Mylene R.

Ignacio BSOAD-4B October 19,

2021

1.) Martin v. Martin, et. al L-12439, May 23, 1959

FACTS:
This is an appeal by certiorari from a decision of the Court of Appeals, declaring
intervenor-appellee therein Ignacio de la Cruz, owner of the two parcels of land subject of the
action, with the obligation of paying petitioner Feliciano Martin a redemption price of P600, and
ordering Feliciano Martin to deliver the lands to said intervenor-appellee upon payment by the
latter of the said sum of P600.
On September 12, 1919 Jose Balagui and Dorotea Balagui, brother and sister, sold the
two parcels of land subject of the action, to Feliciano Martin and Florentino Martin for P1,200.
On April 17. 1923, Jose Balagui brought an action in the Justice of the Peace Court of Solsona,
Ilocos Norte, against said Feliciano and Florentino Martin for damages arising from failure of the
Martins to comply with some conditions agreed upon in the sale. The said action was terminated
by a compromise agreement between Feliciano Martin, Florentino Martin and Isidro Martin, on
the one hand, and the above-named spouses, on the other, who were plaintiffs, submitted to and
approved by the court.
Court of Appeals that petitioner Feliciano Martin had actually signed the compromise
agreement, this being a finding of fact, which is final and binding upon us. It is apparent also that
the conclusion to the effect that the validity of the compromise does not depend upon the
question of whether or not the justice of the peace court before whom it was made had
jurisdiction over the main case, is correct, it being a fact that the parties to the compromise
agreement signed and executed the same willingly and voluntarily, and should, therefore, be
bound by its terms. Petitioner contending that the Court of Appeals erred in declaring that the
compromise had the effect of converting the previous contract of sale into one of loan secured by
a mortgage; and on failing to make a finding on the rights and obligations of the petitioner, with
respect to the houses built on the lands in good faith by the petitioner Feliciano Martin and his
son-in-law and his daughter. According to the evidence, the house of Feliciano Martin was
valued at P3,000, and that of his son-in-law and daughter, P2,000.

CASE:
Won the Court of Appeals failing to make specific pronouncement on the rights and
obligation o of the parties with respect to the said houseas.
HELD:
There is no claim nor even a suggestion that the building of the houses had been made by
Feliciano Martin and his son-in-law and daughter in bad faith. That said two buildings actually
exist and that one of them is valued at P3,000 and the other, at P2,000, is not denied. The
decision of the Court of Appeals is silent on the rights and obligations of the parties with respect
to the said houses. We find merit in the contention that the Court of Appeals erred in failing to
make a specific pronouncement on the rights and obligations of the parties with respect to the
said houses.

2.) Buenaventura Belamela v. Marcelino Polinar L-24098, November 18, 1967

FACTS:
On May 24, 1954, the complaint for frustrated murder was filled against Mauricio
Polinar. On May 28, 1966, the Court of First Instance of Bohol convicted Polinar of the crime of
Serious Physical Injuries and sentenced him to pay Belamala of P1,000.00 as moral damages.
June 18, 1956, the accused appealed to the Court of Appeals but pending such as appeal, he died
on July 27, 1956.
CASE:
Whether or not the civil liability of an accused pf physical injuries who dies before final
judgment is extinguished by his demise to the extent of barring any claim therefore against the
state.
HELD:
We see no merit in the plea that the civil liability has been extinguished in view of the
provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines of 1950 that became operative eighteen years
after the Revised Penal Code. As pointed out by the Court below, Article 33 of the Civil Code
Establishments a civil action for damages on account of physical injuries entirely, separate and
distinct from the criminal action. Article 108 of the Penal Code, that imposes the obligation to
indemnify upon the decreased offender’s heirs, because the latter acquired their decedents
obligation only to the extent of the value of the inheritance.
3.) Juan F. Nakpil and Sons, et.al. v. Court of Appeals, et.al. GR47851, October 3, 1986
FACTS:
The plaintiff, Philippine Bar Association, a civic-non-profit association, incorporated
under the Corporation Law, decided to construct an office building on its 840 square meters lot
located at the comer of Aduana and Arzobispo Streets, Intramuros, Manila. The construction was
undertaken by the United Construction, Inc. on an "administration" basis, on the suggestion of
Juan J. Carlos, the president and general manager of said corporation. The proposal was
approved by plaintiff's board of directors and signed by its president Roman Ozaeta, a third-party
defendant in this case. The plans and specifications for the building were prepared by the other
third-party defendants Juan F. Nakpil & Sons. The building was completed in June, 1966.
In the early morning of August 2, 1968 an unusually strong earthquake hit Manila and its
environs and the building in question sustained major damage. The front columns of the building
buckled, causing the building to tilt forward dangerously. The tenants vacated the building in
view of its precarious condition. As a temporary remedial measure, the building was shored up
by United Construction, Inc. at the cost of P13,661.28.
On November 29, 1968, the plaintiff commenced this action for the recovery of damages
arising from the partial collapse of the building against United Construction, Inc. and its
President and General Manager Juan J. Carlos as defendants. Plaintiff alleges that the collapse of
the building was accused by defects in the construction, the failure of the contractors to follow
plans and specifications and violations by the defendants of the terms of the contract.
Defendants in turn filed a third-party complaint against the architects who prepared the
plans and specifications, alleging in essence that the collapse of the building was due to the
defects in the said plans and specifications. Roman Ozaeta, the then president of the plaintiff Bar
Association was included as a third-party defendant for damages for having included Juan J.
Carlos, President of the United Construction Co., Inc. as party defendant.

CASE:
Whether or not the damage sustained by the PBA building during the earthquake was
caused by defects and inadequacies in the plans prepared by the third-party defendants, or by an
act of God.

HELD:
The Court of Appeals in modifying the decision of the lower court included an award of
an additional amount of P200,000.00 to the Philippine Bar Association to be paid jointly and
severally by the defendant United Construction Co. and by the third-party defendants Juan F.
Nakpil and Sons and Juan F. Nakpil.
 WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby MODIFIED and considering the
special and environmental circumstances of this case, We deem it reasonable to render a decision
imposing, as We do hereby impose, upon the defendant and the third-party defendants (with the
exception of Roman Ozaeta) a solidary (Art. 1723, Civil Code, Supra, p. 10) indemnity in favor
of the Philippine Bar Association of FIVE MILLION (P5,000,000.00) Pesos to cover all
damages (with the exception of attorney's fees) occasioned by the loss of the building (including
interest charges and lost rentals) and an additional ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND
(P100,000.00) Pesos as and for attorney's fees, the total sum being payable upon the finality of
this decision. Upon failure to pay on such finality, twelve (12%) per cent interest per annum shall
be imposed upon afore-mentioned amounts from finality until paid.