case digests

(1)

Pic-it, Christian; Aguilar, Joana Rose; Balusdan, Septfonette; Belvis, Eunice Fleur; Bondad, Nicole; Cortez, Kimberly Agniezka R.; Datario, Mary Ruth; De Guzman, Chanell; Fango-ok, Cita

Obligation and Contracts

(Cases)

SUBMITTED TO: Atty. Lulu Reyes

SUBMITTED BY: Pic-it, Christian B. Aguilar, Joana Rose Balusdan, Septfonette Fe

Belvis, Eunice Bondad, Nicole Y. Cortez, Kimberly Agniezka R.

Datario, Mary Ruth V. De Guzman, Chanell Dolor D.

Fango-ok, Cita C. (LL.B. I; Block B)

(2)

Table of Contents

Note: For Easy Navigation of Cases, Press Ctrl then click the case of choice.

OCAMPO III. VS. PEOPLE ... 16

Leung Ben v. O'Brien ... 17

Pelayo v. Lauron ... 18

ASJ Corporation v. Sps. Evangelista ... 20

RAMAS VS.QUIAMCO... 21

Nikko Hotel Manila Garden v. Reyes ... 22

St. Mary's Academy v. Carpitanos ... 24

TSPI, INCORPORATION VS. TSPIC EMPLOYEES UNION ... 26

REGINO VS. PCST ... 27

PSBA v. Court of Appeals ... 28

Cosmo Entertainment v. La Ville ... 30

Ayala Corp. vs. Rosa Diana Realty ... 31

Bricktown Development vs. Amor Tierra Development ... 33

Sarte Flores v. Sps. Lindo ... 38

Philippine Realty and Holding Corp. v. Ley Const. and Dev. Corp. ... 40

Titan-Ikeda Construction v. Primetown Property ... 42

PADCOM v. Ortigas ... 44

MC Engineering v. Court of Appeals ... 46

BPI v. Pineda... 48

State Investment v. CA ... 49

People v. Nurfrasir Hashim, et al. ... 51

Abellana v. People ... 53 People v. Malicsi ... 56 People v. Sia ... 58 People v. Doctolero ... 59 People v. Abulencia ... 61 Bermudez v. Melencio-Herrera ... 62 People v. Relova ... 64

Manantan v. Court of Appeals ... 65

People v. Bayotas ... 67

Barredo v. Garcia ... 69

Del Carmen, Jr. v. Geronimo Bacoy et.al ... 70

Ludo and Luym Corp. v. Court of Appeals ... 72

Thermochem v. Naval ... 73

(3)

Dy Teban v. Ching ... 77

Safeguard Security v. Tangco ... 78

Villanueva v. Domingo ... 79

Calalas v. Court of Appeals ... 80

Picart v. Smith ... 82

Durban apartments v. Pioneer Insurance ... 83

Lagon v. Hooven Comalco... 85

Francisco v. Court of Appeals ... 87

Spouses Lorenzo G. Francisco and Lorenza D. Francisco, Petitioners, versus Honorable Court of Appeals, and Bienvenido C. Mercado, respondents... 87

Tanguilig v. Court of Appeals. ... 88

Periquet v. Court of Appeals ... 90

Legaspi Oil v. Court of Appeals... 92

Philippine Charter v. Central Colleges ... 93

Titan-Ikeda Construction v. Primetown Property ... 95

PNB Madecor vs. Uy ... 96

Barzaga vs. Court of Appeals... 97

Tanguilig v Court of Appeals ... 98

Tayag vs. Court of Appeals ... 99

Periquet v. Court of Appeals ... 100

Raquel-Santos vs. Court of Appeals ... 101

RCBC vs. Court of Appeals... 102

State Investment vs. Court of Appeals ... 103

BPI Investment vs. Court of Appeals ... 105

Leano vs. Court of Appeals ... 106

Heirs of Bacus v. Court of Appeals ... 107

Integrated Packaging Corp. v. Court of Appeals ... 108

Laforteza v. Machuca ... 111

Regala v. Carin ... 113

International Corporate Bank v. Gueco ... 115

Republic v. CTA ... 117

Diaz v. Davao Light and Power Co. ... 118

Yasona v. De Ramos... 119

Yambao v. Zuniga ... 122

Smith bell Corp v. Borja ... 123

Ilusorio v. Court of Appeals ... 124

(4)

Muaje-Tuazon v. Verchez ... 127

RCPI v. Verchez ... 128

Victory Liner v Gammad, 444 S 355 ... 130

FGU v. Sarmiento, 386 S 355... 131

LRTA v. Natividad ... 132

Rodzssen v. Far East Bank, 357 S 618 ... 134

UE v. Jader... 136

Bayne Adjusters v. Court of Appeals ... 137

Delsan v. C & A Construction ... 139

Philippine Commercial Bank v. Court of Appeals ... 142

SMC v. Court of Appeals ... 144

Heirs of Ochoa v. G & S Transport Corp... 147

Pacis v. Morales ... 148

Philippine Hawk Corporation v. Lee ... 150

Mercury Drug Corp., v. Huang ... 152

Mendoza v. Soriano ... 153

Cerezo v. Tuazon ... 155

Filcar Transport Services v. Espinas ... 157

FEB Leasing v. Sps. Baylon ... 160

Filipinas Synthetic v. De Los Santos ... 163

Viron v. De Los Santos ... 164

Mercury Drug v. Baking ... 166

Safeguard Security v. Tangco ... 168

Pleyto v. Lomboy ... 171

SYKL VS. BEGASA ... 173

Yambao v. Zuniga ... 175

Mindanao Terminal v. Phoenix ... 178

YHT Realty v. CA ... 180

Ramos v. CA ... 181

Reyes v. Sister of Mercy ... 184

Nogales v. Capitol Medical Center ... 186

Professional Services v. Agana ... 188

Professional Services v. CA ... 190

Cantre v. Sps. Go ... 191

Dr. Rubi Li v. Sps Soliman ... 193

People v. Delos Santos... 195

(5)

Magat v. Medialdea ... 198

Vda. De Mistica v. Naguiat ... 199

Co v. Court of Appeals ... 200

Heirs of Quirong v. DBP ... 202

Heirs of Gaite v. The Plaza ... 204

Solar Harvest Incorporated vs. Davao Corrugated ... 207

Reyes v. Tuparan ... 209

G.G. Sportwear Mfg. Corp v. World Class Properties, Inc. ... 211

Movido v. Reyes Pastor ... 213

Spouse Tongson v. Emergency Pawnshop ... 214

Sanz Maceda v. DBO ... 216

Raquel-Santos v. CA ... 218

Francisco v. DEAC Const. Inc. ... 220

Cannu V. Galang ... 222

Villanueva v. Estate of Gonzaga ... 224

Paguyo v. Astorga ... 226

Casino v. CA ... 228

Carrascoso v. CA ... 230

Goldenrod v. CA ... 233

Serrano v. CA ... 236

Gil v. Court of Appeals ... 236

Reyes v. Lim ... 238

Ong v. Tui ... 239

Equatorial Realty v. Mayfair Theater ... 241

Velarde v. CA ... 243

Asuncion v. Evangelista ... 244

Uy v. Court of Appeals ... 246

Tamayo et al. v. Abad Senora ... 248

Tan v. OMC Carriers ... 249

Victory liner v. Heirs ... 251

GSIS v. Labung-Deang ... 253

BPI Investment v. D.G. Carreon ... 255

Khe Hong v. Court of Appeals ... 256

Philippine Realty v. Ley Const. and Dev. Corp... 258

Megaworld Globus Asia, Inc. v. Tanseco ... 259

Sicam v. Jorge ... 260

(6)

