Pinoy Law Student Buddy

Bernardo Valdevieso vs. Candelario Damalerio, et al.  G.R. No. 133303, February 17, 2005 Facts:  Sometime in 1995, Lorenzo and Elenita Uy sold to petitioner a parcel of land. The property was covered by a TCT in the names of the Uy spouses but the deed of sale to petitioner was not registered. Neither was title to the land transferred to  petitioner immediately but the latter declared the property for taxation purposes.  Sometime in 1996, spouses Damalerio filed with the RTC a complaint for sum of money against the Uy spouses, with application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment, which the trial court issued, by virtue of which the property sold to petitioner that was still in the names of the Uy  spouses was levied. The levy was recorded in the Registry of Deeds and annotated at the back of the TCT. Later, a new TCT was issued in the name of the petitioner, cancelling the previous TCT. The attachment annotated at the back of the title remained in the new t

Ruperta Cano and Jesus Carlo Gerard Vda. De Viray v. Sps. Jose and Amelita Usi G.R. No. 192486, November 21, 2012 Facts: Lot 733, registered in the name of Mendoza is the subject of this case. Geodetic Engr Fajardo prepared the Fajardo Plan, in which Lot 733 was divided into 6 smaller parcels of differing size dimensions: Lot 733(A-F). Mendoza executed 2 separate deeds of absolute sale, the first, transferring Lot 733-F to Jesus and the second deed conveying Lot 733-A to Sps Viray. Vda. de Viray is the surviving spouse of Jesus. Mendoza, Vda. de Mallari and Sps. Usi, as purported co-owners of Lot 733, executed the 1st Subdivision Agreement (SA) in accordance with Galang Plan. Then they executed the 2nd SA. The subdivision of Lot 733, per the Galang Plan, and the 2 SAs concluded based on that plan, virtually resulted in the loss of the identity of what under the Fajardo Plan were Lot 733-A and Lot 733-F. The Sps. Viray and the late Jesus purchased Lot 733-A and Lot 733-F, respec

Wilson Go and Peter Go v. Resureccion Bihis G.R. No. 211972, July 22, 2015 Facts: In 1960, Felisa Buenaventura who owns a parcel of land in Quezon City supposedly sold to her daughter Bella and the latter‘s husband Delfin and Felimon Buenaventura the subject property to assist them in obtaining a loan from the GSIS. A new TCT was issued in the name of Bella, Delfin, and Felimon. Sometime in 1970, Felisa wrote a letter to Bella and Delfin reiterating therein the reason why she allowed the transfer of the title in their names. In the same letter, Felisa stated that she wanted that all her properties including the subject land to be divided equally among her heirs. Upon Felisa's death in 1994, the Bihis Family, Felisa's other heirs who have long been occupying the subject property, caused the annotation of their adverse claim over the same on TCT. Subsequently, however, or on January 22, 1997, the said annotation was cancelled, and the next day, the Heirs of Felimon, S

Security and Exchange Commission v. Hon. Laygo et al. G.R. No. 188639, September 02, 2015 Facts: Pursuant to the mandate of Securities Regulation Code, the SEC issued the New Rules on the Registration and Sale of Pre-Need Plans to govern the pre-need industry prior to the enactment of the Pre-Need Code. It required from the pre-need providers the creation of trust funds as a requirement for registration. Legacy, being a pre-need provider, complied with the trust fund requirement and entered into a trust agreement with Land Bank. In mid-2000, the industry collapsed for a range of reasons. Legacy, like the others, was unable to pay its obligations to the plan holders. This resulted in Legacy being the subject of a petition for involuntary insolvency by private respondents in their capacity as plan holders. Through its manifestation filed in the RTC, Legacy did not object to the proceedings and was declared insolvent by the RTC. The trial court also ordered Legacy to submit an i

