Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
RESCISSIBLE CONTRACTS
1.
EQUATORIAL REALTY V. MAYFAIR- contract of sale was not voidable but rescissible.
2.
ROSENCOR V. INQUING- oral right of 1st refusal was violated; rescinded (1383, p. 3; 1385)
3.
KHE HONG CHENG V. CA period of prescription in accion pauliana; (1389; 1150); ESOFA; JIFE
4.
UNION BANK V. ONG- greenhills property; accion pauliana requisites, 3rd lacking
5.
HEIRS OF QUIRONG V. DBP- 1389 v. 1144; 1191 v. 1381
6.
ADA V. BAYLON- rescission is not preconditioned upon judicial determination of ownership of the thing subject to litigation; primordial purpose of
1381, p.4 (to secure the possible effectivity of the impending judgment by the court with respect to the thing subject of litigation regardless of which
among the contending claims therein would be upheld.
VOIDABLE CONTRACTS
1.
SAMONTE V. CA- annulled based on fraud; TCT cannot be used as a shield for frauds; upon discovery
2.
MENDEZOPNA V. OZAMIZ- old age and physical infirmities not sufficient to annul
3.
FAMANILA V. CA- disability is NOT a ground to annul; neither was the consent vitiated
4.
CATALAN V. BASA Schizophrenia waxes and wanes
5.
VILLANUEVA V. CHIONG separation in fact does not dissolve the CPG; alienation w/o consent prior to FC renders the contract VOIDABLE only;
offsetting (1398 obligation to mutually restore
6.
AYSON V. PARAGAS the defect of the consent did not cease until the signing of the affidavit
7.
DESTREZA V. ALAROS- allegation of fraud in a notarized deed of absolute sale is a grave one and must be clearly and convincingly proven
8.
KINGS PROPERTIES V. GALIDO- the sale cannot be annulled on the ground that the DENR only approved the sale after 21 years. The requirement
under PLA is merely directory.
UNENFORCEABLE CONTRACTS
1.
REGAL FILMS V. CONCEPCION- entered into in the name of another by one who ostensibly might have but who, in reality, had no real authority or
legal representation, or who, having such authority acted beyond his powers, would be unenforceable.
2.
VALENCIA V. LOCQUIAO- Old civil code requires that donation propter nuptias be in a public instrument specifically describing the property to be
donated for its validity but acceptance is not required; under NCC, it was under Statute of Frauds which merely regulates for enforceability and
express acceptance is also not required for validity. Under the Old code of civil procedure, an action for recovery of title can only be brought w/I 10
years from the legal possibility of bringing the action.
3.
LITOJUA V. FERNANDEZ 1403, p. 2 note or memorandum must have contained the ff: (1) all the essential terms and conditions of the sale of the
properties; (2) the accurate description of the property subject of the sale; (3) name of the owners of the properties. The application of the statute of
frauds presupposes the existence of a perfected contract.
4.
GOZUN V. MERCADO By the contract of agency, a person binds himself to render some service to do something in representation or on behalf of
another, with the consent/authority of the latter. Otherwise, unenforceable unless ratified. SPA refers to the nature of authorization and not to its
form. The requirement is that there must be a clear mandate by the principal in order for the latter to be bound.
5.
CABALES V. CA- A co-owner who redeemed the property in its entirety did not make her the co-owner of all of it. It remained in a condition of coownership as the redemption did not provide for a mode of terminating a co-ownership. But Saturnina here only had the right to be reimbursed by
those other co-owners having their pro-indiviso share of said property redeemed; legal guardians only have a plenary power of administration of the
minors property. It does not include the power to alienate unless there is Judicial authorization.
6.
PENALBER V. RAMOS the express trust agreement not reduced into writing is unenforceable but was ratified when there was a failure to object to
the oral testimony to prove its existence. However admitted, weight of the evidences is still subject to judicial evaluation.
7.
GONZALES V. PEREZ Although conveyance of land is not made in a public document, it does not affect the validity of such conveyance. Art. 1358
does not require the accomplishment of the acts or contracts in a public instrument in order to validate or make it enforceable but it is merely for
convenience.
8.
BUCTON V. RURAL BANK- A mortgage executed by an unauthorized agent who signed in his own name without indicating that he acted for and in
behalf of the principal binds only the agent and not the principal.
VOID CONTRACTS
1.
MODINA V. CA In pari delicto doctrine does not apply to absolutely simulated or fictitious contract for it can only be applied to contracts whose
nullity proceeds from illegality of consideration or purpose and since one of the characteristics of a void contract is that it does not produce any civil
effect, then the property may be recovered. Moreover, petitioner is in good faith.
