0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)
90 vues4 pages
This document summarizes key concepts and cases related to novation and prescription in Philippine law. It discusses the definition and elements of novation, its various types including express and implied novation, partial and total novation. It also examines the requisites and effects of acquisitive and extinctive prescription of ownership and actions. Various prescriptive periods are outlined for different types of obligations and injuries. Exceptions to prescription for minors, the state and other parties are also summarized, along with ways prescription may be interrupted or waived.
This document summarizes key concepts and cases related to novation and prescription in Philippine law. It discusses the definition and elements of novation, its various types including express and implied novation, partial and total novation. It also examines the requisites and effects of acquisitive and extinctive prescription of ownership and actions. Various prescriptive periods are outlined for different types of obligations and injuries. Exceptions to prescription for minors, the state and other parties are also summarized, along with ways prescription may be interrupted or waived.
This document summarizes key concepts and cases related to novation and prescription in Philippine law. It discusses the definition and elements of novation, its various types including express and implied novation, partial and total novation. It also examines the requisites and effects of acquisitive and extinctive prescription of ownership and actions. Various prescriptive periods are outlined for different types of obligations and injuries. Exceptions to prescription for minors, the state and other parties are also summarized, along with ways prescription may be interrupted or waived.
1. Concept: (Ajax Marketing vs. Court of Appeals, 248 S 222;
Garcia v. Llamas, 417 S 292) 2. Requisites: (Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, 191 S 493; Heirs of Servando Franco vs. Spouses Gonzales, June 27, 2012) 3. Extent: (Velasquez v. CA, 309 S 514; Republic Glass v. Qua; 435 P 480) 4. Presumption: (Martinez v. Cavives, 25 P 181; NPC v. Dayrit, 125 S 849; Magdalena Estates v. Rodriguez, 18 S 967) 5. Authority: (Banate vs. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank, July 13, 2010; Hernandez-Nieverra vs. Hernandez, February 14, 2011) 6. Kinds: a. As to Form: i. Express: (California Bus Lines v. State Investment, 418 S 297; Guerrero vs. Court of Appeals, 29 S 791) ii. Implied: (Ramos vs. Gibbon, 67 P 371; National Exchange Co. v. Ramos, 51 P 310) b. As to Effects: i. Partial or Modificatory: (Bisaya Land Transportation v. Sanchez, Aug 31, 1987) ii. Total or Extinctive: (Fua Cam Lu v. Yap Fauco, 74 P 287) c. As to Essence: (Cochingyan vs. R & B Surety, 151 S 339) 7. Objective Novation: 8. Subjective or Personal Novation: a. Change in the Debtor: i. Delegacion: ii. Expromission: (Bangayan v. CA, 278 S 379; Gaw vs. IAC, 220 S 405; Asia Bank vs. Elser, 54 P 994) b. Change in the Creditor, Subrogation: (Lorenzo Shipping v. Chubb and Sons, 431 S 266) 9. Legal Subrogation: a. Presumption: (Chemphil vs. Court of Appeals, 251 S 257) b. Subrogation v. Assignment of Credit
Prescription (Article 1106-1155)
