OBLICON TOP 50 CASES QUICK GUIDE

1. Barredo v Garcia F: taxicab and caritela collision QUASI-DELICTS: taxicab operator liability > subsidiary (under criminal case first exhausting props of driver) > primary (negligent employer) difference bet crime and quasi-delict > public v private interest > punishment v indemnification > according to penal law v any kind of negligence > beyond reasonable doubt v mere preponderance of evidence F: molasses BREACH (substantial/casual): - casual RECIPROCAL (rescission): - no bec of 20 day rule F: sale of Dasma property and in return, assumption of mortgage payments BREACH (substantial/casual): - substantial breach bec of nonpayment in mortgage VIODABLE (mutual restitution): - considered rescinded under A1191 TF mutual restitution F: mission soft drink franchise FRAUD (incidente/causante): incidente CONSENT (fraud): F: train ran over man in platform holding the handle of the door NEGLIGENCE (standard of care required): - An experienced and attentive motorman should have discovered that something was wrong and would have stopped before he had driven the car over the entire distance from the point where the wheels left the track to the place where the post was struck. - The court granted that there is negligence as shown by the distance which the car was allowed to run with the front wheels of the rear truck derailed, aside from the fact that the car was running in an excessive speed. F: typewriter repair CONTAVENTION OF THE TENOR: - gave back the typewriter with cover and essential parts missing REMEDIES (substituted performance/undoing of poor work): - went to another to have it fixed for P89.00 - payment for repair to another plus other costs for missing parts and moral damages F: Burmese rice, not complied with letter of credit. Substituted with Thailand rice, in dollars

2. Song Fo v Hawaiian Phils

3. Velarde v CA

4. Woodhouse v Halili 5. De Guia v Manila Electric

6. Chavez v Gonzales

7. Arrieta v NARIC

8. Juan Nakpil & Sons v CA

9. Republic v Luzon Stevedoring

10. Eastern Shipping Lines v CA 11. Almeda v CA 12. Gaite v Fonacier 13. Parks v Province of Tarlac 14. Central Philippine University v CA 15. Naga Telephone Co, Inc v CA 16. Osmena v Rama

BREACH (contravention of the tenor): PAYMENT (what/identity): - exchange rate at the time of the obligation incurred F: construction of PBA Building in Manila. After earthquake, substantial damage FORTUITOUS: - not fortuitous events bec other buildings did not incur damage F: barge pulled by two tugboats crashed into the Nagtahan bridge causing it to list FORTUITOUS: - not fortuitous - presence of two tugboats TF more control 2 fiber drums of riboflavin USURIOUS: USURIOUS: 21% to 68% not valid, unconscionable, unilaterally raised the rates CONDITION (vs period): CONDITION (resolutory): CONDITION (resolutory): PERIOD (court may fix): IMPOSSIBILITY (vs difficulty): F: promised to pay debt next sugar harvest with her house as pledge CONDITION (mixed): - A condition imposed upon a contract by the promisor, the performance of which depends upon his exclusive will, is void, in accordance with the provisions of article 1115 of the Civil Code. - It was suggested during the discussion of the case in this court that, in the acknowledgment of the indebtedness made by the defendant, she imposed the condition that she would pay the obligation if she sold her house. If that statement found in her acknowledgment of the indebtedness should be regarded as a condition, it was a condition which depended upon her exclusive will, and is, therefore, void. (Art. 1115, Civil Code.) The acknowledgment, therefore, was an absolute acknowledgment of the obligation and was sufficient to prevent the statute of limitation from barring the action upon the original contract. F: sale property in Spain CONDITION (mixed): - The condition in question is not a condicion potestativa

