Lim vs Reyes

The case seeks to answer the inquiry whether the personal rights of the respondent under Article 19, 20
and 21 of the Civil Code were violated and that the petitioner is liable for civil damages. Under the
provision, persons who have exercised rights that do not conform to the norm and good custom shall be
held liable for damages. However such is the case if that the right has of legal basis, in the performance
of one’s duty and does not prejudice another; the same person who was accused of such violation will
not be civilly liable. Only when the action brought about does harm and damage to another, then the
motion for a civil action will arise.

US vs Limcangco

The issue of the case is that whether or not deceit was employed when a promise to marry to
consummate carnal knowledge holds the accused civilly liable. Based on antecedent facts, substantial
evidence showed that the promise to marry was already made prior carnal communication. The fact that
the respondent breach the promise and that the carnal communication bears fruit with a child, the
injured party may indemnify the respondent for civil damages. On the foregoing case, the provision
under Art 21 shall apply.

Bunag vs CA

The case seeks to resolved the inquiry whether or not a breach of promise to marry to escape criminally
liability constitutes an act contrary to moral and good customs under Art 21 of the Civil Code. The court
resolved in this matter that the transgression warrant contradiction to good morals and customs. Such
as the case on hand, when the criminal liability was extinguished on the grounds that the defendant
proposed marriage but subsequently withdrew, the breach of promise was violated. Acquittal of
criminal liability does not extinguish civil liability. Moral and exemplary damages will be awarded in lieu
to the injured party.

HLC vs MPC

One of the issue on the case is whether MPC acquired unjust enrichment when it delayed construction
for the agreed upon project and should the latter be indemnified for damages in favor of the petitioner.
The court resolved the case that the action of MPC in delaying the construction whereby HLC incurred
additional cause is viewed as unjust enrichment as provided in Art 22 of the Civil Code. HLC did not
intend to delay the construction, but it seems that respondent who has no intention to pay wilfully took
part towards the cause.

Philab

The case seeks to resolve the question whether unjust enrichment as provided for Art 22 in the Civil
Code exercised by Philab against UP. Under the provision, it is necessary to prove that one party has
gained enrichment unjustly against another. On the present case, it was not proved that Philab
unlawfully gained in the transaction. The latter even provided substantial evidence from the foregoing
that they still have receivables in sum money from the previous administration.

Concepcion vs CA

The motion seeks to resolve the petition of Rodrigo Concepcion that Art 26 of the Civil Code does not
apply to the case presented. He alleged that he did not partake in any unlawfully activity as prescribed in
the provision to wit, prying to privacy, meddling the private life of another, intriguing or humiliating the
respondent. Upon the courts review, that the violations in the provision are examples and do not
preclude similar or analogous acts. It is evident that respondent did then and there suffered moral
damages through the petitioners actions.