Ace Agro v. Court of Appeals ... 263

Dioquino v. Laureano ... 265

Bachelor Express v. Court of Appeals ... 266

Vasquez v. Court of Appeals ... 267

Yobido v. Court of Appeals ... 268

Juntilla v. Fontanar ... 270

Philamgen Insurance v. MGG Marine ... 271

Mindex v. Morillo ... 273

NAPOCOR v. Phillip Bros. ... 275

Ong Genato v. Bayhon, et al. ... 278

Union Bank v. Santibanez ... 279

San Agustin v. Court of Appeals ... 281

Project Builders, Inc. v. Court of Appeals ... 282

Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank v. Sps. Broqueza ... 283

DBP v. Court of Appeals ... 285

Tomimbang v. Tomimbang ... 287

Gonzales v. Heirs ... 288

Insular Life v. Young... 290

Direct Funders v. Lavina... 291

Vda. De Mistica v. Naguiat ... 292

Hermosa v. Longara ... 293

Trillana v. Quezon Colleges ... 294

Visayan Sawmill v. Court of Appeals ... 295

Leano v. Court of Appeals ... 296

De Leon v. Ong ... 297

Heirs of Sandejas v. Lina ... 298

CIR v. Primetown ... 299

NAMARCO v. Tecson ... 301

Berg v. Magdalena Estates ... 302

Lirag v. Court of Appeals ... 304

Daguhoy v. Ponce ... 306

Victoria Planters v. Victoria Milling ... 307

Jespajo v. CA... 308

Borromeo v. Court of Appeals ... 309

Gonzales v. Jose ... 310

Baluyut v. Poblete ... 311

(7)

Kasapian ng Manggagawa ng Coca-cola v. Court of Appeals ... 314

Santos vs. Santos ... 315

Melotindos v. Tobias ... 318

LL and Co. v. Huang ... 319

Brent School v. Zamora... 322

Lim v. People ... 322

Pacific Banking v. Court of Appeals ... 323

Agoncillo v. Javier ... 325

Ong Guan v. Century ... 327

Legarda v. Miailhe ... 328

Reyes v. Martinez ... 329

Quizana v. Redugerio ... 330

Marsman v. Philippine Geoanalytics ... 331

Alipio v. Court of Appeals ... 333

PH Credit Corp. v. Court of Appeals ... 334

CDCP VS ESTRELLA ... 336

Republic Glass Corp. v. Qua ... 337

Industrial Management v. NLRC... 338

Metro Manila Transit Corp. v. Court of Appeals ... 339

Inciong v.Court of Appeals ... 341

Philippine Blooming Mills v. Court of Appeals ... 344

Queensland-Tokyo v. George ... 346

Shrimp Specialist, Inc., v. Fuji Triumph ... 348

Asset Builders v. Stronghold ... 350

Eparwa Secutrity v. Liceo de Cagayan ... 352

Carlos Dimayuga v.PCIB ... 354

Cerna v. Court of Appeals ... 356

Nazareno v. Court of Appeals ... 358

Alonzo v. San Juan ... 359

David v. Court of Appeals ... 361

RP v. Thi Thu Thuy ... 361

Marques v. Far East Bank... 364

Prisma Construction v. Menchavez ... 366

Macalalag v. People ... 367

Tan v. Court of Appeals... 369

Eastern Shipping v. Court of Appeals ... 370

(8)

NSBC v. PNB ... 374

Polotan v. Court of Appeals ... 375

NSBC v. PNB ... 377

Estores v. Sps Supangan ... 379

Hung v. BPI Card ... 381

Land Bank v. Ong ... 385

RGM Industries v. United Pacific ... 386

Prisma Industries v. United Pacific ... 388

Maceda, Jr. v. DBO ... 389

PNB v. Encina ... 391

Imperial v. Jaucian ... 393

Pabugais v. Sahijwani ... 395

Lo v. Court of Appeals ... 397

Ligutan v. Court of Appeals ... 400

Pascual v. Ramos ... 402

First Metro Investment v. Este Del Sol ... 403

Domel Trading v. Court of Appeals ... 405

Medel v. Court of Appeals ... 407

Reformina v. Tomol ... 409

Lo v. KJH ... 411

PNB v. Court of Appeals ... 412

Cathay Pacific Airways v. Vazquez ... 413

Citibank v. Sabeniano ... 414

Telengton Bros. v. US Lines ... 415

C.F. Sharp v. Northwest Airlines ... 416

Padilla v. Paredes ... 417

Tibajia v. Court of Appeals ... 418

DBP v. Court of Appeals ... 419

Vitarich vs. Losin ... 421

Metrobank vs. Cabilzo ... 422

Almeda v. Bathala Marketing ... 424

PCI vs Ng Shueng Ngor... 426

Palanca v. Guides ... 427

PCIB v. Court of Appeals ... 428

Lagon v. Hooven Comalco... 429

(9)

Republic v. Thi Thu Thuy De Guzman ... 432

Audion Electric v. NLRC ... 433

Land Bank of the Philippines v. Ong ... 435

Binalbagan v. CA ... 437

Lorenzo Shipping v. BJ Marthel ... 438

Luzon Development Bank v. Enriquez ... 439

Estanislao v. East-West Bank Corp. ... 441

Aquintey v. Tibong... 442

Vda de Jayme v. CA... 443

Caltex v IAC ... 444

Lo v. Court of Appeals ... 446

ASI Corp. v. Evangelista... 447

Paculdo v. Regalado ... 448

CBC v. Court of Appeals ... 449

Mobil v. Court of Appeals ... 450

Dalton v. FGR Realty and Development Corp. ... 451

Benos v. Lawilao ... 452

People’s Industrial v. Court of Appeals ... 453

Eternal Gardens v. Court of Appeals ... 454

Rayos v. Reyes ... 455

Cebu International v. Court of Appeals ... 456

De Mesa v. Court of Appeals ... 457

Occena v. Court of Appeals ... 458

Ortigas v. Feati Bank ... 459

So v. Food Fest Land, Inc. ... 460

Magat v. Court of Appeals ... 462

PNCC v. Court of Appeals ... 463

NATELCO v. Court of Appeals ... 465

Reyna v. COA ... 466

Trans Pacific v. Court of Appeals ... 467

Dalupan v. Harden ... 468

Lopez Vito v. Tambunting ... 469

Estate of Mota v. Serra ... 470

Yek Ton Lin v. Yusingco ... 471

EGV Realty v. Court of Appeals ... 472

Aerospace Chemical v. Court of Appeals ... 473

(10)

