SOLANTE VS COA

G.R. No.207348, August 19, 2014

Doctrine:
If the period in the contract is merely an estimate, then the lapse of the said
period will not make the obligation immediately demandable because it cannot
be deemed a “day certain” in the context of Article 1193, the first paragraph of
which provides that “Obligations for whose fulfillment a day certain has been
fixed, shall be demandable only when that day comes.
Facts:
In 1989, the City of Mandaue and F.F. Cruz and Co., Inc. entered into a Contract
of Reclamation which was estimated to be finished in six years. During the
contract’s duration, F.F. Cruz was allowed to make improvements in the area,
free of rentals, which such shall be turned over to the City after the construction
is finished supported by a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). Eight years after
the contract was initiated, a road widening project was conducted which affected
the improvements made by F.F. Cruz. Rowena Solante paid an amount of
money, as payment for the demolition of such improvements. However, it
brought to the attention the Office of the Ombudsman, where irregularities
conducted in the implementation of the project, and such was referred to the
Commission on Audit (COA). COA released a report saying that the amount of
money paid by DPWH is not for F.F. Cruz because the latter is no longer the owner
of the properties at the time of payment. F.F. Cruz, Solante, and Darza were held
liable for the transaction. They appealed and filed fora motion for
reconsideration but such were jointly denied. F.F. Cruz appealed to COA Central,
while the letter-complaint of Darza was upgraded to an Ombudsman case and
was dismissed for lack of merit.
COA ruled that ruling in favor of F.F. Cruz and made the government pay for the
cost of the demolished improvements and defeated the intention of
parties as regards compensation due from the contractor for its use of subject
land. COA denied the motion for reconsideration by saying that despite the fact
that the Project was not turned over to the City, the contention that the
ownership of the said improvements would not be acquired yet by the City would
put the entire contract at the mercy of F.F. Cruz, thus, negating the mutuality of
contracts.

The issue is WON Cruz is to be paid for the cost of the demolished properties .

Yes. F.F. Cruz is to be paid for the cost of the demolished properties. Article 1193
of the Civil Code provides that: Obligations with a resolutory period take effect at
once, but terminate upon arrival of the day certain. A day certain is understood to
be that which must necessarily come, although it may not be known when If the
uncertainty consists in whether the day will come or not, the obligation is
conditional.

EFREN S. QUESADA, ET AL. vs. BONANZA RESTAURANTS, INC.

G.R. No.207500, November 14, 2016

A lease contract is onerous in character containing reciprocal obligations; any

ambiguities in its terms are interpreted in favor of the greatest reciprocity of
interests.

The issue in the case is WON Bonanza had basis to unilaterally terminate the
lease. Here, Bonanza had no basis to unilaterally terminate the lease. His
complaint theorized that by constructing concrete structures on the property
without Bonanza's permission, Efren effectively forestalled the sale of the
property, constructively fulfilling the resolutory condition of the lease. However,
aside from the fact that there is no logical connection between the construction
of concrete structures on the property and Bonanza's inability to sell it, the lease
contract itself specifically recognized the lessee's right to construct on the
property.
 SPOUSES RODOLFO BEROT AND LILIA BEROT vs. FELIPE C. SIAPNO (JAO)
G.R. No. 188944 | July 9, 2014

DOCTRINE/LAW:
• Under Article 1207 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the general rule is
that when there is a concurrence of two or more debtors under a single
obligation, the obligation is presumed to be joint:
o Art. 1207. The concurrence of two or more creditors or of two or more
debtors in one and the same obligation does not imply that each one of the
former has a right to demand, or that each one of the latter is bound to render,
entire compliance with the prestation. There is a solidary liability only when the
obligation expressly so states, or when the law or the nature of the obligation
requires solidarity.

RESCISSION UNDER ARTICLE 1191 OF THE CIVIL CODE IS THE PROPER REMEDY
WHEN A PARTY BREACHES A RECIPROCAL OBLIGATION
Rescission under Article 1191 of the Civil Code is the proper remedy when a party
breaches a reciprocal obligation. Because each case has its own distinct
circumstances, this Court's power to fix a period of an obligation under Article
1197 is discretionary and should be exercised only if there is just cause
(Camp John Hay Development Corporation vs. Charter Chemical and Coating
Corporation, G.R. No. 198849, August 7, 2019)