You are on page 1of 1

Amar, Angelene Aries P.

Rubi, Therese Diove Glea M.


Zapanta, Arvin
I – Sanchez Roman
June 29, 2018
Mercado vs. Espiritu

317 Phil. 215

In the case of Mercado vs. Espiritu, it used Rule-based, Analogical, and Narrative
Reasoning. Rule-based reasoning was used, Ley 6, tit. 19, Partida 6, to explain the
provision Section 333 of the Civil Code procedure, which determines the cases of
estoppel. The aforementioned reasoning was used to show the validity of the contract to
which the plaintiffs have agreed upon. Also, analogical reasoning was used by comparing
the similarities of circumstances in Mercado vs. Espiritu and the case decided by the
Supreme Court of Spain. The facts were narrated to show how the contract, between the
appellants and defendant, was executed that became the basis of decision of the Supreme
Court.

Ongsiako vs. Gamboa

86 Phil. 56

Policy-based, Analogical, and Rule-based Reasoning were used in the case of


Ongsiako vs. Gamboa. The defendants sought the application the 50-45 way of division
of crop in favor of the tenants. They further their argument through a rule-based
reasoning, by mentioning the Republic Act No. 34 sec. 7 (a) as their basis. Subsequently,
the plaintiffs claimed that such Act is not retroactive by nature since retroactivity, a form
of policy-based reasoning, is only applicable in penal and criminal cases. The analogical
reasoning was applied by citing the cases of People vs. Pomar (46 Phil. 440) and in the
Philippine National Bank vs. Vde e Hijos de Angeles Jose (63 Phil. 814) to explain that
contracting parties may establish agreements, terms, and conditions they are deem
advisable, “provided they are not contrary to laws, morals, and public policy.”

You might also like