Law School Notes

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Peran vs. Presiding Judge, Br. II, CFI of Sorsogon

No. L-57259. October 13, 1983. Main Topic – Rule 70. FACTS Peran personally asked respondents, who has a house erected on the subject land, to remove the same and vacate the premises. The respondents refused so the petitioner filed a complaint for Forcible Entry and Illegal Detainer seeking the ejectment seeking the ejectment of the respondents on the grounds that (a) they are mere squatters (b) that they had prevented him from entering the property and deprived him of possession and (c) and that they were tolerating persons in getting soil and bringing about a gradual erosion of the land to his extreme prejudice.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Rural Bank of Oroquieta (Mis. Occ.), Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

No. 53466. November 10, 1980. Main Topic – Rule 68. FACTS The failure of Serrano Spouses on paying the mortgaged debt resulted in Trial Court’s order for the sale at public auction of the mortgaged coconut land. The mortgaged lot was sold to the bank as the only bidder and there being no redemption within the one-year period (sec. 78, General Banking Law), the sheriff issued a final certificate of sale. The bank then sold the lot to Eufemia Mejos. Judge Genato issued an order directing the issuance of a writ of possession to the bank. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

National Power Corp. vs. Court of Appeals

No. L-56378. June 22, 1984 Main Topic – Rule 67. FACTS NPC instituted proceedings for eminent domain against the spouses Sadang purpose of constructing an access road to its Angat River Hydroelectric Project.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Garcia vs. Perez

No. L-28184. September 11, 1980 Main Topic – Rule 65. FACTS Garcia filed with the Civil Service Commission, a protest against the appointment of the Perez on the ground that she was next in rank better qualified and entitled to preferential appointment to the position of Senior Clerk. The CSC approved the appointment of Perez.  Garcia then filed a petition for quo warranto with Court of First Instance of Manila, questioning the authority of Perez. to occupy and discharge the duties of the position of Senior Clerk in the Fiscal Management and Budget Division. The court a quo dismissed the complaint on the ground that the petitioner does not claim to be entitled to the position but she merely asserted a ‘preferential right’ to be appointed thereto. Under the situation, the petitioner has no cause of action against the respondent. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Turqueza vs. Hernando

No. L-51626. April 30, 1980. Main Topic – Rule 65. FACTS Turqueza instituted an action for recovery of damages on the ground of injury sustained involving a Ford pick-up vehicle belonging to the CDCP Mining and a Willy’s passenger jeep owned and operated by M. Pacapac.  No one appeared during the pre-trial despite due notice to both the private respondent and its counsel. On motion of petitioners, respondent judge declared respondent in default and petitioners were allowed to submit their evidence. The trial court rendered Pacapac in default and ordered her to pay for moral and compensatory damages. No appeal was taken and the judgment became final and executory.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Silverio vs. Court of Appeals

No. L-39861. March 17, 1986. Main Topic – Rule 65. FACTS Silverio filed a case for the recovery of the amount he entrusted to Mendoza, in connection with a proposed purchase of a Forbes Park realty. The trial court rendered its decision in favor of Silverio and subsequently denied the motion for reconsideration instituted by Mendoza. Aggrieved, Mendoza initiated certiorari proceedings in the Court of Appeals seeking the annulment of the order of the trial court and the issuance of preliminary injunction against the petitioners. The Court of Appeals dismissed Mendoza’s certiorari petition and granted Silverio’s motion for execution for payment of the principal, legal interest and attorney’s fees.  Mendoza filed for a certiorari petition questioning the authority of the court a quo to grant and order the partial execution of a judgment that had not yet acquired finality. Silverio filed a motion to dismiss Mendoza’s appeal with Court of Appeals on the ground that the said appeal rendered moot and academic or barred by the dismissal of the petition for certiorari. Mendoza asserted that the appellate court’s dismissal of his certiorari petition constituted no bar to his appeal, for the decision decreeing the said dismissal resolved not the merits of the controversy subject of the order a quo dated July 17, 1973 but the issue as to the jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion of the said court a quo in rendering the said order.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Soriano vs. Atienza

G.R. No. 68619. March 16, 1989. Main Topic – Rule 65. FACTS Petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice and moral damages against Shellwood Industries (SHELWOOD). It appears that SHELLWOOD entered into a compromise agreement with the petitioners and agreed to give financial assistance amounting to P20,000.00 in lieu of union’s withdrawal of a case. SHELWOOD instead of paying the petitioners, terminated their service. The labor arbiter ordered the company to reinstate the petitioners and extend financial assistance equivalent to six (6) months of their respective salaries. On appeal to the NLRC, affirmed the judgment but deleted the award of financial assistance. The deletion is based on the ground that the company did not act in bad faith in terminating the petitioners since it merely complied with the request of the certified union for the dismissal of employees expelled from the union pursuant to the union security clause in the Collective Bargaining Agreement

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Searth Commodities Corp. vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 64220. March 31, 1992. Main Topic – Rule 58. FACTS Searth borrowed from Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) amounting to P370,000 to finance its tomato plantation in La Union. In 1974, Searth failed to pay its agricultural loan which resulted to the foreclosure of the real estate and chattel mortgage executed. Title to the foreclosed properties were thereafter consolidated in the name of DBP. In 1980, DBP advertised to sell some of its acquired assets, including the subject residential properties previously owned by petitioners Camacho, Castro and Taroja. Petitioners filed for annulment of real estate mortgages and foreclosure sale and the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the sale of the residential properties. The Trial Court issued an order restraining the bidding of the individual properties of the petitioners. After the expiration of the restraining order the petitioners moved for its extension.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Decano vs. Edu

No L-30070. August 29 1980. Main Topic – Rule 58 FACTS Frederico Decano was temporarily appointed to the position of janitor in the Motor Vehicles Office  in Dagupan City by Undersecretary of Public Works and Communications. The appointment was approved by the Commissioner of Civil Service and Decano served therein for almost four years. In 1966, C. Posadas, as Acting Registrar – Land Transportation Commission (LTC) – Dagupan City , received a telegram from R. Edu, as Acting Commissioner of Land Transportation Commission (LTC), terminating Decano’s services effective as of the close of business on that day.   Decano filed a petition for “Mandamus and Injunction” with the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, claiming that the officials of the LTC acted without power and in excess of authority in removing him from the service. He prayed for the annulment of the dismissal order issued. The Court granted the writ of preliminary injunction and ordered the respondents to “to desist and refrain from disturbing, molesting or otherwise ousting the petitioner from his position as janitor and to pay Decano his corresponding salary from the date of notice of said preliminary injunction, until further orders from the Court.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Magaling vs. Ong

G.R. No. 173333. August 13, 2008. Main Topic – Rule 57. FACTS Ong instituted a Complaint for the collection of the sum of money with prayer for issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment against Spouses Magaling and Termo Loans Corporation for its failure to pay its signed promissory note. The RTC granted the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment grounded on the allegation that Spouses Magaling and Termo Loans  “were guilty of fraud in contracting the obligation subject of the complaint for sum of money”. The RTC also issued an Order directing the issuance of the writ prayed for upon the filing of a bond in the amount of P390,000.00. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Consolidated Plywood Industries, Inc. vs. Breva

No. L-82811. October 18, 1988. Main Topic – Rule 57. FACTS Consolidated Plywood Industries (CPI) filed a suit for collection for reimbursement for the repairs, improvements and guard fees it allegedly spent in the co-owned parcel of land against its co-owner, MHEC. Summons were not served for the reason that MHEC is no longer doing business at said address and nobody around the place knows the present whereabouts of said defendant. The Trial Court ordered the service of summons by publication. Publication was effected in the newspaper, Philippine Daily Inquirer and copy of the alias summons was also sent by registered mail addressed to MHEC. No answer being filed within the sixty-day period after last publication prescribed in the alias summons, MHEC was declared in default and CPII thereafter presented its evidence ex parte. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Sps. Padua vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 152150. December 10, 2008. Main Topic – Rule 50. FACTS Unibandcard, engaged in the business of extending credit accommodations, instituted a collection suit against Spouses Padua. During the pre-trial, petitioners filed a motion to declare Unibancard non-suited due to insufficiency of the Special Power of Attorney (SPA) executed by Unibancard to authorize Atty. Noel Mingoa to appear in its behalf. The RTC granted the motion and dismissed the case.  Unibancard filed a Notice of Appeal Ad Cautelam with the Court of Appeals, however, they failed to file appellant’s brief within the period provided by the Court. They explained that a computer virus plagued all the computers of its counsel’s law firm and rendered the file containing its appellant’s brief inaccessible. Spouses Padua filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal on the ground that the Notice of Appeal was filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period to appeal under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The CA denied motion to dismiss appeal and Motion for reconsideration for the denial the dismissal of appeal.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Leynes vs. Former Tenth Division of the Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 154462. January 19, 2011. Main Topic – Rule 45. FACTS Spouses Superales filed a complaint for forcible entry, damages, and attorney’s fees against the Spouses Leynes before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC). However, Spouse Leynes filed their Answer with Counterclaim and Motion to Admit Belatedly Filed Answer after the 10-day period for the filing of answer prescribed. Spouses Superales subsequently filed an Ex Parte Motion for Judgment, in which they prayed that since the spouses Leynes failed to file their answer to the Complaint within the prescribed period, then judgment could now be rendered based on the evidence and allegations contained in the Complaint. The MCTC rendered its Judgment denying the Spouses Leynes’ Motion to Admit Belatedly Filed Answer and resolving the case entirely in the Spouses Superales’ favor.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

De Liano vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 142316, November 22, 2001. Main Topic – Rule 44. FACTS Petitioners filed an appeal with the CA with regard to the decision of RTC – Quezon City granting the release of duplicate copy of TCT and the originals of REM contracts in favor of B. Tango. The appellee filed a “Motion to Dismiss Appeal” on the ground that the Appellants’ Brief failed to comply with Section 13, Rule 44 of the Rules of Court.  In defense, petitioners argued that the omissions were only the result of oversight or inadvertence and as such could be considered “harmless” errors. They prayed for liberality in the application of technical rules, adding that they have a meritorious defense. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Luzon Development Bank vs. Association of Luzon Development Bank Employees

G.R. No. 120319. October 6, 1995. Main Topic – Rule 43. FACTS Atty. Ester S. Garcia, in her capacity as Voluntary Arbitrator, received ALDBE’s Position Paper, on the other hand, LDB failed to submit its Position Paper despite a letter from the Voluntary Arbitrator reminding them to do so. Without LDB’s Position Paper, the Voluntary Arbitrator rendered decision that LDB has not adhered to the Collective Bargaining Agreement provision nor the Memorandum of Agreement on promotion.  LDB filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition seeking to set aside the decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator and to prohibit her from enforcing the same with the Supreme Court. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Neypes vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 141524, September 14, 2005. Main Topic – Rule 40. FACTS The petitioners filed a filed an action for annulment of judgment and titles of land before the RTC – O. Mindoro. The petitioners filed various motions including (a) dismissal of motion and (d) declaration of default of respondents. On February 12, 1998 the trial court upon motion for reconsideration by the respondents granted the dismissal of  petitioners’ complaint on the ground that the action had already prescribed. Petitioners allegedly received a copy of the order of dismissal on March 3, 1998 and, on the 15th day thereafter or on March 18, 1998, filed a motion for reconsideration. On July 1, 1998, the trial court issued another order dismissing the motion for reconsideration which petitioners received on July 22, 1998. Five days later, on July 27, 1998, petitioners filed a notice of appeal and paid the appeal fees on August 3, 1998. On August 4, 1998, the court a quo denied the notice of appeal, holding that it was filed eight days late.  