San Miguel Properties, Inc. v. BF Homes, Inc. G.R. No. 169343, [August 5, 2015] Facts: BF homes (BF) and San Miguel Properties Inc. (SMPI) entered three successive Deeds of Absolute Sale whereby the latter sold to the former a total of 130 Italia lots. SMPI completed payments of the 130 lots but only 110 of out of the 130 transfer of certificate of titles were delivered to SMPI. After demand which was unheeded, SMPI filed a complaint for specific performance with damages with the HLURB. In its answer, BF claims that Orendain was not authorized to enter into the Deed of Absolute Sale and that the Deeds of Absolute Sale were not notarized and were undated. Issue: Whether the Deeds of Absolute Sale are unenforceable for failure to comply with the Statute of Frauds Ruling: The Deeds are enforceable. The contracts of sale of the 130 Italia II lots between BF Homes and SMPI were reduced into writing into the three Deeds of Absolute Sale which were signed by the representatives of

Anthony Orduña et al. v. Eduardo Fuentebella, et al. G.R. No. 176841, June 29, 2010 Facts: Gabriel, Sr. sold the subject lot to petitioner Antonita Orduňa, payable in installment, but no formal deed was executed to document the sale. The installments were paid to Gabriel, Sr. and later to Gabriel, Jr. after the former’s death. Improvements were thereafter made by petitioner. Without the knowledge of petitioners, Gabriel, Jr. sold the property to Banta, who then sold the same to the Cids and ultimately it was ceded to respondent Fuentebella. Petitioner, after being demanded by Fuentebella to vacate the disputed land, then filed a Complaint for Annulment of Sale, Title, Reconveyance with damages with a prayer to acquire ownership over the subject lot upon payment of their remaining balance. The RTC dismissed the petition because the verbal sale was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds. The CA affirmed this ruling. Issue: Whether or not the sale of the subject lot by Gabrie

Jose Menchavez, et al vs. Florentino Teves, Jr.,  G.R. No. 153201, January 26, 2005 Facts:  Sometime in 1986, a “Contract of Lease” was executed by Menchavez as lessor and Teves Jr. as lessee for a term of five years.  In 1988, RTC Sheriffs demolished the fishpond dikes constructed by the respondent and delivered possession of the subject property to other parties. As a result, he filed a Complaint for damages against the petitioner, alleging violation of their Contract of Lease, specifically the peaceful and adequate enjoyment of the property for the entire duration of the Contract.  The lessors had withheld from respondents the findings of the trial court in a separate case. In that case involving the same property, subject of the lease, Menchavez was ordered to remove the dikes illegally constructed and to pay damages. After the trial, the RTC ruled that the contract is a patent nullity. Respondent elevated the case to the CA. The CA disagreed with the RTC’s finding th

First Fil-Sin Lending Corp. v. Gloria Padillo G.R. No. 160533, January 12, 2005 Facts: On July 22, 1997, respondent Padillo obtained a P500,000.00 loan from petitioner First Fil-Sin Lending Corp. On September 7, 1997, respondent obtained another P500,000.00 loan from petitioner. In sum, she has paid a total of P792,500.00 for the first loan and P775,000.00 for the second loan. On January 27, 2000, respondent filed an action for sum of money against petitioner , alleging that she only agreed to pay interest at the rates of 4.5% and 5% per annum  respectively, for the two loans, and not 4.5% and 5% per month. Respondent sought to recover the amounts she allegedly paid in excess of actual obligations. Ruling: The petition is impressed with merit. The loan obligations provide for per annum interest rates. Reformation cannot be resorted to as the documents have not been assailed on the ground of mutual mistake. When a party sues on a written contract and no attempt is made

Myrna Ramos v. Susana Sarao G.R. No. 149756, February 11, 2005 Facts: Respondent Sarao avers that the herein Petition should have been dismissed outright, because petitioner (1) failed to show proof that she had served a copy of it to the Court of Appeals and (2) raised questions of fact that were not proper issues in a petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Issue: Whether the parties intended the contract to be a bona fide pacto de retro sale or an equitable mortgage. Ruling: In a pacto de retro , ownership of the property sold is immediately transferred to the vendee a retro , subject only to the repurchase by the vendor a retro within the stipulated period. The vendor a retro's failure to exercise the right of repurchase within the agreed time vests upon the vendee a retro , by operation of law, absolute title to the property. Such title is not impaired even if the vendee a retro fails to consolidate title under Article 1607 of the Civil Code. On the

Doña Adela Export International, Inc. v. Trade and Investment Development Corporation (TIDCORP), and the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) G.R. No. 201931, February 11, 2015 Facts: Sometime in 2006, Doña Adela Export International, Inc., (DAEI) filed a Petition for Voluntary Insolvency. RTC issued an order declaring it insolvent and staying all civil proceedings against it. Sometime in August 2011 TIDCORP and BPI as creditors of DAEI filed a Joint Motion to Approve Agreement which contained among others a waiver of confidentiality clause wherein DAEI and the members of its Board of Directors shall waive all rights to confidentiality provided under the Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits and The General Banking Law of 2000. The RTC approved the compromise agreement between BPI and TIDCORP. DAEI filed a motion for partial reconsideration and claimed that TIDCORP and BPI‘s agreement imposes on it several obligations such as payment of expenses and taxes and waiver of confidential

Ricardo Honrado v. GMA Network Films, Inc. G.R. No. 204702, January 14, 2015 Facts: GMA Films entered a “TV Rights Agreement” with petitioner Honrado under which Honrado, as licensor, granted GMA for a fee of P60.5 million the exclusive right to telecast 36 films for three years. Paragraph 3 of the Agreement provides that all betacam copies of the films should pass through broadcast quality test conducted by GMA-7, while Paragraph 4 provides that in the event of the disapproval of the MTRCB, GMA will either replace the rejected film with another title mutually acceptable to both parties or deduct or refund a proportionate reduction from the total price. Subsequently, GMA sued Honrado to collect P1.6 million representing the fee it paid for “Evangeline Katorse” and a portion of the fee paid for “Bubot.” Respondent alleged that it rejected the “Evangeline Katorse” because its running time was too short for telecast and Honrado only remitted P900k to the owner of “Bubot”, keepin

Alexander Gaisano v. Benjamin Akol G.R. No. 193840, June 15, 2011 Facts: Akol filed a complaint for recovery of shares of stock against Gaisano. The RTC dismissed the complaint while the CA reversed the decision of the RTC. While the case was pending with the SC, the parties jointly filed an Agreement to Terminate Action duly signed by them and their respective counsels. Issue: Whether the agreement filed by the parties allows the court to validly render judgment based on said agreement. Ruling: Yes. A compromise agreement is a contract whereby the parties make reciprocal concessions, avoid litigation, or put an end to one already commenced. Its validity depends on its fulfillment of the requisites and principles of contracts dictated by law; its terms and conditions being not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public policy and public order. A scrutiny of the aforequoted agreement reveals it is a compromise agreement sanctioned under Article 2028 of the Civil Cod

Adriatico Consortium, Inc. et al., v. Land Bank of the Philippines G.R. No. 187838, December 23, 2009 Facts: Respondent Land Bank approved the application of William Siy, the former president of ACI, for a credit line of P200M. A Mortgage Trust Indenture (MTI) was created to secure the loan. The MTI was amended to include J.V. Williams Realty and Development Corporation (JVWRDC), a majority-owned corporation of Siy, as borrower. It was later discovered that Siy did not remit ACI’s payments of the loan. Land Bank obliged petitioners ACI and PRC, with Benito Cu-Uy-Gam, ACI’s new president, to pay the maturing obligations of JVWRDC. Petitioners then filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity, Specific Performance, Injunction, and Damages with Prayer for a TRO against Land Bank and Siy with the RTC of Manila. The parties entered into a Partial Compromise Agreement wherein ACI agreed, among others, to pay and actually paid to Land Bank the amount of loan plus interests. The said