Case Notes – Torts
Introduction, Elements & Types of Torts
I. Elements and Types of Torts
1) Goodyear Philippines, Inc. vs. Sy 474 SCRA 427 (2005)
Facts: The subject of this case involves a motor vehicle. The
vehicle was originally owned by Goodyear Philippines, Inc.
([Goodyear]) which it purchased from Industrial and
Transport Equipment, Inc. in 1983.
- It was hijacked in 1986; the hijacking was reported to
the PNP which issued out an alert alarm on the said
vehicle as a stolen one. It was later recovered on the
same year.
- “The vehicle was used by [Goodyear] until 1996,
when it sold it to Anthony Sy on September 12,
1996;
o Then sold it to Jose Lee on January 1997;
Lee filed an action for rescission of contract with damages
against Sy –
 Because he could not register the vehicle in his name
due to the certification from PNP regional traffic
management office that it was a stolen vehicle and
the alarm was not lifted
o Goodyear requested to lift the stolen vehicle
alarm status;
o Goodyear was impleaded as third-party
defendant complaint filed by Sy;
 Goodyear filed a motion to dismiss on the ground
that the complaint failed to state a cause of action
“The Regional Trial Court [(RTC)] resolved to dismiss the
third-party complaint.
- The third party complaint failed to show that the
vehicle in question belongs to a person other than
the third party defendant at the time the said motor
vehicle was sold by the third party defendant to the
third party plaintiff.
The CA reasoned that the Third-Party Complaint had stated a
cause of action.
Issue: Whether or not Third-Party Complaint state a cause of
action against petitioner?
Ruling: The Third-Party Complaint absolutely failed to state
an act or omission of petitioner that had proximately caused
injury or prejudice to Sy.
Elements of a Cause of Action -- A cause of action, which is
an act or omission by which a party violates the right of
another, has these elements:
1) the legal right of the plaintiff;
2) the correlative obligation of the defendant to
respect that legal right; and
3) an act or omission of the defendant that violates
such right.
In the present case, the third element is missing.
- The Third-Party Complaint filed by Sy is
inadequate, because it did not allege any act or
omission that petitioner had committed in
violation of his right to the subject vehicle.
- The Complaint capitalized merely on the fact that
the vehicle—according to the records of the PNP,
which was a stranger to the case—was “a stolen
vehicle.”
The Deed of Sale between petitioner and Respondent Sy was
attached as Annex “A”19 to the Third-Party Complaint filed
by the latter against the former.
 The Deed stated that petitioner was the absolute
owner of the subject vehicle. No contrary assertion
was made in the Complaint.
Hence, the trial court correctly observed that the Complaint
had failed to show that, at the time of its sale to Respondent
Sy, the vehicle belonged to a person other than petitioner.
2) Mercado vs. Espino 691 SCRA 245 (2013)
Facts: Subject of the instant controversy is a 338 square
meter parcel of land located at the Poblacion of the then
Municipality of Maasin (now a city), in the Province of
Southern Leyte.
- Herein petitioners led with the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Maasin, Southern Leyte, a Complaint for
Recovery of Property and Declaration of Nullity of
Deed of Sale, Certicate of Title and Damages.
Petitioners alleged that they are the heirs of the late spouses
Santiago and Sofronia Mercado, who were the owners of the
subject parcel of land;
Respondents claimed ownership over the subject parcel of
land, alleging that they bought the same from one Josefa
Mercado Espina (Josefa);
 declaration of nullity of the deeds of sale between:
 Santiago and Escolastico,
 Escolastico and Genivera,
 Genivera and Josefa.
The RTC denied respondents' Motion to Dismiss of the
respondents.
- Grounds of respondents: failure of the complainant
to state the assessed value of the property, that
petitioner’s cause of action is barred by prescription,
laches and indefeasibility of title, and that the
Case Notes – Torts
Introduction, Elements & Types of Torts
complaint does not state sufficient cause of action
against respondents who are buyers in good faith;
The CA ruled that respondents' title has become
indefeasible and incontrovertible by lapse of time and that
petitioners' action is already barred by prescription.
- The CA also held that since petitioners did not allege
that respondents were not buyers in good faith, the
latter are presumed to be purchasers in good faith
and for value.
Issue: 1) Procedurally, whether or not the Court of Appeals
erred in giving due course to respondents' second motion to
dismiss filed on November 21, 2003 on the amended
complaint filed on August 16, 2000;
2) Substantively, whether or not the Court of Appeals erred
in ordering the Regional Trial Court to dismiss the case and
enjoining it from proceeding with the case on the ground of
indefeasibility of title, prescription and/or laches
Ruling: The petition lacks merit.
It is well established that issues raised for the first time on
appeal and not raised in the proceedings in the lower court
are barred by estoppel. The CA correctly ruled that
petitioners' Amended Complaint failed to state a cause of
action.
 there is no allegation whatsoever as to the
fraudulent nature of the succeeding transfers or of
the succeeding transferee's knowledge about the
irregularity and defect of the first sale.
Failure to state a cause of action refers to the insufficiency of
the pleading, and is a ground for dismissal under Rule 16 of
the Rules of Court.
A complaint states a cause of action if it avers the existence
of the three essential elements of a cause of action, namely:
(a) The legal right of the plaintiff;
(b) The correlative obligation of the defendant; and