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Mijares vs. Ranada

G.R. No. 139325. April 12, 2005. MAIN TOPIC – Rule 39. FACTS Petitioners, prominent victims of human rights violations during Marcos Regime, filed a Complaint with the Regional Trial Court – Makati for the enforcement of the Final Judgment. They alleged that they are members of the plaintiff class in whose favor the US District Court awarded damages. The US District Court rendered a Final Judgment awarding the plaintiff class a total of 1,964,005,859.90.  They argued that since the Marcos Estate failed to file a petition for certiorari with the US Supreme Court after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had affirmed the Final Judgment, the decision of the US District Court had become final and executory, and hence should be recognized and enforced in the Philippines, pursuant to Section 50, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court then in force. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Mocorro vs. Ramirez

G.R. No. 178366. July 28, 2008 MAIN TOPIC – Rule 39. FACTS The Philippine Gamefowl Commission (PGC), declare and recognize D. Mocorro to be the rightful cockpit operator in the Municipality of Caibiran, Leyte. In 1992, Mocorro applied  for the renewal of the registration of his cockpit however, for some reason, Mayor Ramirez refused to issue him a business permit. There is also showing that respondent issued a special permit holding of cockfight in Caibiran in favor of Rosario and Azur. In 1992, petitioner filed with the RTC – Biliran a suit for injunction against the respondent. The RTC issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining respondent from holding any cockfight within Caibiran until further orders of the court. Despite the injunction, cockfights continued to be staged which prompted the petitioner to file a motion to cite respondent in contempt of court. The RTC held that the defendants are guilty of indirect contempt for contumacious disobedience of and resistance to writ of preliminary injunction issued by this court and was ordered to pay actual damages of P38,000.00 plus 2,000 every Sunday of each week form the date the defendants started to cause the holding of the cockfight. On June 22, 2001, the CA’s May 31, 2001 Decision became final and executory as evidenced by the corresponding Entry of Judgment. In 2002, the sheriff issued a Notice of Sale on Execution of Real Properties and set a date for public auction.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

City of Manila vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 100626. November 29,1991 MAIN TOPIC – Rule 38 FACTS The City of Manila filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against Army and Navy Club (ANC) for violation of the lease agreement between them over a parcel of land on Roxas Boulevard.  A summary judgment was decided in favor of City of Manila by the Metropolitan Trial Court which is affirmed by the Regional Trial Court. ANC then filed a supersedeas bond and subsequently appealed from the judgment.  The petitioner filed an ex parte motion for execution on the ground that the judgment had already become final and executory under RA 6031. Judge Reyes granted the motion the same day and at 4:00 o’clock that afternoon the writ of execution was served on ANC.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Cayetano vs. Ceguerra

No. L-18831. January 30, 1965. MAIN TOPIC – Rule 38 FACTS Catalina Cayetano filed a case for Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage against Spouses Ceguerra. Within the reglementary period, the defendants filed an Answer in the form of a letter, which provided that the mortgage was deliberately planned. The Court granted the foreclosure instituted on the ground that Spouses Ceguerra was in default due to their failure to file a responsive pleading to the complaint within the reglementary period. It appears that this decision never became known to appellants-spouses, the same having been returned to the Court, as unclaimed.  

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Magno vs. Court of Appeals

No. L-28486. September 10, 1981. MAIN TOPIC – Rule 37. FACTS D.Vergara filed an action for annulment of judgment and of Writ of Execution before the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija against Magno and the Nueva Ecija Provincial Sheriff on the ground that judgment in the Bulacan Case was procured by means of extrinsic fraud. Vergara insisted that he was lured into inaction because of the assurances made by Magno that he will be excluded from the suit. Additionally, he alleged that he was never informed of the pre-trial thereby misleading the Bulacan Court into believing certain false allegations. Magno moved to dismiss the Annulment Suit on the principal ground that the Nueva Ecija Court had no jurisdiction to interfere by Injunction and to nullify a final judgment of the Bulacan Court, which is a Tribunal of concurrent and coordinate jurisdiction.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Heirs of Amparo del Rosario vs. Santos

No. L-46892. September 30, 1981. MAIN TOPIC – Rule 35 FACTS A complaint for specific performance and damages was filed by Amparo del Rosario for failure of Spouses Santos to execute the Deed of Confirmation of Sale of an undivided 20,000 square meters of land.  The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, lack of cause of action and prescription. They also claimed the deed of sale was “only an accommodation graciously extended, out of close friendship which is a mere tentative agreement which was never intended nor meant to be ratified by and acknowledged before a notary public.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Roque vs. Encarnacion, etc. and Reyes

No. L-6505. August 23, 1954 MAIN TOPIC – Rule 34 FACTS Asuncion Roque, due to alleged infidelity of Francisco Reyes, prays for (a) legal separation, (b) legal custody of the children, (c) liquidation of the conjugal property, and (d) alimony and support for the children.  Reyes denied all the allegations and presented a counterclaim alleging that Asuncion was already a married woman when they contracted the marriage and has been squandering money from him. He also filed a motion for summary judgment and submitted the deposition of former husband of the Asuncion in support of the action. Asuncion filed an opposition on the ground that an action for annulment cannot be a ground for summary judgment.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Capitol Hills Golf Country Club

G.R. No. 182738. February 24, 2014. MAIN TOPIC – Rule 29. FACTS Manuel Sanchez, stockholder of Capitol Hills filed a (1) petition for nullification of the annual meeting of stockholders  and the special meeting of stockholders and (2) Motion for Production and Inspection of Documents which includes: list of stockholders, all proxies, specimen signatures of all stockholder and tape recordings of the stockholders’ meeting. The production, inspection and photocopying must be undertaken in the office premises of Capitol within reasonable business hours of a business day before the pre-trial. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, however, the Court denied the MR and ordered the immediate implementation of inspection and production of documents.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Metro Manila Shopping Mecca Corp. vs. Toledo

G.R. No. 190818. November 10, 2014. MAIN TOPIC – Rule 26 FACTS Petitioners filed a Manifestation and Motion seeking the approval of the terms and conditions of the Universal Compromise Agreement (UCA) dated June 1, 2012 in lieu of the Court’s Decision dated June 5, 2013 which denied petitioners’ claim for tax refund/credit of their local business taxes.  In accordance with the UCA, petitioners alleged that they agreed to amicably settle all cases between them involving claims for tax refund/credit. The UCA provides that there shall be no refunds/tax credit certificates to be given or issued by the City of Manila. City of Manila confirmed the authenticity and due execution of the UCA however, they submitted that the UCA had no effect with the current decision since the taxes involved in the instant case was not included in the agreement

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Marcelo vs. Sandiganbayan

G.R. No. 156605. August 28, 2007. MAIN TOPIC – Rule 25 FACTS The PCGG, on behalf of the Republic, filed a Complaint for the recovery of ill-gotten wealth with the Sandiganbayan against Marcelo who allegedly took advantage of he’s relationship with the Marcoses to obtain the “favored contract”. The Republic, though the Philippine Navy (PN) entered into a contract with Marcelo Fiberglass Corporation (MFC) for the construction of 55 units of 16.46 fiberglass high-speed boats, at the unit price of P7,200,000.00. The Republic served a Request for Admission on Marcelo, and in response, Marcelo included his own counter-request for admission on matters stated in his response. Republic filed a Third Amended Complaint impleading additional (16) corporations which allegedly are beneficially owned and are dummies of Marcelo. In defense, the other petitioner corporations denied that they are owned, controlled or were acquired by Marcelo who is merely an officer/stockholder.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Santamaria vs. Cleary

G.R. No. 197122. June 15, 2016. MAIN TOPIC – Rule 23 FACTS Thomas Cleary, an American citizen and Los Angeles resident filed a complaint for specific performance and damages against Miranila Land Development Corporation (MLDC) involving shares of stock.  Cleary moved for court authorization to take deposition before the Consulate-General of the Philippines in Los Angeles and be used as his direct testimony. The respondents  argued that the right to take deposition is not absolute and since Cleary chose the Philippine system to file his suit, the court and the parties must have opportunity to observe his demeanor and directly propound questions on him. The trial court denied Cleary’s Motion and held that depositions are not meant to be a substitute for actual testimony in open court. Cleary elevated the case to the Court of Appeals.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Lozada, Jr. vs. Macapagal-Arroyo

G.R. Nos. 184379-80. April 24, 2012 MAIN TOPIC – Rule 21 FACTS The Senate of the Philippines Blue Ribbon Committee conduct an investigation and issued a subpoena directing Lozada to appear and testify for the alleged anomalies in the NBN-ZTE corruption scandal. Lozada left the country for a purported official trip to London. In effect, Senate issued an Order (a) citing Lozada for contempt; (b) ordering his arrest and detention; and (c) directing the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms to implement the Order and make a return thereon. When Lozada decided to go back to the Philippines however, he was allegedly held and restrained by several men from government. Violeta   filed   a Petition   for   Habeas   Corpus and Arturo likewise filed a Petition for a Writ of Amparo and prayed for the issuance of  (a) the  writ  of  amparo;  (b)  a  Temporary Protection  Order  (TPO);  and  (c)  Inspection and Production Orders as regards documents related to the authority ordering custody  over  Lozada,  as  well  as any  other document that would show responsibility for his alleged abduction. After Lozada was made to sign a  typewritten,  antedated  letter  requesting police     protection, he was drove back to his place.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Republic vs. Sandiganbayan

G.R. No. 112710. May 30, 2001 MAIN TOPIC – Rule 23 FACTS Petitioner Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Philippine Commission for Good Government, filed before the Sandiganbayan a complaint for “Reversion, Reconveyance, Restitution, Accounting and Damages”, against group of individuals ( Lucio C. Tan, Ferdinand E. Marcos, Imelda R. Marcos, Carmen Khao Tan, Florencio T. Santos et al).Petitioner filed a “Motion for Leave to Amend and for Admission of Second Amended Complaint” and attached thereto a “Second Amended Complaint.” Petitioner sought to substitute defendant Ferdinand Marcos with his estate, President Marcos having died pendente lite, and include as additional defendants three (3) individuals  and (42) corporations who allegedly participated in the Marcoses’ accumulation of ill-gotten wealth.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Abenion vs. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation

G.R. No. 200749. February 6, 2017 FACTS In 1996, Plaintiffs identified themselves as a group of banana plantation worker, filed a case for damages against Shell Oil and other foreign corporations that manufactured, sold, distributed, or used the parasite nematode which caused their sterility and other serious and permanent health injuries. During the pendency of Civil Case No. 95-45, Shell Oil entered into a compromise agreement with its claimants for a total consideration of US$17 Million. The copy submitted to the court did not bear the agreement’s exhibits which, according to Shell Oil, indicated the list of 26,328 “worldwide plaintiffs” intended to be covered by the compromise. In view of the compromise, the complaint against Shell Oil was dismissed.  Civil Case No. 95-45 was later transferred to the RTC of Davao City, and the plaintiffs prayed for the enforcement of judgment based on the Compromise Agreement since Shell Oil allegedly failed to fully satisfy its obligations to them. Shell Oil argued that it had fully complied with the terms of the compromise agreement. The approved compromise and amount stated therein covered 26,328 agricultural workers from across the globe who filed various cases against it and not just the 1,843 plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 95-45. The RTC resolved the motion in favor of the plaintiffs.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Agulto vs. Tecson

G.R. No. 145276. November 29, 2005. FACTS RTC ordered the revival of the complaint priorly decided and required the parties to appear during the pre-trial conference scheduled on April 29, 1999. During the scheduled pre-trial, petitioner Rolando Agulto and his counsel were informed by an employee of the RTC that the presiding judge was on leave. The petitioners suggested that pre-trial to be rescheduled on June 17, 1999, however, the RTC employee informed them that the suggested setting was not yet official since it would depend on the calendar of the court and the counsel of respondent. The pre-trial proceeded on June 17, 1999. For failure of petitioners to appear at the pre-trial and to submit their pre-trial brief, the RTC issued an order allowing the respondent to present his evidence ex parte. Petitioners motion for reconsideration on the ground that they were not notified of the pre-trial was denied by the Court. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Pinga vs. Heirs of German Santiago

G.R. No. 170354. June 30, 2006. FACTS The Heirs of German Santiago filed a complaint for injunction against Edgardo Pinga and Vicenta Saavedra for unlawfully entering the coco lands of the respondent, cutting wood and bamboos and harvesting the fruits of the coconut trees therein. The petitioners in their Amended Answer with Counterclaim, asserted that the properties in question had been in possession thereof since the 1930s.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Bautista vs. Causapin, Jr.

A.M. No. RTJ-07-2044. June 22, 2011. FACTS Plaintiffs through counsel, Atty. Bautista, filed a Complaint for Partition before the RTC, which is raffled to Judge Causapin’s branch. Defendants filed a motion for an extension  to file an answer for 3 times which were all granted by Judge Causapin.  Atty. Bautista filed a comment on defendants’ motions for extension and asserted that all three motions did not contain a notice of the time and place of hearing, thus, these should be considered mere scraps of paper. Finally, defendants filed their joint Answer with Counterclaim and Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs countered by filing a motion to declare defendants in default.  During the hearing,  in the Resolution of Motion to Hold Defendants in Default, Judge Causapin dismissed the complaint without prejudice on the ground that plaintiffs R. Mesina and N. Polangco did not sign the verification and certification on non-forum shopping attached to the complaint, in violation of Rule 7, Section 5 of the Rules of Court. Judge Causapin held that defendants could not be declared in default for not answering a defective complaint, which in law does not exist.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Philippine Commercial International Bank vs. Alejandro

G.R. No. 175587. September 21, 2007. FACTS Alejandro, a Hong Kong resident, executed a promissory note in favor of PCIB for the amount of P249,828,588.90. PCIB filed a complaint for sum of money with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment due to the alleged withdrawal of unassigned deposits. The trial court granted the application and the bank deposits of respondent with RCBC were garnished. Alejandro, through counsel, filed a manifestation informing the court that he is voluntarily submitting to its jurisdiction. He also filed a motion to quash the writ contending that the withdrawal of his unassigned deposits was approved by the PCIB. He also alleged that petitioner knew that he maintains a permanent residence in Quezon City and an office address in Makati City. He posits that there was  a regular communication with PCIB since he frequently travels back to the Philippines. Alejandro also filed a claim for damages in the amount of P25 Million on account of the wrongful garnishment of his deposits.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Trimica, Inc. vs. Polaris Marketing Corporation

No. L-29887. October 28,1974 FACTS Polaris instituted a case for the recovery of the price of foam products against Fine Furnitures in the municipal court of Makati however, Fine Furnitures denied all the allegations. The Municipal Court rendered a decision in favor of Polaris. Fine Furnitures appealed to the Court of First Instance of Rizal  and presented storekeeper of Trimica, Inc. as witnesses. Torre testified that the foam products were received by Trimica Inc. and the two companies have same office address.  Polaris filed its amended complaint impleading Trimica, Inc. as a defendant and by alleging that Trimica, Inc. and Fine Furnitures were solidarily liable for the price of the foam products. The court absolved Fine Furnitures from any liability and ordered Trimica, Inc. to pay Polaris’ claim Trimica filed a motion to set aside the judgment on the ground that the judgment was void for lack of due process since it was never summoned. The court denied the motion since it had been given its day in court through Capistrano’s admission, its president, that the company used the foam products.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Valley Golf and Country Club, Inc. vs. Reyes

G.R. No. 190641. November 10, 2015. FACTS Victor Reyes (Reyes) subscribed and purchased one share in the capital stock of Valley Golf which entitled him exclusive membership to the golf club including playing rights. Reyes’ playing privileges were assigned from 1979 – 1986, wherein the assignee obligated themselves to pay the monthly membership fees for and on behalf of Reyes. However, the payment was discontinued and resulted for the delinquency of Reyes’ account.  Due to delinquency in the payment of monthly membership fees, Valley Golf sold his share at a public auction.  Reyes filed an action for Reinstatement of Playing Rights and Re-issuance of New Certificate of Share of Stocks against Valley Golf before the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). He claimed that he was not notified of the delinquency of his account not the sale of his share. Valley Golf insisted that a Notice of Due Account was sent to Reyes which is evidenced by Registry Receipt No. 3384. It further alleged that prior to the scheduled sale, it also published with Philippine Daily Express as evidenced by the Publisher’s Affidavit. Valley Golf argued that Reyes has no right to claim that he was not duly notified and prayed that his complaint be dismissed for evident lack of cause of action.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Ilano vs. Español

G.R. No. 161756. December 16, 2005 MAIN TOPIC – Rule 12, Section 1 – Bill of Particulars FACTS Amelia Alonzo, private respondent, is a trusted employee of Victoria Ilano. When Ilano left for the United States for medical check-up, Alonzo was entrusted with Ilano‘s Metrobank Check Book which contains both signed and unsigned blank checks. Ilano contends that Alonzo, by means of deceit and abuse of confidence succeeded in procuring Promissory Notes and signed blank checks. She further alleged that there is no consent in the issuance of the PN’s thus must be declared null and void. She also impleaded ESTELA CAMACLANG, ALLAN CAMACLANG and ESTELITA LEGASPI as co-defendants who likewise was able to induce plaintiff to sign several undated blank checks for the total amount of Php 3,031,600.00. A Complaint for Revocation/Cancellation of Promissory Notes and Bills of Exchange (Checks) with Damages and Prayer for Preliminary Injunction or Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against Alonzo et al. before the Regional Trial Court of Cavite.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Central Bank Board of Liquidators vs. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank

G.R. No. 173399. February 21, 2017. FACTS Central Bank (CB)  issued a resolution placing Banco Filipino under conservatorship. Banco Filipino filed a complaint with the RTC against  the CB for the annulment of MB Resolution No. 955 (Civil Case No. 8108). In 1985, CB issued another ordering the closure of Banco Filipino and placing the latter under receivership. Banco Filipino filed a Complaint with the RTC questioning the act of it placing the bank under receivership (Civil Case No. 9675).  CB issued another Resolution placing Banco Filipino under liquidation. Respondent then filed another Complaint with the RTC to question the propriety of the liquidation. (Civil Case No. 10183). The Court En Banc consolidated the cases and ordered the CB and its MB to reorganize the bank and allow Banco Filipino to resume business. In 1994, Banco Filipino filed a Motion to Admit Attached Amended/ Supplemental Complaint in the three consolidated cases. It sought to substitute the CB-BOL for the defunct CB and its MB. Respondent also aimed to recover at least P18 billion representing damages and fees against petitioner who had allegedly acted with malice and bad faith in placing the bank under conservatorship and eventually closing it down in 1985. The trial court granted the Motion to Admit filed by Banco Filipino and accordingly admitted the latter’s Amended/Supplemental Complaint.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Frilou Construction Inc. vs. Aegis Integrated Structure Corp.

G.R. No. 191088, 2016. FACTS Frilou Construction engaged the services of Aegis Integrated to supply and fabricate structural steel requirements. Aegies instituted a suit against Frilou for its failure to pay the balance despite of repeated demands.The complaint includes four (4) material averments: (1) petitioner contracted with respondent to fabricate and deliver the former’s structural steel requirements in amount of P6,024,306.00; (2) respondent completely performed the agreement under the Purchase Orders; (3) petitioner has only paid the amount of P4,490,014.32; and (4) thus, petitioner had an unpaid balance to respondent in the amount of P1,534,291.68. Petitioner did not make specific denial of each material averments but a general one to the effect that it no longer has any remaining liability to respondent. It asserted that respondent failed to show evidence of its supposed remaining liability.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

BP Oil vs. Total Distribution

G.R. No. 214406.  February 6, 2017. FACTS BP Oil filed a Complaint for Sum of Money against Total Distribution & Logistic Systems, Inc. (TDLSI) seeking to recover the sum of P3, 6440,351.79. The amount represents the total  value of the moneys, stock and accounts receivables that TDLSI has allegedly refused to return to BP Oil arising from the termination of the Agency Agreement.  The RTC ruled in favor of BP Oils. The CA, reversed and set aside the decision on the ground that the admission made by TDLSI in Exhibit “J,” that it was withholding moneys, receivables and stocks from petitioner, has no evidentiary weight, thus, petitioner was not able to preponderantly establish its claim.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Uy vs. Evangelista

G.R. No. 140365. July 11, 2001. FACTS San Roque Purok Onse Neighborhood Association , et al., filed a complaint for specific performance and damages against petitioners. In the complaint, private respondents alleged four causes of action. They stated that Spouses Uy for no apparent reason, balked and reneged from their original commitment for plaintiffs to acquire their property at the price fixed by and in accordance with CMP rules and guidelines. Spouses Uy filed a motion to dismiss the complaint stressing (a) that the complaint did not state a valid cause of action (b) that the claim on which the action had been founded was unenforceable and (c) that respondents were not the real parties-in-interest. The Regional Trial Court of Quezon City denied the motion to dismiss of petitioners finding a sufficient basis on the allegations with respect to the first, second and third causes of action as embodied in the complaint.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Raymond vs. Court of Appeals