Sps Chung v. Ulanday Construction ... 475

Insular Investment v. Capital One ... 476

Lao, et al. v. Special Plans Inc. ... 477

United Planters Sugar v. Court of Appeals... 478

PNB Management v. R&R Metal ... 479

Silahis Marketing Corp. v. IAC ... 480

Francia v. IAC ... 482

Trinidad v. Acapulco ... 484

Heirs of Franco v. Sps. Gonzales... 486

Hernandez-Nievera v. Hernandez ... 488

St. James College of Paranaque v. Equitable PCI ... 489

Tomimbang v. Tomimbang ... 490

Mindanao Savings and Loan Association, Inc. v. Willkom ... 491

Aquintey v. Sps. Tibong ... 493

Loadmasters Customs Services, Inc. v. Glodel Brokerage Corp. ... 495

Metropolitan Bank v. Rural Bank of Gerona ... 497

Swagman Hotels and Travel, Inc. v. Court of Appeals ... 498

Yuseco v. Court of Appeals ... 500

California bus lines, inc. V. State investment house, Inc. ... 502

Ocampo-Paule v. Court of Appeals ... 504

Reyes v. Court of Appeals ... 505

Sps. Bautista v. Pilar Development Corp. ... 506

Evadel Realty and Development Corp. v. Sps. Soriano ... 509

Villeza v. German Management and Services, Inc. ... 511

Insurance of the Philippine Islands Corp. v. Sps. Gregorio ... 512

Mariano v. Petron Corp. ... 514

Sps. Bernales v. Heirs of Sambaan ... 515

B & I Realty Co. v. Caspe ... 517

Mesina v. Garcia ... 519

Laureano v. Court of Appeals ... 523

Banco Filipino v. Court of Appeals... 524

Vda. De Delgado v. Court of Appeals... 525

Maestrado v. Court of Appeals ... 527

F.A.T. Kee Computer System v. Online Networks International ... 528

Tanay Recreation Center v. Fausto ... 530

Mendoza v. Court of Appeals ... 532

(11)

Placewell International v. Camote ... 535

Heirs of Ragua v. Court of Appeals ... 537

Metrobank v. Court of Appeals ... 539

Sps. Del Ocampo v. Court of Appeals ... 540

Cuenco v. Vda. De Manguerra ... 541

Laurel v. Desierto ... 543

Hanopo v. Shoemart Incorporated... 545

Terminal Facilities v. PPA ... 547

Mendoza v. Court of Appeals ... 549

Roblett Construction v. CA ... 553

Simedarby v. Goodyear ... 555

Far East Bank v. Borja ... 557

Kings Properties Corporation, Inc. v. Galido ... 558

Metrobank v. Cabilzo ... 560

Mesina v. Garcia ... 562

Pahamotang v. PNB ... 564

Shopper's Paradise v. Roque ... 565

Meatmasters v. Lelis Integrated... 567

Larena v. Mapili ... 568

Santos v. Santos ... 570

Villanueva- Mijares v. CA ... 572

Garcia v. Villar ... 573

Sps. Edralin v. Phil. Veterans Bank ... 574

University Physicians’ Services v. Marian Clinics... 576

Martin, et al. v. DBS Bank Philippines, Inc., et al., ... 577

Heirs of Zabala, et al. v. CA ... 581

Duncan v. Glaxo... 582

Star Paper v. Simbol ... 584

Tiu v. Platinum Plans ... 587

Avon Cosmetics v. Luna ... 588

Del Castillo v. Richmond ... 590

Arwood v. DM Consunji ... 591

Sps. Tecklo v. Rural Bank of Pamplona ... 593

Banate v. Phil. Countryside ... 594

Pascual v. Ramos ... 597

(12)

Bercero v. Capitol Development ... 605

Hemedes v. CA ... 606

PUP v. Golden Horizon... 609

Villegas v. CA ... 612

Equatorial Realty v. Carmelo ... 613

PUP v. CA ... 616

Litonjua v. L and R ... 617

Josefa v Zhandong ... 621

Saludo v. Security Bank ... 623

PCI v. Ng Sheung Ngor ... 625

Dio v. St. Ferdinand Memorial ... 628

PILTEL v. Tecson ... 632

PAL v. CA ... 634

Ermitano v. CA ... 636

Uniwide v. Titan-Ikeda ... 639

Heirs of Salas v. Laperal ... 643

Medrano v. CA... 645

Tan v. Gullas ... 648

Gozun v. Mercado ... 651

Sta. Lucia Realty vs. Sps. Buenaventura ... 652

Chan v. Maceda ... 656

Baluyot vs. CA... 661

Cuyco v Cuyco ... 663

Go, doing business under the name and style of “ACG Express Liner” v Cordero ... 664

Tayag vs. CA ... 667

So vs. CA ... 669

International Freeport v. Danzas... 672

Rockland V Mid-Pasig Development ... 676

MMDA v. JANCOM ... 679

Rockland V Mid-Pasig Development ... 681

Manila Metal v. PNB ... 682 Montecillo v. Reynes ... 685 Soler v CA ... 687 Palattao vs. CA ... 689 ABS-CBN v. CA ... 692 Limson v. CA ... 694 Villanueva v. PNB... 696

(13)

Pic-it, Christian; Aguilar, Joana Rose; Balusdan, Septfonette; Belvis, Eunice Fleur; Bondad, Nicole; Cortez, Kimberly Agniezka R.; Datario, Mary Ruth; De Guzman, Chanell; Fango-ok, Cita Catalan v. Basa ... 699 Domingo v. CA ... 702 Mendozana v. Ozamiz ... 704 Lim v. CA ... 705 Ruiz v. CA ... 706

Dela Cruz v. Sison ... 711

Rural Bank of Sta. Maria v. CA... 713

Carabeo v. Sps. Dingco ... 716

Melliza v. City of Iloilo... 717

Catindig v. Vda. De Meneses... 720

Orduna, et al. v. Fuentabella ... 722

Brobio Mangahas v. Brobio... 724

Golden Apple Realty v. Sierra Grande Realty... 726

Askay v. Cosalan ... 729

Heirs of Balite v. Lim ... 731

Suntay v. CA ... 732

Uy v. Court of Appeals ... 734

Pentacapital v. Makilito Mahinay ... 736

Heirs of Gaite v. The Plaza ... 737

Catly v. Navarro, et al. ... 740

Liguez v. CA ... 742

Philbank v. Lui She ... 743

Londres v. CA... 744

Sps. Vega v. SSS ... 745

Balatbat v. Court of Appeals ... 746

Universal Robina v. Heirs of Teves ... 748

Sarming v. Dy ... 749

Cebu v. Court of Appeals ... 751

ADR Shipping v. Gallardo ... 751

Movido v. Pastor ... 752

TSPIC Corp. v. TSPIC Employees Union ... 754

Estanislao v. East-West Banking Corp. ... 755

Aquintey v. Tibong... 756

Cruz vs. Court of Appeals ... 757

Gonzales v. Court of Appeals ... 759

Almira v. Court of Appeals ... 761

(14)

