INSTRUCTIONS FOR 

TASK NO. 2 (PRE-MIDTERM)

 
1. For our online/synchronous class this coming Monday please refer to the
announcement I made in the Facebook Messenger. Attached therewith is the copy of
the PowerPoint that we'll be utilizing for said online/synchronous class. Study the whole
PowerPoint as we'll have a graded recitation. You can conduct further readings and
researches relating to the topics to be discussed; 

2. Read and study this case, either thru its full text or digest or both.

2.1. PROCESO QUIROS and LEONARDA VILLEGAS vs. MARCELO ARJONA,

TERESITA BALARBAR, JOSEPHINE ARJONA, and CONCHITA ARJONA, G.R. No.
158901, March 9, 2004
(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/mar2004/gr_158901_2004.html)
Questions Answers
1. Who were the 2 Proseso Quiros and Leonardo Villegas - petitioners
contending parties or
persons in the case? Marcelo Arjona, Teresita Balarbar, Josephine Arjona
and Conchita Arjona – respondents

2. What are the important
facts in the said case that
are also related to the topics
in the above-mentioned
PowerPoint?
3. What is the issue or
Petitioners Proseso Quiros and Leonardo Villegas
presented a complaint to the office of the barangay
captain of Labney, San Jacinto, Pangasinan against
their uncle Marcelo Arjona, seeking the return of
ownership and possession of a parcel of land in
Pangasinan. They seek their legal share of the
inheritance from their deceased grandmother Rosa
Arjona Quiros alias Doza to be divided among the stated
parcels of land. On January 5, 1997, both parties
reached an amicable settlement. By reason thereof,
Arjona executed a document denominated as
“PAKNAAN” which states that he will give to petitioners
the 1-hectare land he inherited from his mother. On the
same date, another “PAKNAAN” was executed by Jose
Banda which also states that the land he is cultivating
belongs to the Arjona Family and that he will voluntarily
surrender the said land if ever the petitioners would get it
from him. MCTC denied Quiros prayer for writ of
execution of compromise agreement because the
subject property cannot be determined with certainty. On
appeal, RTC reversed MCTC and ordered issuance of
writ of execution. Respondents appealed to the CA, who
reversed the Regional Trial court's appeal.
Was the “PAKNAAN” valid or void?
dispute in the said case or
why were those parties
contending with each other?
4. What were the arguments The MCTC and CA contend that no writ of execution of
or standpoint or reasoning of the compromise agreement is required since the subject
the 2 parties or persons property cannot be identified with confidence.
contending in said case?
According to Quiros and Villegas, unless repudiated or
nullified by the proper court, the amicable settlement
shall take the form and effect of a final judgment at the
expiry of 10 days from the date thereof. They argue that
since no such repudiation or action to nullify has been
initiated. The municipal court has no discretion but to
execute the agreement which has become final and
executory.
5. Give the brief decision or The supreme court ruled:
ruling of the Supreme Court
and explain briefly why it is It is therefore valid.
related to the topic.
Petition denied. CA affirmed. Without prejudice to the
filing by either party of an action for reformation of the
Jan 5, 1997, Paknaan.

The SC ruled that the agreement is valid because the

consent, object and cause of the contract can be
identified by both parties. However, because there is no
subject property that can be used to determine whether
the agreement is valid or invalid. The agreement is
subjected to reformation.

The case is related to some of the topics included in the

PowerPoint (Ppt) because:

This case involves a consent, object, and cause.

Whereas, according to the new civil code, the object in
this case is a thing, right, or service, and the cause is the
essential and compelling reason. The contracting parties
have stated their object, but they are unable to
determine the subject property with certainty and they
did not disclose their true intentions in the agreement.

Moreover, Reformation is also involved in the case.

According to the New Civil Code, reformation is an
equitable remedy whereby a written document is made
or construed in a way that expresses or conforms to the
true intention of the parties in cases where an error or
 mistake has been made, much like in this case where
the contracting parties agreed but failed to express that
agreement in the contract.

3. After reading and analyzing the said case or its digest, fill up this Table with your
answers:
4. Make the said Table in a Word document and submit the same to me via GOOGLE
CLASSROOM on or before the START OF OUR CLASS SESSION THIS COMING
MONDAY.
 Stay safe and God bless!