16 Digests

of 16
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
pfr digests
   LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES,  vs. ALFREDO ONG, G.R. No. 190755 November 24, 2010 Facts :  On March 18, 1996, spouses Johnson and Evangeline Sy secured a loan from Land Bank Legazpi City in the amount of PhP 16 million. The loan was secured by three (3) residential lots, five (5) cargo trucks, and a warehouse. Under the loan agreement, PhP 6 million of theloan would be short-term and would mature on February 28, 1997, while the balance of PhP 10 million would be payable in seven (7) years. The Spouses Sy could no longer pay their loan which resulted to the sale of three (3) of their mortgaged parcels of land for PhP 150,000 to Angelina Gloria Ong, Evangeline’s mother, under a Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage. Evangeline’s father, petitioner Alfredo Ong, later went to Land Bank to inform them about the sale and assumption of mortgage. Land Bank Branch Head told Alfredo that there was nothing wrong with agreement with the Spouses Sy and provided him requirements for the assumption of mortgage. Alfredo later found out that his application for assumption of mortgage was not approved by Land Bank. On December 12, 1997, Alfredo initiated an action for recovery of sum of money with damages against Land Bank, as Alfredo’s payment was not returned by Land Bank. Alfredo said that Land Bank’s foreclosure without informing him of the denial of his assumption of the mortgage was done in bad faith and that he was made to believed that P750,000 would cause Land Bank to approve his assumption to the mortgage .He also claimed incurring expenses for attorney’s fees of PhP 150,000, filing fee of PhP 15,000, and PhP 250,000 in moraldamages. This prompted Alfredo to file a case with RTC against Land Bank.On its decision to the case, RTC held that the contract approving the assumption of mortgage was not perfected as a result of the creditinvestigation conducted on Alfredo where he was disapproved.. As such, it ruled that it would be incorrect to consider Alfredo a third person with no interest in the fulfillment of the obligation under Article1236 of the Civil Code. Although Land Bank was not bound by the Deed between Alfredo and the Spouses Sy, the appellate court found that Alfredo and Land Bank’s active   preparations for Alfredo’s assumption of mortgage  essentially novated the agreement. Issue :  Whether or not the Court of Appeals misconstrued the evidence and the law when it affirmed the trial court decision’s ordering Land Bank to pay Ong the amount of Php750,000.00 with interest at 12% annum.  Held: No Ratio  The Supreme Court affirmed with modification to the appealed decision that recourse against Land Bank. Land Bank contends that Art.1236 of the Civil Code backs their claim that Alfredo should have sought recourse against the Spouses Sy instead of Land Bank. The court agreed with Land Bank on the point mentioned as to the first part of paragraph 1 of Art. 1236. However,. Alfredo made a conditional payment so that the properties subject of the Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage which Land Bank required from him would be approved. Thus, he made payment not as a debtor but as a prospective mortgagor. Furthermore, the contract between Alfredo and Land Bank was not perfected nor consummated because of the adverse disapproval of the proposed assumption. The Supreme Court did not agree with the Court of Appeals that there was novation in the contract between the parties because not all elements of novation were present. The court further stresses that the instant case would not have been litigated had Land Bank been more circumspect in dealing with Alfredo. The bank chose to accept payment from Alfredo even before a credit investigation was underway and also failed to informed him of the disapproval. The court found that there was negligence to a certain degree on the part of Land Bank in handling the transaction with Alfredo. A bank as a business entity should observe a higher standard of diligence when dealing with the public which Land Bank neglect toobserve in this case.  CANCIO V. ISIPFACTS:  Cancio filed cases of violation of BP22 and cases of estafa against Respondent. TheBP22 cases were dismissed on the ground of “failure to prosecute.” As to  the estafa cases, the prosecution moved to dismiss after failing to present its second witness. The prosecution likewise reserved its right to file a separate civil action arising from the said criminal cases. The RTC granted. Cancio then filed the instant case for collection of sum of money, seeking to recover the amount of the checks subject of the estafa cases. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss t he complaint contending that petitioner’s action is barred by the doctrine of res  judicata. Respondent further prayed that petitioner should be held in contempt of court for forum-shopping. The TC found in favor of the respondent. ISSUE: Whether or not  the dismissal of the estafa cases against respondent bars the institution of a civilaction for collection of the value of the checks subject of the estafa cases; HELD: NO. Ratio:  An act or omission causing damage to another may give rise to two separate civilliabilities on the part of the offender, i.e., (1) civil liability ex delicto, under Art100 of the RPC; and (2) independent civil liabilities, such as those (a) not arising from an act or omissioncomplained of as felony; or (b) where the injured party is granted a right to file an actionindependent