No. L-80380. September 28, 1988. FACTS Santiago Bitera filed  a complaint for damages against Raymond and Alba with the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo. The petitioners move for the dismissal of the action on the ground of improper venue. They argued that although Bitera’s complaint includes his address in Ilo-ilo City, he has actually residing for many years in Bais City, Dumaguete.  The Trial Court however denied their motion to dismiss. The Court of Appeals affirmed RTC’s decision on the ground that it is the plaintiff who is given the right to elect where to bring his action.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Private Enterprise Corporation vs. Magada

G.R. No. 149489. June 30, 2006. FACTS In 1990, Private Enterprise and Valentina Magada entered into a lease contract for 1 year with monthly rental of P3,000. The lessor allowed the petitioner to introduce and/or construct any structure of light materials on the leased premises provided the lessee shall remove the same not later than 30 days after the expiration of the contract. In case, where the petitioner failed to remove the structure, the removal shall be done by the lessor at the expense of lessee. Upon the expiry of the lease, Magada asked for the removal of the improvements but the petitioner refused and claimed that it entered a new lease contract with the heirs of Maria Bacud, who is allegedly the real owner of the subject premise. The respondent and his hired men demolished the bunkhouse which petitioner introduced on the leased premises.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Ochoa vs. China Banking Corporation

G.R. No. 192877. March 23, 2011. FACTS Spouses Ochoa mortgaged their real properties located in Paranaque City in favor of China Banking Corporation. The parties agree that the necessary action for the foreclosure  of the mortgage shall be instituted at China Banking’s option which is in the RTC  – Makati City. However, Petitioners insist that it was error for the CA to rule that the stipulated exclusive venue of Makati City is binding only on petitioners’ complaint for Annulment of Foreclosure, Sale, and Damages filed before the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City, but not on respondent bank’s Petition for Extrajudicial Foreclosure of Mortgage, which was filed with the same court.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Lafarge Cement Phil, Inc. vs. Continental Cement Corp

G.R. No. 155173. November 23, 2004 FACTS Petitioner Lafarge Cement Philippines  agreed to purchase the cement business of Respondent Continental Cement Corporation (CCC). Both parties entered into a Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA). At the time of the foregoing transactions, petitioners were well aware that CCC had a case pending with the Supreme Court (Asset Privatization Trust (APT) v. Court of Appeals and Continental Cement Corporation).Under Clause 2 (c) of the SPA, the parties allegedly agreed to retain from the purchase price a portion of the contract price in anticipation of the liability related to the pending case of CCC. However, upon the finality of the decision, Lafarge refused to apply the sum to the payment to APT.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Anama vs. Citibank, N.A. (formerly First National City Bank)

G.R. No. 192048. December 13, 2017. FACTS Douglas F. Anama obtained a loan and executed a promissory note in the amount of P418,000 and a chattel mortgage in favor of Citibank. Due to the failure of Anama to pay the monthly installments, in 1974, Citibank filed a complaint for sum of money and replevin with the Court of First Instance of Manila. Anama filed his answer with counterclaim alleging that his failure to pay was due to the fault of Citibank as it refused to receive the checks he issued, and that the chattel mortgage was defective and void.  The Regional Trial Court (RTC) issued an Order of Replevin over the machineries and equipment covered by the chattel mortgage.  In 1982, the CA rendered a decision in favor of Anama and nullified RTC’s orders of seizure. However, during the pendency of the case in the CA, the court’s records including the records of the subject case was destroyed by fire. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Forest Hills Golf and Country Club, Inc. vs. Fil-Estate Properties, Inc.

G.R. No. 206649. July 20, 2016 FACTS Fil-Estate Properties, Inc. (FEPI) entered into an agreement to finance the development of several parcels of land owned by Kingsville Construction and Development Corporation (Kingsville).  Respondent FEPI was tasked to incorporate petitioner Forest Hills Golf and Country Club, Inc. (FHGCCI), a first-class residential area/golf course/commercial center. Due to delayed construction of the golf course, Rainier Madrid on behalf FHGCCI instituted a derivative suit for specific performance in order to enforce the project agreement between KPC, Kingsville, and respondents FEPI and FEGDI. The complaint was filed with RTC – Antipolo City. However, RTC dismissed the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and refer that the case must be refiled in proper special commercial court sitting at Binangonan, Rizal.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Filinvest Credit Corporation vs. Relova

No. L-50378. September 30, 1982. FACTS  Filinvest Credit Corporation (FILINVEST) filed a complaint against Rallye Motor Co. (RALLYE) for the collection of a sum of money with damages and preliminary writ of attachment. Judge Coquia granted the prayer for a writ of attachment on the ground that defendants have committed fraud in securing the obligation and are now avoiding payment of the same. Salazar, one of the defendants, filed Urgent Motion that the writ of preliminary attachment issued ex parte and implemented solely against his property be recalled and/or quashed since he did not committed fraud when he contracted the obligation. Justice Relova ordered the dissolution and setting aside of the writ of preliminary attachment issued and the return to Salazar of all his properties attached by the Sheriff by virtue of the said writ. FILINVEST filed a Motion for Reconsideration to be allowed to adduce evidence to prove that Salazar committed fraud but the respondent Judge denied the Motion. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Yngson, Jr. vs. Philippine National Bank

G.R. No. 171132. August 15, 2012 FINANCIAL REHABILITATION AND INSOLVENCY ACT OF 2010 FACTS ARCAM & Company, Inc.  obtained a loan by respondent Philippine National Bank (PNB).To secure the loan, ARCAM executed a eal Estate Mortgage and a Chattel Mortgage. However, ARCAM defaulted on its obligations to PNB. Thus, PNB initiated extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings of the Real Estate Mortgage and Chattel Mortgage.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Miles vs. Lao

G.R. No. 209544. November 22, 2017. MAIN TOPIC – Real Estate Mortgage FACTS Petitioners claimed that on March 28, 1983, they became registered owners in fee simple of a parcel of land in Makati City by TCT No. 120427. They averred that before they left for the United States, they entrusted the duplicate of the TCT of the subject property to their niece, defendant Rodora Jimenez (Rodora) so that she may offer it to interested buyers. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Cavite Development Bank vs. Lim

G.R. No. 131679. February 1, 2000. MAIN TOPIC – Real Security FACTS Rodolfo Guansing obtained a loan in the amount of P90,000.00 from Cavite Development Bank, to secure which he mortgaged a parcel of land situated in Quezon City and covered by TCT No. 300809 registered in his name. As Guansing defaulted in the payment of his loan, CDB foreclosed the mortgage. Guansing failed to redeem, and the mortgaged property was sold to CDB as the highest bidder. TCT No. 300809 in the name of Guansing was cancelled and, in lieu thereof, TCT No. 355588 was issued in the name of CDB.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Republic vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 103073. March 13, 2001. MAIN TOPIC – Credit Card FACTS This case is a motion for reconsideration of the decision, dated 14 September 1999, of the Court.See earlier case: Endelo Manufacturing Corporation (Endelo) is a domestic corporation engaged in the manufacture of embroidery and apparel articles for export using imported raw materials. To release said materials from the customs warehouse, Endelo secured embroidery re-export bonds from the Communications Insurance Company, Inc. (CICI), and R & B Surety Company and Insurance Co., Inc. (R & B Surety). However, Endelo’s license to operate was subsequently suspended by the Embroidery and Apparel Control and Inspection Board on the ground of alleged pilferage of the imported materials. The suspension of its license resulted in its failure to re-export the imported materials or the finished goods.As a consequence, the Commissioner of Customs filed a case against  Endelo, CICI and R & B Surety, for the payment of the customs duties and taxes due to the Bureau of Customs.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Bankard, Inc. v. Feliciano

G.R. No. 141761. July 28, 2006 MAIN TOPIC – Credit Card FACTS Respondent Feliciano is the holder of PCIBank Mastercard  issued and managed by petitioner Bankard, Inc. An extension of the card  was issued to his wife, Mrs. Feliciano.In 1995, respondent used his PCIBank Mastercard to pay a breakfast bill in Toronto, Canada. The card was, however, dishonored for payment. Respondent’s guest had to pay for the bill. Respondent immediately called the Bankard Inc., to inquire on the cause of dishonor and was informed that the reason was the nonpayment of his last billing statement. Respondent denied that he failed to pay, and requested the person on the line to verify the correct status of his credit card again. Respondent likewise called his secretary

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Gilat Satellite Networks, Ltd. v. United Coconut Planters Bank Insurance Co.

G.R. No. 189563. April 7, 2014 MAIN TOPIC – Interest FACTS One Virtual purchased from Gilat various telecommunications equipment at a total purchase price of US$2,128,250.00. To ensure the prompt payment of this amount, it obtained defendant UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc.’s surety bond in favor of Gilat.GILAT shipped and delivered to One Virtual the purchased products and equipment for which payment was secured by the surety bond.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Spouses Ramon Sy and Anita Ng v. Westmont Bank

G.R. No. 201074. October 19, 2016 MAIN TOPIC – CONTRACT OF LOAN – General Concepts FACTS Petitioners, under the trade name and style of “Moondrops General Merchandising,” obtained a loan from Westmont Bank. They signed blank forms of promissory notes, disclosure statements and continuing suretyship agreements for the purpose of securing any future indebtedness of Moondrops.Westmont filed a complaint because the petitioners allegedly defaulted in the payment of the loan obligation in the amount of P4,000,000.00. Demand letter was sent to them, but it was unheeded. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Boston Equity Resources, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 173946. June 19, 2013. MAIN TOPIC – Different Kind Of Obligations FACTS In 1997, Boston Equity filed a complaint for sum of money with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment against the spouses Manuel and Lolita Toledo. Respondent (Lolita Toledo) filed an Answer and later filed a Motion for Leave to Admit Amended Answer in which she alleged, among others, that her husband and co-defendant, Manuel Toledo, is already dead. The death certificate of Manuel states “13 July 1995” as the date of death. As a result, petitioner filed a motion to require respondent to disclose the heirs of Manuel. In compliance, Toledo submitted the required names and addresses of the heirs. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Domingo vs. Manzano

G.R. No. 201883. November 16, 2016. MAIN TOPIC – Suspensive Condition FACTS Respondents Emmanuel and Tita Manzano (the Manzanos) were the registered owners of a 35,281-square-meter parcel of land with improvements in Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City , through their duly appointed attorney-in­-fact Franklin Estabillo (Estabillo), executed a notarized agreement of contract to sell with petitioners Desiderio and Teresa Domingo. However, they failed to tender full payment of the balance when the March 2001 deadline came. In December 2001, petitioners offered to pay the remaining P555,000.00 balance, but Estabillo refused to accept payment; instead, he advised petitioners to await respondent Tita Manzano’s (Tita) arrival from abroad.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Bachrach Motor Co. vs. Espiritu

