4. Tanguilig vs. CA GR No.

117190, Jan 2, 1997 (Article 1167-1169(Nature and Effect of

Obligations)
Facts:
 In April 1987, Tanguilig of JMT Engineering and General Merchandising proposed to
build a windmill system for Herce, Jr., and they agreed to build the windmill for Php
60,000.00 with a one-year guarantee from the date of completion and acceptance of the
project by Herce.
 Herce paid a down payment of Php 30,000.00 and an installment of Php 15,000.00,
leaving a balance of Php 15,000.00.
 Tanguilig filed a case on March 14, 1988, to recover the remaining Php 15,000.00 due to
Herce's reluctance and failure to pay the balance.
 Herce contested the accusation, claiming that he had previously paid the money to San
Pedro General Merchandising Inc. (SPGMI), the company that built the deep well to
which the windmill system was to be linked. Tanguilig should credit Herce's account
because the deep well was part of the system, according to Herce. Furthermore, if he
owed Tanguilig a balance of Php 15,000.00, the deficiencies in the windmill system that
caused the structure to fall when a strong wind hit their location should be offset by the
defects in the windmill system that caused the structure to collapse.
 Tanguilig denied that the arrangement to build the windmill system included the
construction of a deep well, claiming that the contract fee of Php 60,000.00 was
exclusively for the windmill.
 Tanguilig further denied any obligation to repair or reconstruct the system, insisting that
it was given in full working order to the respondent, who accepted it without question.
Furthermore, the collapse was caused by a storm, a force majeure, absolving him of all
responsibility.
 The trial court determined that the deep well was not part of the windmill project, as
demonstrated by Tanguilig's letter suggestions to Herce, and that there is no clear and
persuasive evidence that the windmill system collapsed owing to a construction error.
 The CA overturned the decision of the trial court. Because the term "deep well" was
mentioned in both proposals and respondent's witness Guillermo Pili, the proprietor of
SPGMI, stated that Tanguilig told him that the cost of constructing the deep well would
be deducted from the contract price of Php 60,000.00, the court ruled that the
construction of the deep well was included in the parties' agreement.
 Tanguilig's claim of force majeure was likewise denied by CA, and the latter was ordered
to rebuild the windmill in compliance with the one-year guarantee.
 Tanguilig sought and was refused a move for reconsideration, prompting this petition.

Issues:
  Whether or not a deep well was included in the arrangement to construct the windmill
system.
 Whether or not after the windmill fell, Tanguilig is obligated to rebuild it.

Decisions:
 The appealed decision is amended, and Herce is ordered to pay Tanguilig the
remaining Php 15,000 plus legal interest from the date of the complaint's filing.
Tanguilig is required to "reconstruct the subject defective windmill system in
compliance with the one-year warranty and to finish the same within three (3) months
of this decision's finality."

8. Hermosa vs. Longara, 4a, Official Gazette 4287 (Kinds of Obligations

Facts:
 This is a certiorari appeal from a CA ruling approving certain claims brought by Epifanio
Longara against Fernando Hermosa, Srintestate .'s estate.
 Credit advances to intestate totaled Php 2,341.41 (1932-1944)
 Credit advances to his son Francisco Hermosa totaled Php 12,924.12.
 Credit advances to Fernando Hermosa, Jr. totaled Php 3,772.00 (1945-1947, after the
death of intestate in December 1944)
 The intestate had requested the advances for himself and his family on the condition that
payment is made by Fernando Hermosa, Sr. as soon as funds derived from the sale of his
property in Spain were received, payable as soon as FHS's property in Spain was sold and
he received money from the sale.
 Based on the foregoing, judgment is entered in favor of the plaintiff and against the
defendant, with the latter ordered to pay the plaintiff.
 According to Art.1115 of the old CC, the obligation contracted by the intestate was
subject to a potestative condition (solely dependent on the debtor's will) and hence null
and void.

Issues:
 Whether or not FHS' obligation is null and void since it is subject to a condition that is
solely dependent on his own volition.
 Whether or not after the death of the intestate, the third set of claims (credits provided to
the intestate's grandson) should be authorized.

Decisions:
  Parts of the decision were upheld, but others were overturned. Claim amounts 2,341.00
and 12,942.12 were allowed, while claim amount 3,772.00 was reversed.

References:

G.R. No. 117190. (n.d.). The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation,

Inc. https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/jan1997/gr_117190_1997.html

G.R. No. L-5267. (n.d.). The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation,

Inc. https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1953/oct1953/gr_l-5267_1953.html