioners are not precludedfrom presentin) evidence to modif# e+plain or add to the terms of thewritten a)reement as an e+ception to the parol evidence rule!

I. A. D4FI"ITIO"

%PO?%4% -ALILA /s. IAC, 9.R. "O. L@72+33 Oto$er

!1, (123

A contract is a meetin) of minds between two persons whereb

one binds himself with respect to the other to )ive somethin)

or render some service# the Central 4an$ of the :hilippines in

the e+ercise of its Administrative power did not create an

contractual obli)ations!

-. CO"TRACT% A% A %O?RC4 OF O-LI9ATIO"%

-ATCH4LD4R /s. TH4 C4"TRAL -A" OF TH4PHILIPPI"4%, 9.R. "O. L@!#:3(, =uly !1, (13!

Obli)ations arise from 1 lawP 2 contractsP 0 quasi;contractsP 3acts or omissions punished b law and - quasi;delicts# thecircular issued b the Central 4an$ has the force and eect of the law! Obli)ations arisin) from law# howe ver# is neverpresumed!

II. 4%%4"TIAL 4L484"T% OF A CO"TRACT

%PO?%4% TO"9%O" /s. 484R94"CB PAW"%HOP-?LA, 9.R. (7323+. =anuary (#, !:(:



A valid contract requires the concurrence of the followin)essential elementsI 1 consent or meetin) of the minds# that is#consent to transfer ownership in e+chan)e for the priceP 2determinate sub%ect matterP and

0 price certain in mone or its equivalent!

"n the present case# there is no question that the sub%ectmatter of the sale is the 0?3;square meter <avao lot ownedb the /pouses &on)son and the sellin) price a)reed uponb the parties is :0#@@@#@@@# but the



1-

e+istence of the remainin) element# which is consent of thecontractin) parties# to sell the propert# claimin) that theirconsent was vitiated b fraud# renders the contract of salevoid!

A. CO"%4"T

%PO?%4% VICTOR A"D 4D"A -I"?A /s. L?CIA P. O"9, 9.R. "o.!:3(37, =une (2,!:(+, =. Reyes

Article 106@2 of the Civil Code provides that contracts where the

consent is

vitiated b mista$e# violence# intimidation# undue inDuence or fraudare voidable or annullable!

"ntimidation ma vitiate consent and render the contract invalid# thefollowin) requisites must concurI 1 that the intimidation must bethe determinin) cause of the contract# or must have caused theconsent to be )ivenP 2 that the threatened act be un%ust orunlawfulP 0 that the threat be real and serious# there bein) anevident disproportion between the evil and the resistance which allmen can oer# leadin) to the choice of the contract as the lesser evilPand 3 that it produces a reasonable and well;)rounded fear fromthe fact that the person from whom it comes has the necessarmeans or abilit to inDict the threatened in%ur!

4ased on the petitionersF own alle)ations# what the respondent did wasmerel inform them of petitioner dnaFs conviction in the criminal

cases for estafa! "t mi)ht have evo$ed a sense of fear or dread on thepetitionersF part# but certainl there is nothin) un%ust# unlawful or evilin the respondents act! &he petitioners also failed to show how suchinformation was used b the respondent in coercin) them into si)nin)the mort)a)es!

/C armed the *ndin) of the CA that if the %ud)ment of conviction isthe onl basis of the JpetitionersK in sain) that their consents were

vitiated# such will not suce to nullif the real estate mort)a)es andthe subsequent foreclosure of the mort)a)ed properties! No proof wasadduced to show that Jthe respondentK used JforceK# duress# or threat

to ma$e JpetitionerK 5ictor e+ecute the real estate mort)a)es!

Also# the threat to prosecute for estafa not bein) an un%ust act# butrather a valid and le)al act to enforce a claim# cannot at all beconsidered as intimidation!



1-

4C4 R4ALTB A"D D4V4LOP84"T I"C. /s.RACH4L 9. 8A"DAP,9.R. "o. (17(2!,%e6tem$er (, !:(+, =. Peralta

Article 1007 of the Civil Code provides that EJtKhere is fraud when

throu)h insidious words or machinationsof one of the contractin)

parties# the other is induced to enter into a contract which# without

them# he would not have a)reed to!E



1-

"n addition# under Article 106@ of the same Code# a contract isvoidable or annullable Ewhere the consent is vitiated b mista$e#violence# intimidation# undue inDuence or fraud!E

Also# Article 1033 of the same Codeprovides that EJiKn order that fraud

ma ma$e a contract voidable# it should be serious and should nothave been emploed b both contractin) parties!E

"n order to constitute fraud that provides basis to annul contracts# it

must ful*ll two conditions!

irst# the fraud must be dolo causante or it must be fraud in obtainin)the consent of the part! &his is referred to as causal fraud! &he deceitmust be serious! &he fraud is serious when it is sucient to impress# orto lead an ordinaril prudent person into errorP that which cannotdeceive a prudent person cannot be a )round for nullit! &he circumstances of each case should be considered# ta$in)

into account the personal conditions of the victim!

/econd# the fraud must be proven b clear and convincin) evidence

and not merel b a preponderance thereof!

=hile the /C found that petitioner is )uilt of false representation ofa fact# it held that the misrepresentation made b petitioner in itsadvertisements does not constitute causal fraud which would havebeen a valid basis in annullin) the Contract to /ell betweenpetitioner and respondent!

&hus# absent# as here# of sic an controvertin) evidence# it isreasonable to presume that andap $new the contents of the Contractto /ell which was e+ecuted with le)al formalities

&he rule that one who si)ns a contract is presumed to $now itscontentshas been applied even to contract of illiterate persons on the)round that if such persons are unable to read# the are ne)li)ent ifthe fail to have the contract read to them! "f a person cannot readthe instrument# it is as much his dut to procure some reliable personsto read and e+plain it tohim# before he si)ns it# as it would be to readit before he si)ned it if he were able to do so and his failure to obtain

a readin) and e+planation of it is such )ross ne)li)ence as will estophim from avoidin) it on the )round that he was i)norant of itscontents!

