Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Submitted to :
Atty. Ma. Cassandra Teves
involved a motorcycle, a passenger jeep, and a bus with Body No. 119. The bus was owned by
petitioner Philippine Hawk Corporation, and was then being driven by Margarito Avila.
On June 18, 1992, respondent filed an Amended Complaint, in her own behalf and in behalf
of her children, in the civil case for damages against petitioner. Respondent sought the payment
of indemnity for the death of Silvino Tan, moral and exemplary damages, funeral and interment
expenses, medical and hospitalization expenses, the cost of the motorcycle's repair, attorney's
fees, and other just and equitable reliefs.
In its Answer, petitioner denied liability for the vehicular accident, saying that the immediate
and proximate cause of the accident was the recklessness or lack of caution of Silvino Tan.
Petitioner asserted that it exercised the diligence of a good father of the family in the selection
and supervision of its employees, including Margarito Avila.
The trial court rendered judgment against petitioner and defendant Margarito Avila, wherein
it adjudged guilty of simple negligence. It further held petitioner bus company liable for failing
to exercise the diligence of a good father of the family in the selection and supervision of Avila,
having failed to sufficiently inculcate in him discipline and correct behavior on the road. The CA
affirmed the decision of the trial court with modification in the award of damages.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner is liable to respondent for damages.
RULING OF THE COURT:
YES. The Court upholds the finding of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that
petitioner is liable to respondent, since it failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of the
family in the selection and supervision of its bus driver, Margarito Avila, for having failed to
sufficiently inculcate in him discipline and correct behavior on the road. Indeed, petitioner's tests
were concentrated on the ability to drive and physical fitness to do so. It also did not know that
Avila had been previously involved in sideswiping incidents. The Court also affirmed the CA's
decision in awarding civil indemnity for the death of respondent's husband, temperate damages,
and moral damages for the physical injuries sustained by respondent in addition to the damages
granted by the trial court to respondent.
project (or was 11 months and six days behind schedule). Meanwhile, petitioner and respondent
were discussing the possibility of the latters take over of the projects supervision. Despite
ongoing negotiations, respondent did not obtain petitioners consent in hiring ITI as the projects
construction manager. Neither did it inform petitioner of ITIs September 7, 1995 report.
Subsequently, both parties agreed that Primetown will take over the project. Petitioner then
demanded for the payment due him in relation to its partial performance of its obligation. For
failure of Primetown to pay despite repeated demands, petitioner filed a case for specific
performance against Primetown. Meanwhile, Primetown demanded reimbursement for the
amount it spent in having the project completed.
ISSUE:
Whether or not TITAN-IKEDA is responsible for the projects delay.
RULING OF THE COURT:
It was found that because respondent modified the MPT's architectural design, petitioner had
to adjust the scope of work. Moreover, respondent belatedly informed petitioner of those
modifications. It also failed to deliver the concrete mix and rebars according to schedule. For this
reason, petitioner was not responsible for the project's delay. Mora or delay is the failure to
perform the obligation in due time because of dolo (malice) or culpa (negligence). A debtor is
deemed to have violated his obligation to the creditor from the time the latter makes a demand.
Once the creditor makes a demand, the debtor incurs mora or delay. Respondent never sent
petitioner a written demand asking it to accelerate work on the project and reduce, if not
eliminate, slippage. In view of the foregoing, we hold that petitioner did not incur delay in the
performance of its obligation.
as a consequence he was compelled to procure the undelivered materials from other sources; that
as regards the materials duly delivered and installed by HOOVEN, they were fully paid. Upon
request of both parties, the trial court conducted an ocular inspection of Lagon's commercial
building to determine whether the items alleged in the complaint and appearing in the invoices
and delivery receipts had been delivered and installed on the premises.
ISSUE:
Who among the parties is entitled to damages?