17. Hermosa v Longora

18. Taylor v Uy Tieng Piao

19. Rustan Pulp and Paper Mills v IAC

20. Roman Catholic Arch of Manila v CA

21. Boysaw v

since it also depends upon other circumstances beyond the debtors control. The condition of the obligation was not purely a potestative one, depending exclusively upon the will of the intestate, but a mixed one, depending partly upon the will of the intestate and partly upon chance. The will to sell on the part of the intestate was present in fact, or presumed to legally exist, although the price and other conditions thereof were still within his discretion and final approval. There were still other conditions that had to concur to effect the sale, mainly that a buyer, ready, able and willing to purchase the property under the conditions demanded by the intestate. F: operator for expeller machines CONDITION (mixed): - A condition at once facultative and resolutory may be valid even though the condition is made to depend upon the will of the obligor. CONDITION (effect prevention of fulfillment of condition by obligor): - If it were apparent, or could be demonstrated that the defendants were under positive obligation to cause the machinery to arrive in Manila, they would of course be liable, in the absence of affirmative proof showing that the non-arrival of the machinery was due to some cause not having its origin in their own act or will. - The contract, however, expresses no such positive obligation, and its existence cannot be implied in the face of the stipulation, defining the conditions under which the defendants can cancel the contract. F: supplier of raw materials in paper mill CONDITION (mixed): - Petitioners contend that they are within the right stoppage guaranteed by par 7. There is no doubt that the contract speaks loudly about petitioners' prerogative but what diminishes the legal efficacy of such right is the condition attached to it which is dependent exclusively on will of the petitioner for which reason, the SC treated the controversial stipulation as inoperative F: donated land subject to condition not to be sold in 100 years CONDITION (impossible): - the prohibition in the deed of donation against the alienation of the property for an entire century, being an unreasonable emasculation and denial of an integral attribute of ownership, should be declared as an illegal or impossible condition within the contemplation of Article 727 of the Civil Code. Consequently, as specifically stated in said statutory provision, such condition shall be considered as not imposed. No reliance may accordingly be placed on said prohibitory paragraph in the deed of donation F: fight of Elorde

Interphil Promotions

22. UP v Delos Angeles

23. De Erquiaga v CA

RECIPROCAL (rescission): - Boysaw violated the contract when he fought with Avila. Civil Code provides, the power to rescind obligations is implied, in reciprocal ones, (as in this case) in case one of the obligors shld not comply w/ what is incumbent upon him. Another violation was made in the transfers of managerial rights. These were in fact novations which, to be valid, must be consented to by Interphil. When a contract is unlawfully novated, the aggrieved creditor may not deal with the substitute. - The appellees could have opted to rescind or refuse to recognize the new manager, but all they wanted was to postpone the fight owing to an injury Elorde sustained. The desire to postpone the fight is lawful and reasonable. The GAB did not act arbitrarily in acceding to the request to reset the date of the fight and Yulo himself agreed to abide by the GAB ruling. - The appellees offered to move the fight w/in the 30 day period for postponement but this was refused by the appellants, notwithstanding the fact that by virtue of the appellants violations, they have forfeited any right to the enforcement of the contract. F: UP land with contract to ALUMCO for lumber but did not pay TF UP rescinded contract and got another company RECIPROCAL (rescission): UP can treat the contract with ALUMCO as rescinded without any judicial pronouncement. The party who deems the contract violated may consider it resolved or rescinded, and act accordingly, without previous court action, but it proceeds at its own risk. It is only the final judgment of the corresponding court that will and finally settle whether the action taken was or was not correct in law. F: bought shares but rescinded bec only property is hacienda RECIPROCAL (rescission): - The Hacienda San Jose and 1,500 shares of stock have already been returned to Erquiaga. Therefore, upon the conveyance to him of the remaining 1,600 shares, Erquiaga (or his heirs) should return to Reynoso the price of P410,000 which the latter paid for those shares. Pursuant to the rescission decreed in the final judgment, there should be simultaneous mutual restitution of the principal object of the contract to sell (3,100 shares) and of the consideration paid (P410,000). This should not await the mutual restitution of the fruits, namely: the legal interest earned by Reynoso's P410,000 while in the possession of Erquiaga, and its counterpart: the fruits of Hacienda San Jose which Reynoso received from the time the hacienda was delivered to him on November 4, 1968 until it was placed under receivership by the court on March 3, 1975. - However, since Reynoso has not yet given an accounting

