Intestate Estate of the Late Ricardo Presbitero vs.

Court of
Appeals
GR No. 102432 January 31, 1993

Facts: Ricardo Presbitero entered into two written contracts. Presbitero

retained the services of Leonardo Canoso to negotiate with the Land Bank of
the Philippines and the Ministry of Agrarian Reform for the sale of Hacienda
Maria. The second contract was made and denominated as a contract of
service. In the contract of service, Presbitero bound himself to compensate
the private respondent for his efforts, services, and other related expenses in
making the necessary follow up of the preparation, production of pertinent
documents required, and to effect the recovery of the proceed of the land
transfer payment from the Land Bank in an amount equivalent to 25% of the
gross total sales of Presbiteros properties which is subject of Operation Land
Transfer.

Before Presbiteros claim with the LBP was approved, a third agreement was
entered reducing 25% to 17. 5%.

When the claim was finally approved, Presbitero sent 2 letters to the LBP
concerning the release of the proceeds with the amount equivalent to 17.5%
in the name of Leonardo Canoso until the final release of the claim, and that
Presbitero be informed in writing. However, Canoso (private respondent) was
not given his share as agreed upon.

Issue: whether or not the private respondent has complied with the terms
and conditions of the contract

Ruling: Article 1159 of the New Civil Code states that Obligations arising
from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and
should be complied with in good faith. The Supreme Court ruled that the
contracts entered into by the parties were valid contracts. The private
respondent has complied with the terms and conditions of the contract. The
complementary instruments gave rise to reciprocal obligations which are
defined as those that arise from the same cause, and in which each party is
a debtor and a creditor of the other, such that the obligation of one is
dependent upon the obligation of the other. The facts of the case clearly
showed that what was clearly agreed upon by the contracting parties that
the private respondent would undertake the processing, negotiation and
follow up of Presbiteros claim with the Land Bank of the Philippines within a
stipulated period of 120 days.

Anchor Savings Bank (Formerly Anchor Finance And

Investment Corporation) vs. Henry H. Furigay et. al
GR No. 191178 March 13, 2013

Facts: A verified complaint for sum of money and damages with application
for replevin against Ciudad Transport Service was filed by ASB. The Regional
Trial Court rendered its decision in favor of ASB. However, while the case was
pending, the respondent spouses donated their registered properties in
Pangasinan to their minor children and transfer certificate of titles were
issued in the names of Hegem and Heriette Furigay. ASB, thereafter, filed a
complaint for rescission of deed of donation against the respondent spouses
on the belief that it was made in fraud of the creditors. Respondent-spouses
sought for the dismissal of the case.

Issue: whether or not the creditors after having pursued the property in
possession of the debtor to satisfy their claims may go against the latter

Ruling: Article 1177 of the New Civil Code provides that: The creditors, after
having pursued the property in possession of the debtor to satisfy their
claims, may exercise all the rights and bring all the actions of the latter for
the same purpose, save those which are inherent in his person; they may
also impugn the actions which the debtor may have done to defraud them.
The Supreme Court ruled that in relation to Article 1177, the action for
rescission is subsidiary in nature, and cannot be instituted except when the
party suffering has no other legal means to obtain reparation. it is alleged
that the following successive measures have already been taken: (1) exhaust
the properties of the debtor through levying by attachment and execution
upon all the property of the debtor, except such as are exempt by law from
execution; (2) exercise all the rights and actions of the debtor, save those
personal to him (accion subrogatoria); and (3) seek rescission of the
contracts executed by the debtor in fraud of their rights (accion pauliana).
The court ruled that the ultimate facts constituting the cause of action and
the prerequisites that must be complied with failed to be alleged. Accion
pauliana is only invoked when the injured party has no legal remedies by
which the creditor can satisfy his claims. The allegations of ASB are
insufficient.