2.
DOMINGO V. CA- A person is not incompetent to contract merely because of old age or physical infirmities unless both had impaired ones mental
faculties to such extent as to prevent one from properly, intelligently, and fairly protecting ones property rights; in this case, shes playing w/ her
waste. She could not have possibly given consent to such contract.
3.
BAUTISTA V. SILVA- To prove good faith, a buyer of registered and titled land need only show that he relied o the face of the title to the property. He
need not prove that he made further inquiry for he is not obliged to explore beyond the four corners of the title. Such is sufficient only when coupled
w/ the following: (1) seller is the registered owner; (2) seller is in possession; (3) at the time of the sale, buyer was not aware of any claim or interest of
some other person in the property or of any defect in the title or the sellers capacity to convey title to the property.
4.
RAMIREZ V. RAMIREZ- donations inter vivos are additionally governed by the general provisions on obligations and contracts in all that is not
determined by the title governing donations. The rule on pari delicto under general provisions of contracts is applicable. 1411 refers to contracts
having illegal cause or object and the act constitutes a criminal offense. Object and cause are two separate elements to a contract which give rise
to the application of the doctrine of pari delicto.
5.
BAUTISTA V. BAUTISTA invalid extrajudicial partition insofar as it affects the legitimate share pertaining to the defendant-appellee in the property in
question. Since the deed is invalid, it transmitted no rights to Teofilos co-heirs. The subsequent transfers of the property as well is invalid, hence
conferring no rights upon the transferees. no one gives what he doesn't have"
HULST V. PR BUILDERS the party repudiating the void contract before the illegal purpose is accomplished or before damage is caused to a third
person and if public interest is subserved by allowing recovery. (Art. 1414); Contract to sell;
7.
QUIMPO V. BELTRAN- a deed of sale, in which the stated consideration has not been, in fact, paid as a false contract; it is VOID AB INITIIO
8.
ALINAS V. ALINAS- Petitioners should reimburse respondent spouses the redemption price paid for lot in the amount of the price paid with legal
interest from the time of the filing the complaint and after the judgment has become final and executor, 12% na from 6% legal interest.
9.
CAMPOS V. PASTRANA 1409 v. 1381; the questioned conveyances were executed by the spouses Campos to evade the enforcement of the writ of
execution in the Possession Case; An action to rescind is founded upon and presupposes the existence of a contract. A contract which is null and
void is no contract at all and hence could not be a subject for rescission.
10.
TECSON V. FAUSTO - Second partition agreement is void for lack of intention to be bound by the parties. The deceit employed by Atty. Tecson goes
to the very nature of the contract and not merely to the object or principal condition. CONSENT IS WANTING
11.
BORROMEO V. MINA PD 27 prohibits the transfer of ownership over tenanted rice and/or corn lands except to actual tenanttillers; petitioner had no
right to file a petition for landholding exemption since the sale of the said property to him by Garcia in 1982 is null and void
12.
GONZALO V. TARNATE- The doctrine of pari delicto is a universal doctrine which holds that no action arises, in equity or at law from an illegal
contract; no suit can be maintained for its specific performance, or to recover the property agreed to be sold or delivered, or the money agreed to
be paid, or damages for its violation; and where the parties are in pari delicto, no affirmative relief can be granted by the court to one as against
the other. However, Art. 22 of the Cicvil code allows full compensation for the expenses paid by Tarnate.
ESTOPPEL
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
RESCISSIBLE CONTRACTS
EQUATORIAL REALTY V. MAYFAIR
FACTS: CAmelo used to own a parcel of land w/ a building
constructed thereon and leased it to Mayfair for a period of
20years. The contract of lease contained a provision granting
Mayfair of the right of first refusal to purchase the subject
properties. However, while the lease is still in effect, the subject
properties were sold to Equatorial without first offering to Mayfair,
hence the suit. CA rescinded the sale and allowed Mayfair to
buy.
ISSUE: Is the rescission proper?
Yes, because Equatorial is a buyer in bad faith.
HELD: Equatorial was aware of the lease contracts because its
lawyers had, prior to the sale, studied the said contracts. As such,
Equatorial cannot tenably claim to be a purchaser in good faith,
and, therefore, rescission lies.
****CONTRACT OF SALE WAS NOT VOIDABLE BUT RESCISSIBLE.
Under Article 1380 to 1381(3) of the Civil Code, a contract
otherwise valid may nonetheless be subsequently rescinded
by reason of injury to third persons, like creditors. The status of
creditors could be validly accorded the Bonnevies for they
had substantial interests that were prejudiced by the sale of
the subject property to the petitioner without recognizing
their right of first priority under the Contract of Lease.