RULING OF THE COURT:
The trial court and resolved the case in favor of HOOVEN. It held that the trial court erred in
relying solely on the results of the ocular inspection since the delivery and installation of the
materials in question started as early as 1981, while the ocular inspection was conducted only in
1987 or six (6) years later, after the entire mezzanine was altered and the whole building
renovated. The appellate court also stressed that the testimonies of HOOVEN's witnesses were
straightforward, categorical and supported by documentary evidence of the disputed transactions,
and that all Lagon could offer was a mere denial, uncorroborated and self-serving statements
regarding his transactions with HOOVEN.HOOVEN's bad faith lies not so much on its breach of
contract - as there was no showing that its failure to comply with its part of the bargain was
motivated by ill will or done with fraudulent intent - but rather on its appalling temerity to sue
petitioner for payment of an alleged unpaid balance of the purchase price notwithstanding
knowledge of its failure to make complete delivery and installation of all the materials under
their contracts. Although petitioner was found to be liable to respondent to the extent of
P6,377.66, petitioner's right to withhold full payment of the purchase price prior to the delivery
and installation of all the merchandise cannot be denied since under the contracts the balance of
the purchase price became due and demandable only upon the completion of the project.
Consequently, the resulting social humiliation and damage to petitioner's reputation as a
respected businessman in the community, occasioned by the filing of this suit provide sufficient
grounds for the award of P50,000.00 as moral damages. On the part of Lagon, he is ordered by
the court to pay HOOVEN the amount corresponding to the value of the materials admittedly
delivered to him.
G.R. No. 129018
November 15, 2001
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner was in delay in the payment of the monthly amortizations.
conveyed to them the formers lack of interest to exercise their option because of insufficiency of
funds. They further alleged that private respondents did not deposit the money as required by the
Lupon and instead presented a bank certification which cannot be deemed legal tender.
ISSUE:
Wether private respondents incur in delay when they did not deliver the purchase price or
consign it in court on or before the expiration of the contract.
RULING OF THE COURT:
Obligations under an option to buy are reciprocal obligations. The performance of one
obligation is conditioned on the simultaneous fulfillment of the other obligation. In other words,
in an option to buy, the payment of the purchase price by the creditor is contingent upon the
execution and delivery of a deed of sale by the debtor. In this case, when private respondents
opted to buy the property, their obligation was to advise petitioners of their decision and their
readiness to pay the price. They were not yet obliged to make actual payment. Only upon
petitioners actual execution and delivery of the deed of sale were they required to pay. Notice of
the creditors decision to exercise his option to buy need not be coupled with actual payment of
the price, so long as this is delivered to the owner of the property upon performance of his part of
the agreement. Consequently, since the obligation was not yet due, consignation in court of the
purchase price was not yet required.
Private respondents did not incur in delay when they did not yet deliver payment nor make a
consignation before the expiration of the contract. In reciprocal obligations, neither party incurs
in delay if the other does not comply or is not ready to comply in a proper manner with what is
incumbent upon him. Only from the moment one of the parties fulfills his obligation, does delay
by the other begin. In this case, as there was no compliance yet with what was incumbent upon
petitioners under the option to buy, private respondents had not incurred in delay when the
cashiers check was issued even after the contract expired.
G.R. No. 178902
April 21, 2010
MANUEL O. FUENTES and LETICIA L. FUENTES, Petitioners,
vs.
CONRADO G. ROCA, ANNABELLE R. JOSON, ROSE MARIE R. CRISTOBAL and
PILAR MALCAMPO,Respondents.
FACTS:
On October 11, 1982, Sabrina Taroza sold to her own son Tarciano T. Roca her
titled of 358 sq.m lot located at canelar, zamboanga under a deed of absolute sale. Six
years later, Tarciano T. Roca offered to the spouses Fuentes the same title of land
bought to her mother with stipulations that Fuentes should pay a downpayment of
60,000.00 php for the trnasfer of lot to them and within 6 months Tarciano would have to
vacate the lot of structures , occupants and secure the consent of his stranged wife.
upon compliance, Fuentes spouses must have to pay Tarciano the amount of
140,000.00 php.On January 11, 1989 a document of absolute sale as issued to the
Fuentes. One year after, Tarciano T. Roca died, which was followed by his wife 9
months after. the children of Roca filed for an action of annulment of sale and
reconveynace of the land against the Fuentes on the ground that tarciano's wife didn't
gave her consent upon her husband and that fraud and forgery. Spouses Fuentes
denied such allegations and claim that the forgery case is personal to Rosario the wife
of Tarciano and she alone could claim it besaides the 4-year prescriptive period for
nullifying the sale on the ground of fraud had already elapsed. The RTC ruled in favor
of the Fuentes, however the Court of Appelas reversed the decision of the RTC.