52 Phil. 346 [1928] MAIN TOPIC – Obligations with a Penal Clause FACTS Bachrach Motor Co., filed two cases – Nos. 28497 and 28498 which were tried together, against defendants. The cases involve an action for the recovery of total amount of P11,940.37 representing the unpaid balance of White truck purchases within the periods agreed upon. To secure the payment, defendant executed mortgage deeds and promissory note. In both sales it was agreed that 12% interest would be paid upon the unpaid portion of the price at the execution of the contracts, and in case of non-payment of the total debt upon its maturity, 25% thereon, as penalty. The trial courts rendered judgments in favor of the plaintiff. However, the defendants contended that the 25 % penalty upon the debt, in addition to the interest of 12% per annum makes the contract usurious.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Citibank vs. Sabeniano

G.R. No 156132. October 12, 2006 MAIN TOPIC – Extinguishment of Obligations – Compensation FACTS Modesta R. Sabeniano was a client of both petitioners Citibank and FNCB Finance. Unfortunately, the business relations among the parties subsequently went awry. In 1985, Sabeniano filed a civil case for “Accounting, Sum of Money and Damages”, alleging that petitioners refused to return her deposits and the proceeds of her money market placements despite her repeated demands. Petitioners admitted that respondent had deposits and money market placements with them, including dollar accounts. However, they also alleged that the respondent obtained several loans aggregating to ₱1,920,000.00, for which she executed Promissory Notes and secured by a pledge on her dollar accounts and money market placements. That despite of the repeated demands, respondent failed to pay her outstanding loans. Thus, petitioner Citibank used respondent’s deposits and money market placements to off set and liquidate her outstanding obligations. RTC declared this illegal, null and void and to pay Sabeniano with legal interest, while Sabeniano was ordered to pay her loans.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Andreas vs. Bank of the Philippine Islands

No. 23836. September 9, 1925 MAIN TOPIC – Contracts – Interpretation Of Documents FACTS The plaintiff applied to the defendant for a foreign credit to enable him to purchase coal in  Sydney, Australia, to be shipped to Manila. In connection therewith, plaintiff signed a written  “request for foreign credit” for the sum of 5,050.00 pounds, payable to the order of the bank of  New South Wales. It appears that in addition to the ¼ of one per cent commission specified in  the contract, that the defendant charged the plaintiff interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum  on the amount of each of said drafts. It is admitted that such charge was made by the defendant  bank without the authority or knowledge of the Australian bank. Plaintiff not only paid the full  amount of the drafts drawn by the Australian bank, but he also paid the 9 per cent interest  charges which the defendant made where he did not know or understand the nature of them or  for whose benefit the charges were made. The plaintiff alleges that through an error, paid to  defendant interest and no part of such money paid has been returned or refunded by the  defendant. For answer the defendant denied the allegations and sought to prove that there was  an established usage and custom of the banks in Manila in like cases of charging and collecting  such interest from the time the draft is paid here, until the money is remitted by the local bank,  in the ordinary course of business, to the London bank. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Bañez vs. Court of Appeals

No. L-30351. September 11,1974. MAIN TOPIC – Extinguishment of Obligations – Compensation FACTS In 1956 respondent Pio Arcilla occupied a parcel of land, located in East Avenue Subdivision,  Diliman, Quezon City, owned by the People’s Homesite and Housing Corporation (hereinafter  referred to as PHHC). He fenced the lot with wire, and erected a house and made some  plantings thereon. His moves to apply for the acquisition of the lot from the PHHC when the  same became available for disposition came to naught because the employees of the PHHC  whose help he sought merely regaled him with promises that the matter would be attended to. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Dizon vs. Gaborro

No. L-36821. June 22, 1978 MAIN TOPIC – Contracts – Classification   FACTS Petitioner Jose P. Dizon was the owner of the three (3) parcels of land situated in Pampanga. He  constituted mortgage lien in favor of the Development Bank of the Philippines and Philippine  National Bank to secure his indebtedness. Petitioner Dizon having defaulted in the payment of  his debt, the Development Bank of the Philippines foreclosed the mortgage and executed  “Certificate of Sale,” in favor of the said bank. Alfredo G. Gaborro became interested in the  lands of Dizon. They entered into a contract of “Deed of sale with assumption of mortgage” and  “Option to Purchase Real Estate” After the execution of said contracts, Alfredo G. Gaborro took  possession of the three parcels of land. Gaborro made several payments to the DBP and PNB and introduced improvements, cultivated the lands, raised sugarcane and other crops and  appropriated the produce to himself. He also paid the land taxes thereon. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Ferrazzini vs. Gsell

34 Phil. 697. August 10, 1916 MAIN TOPIC – Contracts – Freedom to Contract  FACTS Gsell, owner of industrial enterprises in the city of Manila employed Ferrazzini for his skilled  service. They entered into a contract wherein as part of their duties and obligations; the master, shall furnish safe place to work, pay his services and not to discharge him until the expiration of  six months after notice. On the part of the servant shall observe loyalty, faithfulness, and  obedience to all reasonable orders. It further stipulates that for the period of 5 years after the  termination of the employment, the plaintiff shall not enter into the employ of any enterprises  in the Philippine Islands, except after obtaining special written permission. It further stipulated  that the defendant shall pay P10,000 as liquidated damages for each and every breach. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Figuera vs. Ang

G.R. No. 204264. June 29, 2016. MAIN TOPIC – Extinguishment of Obligations – Consignation FACTS Maria Remedios Ang, owner of business named “Enhance Immigration and Documentation  Consultants” (EIDC), executed a Deed of Assignment transferring all of her business rights to  Figuera for P150,000.00. The parties also agreed that Ang shall pay the bills for electricity,  telephone, office rentals, and the employees’ salaries up to the month of December 2004. Without Ang’s consent, Figuera paid all the utility bills amounting to P107,903.21 and tendered  only the amount of P42,096.79 after deducting the paid expenses.  

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Korean Air Co., Ltd. vs. Yuson

G.R. No. 170369. June 16, 2010. MAIN TOPIC – Contracts – Essential Requisites of Contract FACTS In July 1975, Korean Air Co., Ltd. hired Adelina A.S. Yuson (Yuson) as reservations agent and  was promoted as passenger sales manager in 1999. Korean Air had an International Passenger  Manual (IPM) which contained, among others, travel benefit to its employees. In 2000, Korean  Air suffered a net loss. In 2001, in order to cut costs offered its employees an early retirement   program (ERP). Yuson accepted the offer for early retirement, however she was excluded from  the ERP because she was retiring on 8 January 2002. Yuson claimed that Korean Air was bound  by the perfected contract and accused the company of harassment and discrimination. Korean  Air answered that ERP was not an absolute offer but rather an invitation to possible qualified  employees subject to the approval and acceptance by the Company. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Philippine National Construction Corporation vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 116896. May 5, 1997 MAIN TOPIC: Extinguishment of Obligations – Tender of Payment FACTS On November 18, 1985, PNCC entered into the contract of lease with private respondents for  a period of five (5) years commencing on the date of issuance of the industrial clearance by the  Ministry of Human Settlements for P20,000.00 which shall be increased yearly by Five Percent  (5%). On 7 January 1986, petitioner obtained from the Ministry of Human Settlements a  Temporary Use Permit for the proposed rock crushing project.  

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Victorias Planters Assn., Inc., et al. vs. Victorias Milling Co., Inc.

MAIN TOPIC – Different Kind Of Obligations : Resolutionary FACTS The petitioners Victorias Planters Association, Inc. and North Negros Planters Association, Inc. and the respondent Victorias Milling Co., Inc entered into a milling contract whereby they stipulated a 30-year period within which the sugar cane produced by the petitioner would be milled by the respondent central. The parties also stipulated that in the event of force majuere, the contract shall be deemed suspended during this period. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Pioneer Insurance & Surety Corporation vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 76509. December 15, 1989 FACTS In 1978, Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation issued general warehousing bonds in favor  of the Bureau of Customs for importation of raw materials on behalf of the private respondents  Wearever Textile Mills, Inc. To secure the bonds, the respondents executed jointly and severally  indemnity agreements. The private respondents failed to comply with their commitment by  reason whereof the Bureau of Customs demanded from the petitioner payment of the value of  the said bonds which eventually reached P9,031,000.00 in 1983. Private respondents settled their obligations to Bureau of Customs through staggered monthly installment payments. Other  than the initial payment of P500,000.00, however, respondents have not made any other  payments thereby violating the terms of the said agreement. Bureau of Customs again  demanded from the petitioner payment of its bonds. No payment has been made. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Keppel Cebu Shipyard, Inc. vs. Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation

G.R. Nos. 180880-81. September 18, 2012. FACTS In 2000, KCSI and WG&A Jebsens entered into Shiprepair Agreement wherein KCSI to carry out renovation and reconstruction of M/V Superferry 3. Prior to the execution of the Shiprepair Agreement, Superferry 3 was already insured by WG&A with Pioneer for US$8,472,581.78. While undergoing repair, Superferry 3 was gutted by fire. WG&A declared the vessel’s damage as a “total constructive loss” and filed an insurance claim with Pioneer. Pioneer paid the insurance claim of WG&A, and in exchange, WG&A executed a Loss and Subrogation Receipt in favor of Pioneer. Pioneer tried to collect the amount of US$8,472,581.78 from KCSI but it was frustrated. Thus, Pioneer sought arbitration with the CIAC, which found that both WG&A and KCSI were equally guilty of negligence which resulted in the fire and loss of Superferry 3. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of CIAC. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Federation of United Namarco Distributors, Inc. vs. National Marketing Corporation

No. L-17819. March 31, 1962. FACTS NAMARCO and the FEDERATION entered into a Contract of Sale for the importation of USD2M worth of controlled goods. Pursuant to the terms, Federation deposited 200,000.00 as partial payment. The new Board of Directors and General Manager of NAMARCO decided to discontinue compliance of the contract of sale. NAMARCO contends that the contract lacks the approval of that body; that it was not approved by the Auditor General; that the contract of sale is inconsistent with Resolution No. 530. The FEDERATION, filed a complaint to compel the latter to perform the Contract of Sale as to what was left after the aforementioned releases of nearly over one-half of the entire quantity of the commodities. After trial, the court rendered judgment obliging NAMARCO to specifically perform the contract of sale to plaintiff FEDERATION’, upon the payment of the procurement cost, plus 5% mark-up.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Rellosa vs. Gaw Chee Han

No. L-1411. September 29, 1953 FACTS On February 2, 1944, Dionisio Rellosa sold to Gaw Chee Hun a parcel of land, together with the  house erected thereon, for the sum of P25,000. The vendor remained in possession of the  property under a contract of lease entered into on the same date between the same parties.  Rellosa instituted action seeking the annulment of the sale and the lease. The Petitioner  contends that the sale in question cannot have any validity under Seirei No. 6 in view of the  failure of respondent to obtain the requisite approval by the Japanese authorities. And Even if  said requirement were met, the sale would at all events be void under article XIII, section 5, of  our Constitution which provides that “no private agricultural land shall be transferred or  assigned except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands  of the public domain in the Philippines”. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Secretary of the Department of Public Works and Highways vs. Tecson

G.R. No. 179334. April 21, 2015 FACTS In 1940, the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) took respondents movants’ subject property without the benefit of expropriation proceedings for the construction  of the MacArthur Highway. In 1994, respondents-movants demanded the payment of the fair  market value of the subject parcel of land. DPWH, offered to pay for the subject land at the rate  of Seventy Centavos (P0.70) per square meter. Unsatisfied with the offer, respondents-movants  demanded the return of their property, or the payment of compensation at the current fair  market value. Hence, the complaint for recovery of possession with damages filed by  respondents-movants. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Uson vs. Del Rosario, et al.