According to Tolentino, rescission is a remedy granted by
law to the contracting parties and even to third persons, to
secure reparation for damages caused to them by a
contract, even if this should be valid, by means of the
restoration of things to their condition at the moment prior to
the celebration of said contract. It is a relief allowed for the
protection of one of the contracting parties and even third
persons from all injury and damage the contract may cause,
or to protect some incompatible and preferent right created
by the contract. Rescission implies a contract which, even if
initially valid, produces a lesion or pecuniary damage to
someone that justifies its invalidation for reasons of equity.
It is true that the acquisition by a third person of the property
subject of the contract is an obstacle to the action for its
rescission where it is shown that such third person is in lawful
possession of the subject of the contract and that he did not
act in bad faith. However, this rule is not applicable in the
case before us because the petitioner is not considered a
third party in relation to the Contract of Sale nor may its
possession of the subject property be regarded as acquired
lawfully and in good faith.
A purchaser in good faith and for value is one who buys the
property of another without notice that some other person
has a right to or interest in such property and pays a full and
fair price for the same at the time of such purchase or before
he has notice of the claim or interest of some other person in
the property. Good faith connotes an honest intention to
abstain from taking unconscientious advantage of another.
The facts of the case and considerations of justice and equity
require that we order rescission here and now. Rescission is a
relief allowed for the protection of one of the contracting parties
and even third persons from all injury and damage the contract
may cause or to protect some incompatible and preferred right
by the contract. 26 The sale of the subject real property by
Carmelo to Equatorial should now be rescinded considering that
Mayfair, which had substantial interest over the subject property,
was prejudiced by the sale of the subject property to Equatorial
ROSENCOR V. INQUING
FACTS:
Respondents are tenants of a two-storey residential apartment in
Tomas Morato QC. The lease was not covered by any contract.
Lessees were verbally given by the lessors the pre-emptive right
to purchase the property in case of sale.
ISSUE: WON a contract of sale in violation of a third partys right
of first refusal may be rescinded in order that such third party
can exercise said right? NO bec. Rosencor is in good faith
HELD:
The prevailing doctrine, as enunciated in the cited cases, is that
a contract of sale entered into in violation of a right of first refusal
of another person, while valid, is rescissible.
There is, however, a circumstance which prevents the
application of this doctrine in the case at bench. In the cases
cited above, the Court ordered the rescission of sales made in
violation of a right of first refusal precisely because the vendees
therein could not have acted in good faith as they were aware
or should have been aware of the right of first refusal granted to
another person by the vendors therein. The rationale for this is
found in the provisions of the New Civil Code on rescissible
contracts. Under Article 1381 of the New Civil Code, paragraph
3, a contract validly agreed upon may be rescinded if it is
undertaken in fraud of creditors when the latter cannot in any
manner collect the claim due them. Moreover, under Article
1385, rescission shall not take place when the things which are
the object of the contract are legally in the possession of third
persons who did not act in bad faith.
Unlike the cases cited above, the right of first refusal involved in
the instant case was an oral one given to respondents by the
deceased spouses Tiangco and subsequently recognized by
their heirs. As such, in order to hold that petitioners were in bad
faith, there must be clear and convincing proof that petitioners
were made aware of the said right of first refusal either by the
respondents or by the heirs of the spouses Tiangco.
Good faith is always presumed unless contrary evidence is
adduced. A purchaser in good faith is one who buys the
property of another without notice that some other person has a
right or interest in such a property and pays a full and fair price
at the time of the purchase or before he has notice of the claim
or interest of some other person in the property. In this regard,
the rule on constructive notice would be inapplicable as it is
undisputed that the right of first refusal was an oral one and that
the same was never reduced to writing, much less registered with
the Registry of Deeds. In fact, even the lease contract by which
respondents derive their right to possess the property involved
was an oral one.
Evidence on record fails to show that petitioners acted in bad
faith in entering into the deed of sale over the disputed property
with the heirs of the spouses Tiangco. Respondents failed to
present any evidence that prior to the sale of the property on
September 4, 1990, petitioners were aware or had notice of the
oral right of first refusal.
HELD:
Article 1389 provides that the action to claim rescission must be
commenced within four years. The Quirong heirs, on the other
hand, claim that it should be 10 years as provided under Article
1144 which states that actions upon a written contract must be
brought within 10 years from the date the right of action
accrues. Now, was the action of the Quirong heirs for rescission
or upon a written contract? There is no question that their action
was for rescission, since their complaint in Civil Case CV-9802399-D asked for the rescission of the contract of sale between
Sofia Quirong, their predecessor, and the DBP and the
reimbursement of the price of P78,000.00 that Sofia Quirong paid
the bank plus damages. The prescriptive period for rescission is
four years.