ISSUE :
Whether or not Rosario's signature was forged
Whether or not, Roca's action for declaration nullity of that sale to the spouses
Fuentes had alreadry prescribed.
RULE OF THE COURT:
Yes, the Supreme Court agrees with CA's observation that Rosario's signature
strokes on the affidavit apperas heavy, deliberate and forced. Her specimen signature
on the other hand are, consitently of a lighter stroke and more fluid. The way the letter
"R" and "S" were written is also remarkably different. The variance is obvious even to
the untrained eye.For the second issue, the SC held its decision based on Art. 173
which provides that inorder that the wife may bring an action for annulment of sale on
the ground of lack os spousal consent during the marriage within 10 years from the
transaction. Consequently, the action that the Rocas, her heirs, brought in 1997 fell
within ten years of the January 11, 1989 sale. Therefore it did not yet prescribe. Even if
the claim of the spouses for prescription was based on fraud and forgery and that the
prescriptive period to be applied is 4 years, the answer is still No, because the sale was
void from the beginning and thus the land remained the property of Tarciano and
Rosario despite that sale. When the two died, they passed on the ownership to their
heirs, namely the Rocas, and as lawful owners thaey had the right to exclude any
person from its enjoyment and disposal (Art 429 of the Civil Code). In fairness to the
Fuentes, the SC held that they should be entitled among other things, to be recovered
from the Tarciano's heirs the amount of 200, 000.00php with legal interest until fully paid
chargeable against his estate. They are also to be entitled to a reimbursement with the
improvements they inroduced with a right of retention until reimbursement is made (Art.
448).
G. R. No. 165548
June 13, 2011
PHILIPPINE REALTY and HOLDING CORP. VS. LEY CONST. and DEV. CORP.
FACTS:
Sometime between April 1988 and October 1989, the two corporations entered into
four major construction projects, as evidenced by four duly notarized "construction
agreements." These were the four construction projects the parties entered into
involving a Project 1, Project 2, Project 3 (all of which involve the Alexandra buildings)
and a Tektite Building. LCDC committed itself to the construction of the buildings
needed by PRHC, which in turn committed itself to pay the contract price agreed upon.
Both parties agreed to enter into another agreement. Abcede asked LCDC to advance
the amount necessary to complete construction. Its president acceded, on the absolute
condition that it be allowed to escalate the contract price. Abcede replied that he would
take this matter up with the board of directors of PRHC.The board of directors turned
down the request for an escalation agreement. However, On 9 August 1991 Abcede
sent a formal letter to LCDC, asking for its conformity, to the effect that should it infuse
P36 million into the project, a contract price escalation for the same amount would be
granted in its favor by PRHC.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there is a fortuitous event in the case at bar.
GR No. 139982
November 21, 2002
FRANCISCO VS. HERRERA
FACTS:
Eligio Herrera, Sr., father of the respondent, was the owner of two parcels of land.
At two incidents on 1991, petitioner bought the two parcels of land for Php1,000,000.00
and PhP750,000.00. Contending that the purchase price was inadequate, the children
of Eligio, Sr., namely, Josefina Cavettany, Eligio Herrera, Jr., and respondent Pastor
Herrera tried to negotiate for an increase of the purchase price. When petitioner refused
respondents then filed a complaint for annulment of sale on the ground that at the time
of sale, Eligio Sr., was already afflicted with senile dementia, characterized by
deteriorating mental and physical condition including loss of memory. Both the RTC and
CA decided in favor of respondent.
ISSUE:
Is the disputed contract void and therefore unenforceable?
contracts are inexistent and void from the beginning. They cannot be ratified nor the right to set
up their illegality as a defense be waived.Moreover, the contention regarding the excessive
interest rates cannot be considered as an issue presented for the first time on appeal. The records
show that petitioner raised the validity of the 10% monthly interest in his answer filed with the
trial court. To deprive him of his right to assail the imposition of excessive interests would be to
sacrifice justice to technicality. Furthermore, an appellate court is clothed with ample authority to
review rulings even if they are not assigned as errors. This is especially so if the court finds that
their consideration is necessary in arriving at a just decision of the case before it. We have
consistently held that an unassigned error closely related to an error properly assigned, or upon
which a determination of the question raised by the error properly assigned is dependent, will be
considered by the appellate court notwithstanding the failure to assign it as an error. Since
respondents pointed out the matter of interest in their Appellants Brief before the Court of
Appeals, the fairness of the imposition thereof was opened to further evaluation. The Court
therefore is empowered to review the same.
