Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Oblicon Tricklers
Oblicon Tricklers
Oblicon Tricklers
Case Ticklers
Source: Contract.
Pichel vs Alonzo coconut fruits.
Board of Liquidators filed annulment of Deed of
Sale of Alonzo to Pichel. Accdg to the law which
awarded the land to Alonzo, RA 477, the land
cannot be encumbered to anybody. Alonzo sold
the coconut fruits of the coconut land.
Source: Culpa-Contractual.
**Tan vs. Nifatan Isa-isa na silang namamatay,
na-acquit pa.
Lim of a wealthy family was shot dead by the Tan
brothers. But the Tan brothers one by one died
before the instant petition could be filed. The
wife of Lim with the children instituted an action
for damages against charged 10 years from the
happening of the crime. Tans filed motion to
dismiss because of acquittal.
ISSUE: a. WON the action has prescribed.
b. WON civil action would still prosper even
when the accused were acquitted.
Held: a. No. Action for prescription for liabilities
and charges of crimes is 20 years.
b. Yes. The reason for acquittal was not stated or
explained and Art. 33 allows independent civil
action in case of physical injuries including
death. (ROC?).
10 years prescription for actions when source is
created by law. 5 years when not fixed by the
Code or other laws. 20 years for crimes or delicts
as source of obligations.
Source: Delict or Crimes.
People vs Abungan namatay yung kriminal
Abungan convicted of murder sentenced to RP
and ordered to pay indemnity of P50,000.
Abungan died.
Issue: WON death of Abungan extinguishes his
criminal and civil liability
Held: Yes. Extinguised based on delicts. Art.
89(1) of RPC, death of convict occurs before
final judgment, extinguished. But only criminal
liability is extinguished and also the civil liability
directly arising from and based solely on offense.
their contract, stipulation that Mayfair has 30day exclusive option to purchase the same
should the lessor decide to sell the leased
premises. But Carmelo wanted to sell the whole
property. He sold entire prop to Equatorial.
Mayfair filed for annulment of sale bec of lack of
consideration. Mayfair claimed that he told
Carmelo that it is willing to purchase the same
and that it has the right of first refusal.
Issue: WON the sale can be nullified because of
Mayfairs action
Held: The contract is deemed rescinded.
Rescission a relief allowed for protection of one
of the contracting parties and even 3 rd persons
from injury or to protect some incompatible and
preferred right by the contract. Mayfair has the
opportunity to negotiate.
Determinate Thing: There is a problem because
determination cannot be made bec prop is
indivisible. You cannot pinpoint which is the 25%
of the property. Determination of the exact
portion of the building.
De Leon vs. Sorianobigyan ng palay si nanay.
Natural children of Soriano agreed that they are
to deliver certain number of cavanes of palay
each year to Soriano and shall only cease upon
death of mother. But deliveries were of 3,400
cavanes and children claimed that due to Huk
troubles in Central Luzon.
Issue: WON inability to deliver was permissible
due to force majeure
Held: No. The object to be delivered was generic
and set no bounds or limits to the palay to be
paid. Any palay of the same quality can replace.
Impossibility must consist in the nature of the
thing to be done and not the inability of the
party to do it.
ownership
was
transferred
to
Resp
will
be
liable
for
the
B. Obligation to do
Hahn vs. CAI want these diamond rings.
Santos received 2 diamond rings with a total
amount of 47K. She issued separate receipts
therefore in which she acknowledged that they
have been delivered by Letty Hahn for sale on
commission and that they would be returned
upon demand if unsold. The rings were not sold
nor returned after demand. Thus this action.
Issue: WON the contract was of sale or agency.
Held: Of agency. There is no evidence that would
tell that is was of sale. Their contracts
stipulation does not show it was of sale.
Although resp was willing to give a different
object, the debtor cannot compel the creditor to
receive a diff object.
To do: Deliver the rings, the specific rings.
Chavez vs. GonzalesDahil sa typewriter.
P delivered to D a typewriter for D to repair. D
was not able to repair the typewriter and asked
for P6 for spare parts. P went to D and
demanded the typewriter which D gave in a
wrapped package. When P opened it at home, he
saw that the typewriter had missing parts and
found it in shambles. P demanded missing parts,
interior cover and P6. P brought it to a diff
repair shop and spent P89.95. P filed for
payment of P90 and damages.
Issue: WON D is liable for damages.
Held: Yes. 1167 states that when a person is
obliged to do something and fails to do the
same, it shall be executed at his cost. What is
poorly done be undone. D claims no period but
Court held that fixing a period would only be a
mere formality and would serve no purpose than
to delay. Liable under 1170.
D. Effect of Breach
1. Delay in Performance
Villaruel vs. Manila MotorsKasalanan
lawyer, naningil ng renta nung may gera.
ng
Delay:
Non-payment
accommodation.
Selegna vs.
ballooned.
UCPBcredit
facility
which
of
availement
of
2. Non-fulfillment
Chavez vs. Gonzales
Non-fulfillment: The typewriter was not fixed.
3. Fraud
Board of Liquidators vs. Heirs of Maximo Kalaw
Copra Trading, hindi na kelangan ng pirma ng
Board of Directors.
Nacoco is for the protection, preservation and
development of the coconut industry. Kalaw is
the manager and board chairman. Nacoco
embarked on copra trading activities, thus
entering into contracts. For 3 years, profited 3M
but after 4 typhoons, left the coconut lands
devastated throughout the country. It was not
able to fulfill the contracts it has engaged in.
Nacoco paid damages to one of the parties.
Nacoco now sues Kalaw for having approved the
contracts.
Issue: WON Kalaw is guilty of negligence for
entering into contracts without prior approval of
the Board of Directors.
Held: No. Consideration of practice. Corporate
officer entrusted with the gen management and
control of business has implied authority to make
any contract or do other act wichi is necessary or
appropriate to the conduct of the ordinary
business of the corporation. But there is a
citation on the Nacocos by-laws requiring prior
directorate approval of Nacoco contracts. Court
considered practice of trade of short-sellling or
forward sales. Prev contracts without prior auth
4. Negligence
Necessito vs.
passengers.
ParasKnuckles
killed
the
exercising
the
proper
Lichauco
vs.
Figueras-HermanosLorchas,
emergency and regular use.
were
of
4. Retroactivity of Obligation
Padilla vs. Paterno-his mom is the universal
heir and not his wife-paraphernal.
Held: The ownership of the land is retained by
the wife until she is paid the value of the lot, as
a result of the liquidation of the conjugal
partnership. There mere construction of the
building from common funds does not
automatically convey the ownership of the wifes
land to the conjugal partnership. The properties
conversion from paraphernal to conjugal assets
would be deemed to retroact to the time the
conjugal buildings were first constructed thereon
or at the very latest, the time before the death
of Narcisso Padilla that ended the partnership.
The acquisition by the partnership of theses
properties was subject to the suspensive
condition that their values would be reimbursed
to the widow at the liquidation of the conjugal
partnership; once paid, the effects of the
fulfillment of the condition should be deemed to
retroact to the date the obligation was
constituted.
AND
FACULTATIVE
Agoncillo
vs.
JavierAnastacio
Alano
mortgaging his property to pay the debt.
machinery,