24. Ong v CA

25. Lachica v Araneta

26. Ponce de Leon v Syjuco

of those fruits, it is only fair that Erquiaga's obligation to deliver to Reynosa the legal interest earned by his money, should await the rendition and approval of his accounting. F: Sps Robles enetered in an agreement to sell land to Ong. It was stipulated that Ong pay loan of Sps Robles in BPI as payment. But he did not comply. Sps Robles now asking for rescission under A1191. RECIPROCAL (rescission): - Article 1191 refers to rescission applicable to reciprocal obligations. Rescission of reciprocal obligations under Article 1191 should be distinguished from rescission of contracts under Article 1383. - While Article 1191 uses the term rescission, the original term which was used in the old Civil Code, from which the article was based, was resolution. Resolution is a principal action which is based on breach of a party, while rescission under Article 1383 is a subsidiary action limited to cases of rescission for lesion under Article 1381 of the New Civil Code, which expressly enumerates the rescissible contracts. - The "Agreement of Purchase and Sale" shows that it is in the nature of a contract to sell, as distinguished from a contract of sale. In a contract of sale, the title to the property passes to the vendee upon the delivery of the thing sold; while in a contract to sell, ownership is, by agreement, reserved in the vendor and is not to pass to the vendee until full payment of the purchase price. In a contract to sell, the payment of the purchase price is a positive suspensive condition, the failure of which is not a breach, casual or serious, but a situation that prevents the obligation of the vendor to convey title from acquiring an obligatory force. F: Lachica wanted to pay Araneta before date stipulated PERIOD (presumption): - presumption is that period is for the benefit of both the creditor and debtor TF cannot compel Araneta to accept such payment in advance F: Ponce tried to pay in advance Syjuco because he was being hunted down by the Japanese being a member of the guerilla force PERIOD (presumption): - presumption is that the period is deemed constituted in favor of both the creditor and the debtor unless from its tenor or from other circumstances it appears that the period has been established for the benefit of either one of them (Art. 1127, Civil Code). - creditor cannot be forced to accept payment contrary to the stipulation because he may (1) want to keep his money invested safely instead of having it in his hands, or (2) want to protect himself against sudden decline in the purchasing power of the currency loaned specially at a time when there are many factors that influence the fluctuation of the currency

27. Araneta v Philippine Sugar Estate

28. Ynchausti v Yulo

29. Jaucian v Querol

30. RFC v CA

31. Inciong v CA

F: PSED bought land from Araneta with condition that he will construct roads surrounding the future Sto. Domingo Church. Because of the squatters, Araneta has not complied with his end in constructing the roads. PSED asked that the court fix a period for which Araneta should comply. TC and CA fixed it to 2 years PERIOD (court may fix): - Article 1197 is predicated on the absence of any period fixed by the parties and it involves a two-step process. The court must first determine that the obligation does not fix a period (or that the period is made to depend upon the will of the debtor), but from the nature and the circumstances it can be inferred that a period was intended. The court must then proceed to the second step, and decide what period was probably contemplated by the parties. > here there was no date set probably bec of the presence of the squatters and they know the construction of the roads will be predicated upon their eviction TF period set until squatters evicted not 2 years - An obligation to pay a sum of money is not novated in a new instrument wherein the old is ratified, by changing only the term of payment and adding other obligations not incompatible with the old one. SOLIDARY (defenses available to solidary debtor against creditor):? F: deceased Rogero (represented by administrator Querol) thought he signed as surety for Dayadante but clear in contract that they are solidarily bound (jointly and severally) SOLIDARY: English (common law): joint > solidaria in fact Spanish (civil law): mancomunadamente joint pro rata, mancomunidad simple, mancomunidad solidary - mancomunidad solidaria, in solidum, jointly and severally F: Anduiza and Cano jointly and severally owed Agricultural and Industrial Bank (now RFC) P13,800. Madrid, who stayed at Anduizas during the war, paid their debt when they did not pay such loan. > debts due because of the phrase on or before > payment can be made by any person, whether approved by the debtor or not. One who makes the payment may recover from the debtor, unless it was made against his express will. In the latter case, he can recover only in so far as the payment was beneficial to him. > Madrid then is entitled to pay the obligation irrespective of Anduizas will or the bank. SOLIDARY:? F: signed promissory note as solidary debtor (jointly and severally liable) not guarantor for P50,000 which they thought to be P5,000 only (for buying chainsaw)