"n an case# even assumin) that petitionerFs misrepresentationconsists of fraud which could bea )round for annullin) their Contractto /ell# respondents act of a+in) her si)natureto the said



1-

Contract# after havin) acquired $nowled)e of the properts actuallocation# can be construed as an implied rati*cation thereof!

%PO?%4% FRA"CI%CO %I4RRA 'su$stituted $y DO"ATO,T4R4%ITA, T4ODORA, LOR4"A, L?CI"A, I84LDA, VIL8A, and8ILA9RO% %I4RRA) and A"TO"I"A



%A"TO%, %PO?%4% RO%ARIO %I4RRA and 4?%4-IO CAL?8AL4BVA, and %PO?%4% %ALO84 %I4RRA and F4LI 9ATLA-ABA"'su$stituted $y -?4"A V4"T?RA, 4LPIDIO, PA?LI"O, CATALI"A,9R49ORIO, and 4D9ARDO 9ATLA-ABA", LOR4TO R4ILLO,F4R8I"A P4R49RI"A, and "IDA HA%HI8OTO) /s.PAIC %AVI"9%

A"D 8ORT9A94 -A", I"C., 9.R. "o. (132#3, %e6tem$er (:,!:(+, =. Perlas@-erna$e

One who alle)es an defect or the lac$ of a valid consent contractmust establish the same b full# clear# and convincin) evidence# notmerel b preponderance of evidence! &he rule is that he who alle)esmista$e aectin) a transaction must substantiate his alle)ation# sinceit is presumed that a person ta$es ordinar care of his concerns andthat private transactions have been fair and re)ular! =here mista$e orerror is alle)ed b parties who claim to have not had the bene*t of a)ood education# as in this case# the must establish that their personal

circumstances prevented them from )ivin) their free# voluntar# andspontaneous consent to a contract!

AV4LI"A A-ARI4"TO% R4-?%?ILLO Nsu$stituted $y her heirs,e<e6t 4melinda R. 9ual/e and %ALVADOR A. ORO%CO, /s.%P%. DO8I"9O and 484LI"DA R4-?%?ILLO 9?ALV4 and theCITB A%%4%%OR OF L49API CITB,9.R. "o. !:+:!1, =une +, !:(+, =. Velaso, =r.

&he <eed of Absolute /ale e+ecuted b Avelina in favor of respondents

was correctl nulli*ed and voided b the ,&C! Avelina was not in the

ri)ht position to sell and transfer the absolute ownership of the sub%ect

propert to respondents! As she was not the sole heir of ulalio and her

Adavit of /elf;Ad%udication is void# the sub%ect propert is still sub%ect

to partition! Avelina# in *ne# did not have the absolute ownership of the

sub%ect propert but onl an aliquot portion! "t is apparent from the

admissions of respondents and the records of this case that Avelina had

no intention to transfer the ownership# of whatever e+tent# over the

propert to respondents! Lence# the <eed of Absolute /ale is nothin)

more than a simulated contract!

SPOUSES VICTOR and EUNA BINUA v LUCIA P. ONG, G.R. No. 207176,

June 1, 201!. J. RE"ES

dna 4inua was convicted b the ,&C of stafa! or fear of conviction#dna e+ecuted several real estate mort)a)es over her husbandFsproperties to be able to pa her creditor# .ucia On)! /ubsequentl# thewhole scenario was novated into purel civil in nature! =hen dna



failed to settle her obli)ation# On) foreclosed on the mort)a)es! dnanow claims that the real estate mort)a)es were voidable underArticles 100- and106@ of the Civil Code as the were e+ecuted underduress and intimidation in the form of the estafa conviction!



Article 106@2 of the Civil Code provides that contracts where the

consent is

vitiated b mista$e# violence# intimidation# undue inDuence or fraudare voidable or annullable! Article 100- of the Civil Code# meanwhile#states that Ethere is intimidation when one of the contractin) parties

is compelled b a reasonable and well;)rounded fear of an imminentand )rave evil upon his person or propert# or upon the person orpropert of his spouse# descendants or ascendants# to )ive hisconsent!E &he same article# however# further states that a Ethreat toenforce oneFs claim throu)h competent authorit# if the claim is %ust orle)al# does not vitiate consent!E

"n this case# On) merel informed the spouses of dnaFs conviction inthe criminal cases for estafa! "t mi)ht have evo$ed a sense of fear ordread on dnaFs part# but certainl there is nothin) un%ust# unlawful orevil in On)Fs act! &he %ud)ment of conviction was a result of a valid %udicial process and will not suce to nullif the real estate mort)a)esand the subsequent foreclosure of the mort)a)ed properties! No proofwas adduced to show that On) used JforceK# duress# or threat to ma$edna e+ecute the real estate mort)a)es!

8ARIA"O C. 84"DOA and 4LVIRA LI8 / %PO?%4% L4O"ORA =. 9O84 and 9A-RI4L V. 9O84, 9.R "o. (7:((:, =une (2,!:(+. =. P4R4

Article 2211 of the Civil Code provides that in crimes and quasi;delicts# interest as part of the dama)e# ma# in a proper case# bead%udicated in the discretion of the court! Generall# interest isallowed as a matter of ri)ht for failure to pa liquidated claims whendue! or unliquidated claims# however# Article 2210 of the Civil Codeprovides that interest cannot be recovered upon unliquidated claimsor dama)es# e+cept when the demand can be established withreasonable certaint! "n this case# the Court allowed the award ofinterest on the actual and compensator dama)es based on %ustice#and because these dama)es could be measured a)ainst a reasonablcertain standard!