and distinct from the criminal action. Either of these two possible liabilities may beenforced against the offender subject, however, to the caveat under Article 2177 of the CivilCode that the offended part y “cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission” or  under both cases. Under the present Rules, the civil liability ex-delicto is deemed instituted with the criminal action,but the offended party is given the option to file a separate civil action before the prosecutionstarts to present evidence. Anent the independent civil actions, under the present Rules, theindependent civil actions may be filed separately and prosecuted independently even without any reservation in the criminal action. The failure to make a reservation in the criminal action is not a waiver of the right to file a separate and independent civil action.In the case at bar, a reading of the complaint filed by petitioner show that his cause of action is based on culpa contractual, an independent civil action. Cancio’s  cause of action is the respondent’s breach of the contractual obligation.  The nature of a cause of action is determinedly the facts alleged in the complaint as constituting the cause of action. The purpose of anaction or suit and the law to govern it is to be determined not by the claim of the party filing theaction, made in his argument or brief, but rather by the complaint itself, its allegations andprayer for relief.There is also no forum-shopping. The essence of forum-shopping is the filing of multiple suitsinvolving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively,to secure a favorable judgment. Although the cases filed by petitioner arose from the same actor omission of respondent, they are, however, based on different causes of action. The criminalcases for estafa are based on culpa criminal while the civil action for collection is anchored onculpa contractual. Moreover, there can be no forum-shopping in the instant case because thelaw expressly allows the filing of a separate civil action which can proceed independently of thecriminal actio  Aruego Jr. vs Court of Appeals     Facts On March 7, 1983, a complaint for compulsory recognition and enforcement of successional rights was filed before RTC Manila by the minors Antonia Aruego and alleged the sister Evelyn Aruego represented by their mother Luz Fabian. The complaint was opposed by the legitimate children of Jose Aruego Jr. The RTC rendered judgment in favor of Antonia Aruego. A petition for certiorari was then filed alleging that the Family Code of the Philippines which took effect on August 3, 1988 shall have a retroactive effect thereby the trial court lost jurisdiction over the complaint on the ground of prescription. ISSUE:  Whether or not the Family Code shall have a retroactive effect in the case. Held: No Ratio:  The Supreme Court upheld that the Family Code cannot be given retroactive effect in so far as the instant case is concerned as its application will prejudice the vested rights of respondents to have her case be decided under Article 285 of the Civil Code. It is a well settled reception that laws shall have a retroactive effect unless it would impair vested rights. Therefore, the Family Code in this case cannot be given a retroactive effect.  Mariategui vs. CA   GR NO. 57062, January 24, 1992    FACTS:  Lupo Mariategui died without a will on June 26, 1953 and contracted 3 marriages during his lifetime. He acquired the Muntinlupa Estate while he was still a bachelor. He had 4 children with his first wife Eusebia Montellano, who died in 1904 namely Baldomera, Maria del Rosario, Urbano and Ireneo. Baldomera had 7 children namely Antero, Rufina, Catalino, Maria, Gerardo, Virginia and Federico, all surnamed Espina. Ireneo on the other hand had a son named Ruperto. On the other hand, Lupo’s second wife is Flaviana Montell ano where they had a daughter named Cresenciana. Lupo got married for the third time in 1930 with Felipa Velasco and had 3 children namely Jacinto, Julian and Paulina. Jacinto testified that his parents got married before a Justice of the Peace of Taguig Rizal. The spouses deported themselves as husband and wife, and were known in the community to be such.  Lupo’s descendants by his first and second marriages executed a deed of extrajudicial partition whereby they adjudicated themselves Lot NO. 163 of the Muntinlupa Estate and was subjected to a voluntary registration proceedings and a decree ordering the registration of the lot was issued. The siblings in the third marriage prayed for inclusion in the partition of the estate of their deceased father and annulment of the deed of extrajudicial partition dated Dec. 1967.  ISSUE: Whether the marriage of Lupo with Felipa is valid in the absence of a marriage license.  HELD: Yes   Although no marriage certificate was introduced to prove Lupo and Felipa’s marriag e, no evidence was likewise offered to controvert these facts. Moreover, the mere fact that no record of the marriage exists does not invalidate the marriage, provided all requisites for its validity are present. Under these circumstances, a marriage may be presumed to have taken place between Lupo and Felipa. The laws presume that a man and a woman, deporting themselves as husband and wife, have entered into a lawful contract of marriage; that a child born in lawful wedlock, there being no divorce, absolute or from bed and board is legitimate; and that things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature and the ordinary habits of life. 
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks