Law School Notes

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