Rigor v. Consolidated Leasing ... 765

Heirs of Quiring v. DBP ... 768

Lee v. Bangkok Bank ... 770

Equatorial Realty v. Mayfair Theater ... 771

Siguan v. Lim ... 773

Khe Hong v. Court of Appeals ... 775

Suntay v. Court of Appeals ... 777

Brobio Mangahas v. Brobio... 779

Hernandez v. Hernandez ... 781

Fuentes, et al v. Roca ... 782

Associated Bank v. Sps. Montano ... 784

Miailhe v. Court of Appeals ... 785

First Philippine Holdings v. Trans Middle East ... 786

Sanchez v. Mapalad Realty ... 787

Oesmer v. PDC... 788

Vda. De Ape v. Court of Appeals ... 789

Francisco v. Herrera ... 790

Braganza v. Villa Abrille ... 791

Katipunan v. Katipunan ... 792

Jumalon v. Court of Appeals ... 793

Cabales v. Court of Appeals ... 793

VDA. DE OUANO v. RP ... 795

SHOEMAKER v. LA TONDEÑA ... 796

PNB v. PHILIPPINE VEGETABLE OIL CO., INC., ... 797

VDA. DE OUANO v. RP ... 798

THE MUNICIPALITY OF HAGONOY, BULACAN v. DUMDUM, JR. ... 800

Sps. Tan v. Villapaz ... 801

Sps. David v. Tiongson ... 802

Cordial v. Miranda ... 804

Villanueva-Mijares v. Court of Appeals ... 805

Rosencor v. Inquing ... 808

Firme v. UKAL ... 810

Heirs of M. Doronio v. Heirs of F. Doronio ... 811

Gurrea v. Suplico ... 812

Frenzel v. Catito... 813

La Buga'al-Blaan v. Ramos ... 814

(15)

COMELEC v. Quijano-Padilla ... 816

Jaworski v. PAGCOR ... 818

Oesmer v. PDC... 819

Heirs of Balite v. Lim ... 819

Pineda v. CA ... 824 Cruz v. Bancom ... 827 Cuaton v. Salud ... 831 Infotech v. COMELEC ... 833 Pabugais v. Sahijwan ... 837 Liguez v. CA ... 841

Philbank v. Lui She ... 842

Vigilar v. Aquino ... 845

EPG Construction v. Vigilar ... 848

Go Chan v. Young ... 851

Francisco v. Herrera ... 853

Mendezona v. Ozamiz ... 855

Manzanilla v. Court of Appeals ... 856

Rural Bank of Paranaque v. Remolado ... 858

Republic v. Cojuangco... 860

Ringor v. Ringor ... 864

Salvador v. Court of Appeals ... 866

Huang v. Court of Appeals ... 867

Vda. De Esconde v. Court of Appeals ... 869

Medina v. Court of Appeals ... 873

Filipinas Port v. Go ... 874

Mendizabel v. Apao ... 875

Heirs of Yap v. Court of Appeals ... 877

Heirs of Kionisala v. Heirs of Dacut ... 879

Ramos v. Ramos ... 881

Ty v. Court of Appeals ... 883

Vda. De Retuerto v. Barz ... 884

Chia Liong Tan v. Court of Appeals ... 886

(16)

OCAMPO III. VS. PEOPLE

MARIANO UN OCAMPO III, Petitioner, versus PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

G.R. Nos. 156547-51, 2008 Feb 6, 1st Division AZCUNA, J.:

FACTS: The Department of Budget and Management(DBM) released the amountof Php 100 Million for the support of the local government unit of the province of Tarlac. However, petitioner Ocampo, governor of Tarlac,loaned out more than P 56.6 million in which he contracted with Lingkod Tarlac Foundation, Inc., thus, it was the subject of 25 criminal charges against the petitioner. Th e S a n d i g a n b a y a n c o n v i c t e d t h e p e t i t i o n e r o f t h e c r i m e o f malversation of public funds. However, the petitioner contended that the loan was private in character since it was a loan contracted with the Taralc Foundation.

ISSUE: Whether or not the amount loaned out was private in nature.

HELD: Yes, the loan was private in nature because Art. 1953 of the NewCivil Code provides that ―a person who receives a loan of money or anyother fungible thing acquires the ownership thereof, and is bound to paythe creditor an equal amount of the same kind and quality.‖ The fact that the petitioner-Governor contracted the loan, the publicfund changed its nature to private character, thus it is not malversation which is the subject of this case, instead it must be a simple collection of money suit against the petitioner in case of non payment . Therefore, thepetitioner is acquitted for the crime of malversation.

(17)

Leung Ben v. O'Brien

LEUNG BEN; plaintiff, VS. P. J. O‟BRIEN, JAMES A. OSTRAND and GEO. R. HARVEY, Judgesof First Instance of the City of Manila, defendants

April 6, 1918

FACTS: On December 12, 1917, an action was instituted in the Court of First Instance of Manila by P.J. O‘Brien to recover of Leung Ben the sum of P15, 000, all a l l e g e d t o h a v e b e e n l o s t b y t h e p l a i n t i f f t o t h e d e f e n d a n t i n a s e r i e s o f gambling, banking, and percentage games conducted during the two or three months prior to the institution of the suit. The plaintiff asked for an attachment against the property of the defendant, on the ground that the latter was about to depart from the Philippines with intent to defraud his creditors. This attachment was issued. The provision of law under which this attachment was issued requires that there should be a cause of action arising upon contract, express or implied. The contention of the petitioner is that the statutory action to recover money lost at gaming is not such an action as is contemplated in this provision, and he insists that the original complaint shows on its face that the remedy of attachment is not available in aid thereof; that the Court of First Instance acted in excess of its jurisdiction in granting the writ of attachment; that the petitioner has no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal or otherwise; and that consequently the writ of certiorari supplies the appropriate remedy for this relief.

ISSUE: Whether or not the statutory obligation to restore money won at gaming is an obligation arising from contract, express or implied.

HELD: Yes. In permitting the recovery money lost at play, Act No. 1757 has introduced modifications in the application of Articles 1798, 1801, and 1305 of the Civil Code. The first two of these articles relate to gambling contracts, while article 1 3 0 5 t r e a t s o f t h e n u l l i t y o f c o n t r a c t s p r o c e e d i n g f r o m a v i c i o u s o r i l l i c i t consideration. Taking all these provisions together, it must be apparent that the obligation to return money lost at play has a decided affinity to contractual obligation; and the Court believes that it could, without violence to the doctrines of the civil law, be held that such obligations is an innominate quasi-contract. It is however, unnecessary to place the decision on this ground. In the opinion of the Court, the cause of action stated in the compla int in the court below is based on a contract, express or implied, and is therefore of such nature that the court had authority to issue the writ of attachment. The

(18)

application for the writ of certiorari must therefore be denied and the proceedings dismissed.

(19)

ARTURO PELAYO, plaintiff-appellant VS. MARCELO LAURON, defendant-appellee

12 Phil 453 January 12, 1909

FACTS: On November 23, 1906, Arturo Pelayo, a physician, filed a complaint against Marcelo and Juana Abella. He alleged that on October 13, 1906 at night, Pelayo was called to the house of the defendants to assist their daughter-in-law who was about to give birth to a child. Unfortunately, the daughter-in-law died as a consequence of said childbirth. Thus, the defendant refuses to pay. The d e f e n d a n t s a r g u e t h a t t h e i r d a u g h t e r - i n - l a w l i v e d w i t h h e r h u s b a n d independently and in a separate house without any relation, that her stay there was accidental and due to fortuitous event.

ISSUE: W h e t h e r o r n o t t h e d e f e n d a n t s s h o u l d b e h e l d l i a b l e f o r t h e f e e s demanded by the plaintiff upon rendering medical assistance to the defendants‘ daughter-in-law.

HELD: No. The Court held that the rendering of medical assistance is one of the o b l i g a t i o n s t o w h i c h s p o u s e s a r e b o u n d b y m u t u a l s u p p o r t , e x p r e s s l y determined by law and readily demanded. Therefore, there was no obligation on the part of the in-laws but rather on the part of the husband who is not a party. Thus, decision affirmed.