%PO?%4% 4D?ARDO and LBDIA %ILO% / PHILIPPI"4 "ATIO"AL-A", 9.R "o. (2(:+#, =uly !, !:(+. =. D4L CA%TILLO

rom 1678 to 1667# the spouses /ilos e+ecuted promissor notes infavor of :N4# as well as real estate mort)a)es to secure the loan! &heloan contracts contained an escalation clauseI '&he 4orrower a)reesthat the 4an$ ma modif the interest rate in the .oan dependin) onwhatever polic the 4an$ ma adopt in the future# includin) withoutlimitation# the shiftin) from the Doatin) interest rate sstem to the



*+ed interest rate sstem# or vice versa( and 'the 4orrower hereba)rees that the 4an$ ma# without need of notice to the 4orrower#increase or decrease its spread over the Doatin) interest rate at antime dependin) on whatever polic it ma adopt in the future!(



&he Court held that the escalation clause in the loan contract was nulland void for bein) violative of mutualit of contracts! An modi*cationin the contract# such as the interest rates# must be made with theconsent of the contractin) parties! &he minds of all the parties mustmeet as to the proposed modi*cation# especiall when it aects an

important aspect of the a)reement! "n the case of loan a)reements#the rate of interest is a principal condition# if not the most importantcomponent! &hus# an modi*cation thereof must be mutuall a)reeduponP otherwise# it has no bindin) eect!

LA"D -A" /s. H4IR% OF %PO?%4% %ORIA"O, 9.R."O. (32&(!. =anuary &:, !:(!

:endin) resolution of the case# both parties freel and

voluntaril entered into an a)reement for the purpose of

*nall settlin) their dispute in this case! As a contract# a

compromise is perfected b mutual consent# however# a

%udicial compromise# while immediatel bindin) between the

parties upon its e+ecution# is not e+ecutor until it is approved

b the court and reduced to a %ud)ment!

LA9?"AD /s. VDA. D4 9O"AL4%, 9.R. "O. L@&!:77

Auust 7, (131

:etitioner ta$es the position that he was pressured into si)nin)

the A)reement because of private respondents demand# for

pament for the Ee+ploitationE of the life stor of oises :adilla#

otherwise# she would Ecall a press conference declarin) the

whole picture as a fa$e# fraud and a hoa+ and would

denounce the whole thin) in the press# radio# television and

that the were )oin) to Court to stop the picture!E "t is necessar

to distin)uish between real duress and the motive which ispresent when one )ives his consent reluctantl because a

contract is valid even thou)h one of the parties entered into it

a)ainst his own wish and desires# or even a)ainst his

better %ud)ment!



V4LA%CO /s. HO"ORA-L4 CO?RT OF APP4AL%, 9.R."O. L@&(:(2 =une !1, (13&

&he material averments of petitioners complaint disclose lac$

of complete Ea)reement in re)ard to the manner of pamentE of

the lot in question! A de*nite a)reement on the manner of pament of the purchase price is an essential element in the

formation of a bindin) and enforceable contract of sale!



PALATTAO /s. CA, 9.R. "O. (&(3!7, 8ay 3, !::!

Appellant made a quali*ed acceptance of appelleeFs letter;

oer of a parcel of land but appellee made a new proposal to

pa the amount in sta))ered amounts within two ears in

quarterl amortizations! &o convert the oer into a contract#

the acceptance must be absolute and must not qualif the

terms of the oer# for a quali*ed acceptance constitutes a

counter;oer and is a re%ection of the ori)inal oer and such

acceptance is not sucient to )enerate consent!

-. CA?%4 OF

CO"TRACT% ART

(&#+

LAW /s. OLB8PIC %AW8ILL CO., 9.R. "O. L@&:33(,8ay !2, (12+

&he defendants admitted the principal obli)ation but claimed

that the additional amount constituted usurious interest!

9nder Article 10-3 of the Civil Code# the a)reement of the

parties relative to the additional amount is presumed to e+istand is lawful# unless the debtor proves the contrar! /ince no

evidentiar hearin) had been held# the defendants therefore

had not proven that the obli)ation was ille)al!

C. CO"%ID4RATIO"

ART. (&#+

P4"TACAPITAL I"V4%T84"T CORPORATIO" /s.

8AHI"AB, 9.R. "O. (3(3&7, =uly #, !:(:

As proof of lac$ of consideration# respondent a denied under

oath that he owed petitioner a sin)le centavo# b represented

that he did not appl for a loan and c said that when he

si)ned the promissor notes# the were all blan$ forms thus

renderin) the notes ineective!



"t is presumed that consideration e+ists and is lawful unless the

debtor proves the contrar and the presumption that a contract

has sucient consideration cannot be overthrown b the bare#

uncorroborated and self;servin) assertion of respondent that it

has no consideration!

H4IR% OF ?R4TA, %R. /s. H4IR% OF LI-4RATO?R4TA, 9.R. "O.(7#3+2. %e6tem$er (+, !:((



Althou)h the contract states that the purchase price of

₱2#@@@!@@ was paid b :olicronio to Alfonso for the sub%ect

properties# it has been proven that no such pament was

made! "t is well;settled that where a deed of sale states that

the purchase price has been paid but in fact has never beenpaid# the deed of sale is null and void for lac$ of

consideration!

III. FOR8ALITI

4% ART (3!+D?4 O-%4RVA"C4 OF PR4%CRI-4D FOR8ALITI4%

W4LDO" CO"%TR?CTIO" CORPORATIO" /s. CO?RTOF APP4AL%,9.R. "O. L@&#3!( Oto$er (!, (123

&here was no written a)reement on the additional price to bepaid for said Ee+tra wor$s#E hence# private respondent claimsthat the contractor aG!,!eed to ma$e the additions withoutadditional cost!

"n the absence of a written authorit b the owner for the

chan)es in the plans and speci*cations of the buildin) and of

a written a)reement between the parties on the additional

price to be paid to the contractor# as required b Article 1823#

the claim for the cost of additional wor$s must be denied!

LAO %O /s. %A-AB%A-AB, 9.R. "O. L@7(212 Auust1, (12#

:etitioner .ao /o$ promised to )ive his emploees their

separation pa# as soon as he receives the insuranceproceeds for his burned buildin)# but contends that the

contract was orall made hence unenforceable since it does

not compl with the /tatute of rauds! Contracts in whatever

form the ma have been entered into are bindin) on the

parties unless form is essential for the validit and

enforceabilit of that particular contract!