ISSUE:
Whether or not spouses Francisco may rescind the contract.
In the case at bar, the Contract to Sell was perfected when the petitioners consented to the sale to
the respondent of their shares in the subject parcels of land by affixing their signatures on the
said contract. Such signatures show their acceptance of what has been stipulated in the Contract
to Sell and such acceptance was made known to respondent corporation when the duplicate copy
of the Contract to Sell was returned to the latter bearing petitioners signatures
ISSUE:
Whether or not the deed of sale is void.
FACTS:
Paulina Rigonan owned three parcels of land including the house and warehouse on one
parcel. She allegedly sold them to private respondents, the spouses Felipe and Concepcion
Rigonan, who claim to be her relatives. In 1966, petitioners who claim to be her closest
surviving relatives, allegedly took possession of the properties by means of stealth, force and
intimidation, and refused to vacate the same. According to defendants, the alleged deed of
absolute sale was void for being spurious as well as lacking consideration. They said that
Paulina Rigonan did not sell her properties to anyone. As her nearest surviving kin within the
fifth degree of consanguinity, they inherited the three lots and the permanent improvements
thereon when Paulina died. They said they had been in possession of the contested properties for
more than 10 years.
ISSUE:
1.) Whether or not the consideration in Deed of Sale can be used to impugn the validity of the
Contract of Sale.
2.) Whether or not the alleged Deed of Sale executed by Paulina Rigonan in favor of the private
respondents is valid.
RULING OF THE COURT:
1.) Consideration is the why of a contract, the essential reason which moves the contracting
parties to enter into the contract. The Court had seen no apparent and compelling reason for her
to sell the subject 9 parcels of land with a house and warehouse at a meager price of P850 only.
On record, there is unrebutted testimony that Paulina as landowner was financially well off. She
loaned money to several people. Undisputably, the P850.00 consideration for the nine (9) parcels
of land including the house and bodega is grossly and shockingly inadequate, and the sale is null
and void ab initio.
2.) The Court ruled in the negative. Private respondents presented only a carbon copy of this
deed. When the Register of Deeds was subpoenaed to produce the deed, no original typewritten
deed but only a carbon copy was presented to the trial court. None of the witnesses directly
testified to prove positively and convincingly Paulinas execution of the original deed of sale.
The carbon copy did not bear her signature, but only her alleged thumbprint. Juan Franco
testified during the direct examination that he was an instrumental witness to the deed. However,
when cross-examined and shown a copy of the subject deed, he retracted and said that said deed
of sale was not the document he signed as witness.
A parcel of land owned by respondent Flora R. Dayrit was leased to petitioners Dalton,et.
al. Eventually, the land was sold to respondent FGR Realty and Development Corporation. FGR
Realty and Dayrit decided not to accept payments from Dalton,et. al. for the purpose of
terminating the lease agreements. Dalton ,et. al. filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court
and attached was a consignation of the rental payments. However, they failed to notify the other
party of such action. FGR Realty and Dayrit withdrew the consigned amount with reservation to
question the validity of the consignation.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the consignation made by Dalton,et. al.is void
RULING OF THE COURT:
Petition DENIED.Compliance with the requisites of a valid consignation is mandatory.
Failure to comply strictly with any of the requisites will render the consignation void. Substantial
compliance is not enough. The giving of notice to the persons interested in the performance of
the obligation is mandatory. Failure to notify the persons interested in the performance of the
obligation will render the consignation void. Under Art. 1257 of our Civil Code, in order that
consignation of the thing due may release the obligor, it must first be announced to the persons
interested in the fulfillment of the obligation. The consignation shall be in effectual if it is not
made strictly in consonance with the provisions which regulate payment.
In said Article 1258, it is further stated that the consignation having been made, the interested
party shall also be notified thereof.
