Peralta Case Doctrines - Civil Law

of 4
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
doctrines in civil law by Justice peralta
  PERALTA 2014 CASE DOCTRINES - CIVIL LAW Elizabeth Del Carmen vs. Spouses Restituto Sabordo And Mima Mahilum-Sabordo Consignation [is] the act of depositing the thing due with the court or  judicial authorities whenever the creditor cannot accept or refuses to accept  payment, and it generally requires a prior tender of payment. It should be distinguished from tender of payment which is the manifestation by the debtor to the creditor of his desire to comply with his obligation, with the offer of immediate performance . Tender is the antecedent of consignation, that is, an act preparatory to the consignation, which is the principal, and from which are derived the immediate consequences which the debtor desires or seeks to obtain. Tender of payment may  be extrajudicial, while consignation is necessarily judicial, and the priority of the first is the attempt to make a private settlement before proceeding to the solemnities of consignation. Tender and consignation, where validly made,  produces the effect of payment and extinguishes the obligation. Under Article 1256, the only instances where prior tender of payment is excused are: (1) when the creditor is absent or unknown, or does not appear at the  place of payment; (2) when the creditor is incapacitated to receive the payment at the time it is due; (3) when, without just cause, the creditor refuses to give a receipt; (4) when two or more persons claim the same right to collect; and (5) when the title of the obligation has been lost. None of these instances are present in the instant case. Hence, the fact that the subject lots are in danger of being foreclosed does not excuse petitioner and her co-heirs from tendering payment to respondents, as directed by the court. Leonardo C. Castillo vs. Security Bank Corporation The following are the legal requisites for a mortgage to be valid: (1) It must be constituted to secure the fulfillment of a principal obligation; (2) The mortgagor must be the absolute owner of the thing mortgaged; (3) The persons constituting the mortgage must have the free disposal of their  property, and in the absence thereof, they should be legally authorized for the  purpose. *** It is a settled rule that allegations of forgery, like all other allegations, must  be proved by clear, positive, and convincing evidence by the party alleging it. It should not be presumed, but must be established by comparing the alleged forged signature with the genuine signatures. ***  Defective notarization will simply strip the document of its public character and reduce it to a private instrument, but nonetheless, binding, provided its validity is established by preponderance of evidence. Article 1358 of the Civil Code requires that the form of a contract that transmits or extinguishes real rights over immovable property should be in a public document, yet the failure to observe the  proper form does not render the transaction invalid.   The necessity of a public document for said contracts is only for convenience; it is not essential for validity or enforceability. Even a sale of real property, though not contained in a public instrument or formal writing, is nevertheless valid and binding, for even a verbal contract of sale or real estate produces legal effects between the parties. Consequently, when there is a defect in the notarization of a document, the clear and convincing evidentiary standard srcinally attached to a duly-notarized document is dispensed with, and the measure to test the validity of such document is preponderance of evidence. Juanito M. Gopiao vs. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. Jurisprudence is replete with rulings that apply the double sales rule to cases where one of the two sales was conducted in a public auction. In fact, in  Express credit Financing Corporation v. Spouses Velasco , we applied the rule on double sales in determining the party who has preferential right over the disputed property in question. In said case, the subject property was sold first, to respondent spouses by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale and, second, to  petitioner corporation in a foreclosure sale of a real estate mortgage. Spouses Florentino T. Mallari And Aurea V. Mallari vs. Prudential Bank The Court finds that the 24%  per annum  interest rate, provided for in the subject mortgage contracts for a loan of P225,000.00, may not be considered unconscionable. Moreover, considering that the mortgage agreement was freely entered into by both parties, the same is the law between them and they are bound to comply with the provisions contained therein. Clearly, jurisprudence establish that the 24% p.a. stipulated interest rate was not considered unconscionable, thus, the 23% p.a. interest rate imposed on  petitioners' loan in this case can by no means be considered excessive or unconscionable. *** The 1% surcharge on the principal loan for every month of default is valid. This surcharge or penalty stipulated in a loan agreement in case of default partakes of the nature of liquidated damages under Art. 2227 of the New Civil Code, and is separate and distinct from interest payment. Also referred to as a penalty clause, it is expressly recognized by law. It is an accessory undertaking to assume greater liability on the part of an obligor in case of breach of an obligation. The obligor would then be bound to pay the stipulated amount of indemnity without the necessity of proof on the existence and on the measure of damages caused by the  breach.    Spouses Deo Agner And Maricon Agner vs. Bpi Family Savings Bank, Inc. The Civil Code in Article 1169 provides that one incurs in delay or is in default from the time the obligor demands the fulfillment of the obligation from the obligee. However, the law expressly provides that demand is not necessary under certain circumstances, and one of these circumstances is when the parties expressly waive demand. Hence, since the co-signors expressly waived demand in the  promissory notes, demand was unnecessary for them to be in default. Further, the Court even ruled in  Navarro v. Escobido [15]  that prior demand is not a condition precedent to an action for a writ of replevin, since there is nothing in Section 2, Rule 60 of the Rules of Court that requires the applicant to make a demand on the possessor of the property before an action for a writ of replevin could be filed. Skunac Corporation vs. Roberto S. Sylianteng And Caesar S. Sylianteng The provision on double sale has no application in cases where the sales involved were initiated not by just one but two vendors Rodolfo V. Francisco vs. Emiliana M. Rojas The decree of registration shall bind the land and quiet title thereto, subject only to such exceptions or liens as may be provided by law. It shall be conclusive upon and against all persons, including the National Government and all branches thereof, whether mentioned by name in the application or notice, the same being included in the general description To all whom it may concern . By express provision of Section 47 of P.D 1529, no title to registered land in derogation to that of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. To declare that the decree and its derivative titles is valid but only with respect to the extent of the area described in the decree not possessed by occupants with indefeasible registered titles or to possessors with such lengths of  possession which had ripened to ownership is to undermine the people's faith in the torrens titles being conclusive as to all matters contained therein. The certificate serves as evidence of an indefeasible title to the property in favor of the person whose names appear therein. After the expiration of the one year period from the issuance of the decree of registration upon which it is based, it becomes incontrovertible, unless subsequent to the issuance of the decree a third party may  be able to show that he acquired title thereto by any of the means recognized by law. Iglesia Filipina Independiente vs. Heirs Of Bernardino Taeza The Court finds it erroneous for the CA to ignore the fact that the laymen's committee objected to the sale of the lot in question. The Canons require that ALL the church entities listed in Article IV (a) thereof should give its approval to the transaction. Thus, when the Supreme Bishop executed the contract of sale of   petitioner's lot despite the opposition made by the laymen's committee, he acted  beyond his powers. This case clearly falls under the category of unenforceable contracts mentioned in Article 1403, paragraph (1) of the Civil Code, which provides, thus: Art. 1403. The following contracts are unenforceable, unless they are ratified: (1) Those entered into in the name of another person by one who has been given no authority or legal representation, or who has acted beyond his powers; In the present case, however, respondents' predecessor-in-interest, Bernardino Taeza, had already obtained a transfer certificate of title in his name over the  property in question. Since the person supposedly transferring ownership was not authorized to do so, the property had evidently been acquired by mistake. In Vda. de Esconde v. Court of Appeals , [18]  the Court affirmed the trial court's ruling that the applicable provision of law in such cases is Article 1456 of the Civil Code which states that “[i]f property is acquired through mistake or fraud, the person obtaining it is, by force of law, considered a trustee of an implied trust for the  benefit of the person from whom the pro  perty comes.”  A constructive trust having been constituted by law between respondents as trustees and petitioner as beneficiary of the subject property, may respondents acquire ownership over the said property? Unlike in express trusts and resulting implied trusts where a trustee cannot acquire by prescription any property entrusted to him unless he repudiates the trust, in constructive implied trusts, the trustee may acquire the property through prescription even if he does not repudiate the relationship . It is then incumbent upon the beneficiary to bring an action for reconveyance before prescription bars the same. An action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust must perforce prescribe in ten years  and not otherwise. It is now well-settled that an action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust prescribes in ten years from the issuance of the Torrens title over the property. It has also been ruled that the ten-year prescriptive period begins to run from the date of registration of the deed or the date of the issuance of the certificate of title over the property .
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