ART (&#7

9ALLARDO /s.HO"ORA-L4 I"T4R84DIAT4APP4LLAT4 CO?RT,

9.R. "O. L@733+! Oto$er !1, (123



&he issue here is whether or not the unnotarized deed of salecan be considered as a valid instrument for eectin) thealienation b wa of sale of a parcel of land re)isterd underthe &orrens /stem!

&he )eneral rule enunciated in said Art! 10-? is that contractsare obli)ator# in whatever form the ma have been

entered# provided all the essential requisites for their validit

are present# e+cept when the law so requires requirin) a

contract to be in some form for validit or enforceabilit!

IV. %TA94% , P4RF4CTIO"

-uatti /. Court o0 A66eals, 9.R. "o. (&2((&. Oto$er(3, !:::

A contract under)oes three distinct sta)es > preparation or

ne)otiation# its perfection# and *nall# its consummation!

Ne)otiation be)ins from the time the prospective contractin)

parties manifest their interest in the contract and ends at the

moment of a)reement of the parties! &he perfection or birth of

the contract ta$es place when the parties a)ree upon the

essential elements of the contract! &he last sta)e is the

consummation of the contract wherein the parties ful*ll or

perform the terms a)reed upon in the contract# culminatin) inthe e+tin)uishment thereof!

ART (&(# , (&(1TO"9 -ROTH4R% CO., /s. IAC, 9.R. "O. 3&1(2Deem$er !(, (123

rom the e+chan)e of tele)rams between the two parties#

there was not et a meetin) of the minds as to the cause of

the contract! &he cause of a contract has been de*ned Eas the

essential reason which moves the contractin) parties to enter

into it 7 anresa# -th dition# p! 3-@! "n other words# the

cause is the immediate# direct and pro+imate reason which

%usti*es the creation of an obli)ation thru the will of the

contractin) parties 0 Castan# 3th dition# p! 038!E General

nterprises# "nc! v! .ian)a 4a .o))in) Co!# "nc!# 11 /C,A 800#



806! or the private respondent# the cause of the contract

was the repair of its vessel Samboan)a;H while for the

petitioner the cause would be its commitment to repair the

vessel and ma$e it seaworth! &he tele)rams dated Hanuar

18# Hanuar 2@# and Hanuar 27# 168- sent b the petitioner

to the private respondent# however# indicate that the former

had not accepted the repair of Samboan)a;H# the reason bein)

that the e+tent of the repair to be made necessitated a ma%or

e+pense so that the petitioner insisted on the presence of

the private respondent for evaluation before it accepted the

repair of the wooden vessel! &hat the petitioner had not et

consented to the contract is evident when on Hanuar 27#

168-# it sent a



tele)ram statin)I "... #$ !%&M#' !S '$ '( ) '#' $* &+!,&S !#- +!M#' /,00 1#-$23 VSS0." &he fact that the privaterespondent who received this tele)ram i)nored it# con*rmsthat there was no perfected contract to repair Samboan)a;H!

%A"CH4 /s. RI9O%, 9.R. "O. L@!#+1+ =une (+, (13!

/ince there ma be no valid contract without a cause orconsideration# the promisor is not bound b his promiseand ma# accordin)l# withdraw it# and pendin) notice of itswithdrawal# his accepted promise parta$es# however# of thenature of an oer to sell which# if accepted# results in aperfected contract of sale!

V.I"T4RPR4TATIO" OF CO"TRACT%

CITI4"% %?R4TB and I"%?RA"C4CO8PA"B, I"C., /s. CO?RT OF APP4AL%,9.R. "O. L@+21#2 =une !2, (122

"t is a basic and fundamental rule in the interpretation of

contract that if the terms thereof are clear and leave no

doubt as to the intention of the contractin) parties# then the

literal meanin) of the stipulations shall control but when the

words appear contrar to the evident intention of the parties#

the latter shall prevail over the former and in order to %ud)e

the intention of the parties# their contemporaneous and

subsequent acts shall be principall considered!

ART (&3# , (&33LI8 BHI L?BA /s. CO?RT OF APP4AL%, 9.R. "O. L@+:!#2 %e6tem$er ((, (12:

=ords which ma have dierent si)ni*cations shall beunderstood in that which is most in $eepin) with the nature

and ob%ect of the contract and in the interpretation of obscure

words or stipulations in a contract shall not favor the part

who caused the obscurit!

VI. D4F4CTIV4 CO"TRACT%



A. VOID CO"TRACT%

ART (+((, (+!:-RIO"4% /s. CA88ABO, 4T AL., 9.R. "O. L@!&##1,Oto$er +, (13(

/tipulations authorizin) the imposition of iniquitous orunconscionable interest are contrar to morals# if not a)ainstthe law for these contracts are ine+istent and void from thebe)innin)!



A%IA" CATHAB FI"A"C4 A"D L4A%I"9CORPORATIO" /s. %PO?%4% 9.R.AVADOR etal, 9.R. "O. (27##:, =uly #, !:(:

A contract of adhesion ma be struc$ down as void andunenforceable for bein) subversive to public polic# when thewea$er part is completel deprived of the opportunit tobar)ain on equal footin)!

TI? /s. PLATI"?8 PLA"% PHIL., I"C., 9.R. "O.(7&#(! Fe$ruary !2, !::3

,espondent contends that the inclusion of the two;ear non;

involvement clause in petitionerFs contract of emploment wasreasonable and needed since her %ob )ave her access to the

companFs con*dential mar$etin) strate)ies! A non;involvement

clause is not necessaril void for bein) in restraint of trade as

lon) as there are reasonable limitations as to time# trade# and

place!

CARIEO /s. CO?RT OF APP4AL%, 9.R. "O. L@+377(, =uly &(, (123

Contracts of sale are void and produce no eect whatsoeverwhere the price# which appears therein as paid# has in factnever been paid b the vendee to the vendor!

TOPICQ %I8 ?LAT4D CO"TRACT%

?R4TA /s. ?R4TA, 9.R. "o. (7#3+2, %e6tem$er (+,

!:(( @.ac$in) in an absolutel simulated contract is consent

which is essential to a valid and enforceable contract! &hus#

where a person# in order to place his propert beond the reach

of his creditors# simulates a transfer of it to another# he does not

reall intend to divest himself of his title and control of the

propertP hence# the deed of transfer is but a sham!

