Home About Category Archives: Obligations and Contracts Dec 21 2011 Obligations and Contracts Marin v. Adil – G.R. No. 47986 Facts: The Armadas were expecting to inherit some lots from their uncle. Marin had hereditary rights in the estates of her parents. A deed of exchange was executed wherein it was stipulated that both parties acknowledge that the exchange operates to their individual and mutual benefit and advantage, for the reason that the property being ceded, transferred, conveyed and unclaimed by one party to the other is situated in the place where either is a resident resulting in better administration of the properties. But the expected land was adjudicated to Soledad, sister of Marin. So, the Armadas and other heirs sued Soledad for claiming to be the sole heir of their uncle, but ended in a compromise where the Armadas were awarded two lots. Marin waived, renounced and quitclaimed her share in her parents’ estate in favour of her another sister Aurora. She cannot anymore fulfil her obligations in her signed deed of exchange with the Armadas. The Armadas filed a rescisorry action against Marin. Issue: Did Armadas’ action prescribe? Held: No. The action to declare contracts void and inexistent does not prescribe. It is evident from the deed of exchange that the intention of the parties relative to the lots cannot be definitely ascertained. This circumstance renders the exchange void. Dec 21 2011 Obligations and Contracts Rongavilla v. CA – G.R. No. 83974 Facts: The Dela Cruz sisters were the aunts of Dolores Rongavilla. They borrowed P2,000 from the Rongavillas to have their rooftop repaired. Later, petitioners went back to their aunts to have them sign a contract. Taking advantage of their lack of education, the sisters were made to believe that such document, typewritten in English, was just for the acknowledgment of their 27014 Facts: Epifanio sold a property with pacto de retro to Yangco. Dec 21 2011 Obligations and Contracts Cristobal v. The document executed by Epifanio was merely laying the basis of a scheme .debt. Marcelino sold the property to Banas. No. petitioners asked their aunts to vacate the land subject to litigation claiming that she and her husband were the new owners. Banas agreed. He left Paulina and their children. He redeemed it from Banas. with pacto de retro. After four years. they had no second thoughts stating at the trial and on appeal that they had resorted to doctoring the price stated in the disputed Deed of Sale. this presumption is a rebuttable presumption which may be overcome by clear. Gomez – G. Yangco extended it. Epifanio asked Banas for a loan. Marcelino acquired exclusive rights over the property when Telesfora conveyed her interest to him. by reason that he could not have been misled. Estoppel may not be invoked by a person party to the collusion. Issue: Was the deed of sale void? Held: Yes. After verifying with the Registry of Deeds. Issue: Are the heirs of Epifanio estopped from claiming the property? Held: No. allegedly to save on taxes. The land was mortgaged with the Cavite Development Bank. strong and convincing evidence. Marcelino relies upon this instrument as proving title in him. redeemable within five years. While it is true that public documents are presumed genuine and regular under the Rules of Court. Epifanio died. the aunts were surprised that what they have signed was actually a deed of sale. The two entered into a private partnership in participation which stipulated that the property shall be returned to Epifanio as soon as the capital employed have been covered. contending that Epifanio and his successors are estopped from claiming said lot. Marcelino submitted a notarial document wherein Epifanio certifies that Marcelino had requested him to draw up a notarial act showing the properties which Marcelino was known to be the true owner. with the condition that Marcelino and Telesfora be responsible for the loan. When the period expired. In order to redeem. While petitioners claimed they were regularly paying taxes on the land in question.R. Their land title was cancelled and the ownership was transferred to their nephews. It was stipulated that the property is redeemable within five years. for being in violation of Section 13 of the DBP Charter. Upon learning of PHHC’s previous transaction with DBP. However. which form part of said 159 lots. the sale of the lots to DBP. a person who is not obliged principally or subsidiarily in a contract may exercise an action for nullity of the contract if he is prejudiced in his rights with respect to one of the contracting parties. consisting of 159 lots. Goldenrod asked for another .30 square meters of land.188. The remaining balance would be paid once Barretto had consolidated the titles. were still sold by PHHC to the spouses Nicandro. 28774 Facts: DBP bought 91. the properties were foreclosed. 126812 Facts: Barretto owned parcels of land which were mortgaged to UCPB. No. or to defeat Epifanio’s other creditors. Lots 2 and 4. Barretto failed to pay. The spouses stand to be prejudiced by reason of their payment in full of the purchase price for the same lots which had been sold to DBP by virtue of the transaction in question. CA – G. and can show the detriment which could positively result to him from the contract in which he had no intervention. Goldenrod made an offer to Barretto that it would buy the properties and pay off the remaining balance of Barretto’s loan with UCPB. in the proposed Diliman Estate Subdivision of the PHHC. On the date that Goldenrod was supposed to pay. Goldenrod asked for an extension. to DBP is null and void. for which 2 deeds of sale were issued to them by PHHC.The general rule is that the action for the annulment of contracts can only be maintained by those who are bound either principally or subsidiarily by virtue thereof.to defeat Yangco’s rights under his contract of purchase of 1891. the spouses filed a complaint against DBP and the PHHC to rescind the sale of Lots 2 and 4 by PHHC in favor of DBP. The CFI held that the sale of Lots 2 and 4. Dec 21 2011 Obligations and Contracts Goldenrod v CA – G.R. However. It paid Barretto 1 million pesos as part of the purchase price. Issue: Do the spouses possess the legal personality to question the legality of the sale? Held: Yes. UCPB agreed. No.R. Dec 21 2011 Obligations and Contracts DBP v. When the extension date arrived. They had a daughter Soledad. The presumption of fraud . 