(20)

ASJ Corporation v. Sps. Evangelista

ASJ CORPORATION and ANTONIO SAN JUAN, Petitioners, versus SPS. EFREN & MAURA EVANGELISTA, Respondents.,

G.R. No. 158086, 2008 Feb 14, 2nd Division QUISUMBING, J.:

FACTS: P r i v a t e r e s p o n d e n t E v a n g e l i s t a c o n t r a c t e d P e t i t i o n e r A S J Corporation for the incubation and hatching of eggs and by products owned by Evangelista Spouses. The contract includes the scheduled payments of the service of ASJ Corporation that the amount of installment s h a l l b e p a i d a f t e r t h e d e l i v e r y o f t h e c h i c k s . H o w e v e r , t h e A S J Corporation detained the chicks because Evangelista Spouses failed to pay the installment on time.

ISSUE: W h e t h e r o r n o t t h e d e t e n t i o n o f t h e a l l e g e d c h i c k s v a l i d a n d recognized under the law.

HELD: N o , b e c a u s e A S J C o r p o r a t i o n m u s t g i v e d u e t o t h e E v a n g e l i s t a Spouses in paying the installment, thus, it must not delay the delivery of the chicks. Thus, under the law, they are obliged to pay damages with each other for the breach of the obligation. Therefore, in a contract of service, each party must be in good faith i n t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f t h e i r o b l i g a t i o n , t h u s w h e n t h e p e t i t i o n e r h a d detained the hatched eggs of the respondents spouses, it is an implication of putting prejudice to the business of the spouses due to the delay of paying installment to the petitioner.

(21)

RAMAS VS.QUIAMCO

NESTO RAMAS UYPITCHING and RAMAS UYPITCHING SONS, INC., Petitioners, versus ERNESTO QUIAMCO, Respondent.,

G.R. No. 146322, 2006 Dec 6, 2nd Division CORONA, J.:

FACTS: Q u i a m c o h a s a m i c a b l y s e t t l e d w i t h D a v a l a n , G a b u t e r o a n d G e n e r o s o f o r t h e c r i m e o f r o b b e r y a n d t h a t i n r e t u r n , t h e t h r e e h a d surrendered to Quiamco a motorcycle with its registration. However, Atty. Ramas has sold to Gabutero the motorcycle in installment but when the latter did not able to pay the installment, Davalon continued the payment but when he became insolvent, he said that the motorcycle was taken by Q u i a m c o ‘ s m e n . H o w e v e r , a f t e r s e v e r a l y e a r s , t h e p e t i t i o n e r R a m a together with policemen took the motorcycle without the respondent‘s permit and shouted that the respondent Quiamco is a thief of motorcycle. Respondent then filed an action for damages against petitioner alleging t h a t p e t i t i o n e r i s l i a b l e f o r u n l a w f u l t a k i n g o f t h e m o t o r c y c l e a n d utterance of a defamatory remark and filing a baseless complaint. Also, p e t i t i o n e r s c l a i m t h a t t h e y s h o u l d n o t b e h e l d l i a b l e f o r p e t i t i o n e r ‘ s e x e r c i s e o f i t s r i g h t a s s e l l e r - m o r t g a g e e t o r e c o v e r t h e m o r t g a g e d motorcycle preliminary to the enforcement of its right to foreclose on the mortgage in case of default.

ISSUE: Whether or not the act of the petitioner is correct.

HELD: No. The petitioner being a lawyer must know the legal procedure for the recovery of possession of the alleged mortgaged property in which said procedure must be conducted through judicial action. Furthermore, t h e p e t i t i o n e r a c t e d i n m a l i c e a n d i n t e n t t o c a u s e d a m a g e t o t h e respondent when even without probable cause, he still instituted an act against the law on mortgage.

(22)

Nikko Hotel Manila Garden v. Reyes

NIKKO HOTEL MANILA GARDEN AND RUBY LIMVS. ROBERTO REYES a.k.a. “AMAY BISAYA”

G.R. No. 154259 2005 Feb 28

FACTS: In the evening of October 13, 1994, while drinking coffee at the lobby of Hotel Nikko, respondent was invited by a friend, Dr. Filart to join her in a party in celebration of the birthday of the hotel‘s manager. During the party and when respondent was lined-up at the buffet table, he was stopped by Ruby Lim, the Executive Secretary of the hotel, and asked to leave the party. Shocked and embarrassed, he tried to explain that he was invited by Dr. Filart, who was h e r s e l f a g u e s t . N o t l o n g a f t e r , a M a k a t i p o l i c e m a n a p p r o a c h e d h i m a n d escorted him out of her party. Ms. Lim admitted having asked respondent to leave the party but not under the ignominious circumstances painted by Mr. Reyes, that she did the act politely and discreetly. Mindful of the wish of the celebrant to keep the party intimate and exclusive, she spoke to the respondent herself when she saw him by the buffet table with no other guests in the immediate vicinity. She asked him to leave the party after he finished eating. After she had turned to leave, the latter screamed and made a big scene. Dr. Filart testified that she did not want the celebrant to think that she invited Mr. Reyes to the party. Respondent filed an action for actual, moral and/or exemplary damages and attorney‘s fees. The lower court dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the HELD of the trial court, consequently imposing upon Hotel Nikko moral and exemplary damages and attorney‘s fees. On motion for reconsideration, the Court of Appeals affirmed its decision. Thus, this instant petition for review.

ISSUES: Whether or not Ms. Ruby Lim is liable under Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil C o d e i n a s k i n g M r . R e y e s t o l e a v e t h e p a r t y a s h e w a s n o t i n v i t e d b y t h e celebrant thereof and whether or not Hotel Nikko, as the employer of Ms. Lim, be solidarily liable with her.

HELD: The Court found more credible the lower court‘s findings of facts. There was no proof of motive on the part of Ms. Lim to humiliate Mr. Reyes and to e x p o s e h i m t o r i d i c u l e a n d s h a m e . M r . R e y e s ‘ v e r s i o n o f t h e s t o r y w a s unsupported, failing to present any witness to back his story. Ms. Lim, not having abused her right to ask Mr. Reyes to leave the party to which he was not invited, cannot be made liable for damages under Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code. Necessarily, neither can her employer, Hotel Nikko, be held liable as its liability springs from that of its employees. When a right is exercised in a manner which does not conform with the norms enshrined in Article 19 and results in damage to another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer

(23)

must be responsible. Article 21states that any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. Without proof of any ill-motive on her part, Ms. Lim‘s act cannot amount to abusive conduct. The maxim ―Volenti Non Fit Injuria‖ (self-inflicted injury) was upheld by the Court, that is, to which a person assents is not esteemed in law as injury, t h a t c o n s e n t t o i n j u r y p r e c l u d e s t h e r e c o v e r y o f d a m a g e s b y o n e w h o h a s knowingly and voluntarily exposed himself to danger.