/imilarl# in this case# Alfonso simulated a transfer to :olicronio

purel for ta+ation purposes# without intendin) to transfer

ownership over the sub%ect lands!



R?-IA% /s. -ATILL4R, 9.R. "O. L@&#3:! 8ay !1, (13&

&he lower court held that the purchase b a lawer of the

propert in liti)ation from his client is cate)oricall prohibited b

Article 1361# para)raph - of the :hilippine Civil Code# and

that consequentl# plaintis purchase of the propert in

liti)ation from his client was void and could produce no le)al

eect# b virtue of Article 13@6# para)raph 8 of our Civil

Code! Contracts Ee+pressl prohibited or declared void

b



1?

law are Eine+istent and that E&hese contracts cannot berati*ed# neither can the ri)ht to set up the defense of ille)alitbe waived!E

ART (+(:TO"9OB /s. TH4 HO"ORA-L4 CO?RT OF APP4AL%,9.R. "O. L@ +#7+# =une !2, (12&

&he issue in this case is whether or not the ri)hts of herein

respondents over sub%ect properties# which were the sub%ects

of simulated or *ctitious transactions# have alread

prescribed! A void or ine+istent contract is one which has no

force and eect from the ver be)innin)# as if it had never

been entered into# and which cannot be validated either b

time or b rati*cation!

LITA 4"T4RPRI%4%, I"C.,/s. IAC, 9.R. "O. L@7+71&A6ril !3, (12+

9nquestionabl# the parties herein operated under anarran)ement# commonl $nown as the E$abit sstemE#whereb a person who has been )ranted a certi*cate of convenience allows another person who owns motors vehiclesto operate under such franchise for a fee# and the petitioner

pras that private respondents be declared liable to petitionerfor whatever amount the latter has paid! "t is a fundamentalprinciple of in pari delicto that the court will not aid eitherpart to enforce an ille)al contract# but will leave them bothwhere it *nds them!

AR%4"AL /s. IAC, 9.R. "O. L@77717 =uly (+, (127

:etitioner questions the validit of the sale between the

respondent and /uralta but the lower court held that the

bene*t of said prohibition in the :ublic .and Act a)ainst thedisposal of an land )ranted to a citizen under that law does

not inure to an third part! &he ri)ht to set up the nullit of a

void or non;e+istent contract is not limited to the parties as in

the case of annulable or voidable contracts! &he ri)ht to set

up the nullit of a void or non;e+istent contract is e+tended

to third persons who are directl aected b the contract!



1?

8A"OTO R4ALTB, I"C., /s. TH4 HO". CO?RT OFAPP4AL%, 9.R. "O. L@+#:&2 A6ril &:, (123

<on .e)arda sold the paraphernal propert of <ona Clara to the

respondent! "t was sold three months after he was appointed asadministrator of the estate of <ona Clara &ambuntin)! &he sale

between <on 5icente .e)arda and the private respondent is

void ab initio# the former bein) neither an owner nor

administrator of the sub%ect propert#



1?

and the sale cannot be the sub%ect of the rati*cation b theprobate court!

PORT?9AL /s. IAC, 9.R. "O. 3&#7+ 8arh !#, (122

,espondent# throu)h fraudulent means was able to transfer thelot from his parents to himself without consideration or cause

throu)h a purported deed of &he "AC held that the action had

alread prescribed because an action to annul a contract based

on fraud prescribes in four ears! &he /C# however# held that

the alle)ed contract of sale is vitiated b the total absence of

a valid cause or consideration which is an indispensable requisite

for the e+istence of a valid contract! &hus# Article 131@ of the

Civil Code provides that &he action or defense for the

declaration of the ine+istence of a contract does notprescribe!

PHILIPPI"4 -A"I"9 CORPORATIO" /s. L?I %H4,9.R. "O. L@(3#23, %e6tem$er (!, (173

&he illicit purpose becomes the ille)al causa renderin) the

contracts void!

T4=A 8AR4TI"9 /s. IAC, 9.R. "O. L@7##(: 8arh 1,(123

&he parties operated under an arran)ement# commonl

$nown as the E$abit sstemE whereb a person who has been

)ranted a certi*cate of public convenience allows another

person who owns motor vehicles to operate under such

franchise for a fee! Althou)h not outri)htl penalized as acriminal oense# the $abit sstem is invariabl reco)nized as

bein) contrar to public polic and# therefore# void and in

e+istent and it is a fundamental principle that the court will

not aid either part to enforce an ille)al contract# but will

leave both where it *nds then!



1?

-. VOIDA-L4

CO"TRACT% ART

(&!3

FRA"CI%CO /s. H4RR4RA, 9.R. "O. (&112!,"o/em$er !(, !::!

&he vendor li)io# /r! entered into an a)reement with petitioner#

but that the formerFs capacit to consent was vitiated b

senile dementia! "nsane or demented persons cannot )ive

consent to a contract# but if an insane or demented person

does enter into a contract# the le)al eect is that the contract is

voidable or annullable!



CORO"4L /s. CO"%TA"TI"O, 9.R. "O. (!(:71,Fe$ruary 3, !::&

Applin) Articles 1018 and 13@0 of the Civil Code# the Court

of Appeals ruled that throu)h their inaction and silence# thethree sons of milia are considered to have rati*ed theaforesaid sale of the sub%ect propert b their mother!,ati*cation means that one under no disabilit voluntariladopts and )ives sanction to some unauthorized act ordefective proceedin)# which without his sanction would not bebindin) on him # hence# an alle)ed silence and inaction manot be interpreted as an act of rati*cation on their part!