(c) The act or omission of the defendant in violation of said
legal right.
A perusal of the Amended Complaint in the present case
would show that there is, indeed, no allegation of any act
or omission on the part of respondents which supposedly
violated the legal rights of petitioners.
 Thus, the CA is correct in dismissing the complaint on
the ground of failure to state a cause of action.
The Court likewise agrees with the ruling of the CA that
respondents are presumed purchasers in good faith.
- As the CA correctly noted, from the time that
petitioners' predecessor-in-interest was supposedly
deprived of ownership of the subject lot through an
alleged fraudulent sale, the same had already been
sold thrice.
- Moreover, since the subject property was already
covered by a Torrens title at the time that
respondents bought the same, the law does not
require them to go beyond what appears on the face
of the title.
 The lot has, thus, passed to respondents, who are
presumed innocent purchasers for value, in the absence
of any allegation to the contrary.
Petitioners' cause of action should, therefore, be directed
not against respondents, who are innocent holders for value,
but against those whom petitioners alleged to have
defrauded them.
3) Illano vs. Español 478 SCRA 365 (2005)
Facts: Amelia Alonzo is a trusted employee of petitioner
Victoria Ilano. There were occasions when Alonzo was
entrusted with petitioner’s Metrobank Checkbook containing
either signed or unsigned blank checks, especially in those
time when petitioner left for the US for medical check-up.
A complaint for Revocation/Cancellation of Promissory Notes
and Bills of Exchange (Checks) was filed by Ilano;
- Alonzo, by means of deceit and abuse of confidence
succeeded in procuring Promissory Notes and signed
blank checks from [petitioner] who was then
recuperating from illness;
The named defendants-herein respondents filed their
respective Answers invoking,
- among other grounds for dismissal lack of cause of
action, for while the checks subject of the complaint
had been issued on account and for value, some had
been dishonored due to “ACCOUNT CLOSED”; and
the allegations in the complaint are bare and
general.
The trial court dismissed petitioner’s complaint for failure
“to allege the ultimate facts”—bases of petitioners claim
that her right was violated and that she suffered damages
thereby.
The appellate court held that the elements of a cause of
action are absent in the case:
- Such allegations in the complaint are only general
averments of fraud, deceit and bad faith.
- In the second place, we find nothing on the face of
the complaint to show that [petitioner] denied the
genuineness or authenticity of her signature on the
Case Notes – Torts
Introduction, Elements & Types of Torts
subject promissory notes and the allegedly signed
blank checks.
Issue: W/N petitioner’s complaint failed to state a cause of
action
Ruling: While some of the allegations may lack particulars,
and are in the form of conclusions of law, the elements of a
cause of action are present.
- For even if some are not stated with particularity,
petitioner alleged
1) her legal right not to be bound by the
instruments which were bereft of consideration and
to which her consent was vitiated;
2) the correlative obligation on the part of
the defendants-respondents to respect said right;
and
3) the act of the defendants-respondents in
procuring her signature on the instruments through
“deceit,” “abuse of confidence” machination,”
“fraud,” “falsification,” “forgery,” “defraudation,”
and “bad faith,” and “with malice, malevolence and
selfish intent.”
II. Justifications and Defenses Against Liability
1. Republic vs. Estate of Hans Menzi 476 SCRA 20
(2005)
FACTS: In the aftermath of the EDSA Revolution,
President Corazon C. Aquino issued Executive Order (EO)
No. 1, creating the Presidential Commission on Good
Government (PCGG) tasked with the recovery of all ill-
gotten wealth accumulated by former President
Ferdinand Marcos, his immediate family, relatives,
subordinates and close associates.
This was followed by EO Nos. 2 and 14, respectively freezing
all assets and properties in the Philippines in which the
former President, his wife, their close relatives,
subordinates, business associates, dummies, agents or
nominees have any interest or participation, and defining the
jurisdiction over cases involving the ill-gotten wealth.
Pursuant to the executive orders, several writs of
sequestration were issued by the PCGG in pursuit of the
reputedly vast Marcos fortune.
The PCGG issued a Writ of Sequestration sequestering:
 the shares of Marcos and with the Emilio Yap
and Eduardo Cojuangco and their nominees and
agents in the Bulletin Publishing Corporation
(Bulletin) where they own substantial holdings,
and
 another Writ of Sequestration for the shares of
stock, assets, properties, records and documents
of Hans Menzi Holdings and Management, Inc.
(HMHMI).
ISSUE: Is PCGG empowered to sell sequestered assets?
RULING: The contention that the sale of the 214 block to the
Bulletin was null and void as the PCGG failed to obtain
approval from the Sandiganbayan is likewise unmeritorious.
While it is true that the PCGG is not empowered to sell
sequestered assets without prior Sandiganbayan approval,
 this case presents a clear exception because this
Court itself directed the PCGG to accept the cash
deposit offered by Bulletin in payment for the
Cojuangco and Zalamea sequestered shares subject
to the alternatives mentioned therein and the
outcome of the remand to the Sandiganbayan on the
question of ownership of these sequestered shares.
Like the remedies of “freeze order” and “provisional
takeover” with which the PCGG has been equipped,
sequestration is not meant to deprive the owner or
possessor of his title or any right to his property and vest the