No. L-4963. January 29, 1953 FACTS This is an action for the recovery of the ownership and possession of five (5) parcels of land  situated in the municipality of Labrador, Province of Pangasinan, filed by Maria Uson against  Maria del Rosario and her four children.  Maria Uson, plaintiff-appellee, the lawful wife of Faustino Nebreda, who upon his death in 1945  left the lands involved in this litigation. However, Maria del Rosario, a common law wife of the  late Faustino Nebreda took possession of the said lands. Del Rosario claimed that in 1931, Uson and the late Faustino, executed a public document whereby they agreed to separate as husband  and wife and, in consideration of their separation, Maria was given a parcel of land by way of  alimony and in return she renounced her right to inherit any other property that may be left by  her husband upon his death. Del Rosario also contends that her children are given the status  and rights of natural children and are entitled to the successional rights, and because these  successional rights were declared for the first time in the new code, they shall be given  retroactive effect. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Uy Soo Lim vs. Tan Unchuan

No. 12605. September 7, 1918 FACTS  Santiago Pastrano, a Chinese national, is married to Candida Vivares, wherein they have 2  daughters – Francisca and Concepcion. At the time of this marriage, Santiago possessed very  little property and the large estate left by him at his death was acquired by him during his  marriage with Candida Vivares. When Santiago returned to China, he had an illicit relationship  with Chan Quieng. He returned to the Philippines and never saw Chan Quieg again, but  received letters from her informing him that she had borne him a son, Uy Soo Lim, the present  plaintiff. Santiago died without even seeing his son and with the belief that he is his  only son, he dictated the provisions of his will disposing a greater part of his properties to  his son. A couple of suits were filed questioning the distribution of the estate. Francisca and  Concepcion filed that Uy Soo Lim should not be entitled under law to the amount assigned  to him for the reason that the marriage of Chan Quieg with Santiago was null and void and  that Uy Soo Lim was not a son of Santiago, either legitimate or illegitimate 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Evangelista vs. Alto Surety & Ins. Co., Inc.

No. L-11139. April 23, 1958Concepcion, J., Ponente FACTS In 1949, Santos Evangelista, instituted Civil Case for a sum of money in CFI – Manila. He obtained a writ of attachment, which was levied upon a house, built by Rivera on a land situated in Manila and leased to him, and filed a copy with the Office of the Register of Deeds of Manila. The  judgment was rendered in favor of Evangelista, who bought the house at public auction in 1951. The deed of sale was issued to him in October 1952, after expiration of redemption period. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Raul V. Arambulo And Teresita A. Dela Cruz vs. Genaro Nolasco And Jeremy Spencer Nolasco

G.R. No. 189420. March 26, 2014Ponente: Perez, J., FACTS Petitioners Raul V. Arambulo and Teresita A. Dela Cruz, along with their mother Rosita Vda. De Arambulo, and siblings Primo V. Arambulo, Ma. Lorenza A. Lopez, Ana Maria V. Arambulo, Maximiano V. Arambulo, Julio V. Arambulo and Iraida Arambulo Nolasco (Iraida) are co-owners of two (2) parcels of land located in Tondo, Manila, with an aggregate size of 233 square meters. When Iraida passed away, she was succeeded by her husband, respondent Genaro Nolasco and their children. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

City of Batangas vs. Philippine Shell Petroleum Corporation

G.R. No. 195003. June 7, 2017Ponente: Caguioa, J., FACTS On May 28, 2001, the Sangguniang Panlungsod enacted Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2001 which requires heavy industries operating along the portions of Batangas Bay within the territorial jurisdiction of Batangas City to construct desalination plants to facilitate the use of seawater as coolant for their industrial facilities instead of underground fresh water.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Vda. de Bogacki vs. Inserto

No. L-39187. January 30, 1982Ponente: Concepcion JR, J., FACTS The private respondent, Maria Emma Luz Bogacki (Maria Emma), is the owner of four parcels of land situated in Iloilo City over which her mother, herein petitioner Anulina Ledesma Vda. de Bogacki (Anulina) has a usufruct of one-sixth (1/6) each of the said parcels of land. Due to a misunderstanding, Maria Emma left the home of her mother and the latter took possession of all these properties exclusively for herself, without sharing with Maria Emma the rentals she obtained from the said properties. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Reyes vs. Valentin

G.R. No. 194488. February 11, 2015.Leonen, J., Ponente FACTS Petitioner Alicia B. Reyes, filed a complaint with RTC – Malolos for easement of right of way against respondents, Spouses Francisco S. Valentin and Anatalia Ramos. She alleged that respondents’ 1,500-square-meter property surrounded her property, and that it was the only adequate outlet from her property to the highway. She also insisted that her property was not isolated because of her own acts but because her uncle, Dominador, who was her mother’s caretaker of property allegedly with fraud caused the titling of the whole 1,500-square-meter property instead of just the 500-square-meter portion under his name.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Adasa vs. Abalos

G.R. No. 168617. February 19, 2007. FACTS Respondent Cecille S. Abalos filed 2 complaints against petitioner for Estafa before the Office of City Prosecutor of Iligan. Adasa allegedly through deceit, received and encashed two checks issued in the name of respondent without respondent’s knowledge and consent. Petitioner filed a counter-affidavit admitting that she received and encashed the two checks issued in favor of respondent. However, after 6 days, she recanted and alleged instead that it was a certain Bebie Correa who received and encashed the two checks; Correa left the country after misappropriating the proceeds of the checks.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Perez vs. Office of the Ombudsman

G.R. No. 131445. May 27, 2004. FACTS Petitioners, members of the Kilusang Bayan ng mga Magtitinda ng Bagong Pamilihang Bayan ng Muntinlupa, Inc. (KBMBPM), instituted two complaints at the Office of the Ombudsman against several respondents, one of whom was then Mayor Ignacio R. Bunye, for violation of RA 3019 (also known as the “Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act”). 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Banal vs. Tadeo, Jr.

G.R. Nos. L-78911-25. December 11, 1987 FACTS It appears that fifteen (15) separate information for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 or the Bouncing Checks Law, were filed against respondent Rosario Claudio before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City and originally assigned to Branch 84. The presiding judge of Branch 84 inhibited himself when respondent Claudio, through counsel, filed a petition for recuse dated May 19,1986. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Sevilla v. The Court of Appeals

G.R. Nos. L-41182-3. April 15, 1988 FACTS: In 1960, the Tourist World Services Inc. (TWS) and Sevilla entered into  a lease contract for the use as branch office. In the said contract, both parties were held solidarily liable for the prompt payment of the monthly rental agreed on. When the branch office was opened, it was run by appellant Sevilla wherein any airline fare brought in on her efforts, 4% of that would go to her and 3% was to be withheld by TWS.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Pahud vs Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 160346               August 25, 2009 FACTS: The (8) children : respondents Eufemia, Raul, Ferdinand, Zenaida, Milagros, Minerva, Isabelita and Virgilio, were left a 246-square meter parcel of land. Sometime in 1992, Eufemia, Ferdinand and Raul executed a Deed of Absolute Sale of Undivided shares in favor of Pahuds for their respective shares from the lot they inherited from their deceased parents. Eufemia also signed the deed on behalf of her four (4) other co-heirs, namely: Isabelita on the basis of a special power of attorney  and also for Milagros, Minerva, and Zenaida but without their apparent written authority. The deed of sale was also not notarized.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Lim vs Saban

G.R. No. 163720             December 16, 2004 FACTS: Ybañez owner of a 1,000-square meter lot in Cebu City, entered into an Agency Agreement with Saban. Under the Agreement,  Ybañez authorized Saban to look for a buyer of the lot for P200,000 and to mark up the selling price to include the amounts needed for payment of taxes, transfer of title and other expenses incident to the sale, as well as Saban’s commission for the sale.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Chua vs The Intermediate Appellate Court

G.R. No. 70909. January 5, 1994 FACTS: Herrera executed a Contract of Lease in favor of  Tian On, whereby the former leased to the latter lots located in Cebu City for a term of 10 years, renewable for another 5 years. The contract contains a stipulation giving the lessee an option to buy the he leased property after the lease period as long as the lessee faithfully fulfills the terms and conditions of their contract

Law School Notes - Case Digest

In Re: Application For Land Registration, Suprema T. Dumo, Petitioner, V. Republic Of The Philippines, Respondent.

G.R. No. 218269, June 06, 2018 Carpio, J., FACTS:             The Heirs of Espinas filed a Complaint for Recovery of Ownership, Possession and Damages with Prayer for Writ of Preliminary Injunction against the Heirs of Trinidad. They alleged that the they are the heirs of Marcelino Espinas and the Subject Property was purchased by Espinas from Carlos Calica through a Deed of Absolute Sale dated 19 October 1943. That it had exercised acts of dominion & had also been paying realty taxes.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Bel Air Village Association, Inc. vs. Dionisio

G.R. No. 38354. June 30, 1989 Gutierrez, Jr., J . FACTS:             In 1972, Bel Air filed a complaint for the collection of the amount of P2,100 plus penalty which represent the unpaid association dues on the lot owned by Dionisio, as member of the plaintiff association. The dues collected are intended for garbage collection, salary of security guards, cleaning and maintenance of streets and street lights and establishments of parks.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Jose Modequillio vs. Hon. Augusto V. Breva