C. ?"4"FORC4A-L4 CO"TRACT%

I9L4%IA FILIPI"A I"D4P4"DI4"T4 /s! H4IR% o0 -4R"ARDI"OTA4A, 9.R. "o.(31#13, Fe$ruary &, !:(+, =. Peralta

9nenforceable contracts are those which cannot be enforced b aproper action in court# unless the are rati*ed# because either theare entered into without or in e+cess of authorit or the do notcompl with the statute of frauds or both of the contractin) partiesdo not possess the required le)al capacit! "n the present case#however# respondents predecessor;in;interest# 4ernardino &aeza#

had alread obtained a transfer certi*cate of title in his name overthe propert in question!/ince the person supposedl transferrin) ownership was notauthorized to do so# the propert had evidentl been acquired bmista$e! &his case clearl falls under the cate)or of unenforceablecontracts mentioned in Article 13@0# para)raph 1 of the Civil Code#which provides# thusI 1 &hose entered into in the name of anotherperson b one who has been )iven no authorit or le)alrepresentation# or who has acted beond his powers!

B?VI4"CO /s. DAC?BC?B, 9.R. "O. L@##:+2 8ay !3,(12(

,espondent %ud)e assumed that as lon) as the requirements

of perfection of a contract are present in a contract which

involves pament in installments# the /tatute of rauds would

no lon)er appl as lon) as the total price or consideration is



mentioned in some note or memorandum and there is no

need of an indication of the manner in which such total price

is to be paid! "n an sale of real propert on installments# the

/tatute of rauds read to)ether with the perfection requirements

of Article 138- of the Civil Code must be understood and applied

in the sense that the idea of pament on installments must

be in the requisite of a note or memorandum therein

contemplated!



-I%ABA LA"D TRA"%PORTATIO" CO., I"C., /s.%A"CH4, 9.R. "O. 3+7!& Auust &(, (123

"n the case at bar# it is undisputed that Att! Adolfo Amor was

entrusted# as receiver# with the administration of 4"/&,ANCOand it business# but the act of enterin) into a contract is onewhich requires the authorization of the court which appointedhim receiver! &he questioned contracts can ri)htfull beclassi*ed as unenforceable for havin) been entered into bone who had acted beond his powers# due to ,eceiverAmors failure to secure the courts approval of saidContracts!

%TAT?T4 OF FRA?D%

AI"A /s. %PO?%4% PAD?A, 9.R. "O. (7#+!:, =une&:, !::#

&he contract of sale between u)enia and Concepcion wasevidenced b a receipt si)ned b u)enia! &he verbal contractof sale between did not violate the provisions of the /tatute of rauds because when a verbal contract has been completed#e+ecuted or partiall consummated# its enforceabilit will not bebarred b the /tatute of rauds# which applies onl to an

e+ecutor a)reement# thus# where one part has performed hisobli)ation# oral evidence will be admitted to prove thea)reement!

ORD?EA /s. F?4"T4-4LLA, 9.R. "O. (372+(, =une !1,!:(:

Gabriel /r!# durin) his lifetime# sold the sub%ect propert to

Antonita# the purchase price paable on installment basis#

thus# Gabriel /r! appeared to have been a recipient of somepartial paments but after his death# his son questions the

verbal sale contract between Gabriel /r! and Antonita# and

alle)ed that the contract is unenforceable for non;compliance

with the /tatute of rauds! &he /tatute of rauds# in conte+t#

provides that a contract for the sale of real propert or of an

interest therein shall be unenforceable unless the sale or



some note or memorandum thereof is in writin) and

subscribed b the part or his a)ent! =here the verbal

contract of sale# howe ver# has been partiall e+ecuted

throu)h the partial paments made b one part dul

received b the vendor# as in the present case# the contract is

ta$en out of the scope of the /tatute!

H4R"A"D4 /s. CO?RT OF APP4AL%, 9.R. "O. L@+((&! A6ril !3, (122



4oth courts were of the view essentiall that the evidence did

not bear out the claim of fraudP that under the /tatute of

rauds# the parties covenant as to their properties metes and

bounds was unenforceable since it was not reduced to writin)!

Not ever a)reement Eaectin) landE must be put in writin)

to attain enforceabilit# under the /tatute of rauds# Article

13@02 e of the Civil Code# such formalit is onl required

of contracts involvin) leases for lon)er than one ear# or for

the sale of real propert or of an interest therein!

D.R4%CI%%I-L4 CO"TRACT%

CA-ALIW /s. %ADORRA, 9.R. "O. L@!#7#: =une ((,(13#

&he conveances made b /adorra in favor of his son;in;law

were fraudulent since about seven months after a %ud)ment

was rendered a)ainst him in and without pain) an part of

that %ud)ment# /adorra sold the onl two parcels of land

belon)in) to the con%u)al partnership to his son;in;law!

Contracts b virtue of which the debtor alienates propert

b )ratuitous title or alienations b onerous title when made

b persons a)ainst whom some %ud)ment has beenrendered in an instance or some writ of attachment has

been issued# are presumed to be made in fraud of creditors#

and the decision or attachment need not refer to the propert

alienated and need not have been obtained b the part

see$in) rescission!

AIR FRA"C4 /s. HO"ORA-L4 CO?RT OF APP4AL%,9.R. "O. (:+!&+ =une &:, (11#

:etitioner moved for the issuance of an alias writ of e+ecutionon the )round of unsatis*ed %ud)ment a)ainst respondentsand "t li$ewise moved to declare the sale to a third part of aparcel of land in the name of the private respondent as onein fraud of creditors which was )ranted b the lower court!,escissible contracts# not bein) void# the remain le)alleective until set aside in a rescissor action and ma conve



title# and an action for rescission ma not be raised or set upin a summar proceedin) throu)h a motion# but in anindependent civil action and onl after a full;blown trial!

VII. 4FF4CT OF

CO"TRACT%DOCTRI"4% ,PRI"CIPL4%

(.CO"%4"%?ALITB OFCO"TRACT% ART (&:7 ,(&&7 , (&&3



R4P?-LIC OF TH4 PHILIPPI"4% /s. PLDT 9.R."O. L@(22+( =anuary !3, (171,

&he ,epublic commenced suit a)ainst the :.<& commandin)the :.<& to e+ecute a contract with it for the use of the

facilities of latters telephone sstem throu)hout the

:hilippines! :arties can not be coerce d to enter into a

contract where no a)reement is had between them as to the

principal terms and conditions of the contract since freedom

to stipulate such terms and conditions is of the essence of our

contractual sstem# and b e+press provision of the statute# a

contract ma be annulled if tainted b violence# intimidation#

or undue inDuence Articles 10@?# 100?# 1008!