same in the sequestering agency, the Government or any
other person, as these can be done only for the causes and
by the processes laid down by law. These remedies “are
severe, radical measures taken against apparent, ostensible
owners of property, or parties against whom, at the worst,
there are merely prima facie indications of having amassed
‘ill-gotten wealth,’ indications which must still be shown to
lead towards actual facts in accordance with the judicial
procedures of the land.” Considering that sequestration is
not meant to create a permanent situation as regards the
property subject thereof and subsists only until ownership is
finally judicially determined, it stands to reason that, upon its
dissolution, the property sequestered should likewise be
returned to its owner/s. Indeed, sequestration cannot be
allowed interminably and forever, if it is to adhere to
constitutional due process.
Ill-Gotten Wealth; Words and Phrases;
 Ill-gotten wealth is any asset, property, business
enterprise or material possession of persons within
the purview of Executive Orders Nos. 1 and 2,
acquired by them directly, or indirectly thru
dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates and/or
business associates by any of the means or similar
schemes set out under the Rules and Regulations of
the Presidential Commission on Good Government
(PCGG).
Damages; An award of actual or compensatory damages
requires proof of pecuniary loss—
Case Notes – Torts
Introduction, Elements & Types of Torts
 in this case, the Republic has not proven with a
reasonable degree of certainty, premised on
competent proof and the best evidence obtainable,
that it has suffered any actual pecuniary loss by
reason of the acts of the defendants
ILANO VS HON. DOLORES L. ESPAÑOL
FACTS:
**Amelia Alonzo is a trusted employee of Victoria Ilano.
During those timesthat Ilano is in the Unied States for
medical check-up, Alonzo was
entrusted with Ilano„s
MetrobankCheck Book which contains both signed and
unsigned blank checks. A Complaint for
Revocation/Cancellation of  Promissory Notesand Bills of
Exchange (Checks) with Damages and Prayerfor
PreliminaryInjunction or  Temporary RestrainingOrder (TRO)
against Alonzo et al. before the Regional Trial Court of
Cavite.
Ilano contends that Alonzo, by meansof deceit and abuse of
confidence succeeded in procuring Promissory Notes and
signed blank checks. Alonzo likewise succeeded in inducing
Ilanoto signantedated Promissory Notes.
The RTC rendered a decision dismissing the complaint for
lack of cause of action and failure to allege the ultimatefacts
of the case. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the
dismissal of the complaint. Hence, this petition.
**Defendant AMELIA O. ALONZO is a trusted employee of
[petitioner]. She has been with them for several years
already, and through the years,defendant ALONZO was able
to gain the trust and confidence of [petitioner] and her
family; That due to these trust and confidence reposed upon
defendant ALONZO by [petitioner], there were occasions
when defendant ALONZO was entrusted with [petitioner‟s]
METROBANK Check Book containing either signed or
unsigned blank checks, especially in those times when
[petitioner] left for the United States for medical check-up;
Defendant Alonzo was able to succeed in inducing the petitio
ner to sign PN through fraud and deceit; defendant ALONZO  particular money.
in collusion with her co-defendants,ESTELA CAMACLANG,
ALLAN CAMACLANG and ESTELITA LEGASPI likewise was able
to induce plaintiff to sign several undated blankchecks.
 The named defendants-herein respondents filed their
respective Answers invoking, among other grounds for
dismissal, lack of cause of action,for while the checks subject
of the complaint had been issued on account and for value,
some had been dishonored due to “ACCOUNT CLOSED;” and
the allegations in the complaint are bare and general.
The trial court dismissed petitioner‟s complaint for failure
“to allege the ultimate facts”
-bases of petitioners claim that her right was violated and
that she suffered damages thereby. The Court of Appeals
affirmed the trial court‟s decision and held that the elements
of a cause of action are absent in the case and petitioner did
not deny the genuineness or authenticity of her signature on
the subject promissory notes and the allegedly signed blank
ISSUE:
In issue then is whether petitioner‟s complaint failed to state
a cause of action.
RULING
: As reflected in the above-quoted allegations in petitioner‟s
complaint, petitioner is seeking twin reliefs, one for
revocation/cancellation of promissory notes and checks, and
the other for damages.While some of the allegations may
lack particulars, and are in the form of conclusions of law,
the elements of a cause of action are present. Foreven if
some are not stated with particularity, petitioner alleged 1)
her legal right not to be bound by the instruments which
were bereft of considerationand to which her consent was
vitiated; 2) the correlative obligation on the part of the
defendants-respondents to respect said right; and 3) the act
ofthe defendants-respondents in procuring her signature on
the instruments through “deceit,” “abuse of confidence”
“machination,” “fraud,”“falsification,” “forgery,”
“defraudation,” and “bad faith,” and “with malice,
malevolence and selfish intent.”
 Where the allegations of a complaint are vague, indefinite,
or in the form of conclusions, its dismissal is not proper for
the defendant may ask for more particulars.With respect to
above-said Check No. 0084078, however, which was drawn
against another account of petitioner, albeit the date of issue
bears only the year − 1999, its validity and negotiable
character at the time the complaint was filed on March 28,
2000 was not affected. For Section 6 of theNegotiable
Instruments Law provides:Section 6. Omission; seal;
 –
 