G.R. No. 86355. May 31, 1990.* GANCAYCO, J.: FACTS: On January 1988, Court of Appeals rendered a final and executory judgment on a case arising from a vehicular accident finding the petitioner liable to damages.The sheriff levied on a parcel of residential land and a parcel of agricultural land registered in his name.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Florante F. Manacop, petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 97898. August 11, 1997.* PANGANIBAN, J.: FACTS: In 1972, petitioner Florante F. Manacop and his wife purchased a residential lot. The petitioner was later sued by E & L Mercantile, Inc for collection of  indebtedness which instead of filing an answer, petitioner and his company entered into a compromise agreement. On July 15, 1986, private respondent filed a motion for execution which the lower court granted. The sheriff levied and sold several vehicles and other personal properties of petitioner in partial satisfaction of the judgment debt.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Spouses Eduardo vs. Hon. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 164740. July 31, 2006.* CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: FACTS: In 1993, Private respondent Dr. Victoria Ong granted a P1,000,000.00 loan to Dolores Ledesma and as a security for said loan, the latter issued a check and executed a deed of real estate mortgage over her house and lot. Thereafter, Ledesma sold the said house and lot to Versola spouses for P2,500,000.00. The petitioner spouses paid P1,000,000 as down payment however, they were only able to pay P50,000 for the remaining amount. To raise the full amount, petitioners spouses applied for a loan with Asiatrust Bank, Inc. The parties convened at a scheme wherein petitioner spouses will pay for obligation of Ledesma to Dr. Ong. However, when Asia­trust tried to register the Real Estate Mortgage there was an existing obligation to a certain Miladay’s Jewels, Inc., in the amount of P214,284.00 that caused the refusal to release the loan.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Jose E. Honrado vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 166333. November 25, 2005.* CALLEJO, SR., J.: FACTS: In 1997, Premium Agro-Vet Products, Inc. (Premium) filed a complaint for sum of money against Jose Honrado, who was doing business  for failure to pay veterinary products purchased on credit amounting to P240,765.00. For failure of Honrado, as well as his counsel, to appear at the pre-trial conference, he was declared in default. Premium filed a writ of execution for the sale of property in public auction which was later sold to the private respondent. The corresponding Certificate of Sale was issued and annotated at the dorsal portion of the title.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Vilma G. Arriola vs. John Nabor C. Arriola

G.R. No. 177703. January 28, 2008.* John Nabor C. Arriola, the son of  decedent Fidel Arriola on his first wife for judicial partition of the properties against Vilma G. Arriola and Anthony Ronald G. Arriola, the second wife and their son. RTC granted the petition and among the properties subject to partition is a land which sought it sale through public auction which the both parties agreed. But it has to be reset due to the petitioners refusal to include the disposal of subject house which is standing on the subject land, the plaintiff argued that it should be considered accessory to the land on which it is built and the subject house was built by the deceased.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Susan Nicdao Cariño, vs. Susan Yee Cariño

G.R. No. 132529. February 2, 2001.* YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: FACTS: SPO4 Santiago S. Cariño, contracted two marriages, the first was on June 20, 1969, with petitioner Susan Nicdao Cariño , with whom he had two offspring and the second was on November 10, 1992, with respondent Susan Yee Cariño, with whom he had no children in their almost ten year cohabitation starting way back in 1982. In 1992,Santiago died under the care of Susan Yee, who spent for his medical and burial expenses. Both petitioner and respondent filed claims for monetary benefits and financial assistance pertaining to the deceased from various government agencies. The first wife, petitioner was able to collect a total of P146,000.00 while respondent Susan Yee received a total of P21,000.00. Respondent Susan Yee filed the instant case for collection of sum of money against petitioner be ordered to return to her at least one-half of the “death benefits” which she received.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Antonio A.S. Valdes, vs. Regional Trial Court

G.R. No. 122749. July 31, 1996.* FACTS: Antonio Valdes and Consuelo Gomez were married and begotten five children. Valdes sought the declaration of nullity of the marriage pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code which was granted. The judgment rendered includes the custody of children and liquidation of  their common properties as defined by Article 147 of the Family Code, and to comply with the provisions of Articles 50, 51 and 52. Consuelo Gomez sought a clarification and asserted that the Family Code contained no provisions on the procedure for the liquidation of common property in “unions without marriage.”

Law School Notes - Case Digest

In re: Voluntary Dissolution of the Conjugal Partnership of Jose Bermas, Sr. and Filar Manuel Bermas

No. L-20379. June 22, 1965. CONCEPCION, J.: FACTS: In 1962, an Agreement for Dissolution of Conjugal Partnership and Separation of Property was jointly executed by petitioners states that they are and have been legally married since December 24, 1932, that they have two children and during their marriage  have acquired twelve (12) parcels of land and two (2) buildings. Petitioners have mutually agreed to dissolve their conjugal partnership, and to the establishment of a separation of properties in the manner specified in the contract to prevent friction, dissension and confusion among their respective heirs in the future, particularly because petitioner Jose Bermas, Sr. has two (2) sets of children, one by a former marriage, and another by his present wife, the other petitioner. After publication and hearing, the court rendered the appealed decision, denying the petition upon the ground that, under Article 192 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. Consequently, said children by first marriage of petitioner Jose Bermas, Sr. do not appear to have been notified personally of the filing of the petition and of the date of the hearing thereof, although the danger of substantial injury to their rights would seem to be remote.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Alice Reyes Van Dorn vs. Hon. Manuel V. Romillo, Jr

No. L-68470, October 8, 1985.* MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.: FACTS: Petitioner, Alicia, is a citizen of the Philippines while private respondent is a citizen of the United States; that they were married in Hongkong in 1972; that, after the marriage, they established their residence in the Philippines; that they begot two children; that the parties were divorced in Nevada, United States, in 1982; and that petitioner has re-married also in Nevada, this time to Theodore Van Dorn.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Pastor B. Tenchavez, vs. Vicenta F. Escaño

No. L-19671. November 29, 1965. REYES, J.B.L., J.: FACTS: On Feburary 24, 1948, 27 years old Vicenta Escano who belong to a prominent Filipino Family of Spanish ancestry got secretly married with Pastor Tenchavez, 32 years old engineer, and ex-army officer. Parents of Vicenta were disgusted because of the great scandal that the clandestine marriage would provoke so they decided for re-celebration to validate what he believed to be an invalid marriage, from the standpoint of the Church. A letter was handed disclosing an amorous relationship between Pastor Tenchavez and Pacita Noel; Vicenta translated the letter to her father, and thereafter would not agree to a new marriage. June 1948, the newlyweds were already estranged Vicenta had gone to Misamis Occidental, to escape from the scandal that her marriage stirred in Cebu society. There, a lawyer filed for her a petition to annul her marriage. She did not sign the petition and was dismissed without prejudice because of her non-appearance at the hearing.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

International Corporate Bank v. Court of Appeals and Philippine National Bank

G.R. No. 129910. September 5, 2006. Ponente: CARPIO, J. FACTS: The Ministry of Education and Culture issued 15 checks drawn against PNB which International Corporate Bank accepted for deposit on various dates. After 24 hours from submission of the checks to PNB for clearing, petitioner paid the value of the checks and allowed the withdrawals of the deposits. However, PNB returned all the checks to the petitioner on the ground that they were materially altered.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Associated Bank vs. Court of Appeals

(G.R. No. 107382. January 31, 1996) FACTS: A portion of the funds of the Province of Tarlac is allocated to the Concepcion Emergency Hospital. The checks were payable to the order of the hospital. The allotment checks were released by the Provincial Treasurer and received by the hospital’s admin officer or cashier. During the audit, it was discovered that  the hospital did not receive 30 allotment checks drawn from the province’s current account with PNB. They learned that the checks were encashed by Faustino, a retired admin officer and cashier of payee hospital.  He was able to withdraw the money by forging the signature of Dr. Canlas, the chief of the payee hospital. All the checks bore the stamp of Associated Bank which reads “All prior endorsements guaranteed ASSOCIATED BANK.”

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Jai-Alai Corp. of the Phil. vs. Bank of the Phil.

No. L-29432. August 6, 1975 FACTS: Jai – Alai deposited 10 checks with a total face value of P8,030.58 with BPI. All checks were acquired by the petitioner from one Antonio J. Ramirez, a sales agent of the Inter-Island Gas and a regular bettor at jai-alai games. Inter-Island Gas discovered that all the indorsements made on the checks purportedly by its cashiers were forgeries.  In due time, the Inter-Island Gas advised the petitioner, the respondent, the drawers and the drawee-banks of the said checks about the forgeries, and filed a criminal complaint against Ramirez.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Republic Bank Vs. Mauricia T. Ebrada

G.R. No. L-40796         July 31, 1975 FACTS: Mauricia Ebrada encashed a check issued by the Bureau of Treasury for the sum of P1246.08 at Republic Bank in 1963. Then, the Bureau of Treasury informed Republic Bank that the alleged indorsement on the reverse side of the check by the payee named Martin Lorenzo was forged because the latter had died last 1952. As a result, the Bureau of Treasury requested Republic Bank to refund the proceeds of the check. After, Republic Bank made verbal demands to Ebrada to account for the sum of P1246.08 in order for the bank to receive a refund of the amount, but she refused to do so.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Philippine National Bank vs. Quimpo

G.R. No. L-53194, March 14, 1988; FACTS: Francisco S. Gozon II, went to PNB – Caloocan Branch in his car accompanied by his friend Ernesto Santos. He left Santos and transacted his business in the Bank. Santos saw that Gozon left his check book he took a check therefrom, filled it up for the amount of P5,000.00, forged the signature of Gozon, and thereafter he encashed the check in the bank on the same day.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Philippine Commercial and International Bank vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 121413. January 29, 2001. – Philippine Commercial International Bank (Formerly Insular Bank Of Asia And America) Vs. Court Of Appeals And Ford Philippines, Inc. And Citibank,G.R. No. 121479. January 29, 2001. – Ford Philippines, Inc., Vs. Court Of Appeals And Citibank, N.A. And Philippine Commercial International Bank.G.R. No. 128604. January 29, 2001 – Ford Philippines, Inc., Vs. Citibank, N.A., Philippine Commercial International Bank And The Court Of Appeals. FACTS: This case is composed of three consolidated petitions involving several checks, payable to the Bureau of Internal Revenue, but was embezzled allegedly by an organized syndicate.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company vs. Renato D. Cabilzo

[G.R. No. 154469. December 6, 2006.] FACTS: Cabilzo a client of Metrobank, issued a Metrobank Check payable to “CASH” and postdated on 24 November 1994 in the amount of  P1,000.00. The check was drawn against Cabilzo’s Account with Metrobank under Current Account  and was paid by Cabilzo to a certain Mr. Marquez, as his sales commission.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Far East Realty Investment Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

No. L-36549. October 5, 1988 FACTS: Private Respondents Tat, Chee and An asked petitioner Far East Realty Investment Inc. to extend an accommodation loan in the sum of Php 4500 which they needed in their business. They promised to pay, jointly and severally, in one month time; with 14% payment of interest and they delivered China Banking Corporation Check No. VN-915564, dated September 13, 1960, for P4,500.00, drawn by Dy Hian Tat, and signed by them at the back of said check. In 1964, the check was presented for payment to Chinabank but the check bounced and was not cashed by said bank for the reason that the current account of the drawer had already been closed.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Salas vs. CA and Filinvest Finance Leasing