But it is not that simple. The remedy of rescission is not confined
to the rescissible contracts enumerated under Article 1381.[17]
Article 1191 of the Civil Code gives the injured party in reciprocal
obligations, such as what contracts are about, the option to
choose between fulfillment and rescission. Arturo M. Tolentino, a
well-known authority in civil law, is quick to note, however, that
the equivalent of Article 1191 in the old code actually uses the
term resolution rather than the present rescission.[18] The
calibrated meanings of these terms are distinct.
Rescission is a subsidiary action based on injury to the plaintiffs
economic interests as described in Articles 1380 and
1381. Resolution, the action referred to in Article 1191, on the
ADA V. BAYLON
FACTS:
Florante asserts that before the petitioners may file an action for
rescission, they must first obtain a favorable judicial ruling that Lot
No. 4709 and half of Lot No. 4706 actually belonged to the
estate of Spouses Baylon. Until then, Florante avers that an
action for rescission would be premature.
ISSUE: whether the donation inter vivos of Lot No. 4709 and half
of Lot No. 4706 in favor of Florante may only be rescinded if there
HELD:
Contracts which are rescissible are valid contracts having all the
essential requisites of a contract, but by reason of injury or
damage caused to either of the parties therein or to third
persons are considered defective and, thus, may be rescinded.
KINDS OF RESCISSIBLE CONTRACTS, according to the reason for
their susceptibility to rescission, are the following:
1. rescissible because of lesion or prejudice;
2.
rescissible on account of fraud or bad faith;
3. by special provisions of law, are susceptible to
rescission.
CONTRACTS WHICH REFER TO THINGS SUBJECT OF LITIGATION IS
RESCISSIBLE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 1381(4) OF THE CIVIL CODE.
Contracts which are rescissible due to fraud or bad faith include
those which involve things under litigation, if they have been
entered into by the defendant without the knowledge and
approval of the litigants or of competent judicial authority. Thus,
Article 1381(4) of the Civil Code provides:
Art. 1381. The following contracts are rescissible:
(4) Those which refer to things under litigation if they have been
entered into by the defendant without the knowledge and
approval of the litigants or of competent judicial authority.
The rescission of a contract under Article 1381(4) of the Civil
Code only requires the concurrence of the following:
1. first, the defendant, during the pendency of the case,
enters into a contract which refers to the thing subject
of litigation; and
2. second, the said contract was entered into without the
knowledge and approval of the litigants or of a
competent judicial authority.
As long as the foregoing requisites concur, it becomes the duty
of the court to order the rescission of the said contract. The
reason for this is simple. Article 1381(4) seeks to remedy the
presence of bad faith among the parties to a case and/or any
fraudulent act which they may commit with respect to the thing
subject of litigation.
When a thing is the subject of a judicial controversy, it should
ultimately be bound by whatever disposition the court shall
render. The parties to the case are therefore expected, in
deference to the courts exercise of jurisdiction over the case, to
refrain from doing acts which would dissipate or debase the
thing subject of the litigation or otherwise render the impending
decision therein ineffectual.
There is, then, a restriction on the disposition by the parties of the
thing that is the subject of the litigation. Further, any disposition of
the thing subject of litigation or any act which tends to render
inutile the courts impending disposition in such case, sans the
knowledge and approval of the litigants or of the court, is
VOIDABLE CONTRACTS
SAMONTE V. CA (July 12, 2001)
FACTS: There was a parcel of land (lot No. 216) which was a
subject of dispute situated in Agusan del Norte covered by
original certificate of title RO 238 (555) issued in the name of
Apolonia Abao and the daughter Irenea Tolero pro indiviso. Two
cases were separately filed in RTC. The first case was an action
for quieting of title and recovery of possession of a parcel of land
formed the entire property. On the other hand, the second case
had similar action except that a portion of land was involve in
the entire lot 216. Both cases were filed by the heirs of Abao and
Tolero.
The litigation that stems out the second cases started when the
OCT No. RO 238 (555) issued in 1927 in the name of Apolonia
Abao and Irenea Tolero in equal undivided shares was
administratively reconstituted on August 8, 1957 based on an
Affidavit of Extrajudicial Settlement and Confirmation of Sale.
That OCT No. RO 238 was cancelled in lieu thereof TCT No. RT 476
issued in the name of Irenea Tolero and Nicholas Jadol and that
each of them has half of the shares of the property. On Feb. 13,
1959 based on subdivision plan subdividing the lots, the Register
of Deeds cancelled the TCT No. RT 476 and issued RT 553 in the
name of Tiburcio Samonte as to lot 216-A and TCT No. RT- 554.