(24)

St. Mary's Academy v. Carpitanos

ST. MARY‟S ACADEMY, petitioner,VS. WILLIAM CARPITANOS and LUCIA S. CARPITANOS, GUADA DANIEL, JAMES DANIEL II, JAMES DANIEL, SR., and

VIVENCIO VILLANUEVA,respondents February 6, 2002

FACTS: From February 13 to 20, 1995, defendant-appellant St. Mary‘s Academy of Dipolog City conducted an enrollment drive for the school year 1995-1996. As a student of St. Mary‘s Academy, Sherwin Carpitanos was part of the campaigning group. Accordingly, Sherwin, along with other high school students were riding in a Mitsubishi jeep owned by defendant Vivencio Villanueva on their way to Larayan Elementary School, Larayan, Dapitan City. The jeep was driven by James Daniel II then 15 years old and a student of the same school. Allegedly, the latter drove the jeep in a reckless manner and as a result the jeep turned turtle. Sherwin Carpitanos died as a result of the injuries he sustained from the accident. The trial court ordered the defendants, St. Mary‘s Academy principally liable and the parents of James Daniel as subsidiarily liable for damages.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court. The Court of Appeals held petitioner St. Mary‘s Academy liable for the death of Sherwin Carpitanos under Articles 218 and 219 of the Family Code, pointing out that petitioner was negligent in allowing a minor to drive and in not having a teacher accompany the minor students in the jeep.

ISSUE: Whether or not the appellant St. Mary‘s Academy is principally liable for damages for the death of Sherwin.

HELD: No. Under Article 219 of the Family Code, if the person under custody is a minor, those exercising special parental authority are principally and solidarily liable for damages caused by the acts or omissions of the unemancipated minor while under their supervision, instruction, or custody. However, for petitioner to be liable, there must be a finding that the act or omission considered as negligent was the proximate cause of the injury caused because the negligence must have a causal connection to the accident. Respondents Daniel spouses and Villanueva admitted that the immediate cause of the accident was not the negligence of petitioner or the reckless driving of James Daniel II, but the detachment of the steering wheel guide of the jeep. Hence, liability for the accident, whether caused by the negligence of the minor driver or mechanical detachment of the steering wheel guide of the jeep, must be pinned on the minor‘s parents primarily. The negligence of petitioner St. Mary‘s Academy was only a remote cause of the accident. Between the remote cause and the injury, there intervened

(25)

the negligence of the minor‘s parents or the detachment of the steering wheel guide of the jeep. Considering that the negligence of the minor driver or the detachment of the steering wheel guide of the jeep owned by respondent Villanueva was an event over which petitioner St. Mary‘s Academy had no control, and which was the proximate cause of the accident, petitioner may not be held liable for the death resulting from such accident.

(26)

TSPI, INCORPORATION VS. TSPIC EMPLOYEES UNION

TSPIC CORPORATION, Petitioner, versus TSPIC EMPLOYEES UNION (FFW), representing MARIA FE FLORES, FE CAPISTRANO, AMY DURIAS,[1]

CLAIRE EVELYN VELEZ, JANICE OLAGUIR, JERICO ALIPIT, GLEN BATULA, SER JOHN HERNANDEZ, RACHEL NOVILLAS, NIMFA ANILAO,

ROSE SUBARDIAGA, VALERIE CARBON, OLIVIA EDROSO, MARICRIS DONAIRE, ANALYN AZARCON, ROSALIE RAMIREZ, JULIETA ROSETE, JANICE NEBRE, NIA ANDRADE, CATHERINE YABA, DIOMEDISA ERNI,[2]

MARIO SALMORIN, LOIDA COMULLO,[3] MARIE ANN DELOS SANTOS,[4] JUANITA YANA, and SUZETTE DULAY, Respondents.,

G.R. No. 163419, 2008 Feb 13, 2nd Division VELASCO, JR., J.:

FACTS: TSPI Corporation entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement w i t h t h e c o r p o r a t i o n U n i o n f o r t h e i n c r e a s e o f s a l a r y f o r t h e l a t t e r ‘ s members for the year 2000 to 2002 starting from January 2000. Thus, the increased in salary was materialized on January 1, 2000. However, on October 6, 2000, the Regional Tripartite Wage and production Board raised daily minimum wage from P 223.50 to P 250.00 starting November1, 2000. Conformably, the wages of the 17 probationary employees were increased to P250.00 and became regular employees therefore receiving another 10% increase in salary. In January 2001, TSPIC implemented the new wage rates as mandated by the CBA. As a result, the nine employees who were senior to the 17 recently regularized employees received fewer wage. On January 19, 2001, TSPIC‘s HRD notified the 24 employees who are private respondents, that due to an error in the automated payroll system, they were overpaid and the overpayment would be deducted from their salaries starting February 2001. The Union on the other hand, a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e r e w a s n o e r r o r a n d t h e d e d u c t i o n o f t h e a l l e g e d over payment constituted diminution of pay.

ISSUE: Whether the alleged overpayment constitutes diminution of pay as alleged by the Union.

HELD: Yes, because it is considered that Collective Bargaining Agreement entered into by unions and their employers are binding upon the parties and be acted in strict compliance therewith. Thus, the CBA in this case is the law between the employers and their employees. Therefore, there was no overpayment when there was an increase of salary for the members of the union simultaneous with the increasing of minimum wage for workers in the National Capital Region. The CBA should be followed thus; the senior employees who were first promoted as regular employees shall be entitled for the increase in their salaries and the same with lower rank workers.

(27)

Pic-it, Christian; Aguilar, Joana Rose; Balusdan, Septfonette; Belvis, Eunice Fleur; Bondad, Nicole; Cortez, Kimberly Agniezka R.; Datario, Mary Ruth; De Guzman, Chanell; Fango-ok, Cita REGINO VS. PCST REGINO VS. PCST G.R No. 156109. November 18, 2004 FACTS: P e t i t i o n e r K r i s t i n e R e g i n o w a s a p o o r s t u d e n t e n r o l l e d a t t h e P a n g a s i n a n C o l l e g e o f S c i e n c e a n d Te c h n o l o g y . Th u s , a f u n d r a i s i n g project pertaining to a dance party was organized by PCST, requiring all its students to purchase two tickets in consideration as a prerequisite for the final exam. Regino, an underprivileged, failed to purchase the tickets because of her status as well as that project was against her religious belief, thus, she was not allowed to take the final examination by her two professors.

ISSUE: Was the refusal of the university to allow Regino to take the final examination valid?

HELD: No, the Supreme Court declared that the act of PCST was not valid, though, it can impose its administrative policies, necessarily, and the amount o f t i c k e t s o r p a y m e n t s h a l l b e i n c l u d e d o r e x p r e s s e d i n t h e s t u d e n t handbooks given to every student before the start of the regular classes of the semester. In this case, the fund raising project was not included in the activities to be undertaken by the university during the semester. The petitioner is entitled for damages due to her traumatic experience on the acts of the university causing her to stop studying sand later transfer to another school.

(28)

PSBA v. Court of Appeals

PHILIPPINE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, JUAN D. LIM, BENJAMIN P. PAULINO, ANTONIO M. MAGTALAS, COL. PEDRO SACRO and

LT. M. SORIANO, petitioners, versus COURT OF APPEALS, HON. REGINA ORDOÑEZ-BENITEZ, in her capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 47, Regional Trial Court, Manila, SEGUNDA R. BAUTISTA and ARSENIA D.

BAUTISTA, respondents.

(G.R. No. 84698, February 4, 1992, 2nd_Division)

PADILLA, J.:

FACTS: A stabbing incident on 30 August 1985 which caused the death of Carlitos Bautista while on the second-floor premises of the Philippine School of Business Administration (PSBA) prompted the parents of the deceased to file suit in the Regional Trial Court of Manila (RTC Branch 47) presided over by Judge Regina Ordoñez-Benitez, for damages against the said PSBA and its corporate officers. At the time of his death, Carlitos was enrolled in the third year commerce course at the PSBA. It was established that his assailants were not members of the school's academic community but were elements from outside the school.

