Professional Documents
Culture Documents
NDC Vs Madrigal Wan Hai Digest
NDC Vs Madrigal Wan Hai Digest
Facts:
But since there was no other bidder, petitioner entered into a negotiated sale with
respondent. After several negotiations, respondent increased its offer to $18.5 million which was
accepted by petitioner. Accordingly, on February 11, 1994, petitioner issued a Notice of Award to
respondent of the sale of the NSCP shares and vessels for $18.5 million. On March 14, 1994,
petitioner and respondent executed the corresponding Contract of Sale, and the latter
acquired NSCP, its assets, personnel, records and its three (3) vessels.
Issue:
The case at bar calls to mind the principle of unjust enrichment Nemo cu,m
alterius detriment locupletari potest. No person shall be allowed to enrich himself
unjustly at the expense of the others. This principle of equity has been enshrined in our
Civil Code, Art. 22 of which provides:
Art. 22. Every person who through an act or performance by another or by any
other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the
latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him.
Justice and equity thus oblige that petitioner be held liable for NSCPs tax
liabilities and reimburse respondent for the amount it paid. It would be unjust enrichment
on the part of petitioner to be relieved of that obligation.