!.

Ansay v NDC

Issue: Are natural obligations enforceable?

Ruling: Natural obligations are not enforceable in courts. The court cannot order the giving of bonuses unless it is made part
of the salary.

#. DBP v Andil

Issue: Can the prescription of a debt be waived?

Ruling: Prescription of the debt can be waived by a capacitated person through acts that impliedly recognizes the waiver.
When Confessor signed a new promissory note to pay his obligation, it gave rise to the waiver of prescription already
obtained.

$. Heirs of Roldan v Heirs of Roldan and Heirs of Magtulis

Issue: Can prescription be appreciated against co-owners of a property?

Ruling: Prescription cannot be appreciated against co-owners of a property as long as the owner recognizes the co-
ownership.

%. Cruz v JM Tucson

Issue: Can a presumed quasi-contract cannot emerge against a party when there is already a contract covering the
obligation?

Ruling: A presumed quasi-contract cannot emerge against a party when there is already a contract covering the obligations.
If the party claims that the other has been unjustly enriched through his expense which arose from a contract, his cause of
action must be from the contract.
A quasi contract is a voluntary and unilateral act to prevent a situation where a person is able to benefit or take advantage of
the lawful, voluntary and unilateral acts at the expense of another.

Q.
R. Adille v CA

Issue: Will registration amount to repudiation?

Ruling: No, registration will not amount to repudiation. It only operates as a mere notice of an existing title. Here, the
petitioner acted fraudulently when he registered the title of the land with the intent of acquiring ownership and depriving his
co-heirs with their partition. Such act constituted only a negotiorum gestio making the petitioner only a trustee and not an
owner of the property.

S. Andres v Manufacturers Hanover

Issue: Can provisions of equity be applied when there is a law governing the case?

Ruling: No, provisions of equity cannot be applied when there is a law already governing the case. Here, petitioner invoked
the equity rule that when an innocent person suffers a loss through the negligent acts of another, the one who should bear
the loss is the one whose negligence is the proximate cause of the loss. However, the case can be governed by the principle
of solutio indebiti. Here, the second 10k was delivered by mistake and received by the person who has no right to demand it.
The Court disregarded the argument of petitioner that the equity rules should apply.

T. CBK v CIR

Issue: When can equity be applied?

Ruling: Equity or the justice outside legality can only be applied when there is no law governing the case. It cannot be used
against a law. Solutio indebiti was not applicable in this case because there is an existing relationship between the taxpayer
and the government. The tax payer also has an obligation to pay the tax and was not made by mistake. Further, tax refund is
strictly construed against the tax payer.
\. Puyat and Sons v Manila

Issue:

Ruling: If money be paid through a clear mistake of law or fact, essentially affecting the rights of the parties, not payable, and
should not be retained by the person receiving it, it may be recovered.

!]. Sagrada v Orden

Issue: Where does obligation arise?

Ruling: Obligations arise from law, contracts, quasi-contracts, delicto and quasi-delicto.

!!. Metrobank v Rosales

Issue: When will a hold-out clause apply?

Ruling: A hold-out clause only applies when there is an existing and valid obligation existing from law, contracts, quasi-
contracts, delict and quasi-delict. Here, petitioner failed to prove that there is an existing obligation between them and the
respondent. Although petitioner filed a criminal case against respondent, the case is still not final and executory. There is no
reason for the issuance of the hold-out order. Further, the court found out that when the hold-out order was issued, there
was no criminal case filed yet.

!#. Saludaga v FEU