The validity and negotiable character of an instrument are
not affected by the fact that  –
 (a) It isnot dated
Case Notes – Torts
Introduction, Elements & Types of Torts

; or (b) Does not specify the value given, or that any value

had been given therefor; or (c) Does not specify the place
where it is drawn orthe place where it is payable; or (d)
Bears a seal; or (e) Designates a particular kind of current
money in which payment is to be made.However, even if the
holder of Check No. 0084078 would have filled up the month
and day of issue thereo

n to be “December” and “31,”

respectively, it would have, as it did, become stale six (6)

months or 180 days thereafter, following current banking
practice. It is, however, withrespect to the questioned
promissory notes that the present petition assumes merit.

For, petitioner‟s allegations in the complaint relative

thereto, even

if lacking particularity, does not as priorly stated call for the

dismissal of the complaint.**While some of the allegations
may lack particulars, and are in the formofconclusionsof
law, the elementsof a cause of action are present. For evenif
some are not stated with particularity, Ilano alleged 1) her
legal right not to be bound by the instruments which were
bereft of consideration and towhich her consent was
vitiated; 2) the correlative obligation on the part of the
defendants-respondents to respect said right; and 3) the act
of thedefendants-respondents in procuring her signature on
the 

instruments through “deceit,” “abuse of confidence”

“machination,” “fraud,” “falsification,”“forgery,”
“defraudation,” and “bad faith,” and “with malice,
malevolence and selfish intent.”