25650 Facts: Cabaliw was the second wife of Benigno. Instead. Rescission creates the obligation to return the things which were the object of the contract together with the fruits and interest. Issue: Is there a presumption of fraud? Held: Yes. 3) the property was sold to a third person. The close relationship between Benigno and Soterro is a badge of fraud. it sold the property that was part of their agreement to Asiaworld. Alienations by onerous title are presumed fraudulent when made by persons against whome some judgment has been rendered or some writ of attachment has been issued. without opposition from Barretto. Barretto did not give in to Goldenrod’s rescission. Dec 21 2011 Obligations and Contracts Cabaliw v. Barretto is obliged to pay Goldenrod back because 1) Goldenrod decided to rescind the sale.extension. By virtue of the extrajudicial rescission of the contract to sell by Goldenrod. he sold his properties to his son-in-law. Soterro already knew that there was a judgment rendered against his father-in-law but proceeded to buy the property anyway. No. The transaction was done without Isidora’s consent. Goldenrod informed Barretto that it would not be able to push through with their agreement. Prior to the sale. During their marriage. Sadorra – G. Benigno did not pay and instead sold their property to his son-in-law Soterro. who in turn sold it to a third person. When Cabaliw found out. Benigno was ordered by the Court to pay Cabaliw support and he failed to do so. UCPB refused. she instituted an action along with her daughter to recover the properties. He cannot be said to be a purchaser in good faith. It asked Barretto to return the 1 million pesos. Issue: Should Goldenrod be paid back the 1 million pesos? Held: Yes. Instead. Barretto successfully consolidated the titles. The Court ordered Benigno to pay her P75 a month. they bought 2 parcels of land. Benigno abandoned his wife Cabaliw. thus the latter filed an action in court for support. Barretto had the obligation to return the 1 million pesos plus legal interest from the date it received the notice of rescission.R. 2) the transaction was called off and. However. Soterro knew about the judgment against Benigno but proceeded to purchase the properties anyway. Margarine-Verkaufs-Union GmbH – G. Germany. leased to Rojas some 70 or 80 square meters of Plaza Soledad. which in its turn must restore to her all the sums it may have received from her in the nature of rentals just as soon as she restores the land improperly leased. series of 1903 and that she obligate herself to vacate said land within 60 days subsequent to notification to that effect. however. she refused to vacate the land. Inc. etc. 43. streets. Rojas – G.R. No. on condition that she pay rent quarterly in advance according to the schedule fixed in Ordinance No.is not overcome by the fact that the transactions were all made in the nature of public instruments between Soterro and Benigno. rivers. forcing the municipality to file a complaint before the CFI to order her to vacate the land. Petitioner’s bill of lading for the cargo . 10. prescribes that everything which is not outside the commerce of man may be the object of a contract. and plazas and streets are outside of this commerce. (2) Rojas must restore and deliver possession of the land described in the complaint to the municipality of Cavite. 9069 Facts: The municipal council of Cavite by Resolution No. Dec 20 2011 Obligations and Contracts Municipality of Cavite v. common lands. After a hearing of the case.R. Dec 20 2011 Obligations and Contracts. what are the obligations of the parties? Held: (1) No. v. No. a corporation not engaged in business in the Philippines. Article 1271 of the Old Civil Code. the CFI dismissed the complaint. Upon such notification. Communal things that cannot be sold because they are by their very nature outside of commerce are those for public use. Transportation Law Eastern Shipping Lines. Issues: (1) Is the contract valid? (2) If in the negative. such as the plazas. L-31087 – 93 SCRA 257 Facts: MARGARINE-VERKAUFS-UNION. The properties sold were conjugal properties. fountains. was the consignee of copra in bulk shipped from Cebu on board EASTERN SHIPPING LINES’s vessel for discharge at Hamburg. These cannot be sold without Cabaliw’s consent. While the vessel was off Gibraltar. a fire broke out aboard the and caused water damage to the copra. We hold that the lower court correctly ruled the cited codal article to be not applicable in this particular case for the reason that the bill of lading contains an agreement to the contrary. any ambiguity must be construed against the author. In case of average. There is a clear and irreconcilable inconsistency between the York-Antwerp Rules expressly adopted by the parties as their contract under the bill of lading which sustains Eastern’s claim and the codal article cited by Margarine which would bar the same. A contract of adhesion as embodied in the printed bill of lading issued for the shipment to which the consignee merely adhered. Issue: Should Article 848 of the Code of Commerce govern this case despite the bill of lading which expressly contained for the application of the York-Antwerp Rules which provide for MARGARINE-VERKAUFS-UNION GmbH’s fun recovery of the damage loss? Held: No. EASTERN SHIPPING LINES rejected MARGARINE-VERKAUFS-UNION GmbH ‘s claim for payment. and consequently. having no choice in the matter.provided that the contract shall be governed by the laws of the Flag of the Ship carrying the goods. same shall be adjusted according to York-Antwerp Rules. .