The plaintiffs (now private respondents) sought to adjudge them liable for the victim's untimely demise due to their alleged negligence, recklessness and lack of security precautions, means and methods before, during and after the attack on the victim. On the other side, defendants a quo (now petitioners) sought to have the suit dismissed, alleging that since they are presumably sued under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, the complaint states no cause of action against them, as jurisprudence on the subject is to the effect that academic institutions, such as the PSBA, are beyond the ambit of the rule in the afore-stated article.

The respondent trial court, however, overruled petitioners' contention and thru an order dated 8 December 1987, denied their motion to dismiss. A subsequent motion for reconsideration was similarly dealt with by an order dated 25 January 1988. Petitioners then assailed the trial court's disposition before the respondent appellate court which, in a decision promulgated on 10 June 1988, affirmed the trial court's orders. On 22 August 1988, the respondent appellate court resolved to deny the petitioners' motion for reconsideration. Hence, this petition is.

ISSUE: Whether or not the case should be dismiss base on the contention that the complaint states no cause of action against them.

HELD: No. Based on the petitioners‘ contention, it is true that this is not under the provision of Article 2180 in conjunction with Article 2176 of the Civil Code as established by jurisprudence that, it had been stressed that the law (Article 2180) plainly provides that the damage should have been caused or inflicted by pupils or students of the educational institution sought to be held liable for

(29)

the acts of its pupils or students while in its custody. The victim‘s assailant is not a student neither an employee of the petitioner so it must be absolve of damages. However as ruled by this court, the respondent cause of action is based on a bilateral contract or obligation which the parties are bound to comply with not based on the precepts of quasi-delicts as the petitioner based its contention to dismiss the said case.

When an academic institution accepts students for enrolment, there is established a contract between them, resulting in bilateral obligations which both parties are bound to comply with. For its part, the school undertakes to provide the student with an education that would presumably suffice to equip him with the necessary tools and skills to pursue higher education or a profession. On the other hand, the student covenants to abide by the school's academic requirements and observe its rules and regulations. Aside from this, academic institution must meet also the implicit obligation which to provide an atmosphere which is conducive to learning and this cannot be achieve if upon entering the school premises there is a fear or threat against to student‘s life or limb. In order to held the petitioners liable this should be proven in court according to rule of evidence that there is a lack of negligence corresponding to the circumstance of person, time and place to fulfil its obligation. It is also unduly oppressive to the academic institution to just make them liable res ipsa loquitor on the damage itself. This case is now remanded to the lower court of origin to continue the proceedings.

(30)

Cosmo Entertainment v. La Ville

COSMO ENTERTAINMENT MANAGEMENT, INC., petitioner, versus LA VILLE COMMERCIAL CORPORATION, respondent.

(G.R. No. 152801, August 20, 2004, 2nd_Division)

CALLEJO, SR., J.:

FACTS: The respondent, La Ville Commercial Corporation, is the registered owner of a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 174250 of the Registry of Deeds of Makati City together with the commercial building thereon situated at the corner of Kalayaan and Neptune Streets in Makati City. On March 17, 1993, it entered into a Contract of Lease with petitioner Cosmo Entertainment Management, Inc. over the subject property for a period of seven years with a monthly rental of P250 per square meter of the floor area of the building and a security deposit equivalent to three monthly rentals in the amount of P447,000 to guarantee the faithful compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease agreement. Upon execution of the contract, the petitioner took possession of the subject property.

The petitioner, however, suffered business reverses and was constrained to stop operations in September 1996. Thereafter, the petitioner defaulted in its rental payments. Consequently, on February 1, 1997, the respondent made a demand on the petitioner to vacate the premises as well as to pay the accrued rentals plus interests. After negotiations between the parties failed, the respondent, on May 27, 1997, reiterated its demand on the petitioner to pay the unpaid rentals as well as to vacate and surrender the premises to the respondent. When the petitioner refused to comply with its demand, the respondent filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Makati City, Branch 62, a complaint for illegal detainer.

The petitioner, in its answer to the complaint, raised the defense that, under the contract, it had the right to sublease the premises upon prior written consent by the respondent and payment of transfer fees. However, the respondent, without any justifiable reason, refused to allow the petitioner to sublease the premises. After due proceedings, the MeTC rendered judgment in favor of the respondent holding that the petitioner was bound by the terms of the contract that it could only sublease the premises upon the respondent‘s consent and as consequence order the petitioner all accrued rentals, interest and tax dues. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the decision of MeTC and furnished the copy on its decision to the petitioner which he received on July 6, 2000.

On July 21, 2000, the last day to file its petition for review on certiorari of the RTC decision, the petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) a Motion for Extension to File Petition for Review which was duly granted. Notwithstanding the clear tenor of the said resolution granting a non-extendible period, the petitioner filed, on August 4, 2000, a second Motion for Extension to File Petition for Review asking that it be given another fifteen (15)

(31)

days from August 5, 2000, or until August 20, 2000, within which to file the said pleading. On August 18, 2000, the petitioner filed its Petition for Review on Certiorari with the CA but was dismissed base on the fact that it was filed beyond the extended period granted to the petitioner. Hence, the recourse to this Court is sought by the petitioner.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petition for review on certiorari should be dismissed for having been filed out of time.

HELD: Yes. In accordance to the provision of Rule 42 of the 1997 Rule of Court, the CA may grant an additional period of fifteen (15) days only within which to file the petition for review and no further extension shall be granted except the most compelling reason and in no case to extend fifteen (15) days. As adjudge by the Court, the granting is based not on a matter of right but upon the sound discretion of the court.

The reason of the petitioner that ―heavy volume of work and equally urgent filings in courts and administrative agencies,‖ was not considered a compelling reason by the CA as it subsequently denied the petition for review for being filed out of time. The CA could not be faulted for this. In fact, jurisprudence had held that pressure and large volume of work do not excuse a party for filing the petition for certiorari out of time. When the petitioner thus filed its petition for review on certiorari beyond the extended period, the CA had the reason to deny the same outright. Wise to consider also is the directive qualification expressly provided by appellate court on not further extending the filing of the petition thus behoved the petitioner to comply on it. Granting liberally would tantamount of not following an express provision of law which is against public order and our system of justice for the sake of only a single private individual.

Petition denied.

(32)

AYALA CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. ROSA-DIANA REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondent.

(G.R. No. 134284, December 1, 2000 2nd_Division)

DE LEON, JR., J.:

FACTS: Petitioner Ayala Corporation (Ayala) was the registered owner of a parcel of land located in Alfaro Street, Salcedo Village, Makati City with an area of 840 square meters, more or less and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 233435 of the Register of Deeds of Rizal.

On April 20, 1976, Ayala sold the lot to Manuel Sy married to Vilma Po and Sy Ka Kieng married to Rosa Chan. The Deed of Sale executed between Ayala and the buyers contained Special Conditions of Sale and Deed Restrictions. Among the Special Conditions of Sale were:

a) The vendees shall build on the lot and submit the building plans to the vendor before September 30, 1976 for the latter’s approval

b) the construction of the building shall start on or before March 30, 1977 and completed before 1979. Before such completion, neither the deed of sale shall be registered nor the title released even if the purchase price shall have been fully paid

c) There shall be no resale of the property

The Deed Restrictions, on the other hand, contained the stipulation that the gross floor area of the building to be constructed shall not be more than five (5) times the lot area and the total height shall not exceed forty two (42) meters. The restrictions were to expire in the year 2025.