!.A?TO"O8B OF

CO"TRACT% ART (&:7

WILLIA8 9OLA"9CO CO"%TR?CTIO" CORPORATIO" /s.PHILIPPI"4 CO884RCIAL I"T4R"ATIO"AL -A", 9.R."O. (+!2&:8arh !+, !::7

&he provision in the construction contract providin) for

defects liabilit period was not shown as contrar to law#

morals# )ood customs# pubic order or public polic# and b

the nature of the obli)ation in such contract# the provision

limitin) liabilit for defects and *+in) speci*c )uarant

periods was not onl fair and equitable but was also

necessar!

TI? /s. PLATI"?8 PLA"% PHIL., I"C., 9.R. "O.

(7&#(! Fe$ruary !2, !::3

,espondent contends that the inclusion of the two;ear non;

involvement clause in petitionerFs contract of emploment was

reasonable and needed since her %ob )ave her access to the

companFs con*dential mar$etin) strate)ies! A non;involvement



clause is not necessaril void for bein) in restraint of trade as

lon) as there are reasonable limitations as to time# trade# and

place!

L4AL /s.IAC, 9.R. "O. L@7#+!# "o/em$er #, (123

"t is admitted b both parties that the phrase Ethe shall not

sell to others these three lots but onl to the seller 5icente

/antia)o or to his heirs or successorsE is an e+press

prohibition a)ainst the sale of the lots described in the

ECompraventaE to third persons or stran)ers to the



contract! :arties ma establish such stipulations# clauses#terms and conditions as the ma deem convenient# providedthe are not contrar to law# morals# )ood customs# publicorder# or public polic!

D4L CA%TILLO Vda. D4 8I%TICA /s. %PO?%4%"A9?IAT, 9.R. "O.(&31:1. Deem$er ((, !::&

"n the Rasulatan# it was stipulated that pament could bemade even after ten ears from the e+ecution of theContract# provided the vendee paid percent interest! &hestipulations of the contract constitute the law between thepartiesP thus# courts have no alternative but to enforce themas aG!,!eed upon and written!

8ARI8P4RIO /s. CO?RT OF APP4AL%, 9.R. "O. L@+:!&+ Deem$er (+, (123

A contract is the law between the contractin) parties# andwhen there is nothin) in it which is contrar to law# morals#)ood customs# public polic or public order# the validit of the contract must be sustained!

ART ((#1

OCC4"A /s. HO". =A-%O", 9.R. "O. L@++&+1, Oto$er!1, (137

,espondents complaint see$s that the court Erender %ud)ment

modifin) the terms and Conditions of the Contract b *+in) the

proper shares that should pertain to the herein parties out of the

)ross proceeds from the sales of subdivided lots of sub%ect

subdivisionE# citin) A,& 12?8 of the New Civil Code! &he

cited article does not )rant the courts this authorit to

rema$e# modif or revise the contract between the parties as

contractuall stipulated with the force of law between the

parties# so as to substitute its own terms for those covenanted

b the parties themselves!

CA-AH?9 /s "APOCOR, 9.R. "O. (27:71, =anuary &:,!:(&



<isre)ardin) the stipulations in the contract allowin)

additional compensation for easement fee# the CA ruled that

Cabahu)s attempt to collect further sums b wa of

additional easement fee and#or %ust compensation is violative

of said contract! "t is settled that a contract constitutes the

law between the parties who are bound b its stipulations

which# when couched in clear and plain lan)ua)e# should be

applied accordin) to their literal tenor and the courts cannot

suppl material stipulations# which contradict the intent of the

parties!



&.8?T?ALITB OF CO"TRACT%

-A"CO FILIPI"O %AVI"9% /s. "AVARRO, 9.R. "O. L@+7#1(, =uly !2, (123

scalation clauses to be valid should speci*call provideI 1that there can be an increase in interest if increased b law or

b the onetar 4oardP and 2 in order for such stipulation to

be valid# it must include a provision for reduction of the

stipulated interest Ein the event that the applicable ma+imum

rate of interest is reduced b law or b the onetar 4oardE

in order to be valid which is $nown as deescalation clause!

%PO?%4% FLOR4"DO /s. CO?RT OF APP4AL%, 9.R.

"O. (:(33(Deem$er (3, (117

"n order that obli)ations arisin) from contracts ma have the

force of law between the parties# there must be mutualit

between the parties based on their essential equalit# hence#

a contract containin) a condition which ma$es its ful*llment

dependent e+clusivel upon the uncontrolled will of one of the

contractin) parties# is void!

ART (&:2

PHILIPPI"4 "ATIO"AL -A" /s. %PO?%4%A9?%TI", 9.R. "O.(7+#+1 %e6tem$er (2, !::1

&he spouses ,ocamora posit that their loan would not have

bloated to more than double the ori)inal amount if :N4 had

not increased the interest rates and had it immediatelforeclosed the mort)a)es! An increase in the rate of interest

made pursuant to an escalation clause must not be left solel

to the will of one of the parties# but must be the result of a

mutual a)reement between the parties# hence# a de;escalation

clause that would authorize a reduction in the interest rates

correspondin) to downward chan)es made b law or b the



onetar 4oard must be included# otherwise# the chan)e

carries no bindin) eect!

+.R4LATIVITB , PRIVITB OF CO"TRACT%

DC HOLDI"9% CORPORATIO" /s. CO?RT OF APP4AL%,9.R. "O. ((2!+2 A6ril #, !:::

4ein) an heir there is privit of interest between the heir andthe deceased# hence# heirs are bound b contractsentered into b their



predecessors;in;interest e+cept when the ri)hts and obli)ationsarisin) therefrom are not transmissible b 1 their nature# 2stipulation or 0 provision of law!

84TROPOLITA" -A" /s. R4B"ADO, 9.R. "O.