G.R. No. 76788. January 22, 1990. FACTS: Petitioner bought a motor vehicle from the Violago Motor Sales Corporation (VMS) evidenced by a promissory note (P58,132). The note was subsequently endorsed to Filinvest Finance & Leasing Corporation which financed the purchase. Petitioner defaulted in her installments because VMS delivered a different engine and chassis numbers compared to which indicated in the Invoice, COR and mortgage.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Ilusorio vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 139130. November 27, 2002 FACTS: Petitioner a businessman was going out of the country, and entrusted to his secretary, Katherine2 E. Eugenio, his credit cards and his checkbook with blank checks. Eugenio was able to encash and deposit to her personal account about seventeen (17) checks drawn against the account of the petitioner at the respondent bank, with an aggregate amount of P119,634.34. One of his business partner apprised him that he saw Eugenio use his credit cards. Petitioner fired Eugenio immediately, and instituted a criminal action against her for estafa thru falsification Petitioner then requested the Manila Banking Corporation to credit back and restore to its account the value of the checks which were wrongfully encashed but respondent bank refused. The Bank contended that they had performed standard operating procedure. Manila Bank also sought the expertise of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in determining the genuineness of the signatures appearing on the checks. Petitioner claims that Manila Bank is liable for damages for its negligence in failing to detect the discrepant checks. Petitioner further contends that under Section 23 of the Negotiable Instruments Law a forged check is inoperative, and that Manila Bank had no authority to pay the forged checks CA disposed the case held that petitioner’s own negligence was the proximate cause of his loss ISSUE 1) whether or not Manila Bank had no authority to pay the forged checks because under Sec. 23 of NIL HELD Under Sec 23 True, it is a rule that when a signature is forged or made without the authority of the person whose signature it purports to be, the check is wholly inoperative. However, the rule does provide for an exception, namely: “unless the party against whom it is sought to enforce such right is precluded from setting up the forgery or want of authority.” In the instant case, it is the exception that applies. In our view, petitioner is precluded from setting up the forgery, assuming there is forgery, due to his own negligence in entrusting to his secretary his credit cards and checkbook including the verification of his statements of account.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Heirs of Narvasa vs Imbornal

G.R. No. 182908. August 6, 2014 Perlas-Bernabe,  J. FACTS: Basilia Imbornal had four (4) children namely, Alejandra, Balbina, Catalina, and Pablo. Basilia owned a parcel of land situated at San Fabian, Pangasinan which she conveyed to her three (3) daughters. Petitioners are the heirs and successors-in-interest of Francisco, Pedro, and Petra, who are children of Alejandra and Balbina.  On the other hand, respondents Emiliana, Victoriano, Felipe, Mateo, Raymundo, Maria, and Eduardo, all surnamed Imbornal, are the descendants of Pablo.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

In re Voluntary Dissolution of the Conjugal Partnership of Jose Bermas, Sr. and Filar Manuel Bermas

No. L-20379. June 22, 1965. CONCEPCION, J.: FACTS: In 1962, an Agreement for Dissolution of Conjugal Partnership and Separation of Property was jointly executed by petitioners states that they are and have been legally married since December 24, 1932, that they have two children and during their marriage  have acquired twelve (12) parcels of land and two (2) buildings. Petitioners have mutually agreed to dissolve their conjugal partnership, and to the establishment of a separation of properties in the manner specified in the contract to prevent friction, dissension and confusion among their respective heirs in the future, particularly because petitioner Jose Bermas, Sr. has two (2) sets of children, one by a former marriage, and another by his present wife, the other petitioner. After publication and hearing, the court rendered the appealed decision, denying the petition upon the ground that, under Article 192 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. Consequently, said children by first marriage of petitioner Jose Bermas, Sr. do not appear to have been notified personally of the filing of the petition and of the date of the hearing thereof, although the danger of substantial injury to their rights would seem to be remote.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

PRIMA PARTOSA-JO, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and JOSE JO, respondents.

G.R. No. 82606. December 18, 1992.* CRUZ, J.: FACTS: Private respondent, Jose Jo is legally married to the petitioner, who admits to having cohabited with three women and fathered fifteen children. The two agreed that Prima would temporarily leave their conjugal home in Dumaguete City to stay with her parents during the initial period of her pregnancy and for Jose to visit and support her. They never agreed to separate permanently. Prima went back to Dumaguete, but she was not accepted by her husband.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

GUILLERMA TUMLOS, petitioner, vs. SPOUSES MARIO FERNANDEZ and LOURDES FERNANDEZ, respondents.

G.R. No. 137650. April 12, 2000.* PANGANIBAN, J.: FACTS: An action for ejectment was filed against petitioners by  Fernandez spouses who allegedly own the building apartment. However, Guillerma Tumlos the petitioner contends that the respondents had no cause of action against her, since she is a co-owner of the subject premises and being named in the Contract to Sell as the wife of [Respondent] Mario Fernandez. She alleged that she cohabited with the petitioner-husband without the benefit of marriage, and that she bore him two (2) children.  The lower court decided that since she failed to prove that she contributed money to the purchase price of the subject apartment building, there is no basis to justify her co-ownership.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

SEA COMMERCIAL COMPANY, INC., petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, JAMANDRE INDUSTRIES, INC. and TIRSO JAMANDRE, respondents.

G.R. No. 122823. November 25, 1999.* GONZAGA-REYES, J.: FACTS: SEACOM is a corporation engaged in the business of selling and distributing agricultural machinery, products and equipment. SEACOM and JII entered into a dealership agreement as its exclusive dealer in the City and Province of Iloilo  and Capiz and to make the dealership agreement on a non-exclusive basis. 

Law School Notes - Case Digest

EDUARDO MAGSUMBOL, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent

G.R. NO 207175 I. Facts: – In 2002, around 11’oclock in the afternoon petitioner, Eduardo Magsumbol, Erasmo Magsino, Apolonio Inanoria, and Bonifacio Ramirez along with unidentified 7 unidentified others  allegedly cut, take, steal and carry away with them thirty-three (33) coconut trees valued (P44,400.00). The unregistered parcel of land was co-owned by Ernesto Caringal and Menandro Avanzado who then charged with the crime of  Theft against the petitioners.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

FRANCISCO HERMOSISIMA, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., respondents.

No. L-14628. September 30, 1960 CONCEPCIÓN, J.: FACTS: Soledad Cagigas and Francisco Hermosisima, who was almost 10 years younger used to have an intimate relationship. They had sexual intercourse and Soledad then got pregnant, whereupon he promised to marry her. Their child, Chris Hermosisima, was born on June 17, 1954 however, subsequently, or on July 24, 1954, defendant married one Romanita Perez.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

PHILIPPINE BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION vs COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 119122. August 8, 2000 FACTS: On June 21, 1989, the petitioner received an assessment letter from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue for the payment of deficiency amusement tax amounted to P5,864,260.84. Petitioner contested the assessment by filing a protest who denied the same by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

GLOBE MACKAY CABLE AND RADIO CORP., and HERBERT C. HENDRY, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and RESTITUTO M. TOBIAS, respondents.

G.R. No. 81262. August 25, 1989.* CORTÉS, J.: FACTS: Restituto M. Tobias was employed by petitioner Globe Mackay who discovered the anomalies and reported them to his immediate superior Eduardo T. Ferraren and to petitioner Herbert C. Hendry who was then the Executive Vice-President and General Manager of GLOBE MACKAY.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

LEOUEL SANTOS, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND JULIA ROSARIO BEDIA-SANTOS, respondents.

G.R. No. 112019. January 4, 1995.* VITUG, J.: FACTS: Leouel and Julia were married in 1986 and had a son. They lived at Julia’s parents which caused their quarrel due to interference of the parents on their affairs. In 1988, Julia went to US to work as a nurse despite Leouel’s pleas to so dissuade her. She promised to return home upon the expiration of her contract in July 1989. She never did. When Leouel got a chance to underwent training in US, he tried to locate, or to somehow get in touch with, Julia but all his efforts were of no avail.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

LEONILO ANTONIO, petitioner, vs. MARIE IVONNE F. REYES, respondent. TINGA, J.:

G.R. No. 155800. March 10, 2006. FACTS: On Dec 1990 Leonilo and Marie barely a year after their first meeting got married and had a child who after 5 months died. On March 1993, Leonilo filed a petition for nullity of their marriage alleging that respondent was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage because she persistently lied about herself, the people around her, her occupation, income, educational attainment and other events or things.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

CHI MING TSOI, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and GINA LAO-TSOI, respondents.

G.R. No. 119190. January 16, 1997 FACTS Chi Ming Tsoi and Gina Lao got married and after the reception they went straight ahead to the house of petitioner. According to Gina, contrary to her expectations, that as newly weds they supposed to enjoy making love but the defendant just sleep which repeatedly happened until the fourth night. In an effort to have their honeymoon in private place they went to Baguio City but defendant invited members of the family and there were no sexual intercourse happened due to defendant avoided it by taking a long walk or sleeping on a rocking chair located in the living room. For almost a year of marriage, they slept together in the same room and on the same bed but there was no attempt for sexual intercourse between them and she claims that they even did not saw the private parts of each other. And because of this they went to urologist which the result of examination and medications of Chi Ming Tsoi was kept confidential to her. Gina Lao claims that the defendant is impotent and a closet homosexual and married her to obtain residency status and to publicly maintain the appearance of normal man. She filed for annulment of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity which was granted by RTC and affirmed by CA.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and RORIDEL OLAVIANO MOLINA, respondents.

G.R. No. 108763. February 13, 1997 FACTS: Roridel, respondent, is married to Reynaldo who was born with a son. After a year of marriage Reynaldo showed signs of “immaturity and irresponsibility” as a husband and a father – since he preferred spending time and squandering money on his friends, dependency on parents and dishonesty in regards to their finances. Reynaldo was relieved from his job, and the respondent then became the breadwinner of the family.  They had a huge fight which resulted to Roridel’s resignation and went to Baguio to live with her parents and after few weeks, Reynaldo left and abandoned them.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. LIBERTY D. ALBIOS, respondent.

Sharing my personal case digest on Republic vs Albios. FACTS: Petitioner is married to an American citizen, Fringer before MTC- Mandaluyong to enable her to acquire American citizenship; that in consideration thereof, she agreed to pay him the sum of $2,000.00. In 2006, Albios filed with the RTC a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage with Fringer. She alleged that immediately after their marriage, they separated and never lived as husband and wife because they never really had any intention of entering into a married state or complying with any of their essential marital obligations. She described their marriage as one made in jest and, therefore, null and void ab initio.

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Case Digest: Cabarroguis vs Vicente

Sharing my personal digest on the Cabarroguis vs Vicente case. No. L-14304. March 23, 1960

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Case Digest: ALBENSON ENTERPRISES CORP. vs THE COURT OF APPEALS

Sharing my personal digest on the ALBENSON ENTERPRISES CORP. vs THE COURT OF APPEALS case. 217 SCRA 16, Jan 11, 1993

Law School Notes - Case Digest

Case Digest: COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs PRIMETOWN PROPERTY GROUP, INC.

Sharing my personal digest on the COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs PRIMETOWN PROPERTY GROUP, INC. case. G.R. No. 162155. August 28, 2007