Module 7 Case Digest

GSIS vs. Spouses Deang, G.R. No. 135644, 17 September 2001.

Facts: The spoused obtained a housing loan from GSIS secured by a real estate mortgage to the
property. As a requirement, the spouses deposited the owners duplicate copy with GSIS. 11
months before the maturity of the loan, the spouses paid their debt to the GSIS. With that, they
also requested to release the owner’s duplicate title. Because they intended to make a loan to
Runes and they will use the lot as collateral. The proceeds are for renovation of the spouses’
residential house. Although GSIS employees were unable to release the owner’s duplicate title
because it could not be found. Spouses’ then filed a complaint for damages and claiming that
they were unable to make a loan from Runes because of the delay of the GSIS made.
Issues: whether or not GSIS may be liable to pay damages to respondent spouses given the
applicable law and the circumstances of the case.
Whether the GSIS, as a GOCC primarily performing governmental functions, is liable for a
negligent act of its employee acting within the scope of his assigned tasks.
Ruling: GSIS is liable for damages. We deny the petition for lack of merit.
Art. 2180, obligation imposed by Art. 2176 is demandable not only for own’s act or omission
but also those of persons for whom one is responsible. The employers are liable for the
damages caused by their employees. And that there was a pre existing contract between GSIS
and the spoused aregarding the loan agreement secured by the real estate mortgage. The
obligation arose as soon as the mortage was released, which was the duty to return the
owner’s duplicate copy.

Pelayo vs. Lauron, G.R. No. L-4089, 12 January 1909.

Facts: Petitioner Pelayo, a physician, gave medical assistance for the infant’s delivery on the
daughter-in-law of Lauron. The services rendered was P500.00 which the Lauron refused to pay
and gives excuses and reasons. Pelayo then, prayed that the judgment be entered in his favor
as against the defendants for the sum of P500.00 and costs.
Issues: Whether or not Lauro is obliged to pay Pelayo for the medical assistance rendered to
their daughter-in-law.
Ruling: No. Because according to Article 1157 of the Civil Code, obligations are created by law,
by contracts, by quasi-contracts, by illicit acts and omissions or by those which any kind of fault
or negligence occurs. Obligations arising from law are not presumed. Those expressly
determined in the Code or in special law, etc., are the only demandable ones. It is supposed to
be the mutual obligations of the spouses so, it must be the husband who shall pay for the
service rendered, not Lauron.
Jimenez vs. City of Manila, G.R. No. 71049, 29 May 1987.
Facts: Jimenez filed against the city of Manila for the damages it caused him. Because he went
to the market of Sta. Ana Public Market with his neighbor, then It was flooding ankle-deep
during this time. After he bought what he needed, he accidentally stepped on a manhole which
he did not see clearly because it was flooding dirty water, unfortunately there was a nail in the
uncovered drainage which caused injury to his left leg and he has been admitted to the hospital
for less than a month due to the pain he was suffering. After that the hospital had to charge
him for hospital fees and few days later he had to walk in crutches.
Issues: Whether or not the Intermediate Appellate Court erred in not ruling that respondent
City of Manila should be jointly and severally liable with Asiatic Integrated Corporation for the
injuries petitioner suffered.
Ruling: Yes. Under the Art. 2194, the City of Manila and Asia Integrated Corporation are liable.
There’s a contract between AIC and City of Manila for the improvement, rehabilitation and
safety of the public market.
Rotea vs. Delupio, G.R. No. L-45310, 14 April 1939.
Facts: Birondo is the father of Josefina and Sofia, they entrusted Atty. Rotea to obtain an
annulment of sale made by Francisca Delupio, his mother-in-law. Also the issuance of certificate
for a title of a piece of land, the right to buy it. Which it will be inherited by Birondo’s kids from
their mother Beatriz Bartolome, who passed away, and its ownership later acquired by them
from the government by purchased. As payment for Atty’s services, he bounded himself to
have the 1/3 of the land. Atty. Rotea did his best to annul the sale made by Francisca which
became successful. The Court accepted it and ordered the Register of Deeds of Rizal. Francisca
the, filed a motion of reconsideration regarding Atty. Rotea’s notation that Birondo was not
authorized to enter an agreement with Atty. regarding the property of Birondo’s kids, it was
granted. Then the Court issued another order about the right of notation of Atty. Rotea without
specifying any value.
Issues: Whether attorney Marcos J. Rotea is entitled to be compensated for the services
rendered by him in favor of Simplicio Birondo's minor daughters in the annulment of the sale
made by their grandmother of a parcel of land belonging to them and in having an original
certificate of title issued in their names, by virtue of a contract entered into between said
attorney and the father of said minors.
Ruling:
Yes. Atty. Rotea is a negotiorum gestor, meaning entitled to be indemnified for necessary
expenses incurred by him and the damages suffered in doing his duties and to have his right of
retention noted.
Wherefore, finding no error in the appealed order, we affirm the same in toto, with costs
against the appellant. So ordered.
Ramie Textiles, Inc. vs. Mathay, Sr., G.R. No. L-32364, 30 April 1979.
Facts: Ramie Textiles is a local corporation. During their first 5 years of operation, they
voluntarily paid taxes for their real estate, machinery and equipment at Bulacan. Later then,
they found out that according to Article 1, Section 3(f) of Commonwealth Act No. 470,
otherwise known as the Assessment, machineries are exempted from realty tax. Ramie Textiles
Inc. filed for a refund of taxes that they paid or was illegally collected. Although, the Auditor
General ruled that a claim for refund of taxes voluntarily paid without protest may not be
allowed pursuant to Section 54 of Com. Act No. 470.
Issues: Whether or not protest is a condition precedent or a sine qua non requirement for the
recovery of real estate taxes paid under the erroneous belief that the claimant was
liable therefor, and if so, what is the prescriptive period.
Ruling: Protest is not a requirement in order that a taxpayer, who paid under a mistaken belief
that it is required by law, may claim for refund. Section 54 of Com. Act 470 applies only to the
case where the taxpayer, despite his knowledge of erroneous assessment still pays and fails to
make the proper protest; (b) payment of taxes by mistake is in the nature of solutio indebiti,
and therefore the claim for refund must be commenced within six (6) years from date of
payment pursuant to Article 1145(2) of the New Civil Code.
Petitioner Ramie Textiles, Inc. is allowed to recover the real estate taxes paid during the period
from October 31, 1961 to September 9, 1965, in the total amount of P61,007.33. No costs.