For lot 216-B, it was then cancelled to issue TCT No. RT 555 issued
in the name of Jacobo Tagorda and TCT No. 556 in the name of
Irenea Tolero.
Plaintiff claim ownership of the entire lot as of the area 12, 753
sq.m was registered in the name of their Mother Irenea Tolero
and half to their grandmother Apolonia Abao. They also
questioned the series of cancellation of certification of titles
starting from the original title and the Deed of Extra Judicial
Settlement and Confirmation of Sale executed by Ignacio
Atupan who claim to be the sole son of Apolonia Abao and that
the predecessors in interest have not signed any document
agreeing as to the manner how lot 216 was to be divided, nor
have they consented to the partition of the same.
CA affirmed the trial courts decision that the consequent
issuance of TCT of the Jadol Spouses were through fraudulent
means. Citing the case of Adille vs CA where petitioner
executed a deed of extrajudicial partition misrepresenting
himself to be the sole heir of his Mother.
2.
HELD:
The appellate court erred in ruling that at the time of the
execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale on April 28, 1989 the
mental faculties of Carmen Ozamiz were already seriously
impaired.[27] It placed too much reliance upon the testimonies
of the respondents witnesses. However, after a thorough scrutiny
of the transcripts of the testimonies of the witnesses, we find that
the respondents core witnesses all made sweeping statements
which failed to show the true state of mind of Carmen Ozamiz at
the time of the execution of the disputed document. The
testimonies of the respondents witnesses on the mental capacity
of Carmen Ozamiz are far from being clear and convincing, to
say the least.
Carolina Lagura, a househelper of Carmen Ozamiz, testified that
when Carmen Ozamiz was confronted by Paz O. Montalvan in
January 1989 with the sale of the Lahug property, Carmen
Ozamiz denied the same. She testified that Carmen Ozamiz
understood the question then.[28] However, this declaration is
inconsistent with her (Carolinas) statement that since 1988
Carmen Ozamiz could not fully understand the things around
her, that she was physically fit but mentally could not carry a
conversation or recognize persons who visited her.[29]
Furthermore, the disputed sale occurred on April 28, 1989 or
three (3) months after this alleged confrontation in January 1989.
This inconsistency was not explained by the respondents.
The revelation of Dr. Faith Go did not also shed light on the
mental capacity of Carmen Ozamiz on the relevant day - April
28, 1989 when the Deed of Absolute Sale was executed and
notarized. At best, she merely revealed that Carmen Ozamiz was
suffering from certain infirmities in her body and at times, she was
forgetful, but there was no categorical statement that Carmen
Ozamiz succumbed to what the respondents suggest as her
alleged second childhood as early as 1987. The petitioners
ISSUE:
HELD:
FAMANILA V. CA
FACTS:
ISSUE:
HELD:
CATALAN V. BASA
FACTS:
ISSUE:
HELD:
VILLANUEVA V. CHIONG
FACTS:
ISSUE:
HELD:
AYSON V. PARAGAS
FACTS:
ISSUE:
HELD:
DESTREZA V. ALAROS
FACTS:
ISSUE:
HELD:
KINGS PROPERTIES V. GALIDO
FACTS:
ISSUE:
HELD:
UNENFORCEABLE CONTRACTS
REGAL FILMS V. CONCEPCION
VALENCIA V. LOCQUIAO
LITOJUA V. FERNANDEZ
GOZUN V. MERCADO
CABALES V. CA
PENALBER V. RAMOS
GONZALES V. PEREZ
BUCTON V. RURAL BANK
VOID CONTRACTS
MODINA V. CA
DOMINGO V. CA
BAUTISTA V. SILVA
RAMIREZ V. RAMIREZ
BAUTISTA V. BAUTISTA
HULST V. PR BUILDERS
QUIMPO V. BELTRAN
ALINAS V. ALINAS
CAMPOS V. PASTRANA
TECSON V. FAUSTO
BORROMEO V. MINA
GONZALO V. TARNATE
ESTOPPEL
LIM V. QUEENSLAND TOKYO COMMODITIES
REPUBLIC V. CA 301 s 366
HERMOSILLA V. REMOQUILLO
ACCESSORIES SPECIALISTS, INC V. ALABANZA
ASILO, KR. PEOPLE AND SPS BOBASI
PRISMA CONSTRUCTION V. MENHAVEZ
DIZON V. PHIL. VETERANS BANK
HOJAS V. PHILIPPINE AMANAH BANK