We hold that the essential requisites of a valid consignation must be complied with fully and
strictly in accordance with the law, Articles 1256 to1261, New Civil Code. That these Articles
must be accorded a mandatory construction is clearly evident and plain from the very language
of the codal provisions themselves which require absolute compliance with the essential
requisites therein provided. Substantial compliance is not enough for that would render only a
directory construction to the law. The use of the words "shall" and "must" which are imperative,
operating to impose a duty which may be enforced, positively indicate that all the essential
requisites of a valid consignation must be complied with.
Metro Manila, to secure a loan in the total amount of P59, 500.00. On October 19, 1987, two
armed men entered the pawnshop and took away whatever cash and jewelry were found inside
the pawnshop vault. Petitioner Sicam sent respondent Lulu a letter dated October 19, 1987
informing her of the loss of her jewelry due to the robbery incident in the pawnshop. On
November 2, 1987, respondent Lulu then wrote a letter to petitioner Sicam expressing disbelief
stating that when the robbery happened, all jewelry pawned were deposited with Far East Bank
near the pawnshop since it had been the practice that before they could withdraw, advance notice
must be given to the pawnshop so it could withdraw the jewelry from the bank. Respondent Lulu
then requested petitioner Sicam to prepare the pawned jewelry for withdrawal on November 6,
1987 but petitioner Sicam failed to return the jewelry.On September 28, 1988, respondent Lulu
joined by her husband, Cesar Jorge, filed a complaint against petitioner Sicam with the Regional
Trial Court of Makati seeking indemnification for the loss of pawned jewelry and payment of
actual, moral and exemplary damages as well as attorney's fees. However, petitioner Sicam
contends that he is not the real party-in-interest as the pawnshop was incorporated on April 20,
1987 and known as Agencia de R.C. Sicam, Inc; that petitioner corporation had exercised due
care and diligence in the safekeeping of the articles pledged with it and could not be made liable
for an event that is fortuitous.
ISSUE:
Whether petitioners are liable for the loss of the pawned articles in their possession.
RULING OF THE COURT:
After trial ,the RTC rendered its Decision dismissing respondents complaint as well as
petitioners counterclaim. The RTC held that robbery is a fortuitous event which exempts the
victim from liability for the loss and under Art. 1174 of the Civil Code. It further held that the
corresponding diligence required of a pawnshop is that it should take steps to secure and protect
the pledged items and should take steps to insure itself against the loss of articles which are
entrusted to its custody as it derives earnings from the pawnshop trade which petitioners failed to
do and that robberies and hold-ups are foreseeable risks in that those engaged in the pawnshop
business are expected to foresee. Fortuitous events by definition are extraordinary events not
foreseeable or avoidable. It is therefore, not enough that the event should not have been foreseen
or anticipated, as is commonly believed but it must be one impossible to foresee or to avoid. The
mere difficulty to foresee the happening is not impossibility to foresee the same.
Esperanza became ill and decided to sell the property without informing the other
children of the said sale to Rodrigo Lim, only Antonio and Cristeta knew of the said sale.
ISSUE:
When the other children knew about it, Esperanza signed a letter addressed to
Rodrigo informing the latter that her children did not agree to the sale of the property to
him and that she was withdrawing all her commitments until the validity of the sale is
finally resolved.
Whether or not Deed of Absolute Sale is null and void.
RULING OF THE COURT:
In the present case, the parties intended to be bound by the Contract, even if it did not
reflect the actual purchase price of the property. That the parties intended the
agreement to produce legal effect is revealed by the letter of Esperanza Balite to
respondent dated October 23, 1996 and petitioners? admission that there was a partial
payment of P320,000 made on the basis of the Deed of Absolute Sale. There was an
intention to transfer the ownership of over 10,000 square meters of the property . Clear
from the letter is the fact that the objections of her children prompted Esperanza to
unilaterally withdraw from the transaction.
Since the Deed of Absolute Sale was merely relatively simulated, it remains valid and
enforceable. All the essential requisites prescribed by law for the validity and perfection
of contracts are present. However, the parties shall be bound by their real agreement for
a consideration of P1,000,000 as reflected in their Joint Affidavit.
The juridical nature of the Contract remained the same. What was concealed was
merely the actual price. Where the essential requisites are present and the simulation
refers only to the content or terms of the contract, the agreement is absolutely binding
and enforceable between the parties and their successors in interest.