Eliseo Fajardo, Jr., and Marissa Fajardo vs. Freedom to

Build, Inc.
GR No. 134692 August 1, 2000

Facts: Freedom To Build, Incorporated, an owner-developer and seller of low-

cost housing, sold to petitioner-spouses, a house and lot designated Lot No.
33, Block 14 of the De La Costa Homes in Barangka, Marikina, Metro Manila.
The restrictions were also contained in Transfer Certificate of Title No. N-
115384 covering the lot issued in the name of petitioner-spouses. The
controversy was due to the extended roof and second floor of the house of
the petitioner-spouses which directly point above the original front wall
despite the repeated warnings of the respondent.

Issue: whether or not the petitioner-spouses are liable

Ruling: Article 1168 of the New Civil Code states that When the obligation
consists in not doing, and the obligor does what has been forbidden of him, it
shall be undone at his expense. The Supreme Court ruled that despite the
contract being seen as an easement, restrictive covenants, though may be
synonymously used with easements, are limitations on the manner in which
one may use his own property. These restrictions on constructions are valid
stipulations. The Court emphasized that since the extension constructed
exceeds the floor area limits of the restrictive covenant, petitioner-spouses
can be required to demolish the structure to the extent that it exceeds the
prescribed floor area limits.
 Victoria Seoane vs. Catalina Franco
GR No. L-7859 February 12, 1913

Facts: The mortgagor agreeing to pay the sum little by little, the mortgage
in question was executed on 13 th of October 1884 to secure the payment of
the sum of P 4, 876.01. The claim appears to have been presented to
plaintiffs intestate on the 8th of August 1911. Nothing has been paid either of
principal or interest. This case is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of
First Instance of Zamboanga holding that the prescription ended upon the
right of action upon the mortgage debt.

Issue: whether or not the obligation intends to fix a period

Ruling: Article 1198 of the New Civil Code provides that When an obligation
does not fix a term, but it can be inferred from its nature and circumstance
that there was an intention of granting it to the debtor the courts shall fix the
duration of such a term. The courts shall also fix the duration of a term when
it may have been left at the will of the debtor. The Supreme court ruled that
the obligation in question seems to leave the duration of the period for the
payment to the will of the debtor. The instruments intention was to give the
debtor the time within which to pay the obligation. The Court ruled that in
speaking in general of obligations with a term, in case of deficiency with
respect to the duration of the term when it has been left to the will of the
debtor, the court shall fix the same. As such, an action should be brought to
the court for having the date be fixed when the instrument agreed upon
should become due and payable.
 PH Credit Corporation vs. Court of Appeals and Carlos M.
Farrales
GR No. 109648 November 22, 2001

Facts: In CA-GR SP No. 23324, the Regional Trial Court of Manila Branch 51
rendered a decision in favor of PH Credit Corporation and against Pacific
Lloyd Corporation, Thomas H. Van Sebille, Carlos M. Farrales and Frederico C.
Lim. When the decision became final and executor, a writ of execution was
issued and implemented by the assigned deputy sheriff where the personal
and real properties of Carlos M. Farrales were levied and sold at public
auction wherein PH Credit Corp was the highest bidder. The purpose of the
petition is to have the decision be and the writ of possession be declared
null and void.

Issue: whether or not the respondents are jointly or solidarily liable

Ruling: Article 1207 of the New Civil Code provides that The concurrence of
two or more creditors or of two or more debtors in one and the same
obligation does not imply that each one of the former has a right to demand,
or that each one of the latter is bound to render, entire compliance with the
prestations. There is a solidary liability only when the obligation expressly so
states, or when the law or the nature of the obligation requires solidarity.
The Supreme Court ruled that in the decision of the trial court, the word
solidary does not appear thus cannot be inferred therefrom. It merely stated
that the following respondents were liable: Pacific Lloyd Corporation, Thomas
H. Van Sebille, Carlos M. Farrales and Frederico Lim. The liability is joint. A
continuing suretyship agreement was executed by the defendants, Frederio
Lim, Carlos Farrales and Thomas Van Sebille, in favor of the plaintiff
corporation, to that effect that if Pacific Lloyd Corporation cannot pay the
amount loaned by plaintiff to said corporation, then the respondents will hold
themselves jointly and severally together with defendant Pacific Lloyd
Corporation to answer the payment of said obligation.