Virata vs. Ochoa, G.R. No. L-46179, 31 January 1978.

Facts: Arsenio Virata died walking along Taft Avenue in Pasay City, bumped by a jeepney driver
registered in the name of Victoria Ochoa, which is the employer of Borilla. The heirs of Arsenio
and his wife filed an action for homicide against Borilla because of his reckless driving. Atty.
Francisco, the Attorney of the heirs of Arsenio, made a reservation to file a separate civil action
for damages that Borilla made in his criminal liability. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss
because there was a same case ongoing, 3162-P.
Issues: Whether or not the heirs of the Arsenio Virata, can prosecute an action for the damages
based on quasi-delict against Maximo Borilla and Victoria Ochoa, driver and owner, respectively
on the passenger jeepney that bumped Arsenio Virata
Ruling: Yes. Before the case 3162-P was decided. The hairs of Arsenio said that they are going to
file a separate civil action for the damages of the owner and driver of the jeepney based on
quasi-delict. According to Art. 1157, quasi-delict and an act or omission punishable by law are
two different sources of obligation.
WHEREFORE, the order of dismissal appealed from is hereby set aside and Civil Case No. B-134
is reinstated and remanded to the lower court for further proceedings, with costs against the
private respondents.
Provisions Civil Code

Art. 1156
An obligation is a juridical necessity to give, to do or not to do.

Art. 1157
Obligations arise from:
(1) Law;
(2) Contracts;
(3) Quasi-contracts;
(4) Acts or omissions punished by law; and
(5) Quasi-delicts.

Art. 1164
The creditor has a right to the fruits of the thing from the time the obligation to deliver it arises.
However, he shall acquire no real right over it until the same has been delivered to him.

Art. 1165, par. 3

If the obligor delays, or has promised to deliver the same thing to two or more persons who do
not have the same interest, he shall be responsible for any fortuitous event until he has
effected the delivery.

Art. 1169, par. 1

Those obliged to deliver or to do something incur in delay from the time the obligee judicially or
extrajudicially demands from them the fulfillment of their obligation

Art. 1170
Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and
those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages.

Art. 1173
The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that diligence which is required
by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the
time and of the place. When negligence shows bad faith, the provisions of articles 1171 and 2201,
paragraph 2, shall apply.

Art. 1174
Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is otherwise declared by stipulation,
or when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be
responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were
inevitable.