32. Kalalo v Luz

33. Reparations Commission v Universal Deep

> no trickery since signature above typewritten figure) SOLIDARY: - difference between guarantor and suretyship - difference between solidary co-debtor and fiador in solidum > A guarantor who binds himself in solidum with the principal debtor under the provisions of the second paragraph does not become a solidary co-debtor to all intents and purposes. There is a difference between a solidary co-debtor, and a fiador in solidum (surety). The later, outside of the liability he assumes to pay the debt before the property of the principal debtor has been exhausted, retains all the other rights, actions and benefits which pertain to him by reason of the fiansa; while a solidary co-debtor has no other rights than those bestowed upon him in Section 4, Chapter 3, title 1, Book IV of the Civil Code. F: engineering services by Kalalo to architect firm of Luz. Agreement in dollars. Also Kalalo sent statement of account to Luz stating the fees for the projects but when Kalalo demanded payment, it was higher than was stipulated in the statement of account PAYMENT (what/identity): - payment in dollars prohibited by RA 529 but if agreement prior to enactment (June 16, 1950), exchange rate set at the time of the obligation was incurred BUT it cannot be ascertained TF exchange rate at the time of payment shall be applied ESTOPPEL (definition): - essential elements of estoppel in pais party to be estopped 1) conduct amounting to false representation or concealment of material facts or at least calculated to convey the impression that the facts are otherwise than, and inconsistent with, those which the party subsequently attempts to assert 2) intent, or at least expectation that this conduct shall be acted upon by, or at least influence, the other party 3) knowledge, actual or constructive, of the real facts party claiming estoppel 1) lack of knowledge and of the means of knowledge of the truth as the facts in question 2) reliance in good faith upon the conduct or statements of the party to be estopped 3) action or inaction based thereon of such character as to change the position or status of the party claiming the estoppel, to his injury, detriment or prejudice > statement of account was written by mistake TF Kalalo not estopped F: Universal bought 6 ships from Reparations Commission schedule of payment in equal payments spread over 10 years