(7+#&2, Auust 1, !:(:

,espondents are not parties to the a)reement# nor assi)ns orheirs of either of the parties but who rel on the debtsettlement a)reement petitioner and 9niversal to precludeprosecution of the oense of estafa or prevent the incipienceof an liabilit that ma arise from the criminal oense! &he civillaw principle of relativit of contracts provides that Econtractscan onl bind the parties who entered into it# and it cannotfavor or pre%udice a third person# even if he is aware of such

contract and has acted with $nowled)e thereof!E

PR?D4"TIAL -A" A"D TR?%T CO8PA"B /s.A-A%OLO, 9.R. "O.(273&2, %e6tem$er !3, !:(:

Contracts ta$e eect onl between the parties# their assi)ns

and heirs# and if a contract should contain some stipulation in

favor of a third person# the contractin) parties must have

clearl and deliberatel conferred a favor upon the third

person!

VIII. I"D% OF CO"TRACT%

A.I""O8I"AT4CO"TRACT% ART (&:3CORP?% /s. CO?RT OF APP4AL%, 9.R. "O. L@+:+!+ =une &:, (12:

&here was no e+press contract between the parties for the

pament of attornes fees# but the respondent rendered le)al

services to petitioner! &he pament of attornes fees to

respondent ma be %usti*ed b virtue of the innominate

contract of facio ut des " do and ou )ive which is based on

the principle that Eno one shall un%ustl enrich himself at the

e+pense of anotherE and under Article 10@8 such contracts



shall be re)ulated b the stipulations of the parties# b the

)eneral provisions or principles of obli)ations and contracts#

b the rules )overnin) the most analo)ous nominate

contracts# and b the customs of the people!

-.DIVI%I-L4 CO"TRACT%-RIO"4% /s. CA88ABO, 4T AL., 9.R. "O. L@!&##1,Oto$er +, (13(



Accordin) to the appellants# a usurious loan is void due to

ille)alit of cause or ob%ect# the rule of pari delicto applies# so

that neither part can brin) action a)ainst each other! A

contract of loan with usurious interest consists of two

stipulations which are divisible in the sense that the former

can still stand without the latter# the principal and the

accessor stipulationsP the principal one is to pa the debtP

the accessor stipulation is to pa interest thereon# and in

case of a divisible contract# if the ille)al terms can be

separated from the le)al ones# the latter ma be enforced!E

C.CO"TRACT OF

ADH4%IO" ART (3#:

O"9 BI? /s. HO"ORA-L4 CO?RT OF APP4AL%, 9.R."O. L@+:#13 =une !1, (131

:etitioner contends that respondent Court committed )rave

error when it limited :A.s carria)e liabilit to the amount of

:1@@!@@ as stipulated at the bac$ of the tic$et and ar)ues that

he had not actuall entered into a contract with :A. limitin) the

latters liabilit for loss or dela of the ba))a)e of its

passen)ers! =hile it ma be true that petitioner had not si)ned

the plane tic$et he is nevertheless bound b the provisions

thereof it bein) a contract of EadhesionE# wherein one part

imposes a read made form of contract on the other and the

one who adheres to the contract is in realit free to re%ect it

entirel# but if he adheres# he )ives his consent!

ART (&!7C * C CO884RCIAL CORPORATIO" /s. 84"OR, 9.R."O. L@!2&7:

=anuary !3, (12&

Advertisements for bidders are simpl invitations to ma$eproposals# and the advertiser is not bound to accept the hi)hestor lowest bidder# unless the contrar appears!

ART (&&!



TA"9 /s. CO?RT OF APP4AL%, 9.R. "O. L@+2#7& 8ay!#, (131

"t is the position of the petitioner that because .ee /ee Guat

was illiterate and spo$e onl Chinese# she could not be held)uilt of concealment of her health histor because the

applications for insurance were in n)lish and the insurer has

not proved that the terms thereof had been full e+plained to

her! &he obli)ation to show that the terms of the contract had

been full e+plained to the part who is unable to

read or



18

understand the lan)ua)e of the contract# when fraud ormista$e is alle)ed# devolves on the part see$in) to enforceit!

-?4"AV4"T?RA A"94L4%, 4T AL. /s. ?R%?LA

TORR4% CALA%A", 4T AL., 9.R. "O. L@+!!2&8arh (2, (12#

&he plaintis;appellees# ea)er to acquire a lot upon which

the could build a home# a+ed their si)natures and

assented to the terms and conditions of the contract and the

had no opportunit to question nor chan)e an of the terms

of the a)reement since it was oered to them on a Eta$e it or

leave itE basis! /uch contracts are called contracts of

adhesion# because the onl participation of the part is the

si)nin) of his si)nature or his EadhesionE thereto hence must

be construed a)ainst the part causin) it!

I. %TIP?LATIO" POR A?TR?I

-O"IFACIO -RO%., I"C., 4T AL., /s. 8ORA, 4T AL.,9.R. "O. L@ !:2#& 8ay !1, (173

&he appellants see$ to recover the insurance proceeds#

relin) upon the insurance contract e+ecuted b and

between the /tate 4ondin) U "nsurance Compan# "nc! and

ora! Contracts ta$e eect onl between the parties thereto#

e+cept where the contract contains some stipulations# $nown

as stipulations por atrui# in favor of a third person# who is

allowed to avail himself of a bene*t )ranted to him b the

terms of the contract# provided that the contractin) partieshave clearl and deliberatel conferred a favor upon such

person# however such third person not a part to the contract

has no action za)ainst the parties thereto# and cannot

)enerall demand the enforcement of the same# if he did not

communicate his acceptance thereto to the obli)or before the

revocation!



18

FLOR4"TI"O /s. 4"CAR"ACIO", %R., 9.R. "O. L@!3717 %e6tem$er &:, (133

&o constitute a valid stipulation pour autrui it must be thepurpose and intent of the stipulatin) parties to bene*t the

third! "t is not sucient that the third person ma beincidentall bene*ted b the stipulation!

9.R. "O. (!:##+ %e6tem$er!(, (111 %O PI"9 -?" /s.CO?RT OF APP4AL%

pals case syllabi civil 2015

Documents