Manuel Sy and Sy Ka Kieng failed to construct the building in violation of the Special Conditions of Sale. Notwithstanding the violation, Manuel Sy and Sy Ka Kieng, in April 1989, were able to sell the lot to respondent Rosa-Diana Realty and Development Corporation (Rosa-Diana) with Ayala‘s approval. As a consideration for Ayala to release the Certificate of Title of the subject property, Rosa-Diana, on July 27, 1989 executed an Undertaking promising to abide by said special conditions of sale executed between Ayala and the original vendees. Upon the submission of the Undertaking, together with the building plans for a condominium project, known as ―The Peak‖, Ayala released title to the lot, thereby enabling Rosa-Diana to register the deed of sale in its favor and obtain Certificate of Title No. 165720 in its name. The title carried as encumbrances the special conditions of sale and the deed restrictions. Rosa-Diana‘s building plans as approved by Ayala were ―subject to strict compliance of cautionary notices appearing on the building plans and to the restrictions encumbering the Lot regarding the use and occupancy of the same.‖

Thereafter, Rosa-Diana submitted to the building official of Makati another set of building plans for ―The Peak‖ which were substantially different from those that it earlier submitted to Ayala for approval. While the building plans which Rosa-Diana submitted to Ayala for approval envisioned a 24-meter high, seven (7) storey condominium project with a gross floor area of 3,968.56 square meters, the building plans which Rosa-Diana submitted to the building official of Makati, contemplated a 91.65 meter high, 38 storey condominium

(33)

building with a gross floor area of 23,305.09 square meters. Needless to say, while the first set of building plans complied with the deed restrictions, the latter set exceeded the same.

Because of this, Ayala filed an injunctive relief but was denied by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) that led Rosa-Diana to complete the building. Ayala then filed a violation of the Deed of Restriction but was denied by the RTC based on no cause of action. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court base on the principle of estoppel and/or abandonment, hence this petition is. ISSUE: Whether or not there is a violation of the Deed of Restriction which can be a valid ground to grant the plaintiff for its prayer of either rescission or specific performance.

HELD: Yes. It is obvious base on the facts that there is a violation of the Deed of Restriction but this cannot be used as a valid ground to grant the petitioner its prayer of either rescission of contract of its specific performance. It is true that Article 1159 of the New Civil Code provides that ―Obligations arising from contracts have the force of the law of the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith‖, and this is clearly violated not only negligently but with bad faith but the prayer of relief is not justifiable base on merit of the case. First, the specific performance is not feasible as the building already completed neither the cancellation of the sale because the original parties are not impleaded (Manuel Sy and Sy Ka Kieng). Second, rescinding the sale is not granted as the original parties already violated the first requirement of the contract and Ayala did nothing to it impliedly allowing or ratifying it. Third, Ayala allowed other corporation to violate the Deed of Restriction which they made and instead of praying relief of specific performance or cancellation of sale, they prayed instead for damages.

Therefore, instead of Rescission or Specific Performance as the petitioner prayed, the Court grants instead damages to the petitioner by virtue of the violation of the Deed of Restriction by the defendant in accordance to case decided by this court ―Ayala vs. Rey Burton Development Corporation‖.

(34)

BRICKTOWN DEVELOPMENT CORP. (its new corporate name

MULTINATIONAL REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION) and MARIANO Z. VERALDE, petitioners, vs. AMOR TIERRA DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION and the HON. COURT OF APPEALS, respondents. (G.R. No. 112182, December 12, 1994 3rd_Division)

VITUG, J.:

FACTS: On 31 March 1981, Bricktown Development Corporation (petitioner), represented by its President and co-petitioner Mariano Z. Velarde, executed two Contracts to Sell in favor of Amor Tierra Development Corporation (private), represented in these acts by its Vice-President, Moises G. Petilla, covering a total of 96 residential lots, situated at the Multinational Village Subdivision, La Huerta, Parañaque, Metro Manila, with an aggregate area of 82,888 square meters. The total price of P21,639,875.00 was stipulated to be paid by private respondent in such amounts and maturity dates, as follows: P2,200,000.00 on 31 March 1981; P3,209,968.75 on 30 June 1981; P4,729,906.25 on 31 December 1981; and the balance of P11,500,000.00 to be paid by means of an assumption by private respondent of petitioner corporation's mortgage liability to the Philippine Savings Bank or, alternatively, to be made payable in cash. On even date, 31 March 1981, the parties executed a Supplemental Agreement, providing that private respondent would additionally pay to petitioner corporation the amounts of P55,364.68, or 21% interest on the balance of down payment for the period from 31 March to 30 June 1981, and of P390,369.37 representing interest paid by petitioner corporation to the Philippine Savings Bank in updating the bank loan for the period from 01 February to 31 March 1981.

Private respondent was only able to pay petitioner corporation the sum of P1,334,443.21. In the meanwhile, however, the parties continued to negotiate for a possible modification of their agreement, although nothing conclusive would appear to have ultimately been arrived at.

Finally, on 12 October 1981, Petitioner Corporation, through its legal counsel, sent private respondent a "Notice of Cancellation of Contract" on account of the latter's continued failure to pay the instalment due 30 June 1981 and the interest on the unpaid balance of the stipulated initial payment. Petitioner Corporation advised private respondent, however, that it (private respondent) still had the right to pay its arrearages within 30 days from receipt of the notice "otherwise the actual cancellation of the contract (would) take place."

Several months later, or on 26 September 1983, private respondent, through counsel, demanded the refund of private respondent's various payments to petitioner corporation, allegedly "amounting to P2,455,497.71," with interest within fifteen days from receipt of said letter, or, in lieu of a cash payment, to assign to private respondent an equivalent number of unencumbered lots at the same price fixed in the contracts.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) grant the respondent relief and order the return of P1,334,443.21 representing the payment made by the respondent to

(35)

the petitioner with legal interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the RTC decision, hence this petition is.

ISSUE: Whether or not the initial payment should be forfeited in favor of the petitioner as liquidated damages in accordance to the contract as the contract is validly rescinded.

HELD: No. It is established in the decision of the Court that the contract is validly rescinded as it clearly establish in the contract the right of the petitioner to rescind it if there is a failure of payment. But this will not give rise or guarantee the right also of the petitioner to forfeit the initial payment. As stated in the contract, ―The OWNER shall have the right to resell the lot/s subject hereof to another buyer and all payments made, together with all improvements introduced on the aforementioned lot/s shall be forfeited in favor of the OWNER as liquidated damages, and in this connection, the PURCHASER

obligates itself to peacefully vacate the aforesaid lot/s without necessity of notice or demand by the OWNER.‖ This give rise that there is a reciprocal condition

before forfeiture is guaranteed that the respondent should have been in possession of the said land in order for him to vacate it. It is well establish on the facts that the respondent never had the possession of the land. This argument not only guarantee the return of the initial payment but also the payment of interest as the petitioner enjoy the benefit of the money when in its possession that should have been use to benefit the respondent.

The Court also in its decision highlight the good faith of the respondent as there are negotiation happened in order to amend the contract but this contract never materialize. The court therefore orders the petitioner to return the initial payment made by the respondent to the petitioner with interest.