Sea Fishing

34. McLaughlin v CA

35. Soco v Militante

36. CA

Occena v

APPLICATION OF PAYMENTS (most onerous): - first installments due & demandable at time of the action & payment of Universal of P10,000 shall be applied to surety company as guaranteed portion of the debt (most onerous) F: Compromise agreement wherein to pay in June and in December balance for sale of real property. In Oct 15, made a demand for payment of June installment. 17 days later, they complied. But, creditor wanted rescission of contract. CONSIGNATION: - no rescission since substantial compliance (20 day rule in Song Fo) - valid tender of payment but did not follow it with consignation TF still liable F: Soco, lessor felt cheated when lessee subleased for P3,000 from P800 of what the lessee was paying to lessor. When the collector did not come for lease payments, lessor made arrangements with bank to issue Soco checks as payment CONSIGNATION: - in order to have a valid consignation, debtor must show, (a) debt due; (b) creditor to whom tender of payment was made refused to accept it, or because he was absent or incapacitated, or because several persons claimed to be entitled to receive the amount due (c) previous notice of the consignation had been given to the person interested in the performance of the obligation (d) amount due was placed at the disposal of the court (e) after the consignation had been made the person interested was notified thereof - failed to prove the ff requisites of a valid consignation, (a) tender of payment of the monthly rentals to the lesser except that indicated in the June 1977 letter (b) first notice to the lessor prior to consignation, except payment in the June 1977 letter. The lessee must give prior notice of consignation for each monthly rental; (c) second notice to lessor except the consignation referred to in the May and June cashiers check. Should have given notice for each deposit of monthly rental. bank did not send notice to Soco that checks with the Clerk of Court because no instructions were given by its depositor; (d) actual deposit or consignation of the monthly rentals except the two cashiers checks. Not a single copy of the official receipts by the Clerk of Court presented F: Tropical Homes asked that the terms of the subdivision contract be modified because of the spiraling oil prices IMPOSSIBILITY (vs difficulty): - Release could have been granted. However, they seek not release from contract but that the court modify the terms and conditions. Court does not have authority to remake, modify, revise contract. Modification has no basis in law.

37. Gabriel v Monte de Piedad

38. Coquia v Fieldmens Insurance Co.

39. Daywalt v La Corporacion de los Padres Agustinos Recoletos

40. Rosenstock v Burke

41. v CA

Malbarosa

F: Gabriel appraiser in pawnshop of Monte de Piedad. They executed chattel mortgage bec of erroneous appraisal of Gabriel. But, when acting upon such mortgage, Gabriel asserts that because there was no consideration, contract is void as against public policy. CONTRACTS (freedom to contract): - The freedom of contract is both a constitutional and statutory right and to uphold this right, courts should move with all the necessary caution and prudence in holding contracts void. - The contract at bar does not militate against the public good. Neither does it contravene the policy of the law nor the established interests of the society TF contract is still valid F: Coquia driver of taxi, had an accident and died. Taxi operators insurance company refused to negotiate with parents of Coquia since they were not parties to the contract (parties: taxicab operator and insurance company) CONTRACTS (pour autrui): - insurance contracts are clear cases of pour autrui TF parents of deceased driver have a right of action F: Endencia sold land top Daywalt. Upon delivery of the title to her, she found out that her land was 1T hec not 400 hec TF she became hesitant to convey the land to Daywalt. Endencia, being close to Padres Agustinos asked them to keep the title of her land for safekeeping. Also the Padres, having the adjacent land, let their cattle graze in her fields. Daywalt won the case for specific performance but he seek P500T damages from the Padres because of the influence they exerted on Endencia to refuse to convey such land CONTRACTS (interference by third persons): - stranger cannot become more extensively liable in damages for the nonperformance of the contract than the party in whose behalf he intermeddles. To hold the stranger liable for damages in excess of those that could be recovered against the immediate party to the contract would lead to results at once grotesque and unjust TF Padres no liable F: Elser stated that he is in a position to entertain the purchase of the yacht. During such negotiations, Elser asked Burke (owner of the yacht) to voyage down to the south but repairs were done and Elser paid P6T for such repairs. CONSENT (offer): - there was no offer but a mere invitation from Elser to purchase the yacht form his words entertain to purchase - Elser should bear the expense of the repair since Burke did not ask for any consideration for the voyage F: as part of his resignation, Malabarosa asked for incentive plan amounting to P400T but company only offered P250T covered by his company car (P220T) and membership share