General Provisions (Articles 1106 1116) 1. Necessity: (Director of Lands v. Funtillar, May 23, 1986) 2. Definition and Elements: 3. Prescription vs. Laches: (Insurance of Phil Islands vs. Sponses Gregorio, Feb 14, 2011) 4. In relation to registered land: (Catholic Bishop vs. Court of Appeals, Nov 14, 1996; Marcelino vs. Court of Appeals, 210 S 444; Mateo and Matias v. Diaz, Jan 17, 2002) 5. Classes - Acquisitive vs. Extinctive: (Morales vs. CFI, 97 S 872) 6. Limitations and Extent of Prescription: a. Against Minors: (Vda. De Alberto vs. Court of Appeals, 173 S 436) b. Against the State: (Republic vs. PNB, 13 S 42; Director of Forest Admin vs. Fernandez, 192 S 121; Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 131 S 532) c. Against Spouses: (Pacio v. Billon, 1 S 384) d. Rights of Creditors: (Sambrano v. CTA, 101 P 1) 7. Waiver of Prescription: (DBP vs. Adil, 161 S 307) 8. Prescriptive Periods: (DBP vs. Ozarraga, September 20, 1965; Alvero vs. Reas, 35 S 210) Prescription of Ownership: (Articles 1117 1138, Articles 526-529) 1. Requisites: 2. Ordinary vs. Extraordinary: (Godinez vs. Court of Appeals, 135 S 351; Heirs of Amarante vs. Court of Appeals, 185 S 585) 3. Concept of Possession: a. In the concept of an owner: (Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 146 S 15) b. Public: (Ramos vs. Court of Appeals, 112 S 542) c. Peaceful: (Coronado vs. Court of Appeals, 191 S 814) d. Uninterrupted: (Corpus vs. Padilla, 5 S 814) 4. Prescription over registered properties: (Alfonso v. Jayme, Jan 30, 1960; Reyes vs. Court of Appeals, 258 S 651)
5. Good Faith: (Negrete vs. CFI of Marinduque, 48 S 113; Magtira
vs. Court of Appeals, 96 S 680) 6. Just Title: (Doliendo vs. Biarnesa, 7 P 232; Solis vs. Court of Appeals, 176 S 678) 7. Prescription over illegally acquired movables: (Tan vs. Court of Appeals, 195 S 355) 8. Computation of Time: a. Movables b. Immovables c. Tacking: (South City Homes vs. Republic, 185 S 693) Prescription of Actions: (Articles 1139 to 1155, Article 649) 1. Mere lapse of time: a. Movables: (Tan v. CA, 195 S 355; Dira vs. Taega, 33 S 479) b. Immovables: Good Faith, Bad Faith 2. Mortgage Action: (DBP v. Tomeldan, 101 S 741) 3. Imprescriptible Actions: 4. Prescriptive Periods: a. Obligation created by Law: (Espaol vs. Philippine Veterans Administration, 137 S 314; Huang v. CA, 236 S 420) b. Written contract; judgment: c. Oral contract, Quasi-contract: d. Injury to the rights of the plaintiff, Quasi-delict: (Kramer Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, 178 S 518;Callanta vs. Carnation Phils., 145 S 268) e. Forcible entry, Defamation: (Vda. De Borromeo vs. Pogoy, 126 S 217) 5. When Period Begins to Run: (Tolentino vs. Court of Appeals, 162 S 66) 6. Interruptions of Periods: a. By Fortuitous Event: (Provident vs. Court of Appeals, 222 S 125) b. By Extrajudicial Demand: (Ledesma vs. Court of Appeals, 224 S 175)
c. By civil action: (Cabrera vs. Tinio, 8 S 542; Olympia
International vs. Court of Appeals, 180 S 353) d. By written acknowledgment (Ramos vs. Condez, 20 S 1146)
Roger L. Crawford, Msgt Usaf (Ret) v. West Virginia Governor's Office, the West Virginia Legislature, the West Virginia Judiciary, Roger L. Crawford, and Sidika Crawford, Can John M. Crawford v. Gaston Caperton, in His Individual Capacity as Governor, Dolgen Corporation, A/K/A Dollar General Stores, Inc., Doris Lane, in Her Individual Capacity as Manager of the Dollar General Store, Hinton, the First National Bank of Hinton, Plaintiff's Local Financial Institution, Summers County Board of Education, in Its Official Capacity, State of West Virginia, in Its Official Capacity as a State of the Union, Csx Transportation, Inc., a Corporation A/K/A Csx Rail Transport, Csx Transport Group, Richard Gunnoe, Attorney at Law, Summers County Commission, in Its Official Capacity, Benjamin Reed, in His Official Capacity as Postmaster, U.S. Post Office, Hinton, the U.S. Postal Services, Joseph Aucremanne, in His Individual Capacity as Prosecuting Attorney, Summers County, Perry Mann, in His Individua