42. Asiain v Jalandoni

43. Dumasug v Modelo

44. Martinez v Hongkong and Shanghai Bank

45. Songco v Sellner

46. Mercado and Mercado v Espiritu 47. Braganza v Villa Abrille 48. Suntay v CA

(P60T). He refused to sign the letter-offer and never heard his feedback. They withdrew their offer by action for replevin to the car. He claimed he signed the letter but did not communicate such acceptance immediately. CONSENT (acceptance): - no contract since no valid acceptance 1) must be express or implied 2) absolute, unconditional without variance 3) must be made known to offeror 4) in the manner prescribed by offeror F: Jalandoni sold to Asiain part of his hacienda supposedly 25 hec yielding 2,000 pic but in fact 18 hec and 800 pic. CONSENT (mistake/error): - mutual mistake by the parties is a ground for relief and rescission. Even though more or less was stated, it only covers reasonable excess or deficiency. F: Dumasug was made to affix her mark (as she is not able to write) on a document thinking it was about her debt to Modelo for P110 (attys fees, traveling expense). But, she found out that with that instrument she conveyed her land and carabao worth P3000 to Modelo. CONSENT (unable to read): - contract void because of lack of consent F: husband in Macao hiding from creditors bec he embezzled and misappropriated funds of their company. Creditors said companys assets not enough and TF had to get wifes property (Malate). Constantly with her lawyers and relatives, wife adamantly refused. When HSBC rep explained situation, she acceded. But she filed an action to annul such contract bec of intimidation. CONSENT (violence, intimidation): - she was afforded ample time and had opportunity to confer with lawyer and relatives about the matter - in fact, she had everything to gain (husbands crim charges dropped and can go back to Phils) and nothing to lose (if she did not accept, creditors would still proceed with criminal action and would levy on her assets as well) F: Sellner bought Songcos cane yield which according to Songco was 3,000 pic but in fact it was 2,000 pic only CONSENT (mere expression of opinion): - if afforded ample time and opportunity to investigate, one may not rely on the vendors opinion F: 2 of the parties in selling land misrepresented themselves to be of legal age CONSENT (misrepresentation): active misrepresentation TF deed of sale valid F: Japanese war times, Braganzas loaned from Villa Abrille P70T but only received P40T and claimed minority CONSENT (misrepresentation): passive misrepresentation TF not liable F: uncle, having many debts, simulated selling land for

49. Liguez v CA

50. Oria v Mcmicking

P20,000 to nephew-lawyer so that he can have permit for rice milling. When he needed title for getting loan for improvements on the land, he told nephew-lawyer to sell land back to him for P20,000. but 2nd transaction not recorded in registrar TF still in the name of nephew. Nephew (then heirs after his death) claim land as theirs. CONSENT (simulation): - clear history and relationship that it was simulated RESCISSIBLE (badges of fraud): > relationship > did take exclusive possession of prop > value of prop > 2 instruments executed one after the other F: old man donated 50 hec land to 16yo Liguez as condition by her parents to permit their daughter to live with him. Widow and heirs claim it is theirs. CAUSE (absence of cause and unlawful cause): - illicit motive regarded as causa - not act of pure beneficence but remuneratory in nature (on part of old man) - onerous on the part of parents who only permitted the arrangement after the donation VOID (in pari delicto; illegal & 1 incapable of giving consent): - IPD does not apply since not equal guilt; old man mature of age, Liguez 16yo (minor) TF maybe seduction - old man if living would be barred from defeating the donation TF what right do the heirs have - BUT bec conjugal prop, WIFE is entitled to share TF remanded to determine share of wife in land F: Oria Hermanos liquidated company to escape creditor Gutierrez Hermanos. Liquidated props were supposedly sold to nephew (son of his partner) but did not take possession of said props and did not have ability to pay since only 25 yo. RESCISSIBLE (badges of fraud): 1) consideration of conveyance is fictitious/inadequate 2) transfer made by debtor after suit has begun or while it is pending against him 3) sale upon credit by insolvent debtor 4) evidence of large indebtedness or complete insolvency 5) transfer of all or nearly all his property by debtor especially if insolvent or greatly embarrassed financially 6) between father and son, when there are present other circumstances 7) the failure of the vendee to take exclusive possession of the property > ALL badges of fraud present TF sale of sheriff on props valid