President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v.

BTL Construction
Corporation

G.R. No. 176439

Facts

On January 10, 2000, COJCOLDS and BTL entered into a Construction Contract for
the latter's construction of the former's meetinghouse facility at Barangay Cabug,
Medina, Misamis Oriental (Medina Project). The contract price was set at
P12,680,000.00 (contract price), and the construction period from January 15 to
September 15, 2000. However, due to bad weather conditions, power failures, and
revisions in the construction plans (as per Change Order Nos. 1 to 12 agreed upon by
the parties), among others, the completion date of the Medina Project was extended.
On November 12, 2003, BTL filed a complaint against COJCOLDS before the CIAC,
claiming a total amount of P28,716,775.40

For its part, COJCOLDS filed its answer with compulsory counterclaim, praying for
the award of P4,134,693.49.

The CIAC Ruling

Based on the parties' stipulations, COJCOLDS was found liable only for 98% of the
original contract price (i.e., P12,680,000.00) in the amount of P12,426,400.00.

Court of Appeals

CA ordered BTL to return to COJCOLDS the amount of P300,533.49 which was found
to be an overpayment made by the latter pursuant to the change orders.

Issue

Whether or not the 10% retention money that COJCOLDS was ordered to release in
favor of BTL is separate and distinct from the unpaid balance of the contract price
amounting to P1,612,017.74;

HELD

Affirmed the decision of CA with modification. The Court held that in the construction
industry, the 10% retention money is a portion of the contract price automatically
deducted from the contractor's billings, as security for the execution of corrective work
if any becomes necessary.
 Quilala VS. Alcantara

GR 132681

FACTS

Catalina Quilala (Donor) executed a “ Donation of real property Inter Vivos” In favor of
Violeta Quilala (Donee) over a parcel of land located in Sta. Cruz, Manila and
registered in her name.

The “ Donation of Real Property Inter Vivos” consist s of two pages. The first page
contains the deed of donation itself , and is signed on the bottom portion by Catalina
Quilala and Violeta Quilala, and two instrumental witnesses. The second page
contains the acknowledgement, which states merely that Catalina Quilala personally
appeared before the notary public and acknowledge that the donation was her free and
voluntary act. There appear on the left hand margin of the second page the signature
of Catalina and one of the witnesses and of the right hand margin the signature of
Violeta and other witnesses.

On November 7, 1983, Catalina died . Violeta likewise died on May 22, 1984.
Petitioner Ricky Quilala alleges that he is the surviving son of Violeta. Meanwhile,
respondents Leonora Alcantara, Ines Reyes and Juan Reyes, claiming to be Catalina’s
only surviving relatives within the 4rth civil degree of consanguinity instituted an
action for nullity of donation Inter Vivos, and for te cancellation of the TCT in the
name of Violeta Quilala.

The Trial Court rendered a decision declaring null and void the deed of donation of
real property inter vivos executed by Catalina Quilala. The trial court found that since
it was acknowledged before a notary public only by the donor and was no acceptance
by Violeta. The decision was affirmed by the CA.

ISSUE

Whether or not donation executed by Catalina Quilala in favor of Violeta Quilala is

valid.

HELD

Valid even if the acknowledgement was only signed by the donor.

SPOUSES SALVADOR ABELLA AND ALMA ABELLA, PETITIONERS, VS. SPOUSES
ROMEO ABELLA AND ANNIE ABELLA, RESPONDENTS.

G.R. No. 195166, July 08, 2015

FACTS

On July 31, 2002, petitioners Spouses Salvador and Alma Abella filed a Complaint for
sum of money and damages with prayer for preliminary attachment against
respondents Spouses Romeo and Annie Abella before the Regional Trial Court, Branch
8, Kalibo, Aklan.

In their Complaint, petitioners alleged that respondents obtained a loan from them in
the amount of P500,000.00. The loan was evidenced by an acknowledgment receipt
dated March 22, 1999 and was payable within one (1) year. Petitioners added that
respondents were able to pay a total of P200,000.00—P100,000.00 paid on two
separate occasions leaving an unpaid balance of P300,000.00.

In their Answer (with counterclaim and motion to dismiss), respondents alleged that
the amount involved did not pertain to a loan they obtained from petitioners but was
part of the capital for a joint venture involving the lending of money.

RTC

Decision ordered respondents to pay petitioners the supposedly unpaid loan balance
of P300,000.00 plus the allegedly stipulated interest rate of 30% per annum, as well
as litigation expenses and attorney's fees.

CA

Reversed and set aside the December 28, 2005 Decision of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 8, Kalibo, Aklan. Directed petitioners to pay respondents P148,500.00 (plus
interest), which was the amount respondents supposedly overpaid. The assailed
January 4, 2011 Resolution of the Court of Appeals denied petitioners' Motion for
Reconsideration.

HELD

Reversed the decision of CA. Petitioners Spouses Salvador and Alma Abella are
DIRECTED to jointly and severally reimburse respondents Spouses Romeo and Annie
Abella the amount of P3,379.17, which respondents have overpaid.

A legal interest of 6% per annum shall likewise be imposed on the total judgment
award from the finality of this Decision until its full satisfaction.
 GARCIA v GATCHALIAN

G.R. No. L-20357

FACTS

This is an appeal taken by Pedro Reyes Garcia from the decision of the Court of First
Instance of Rizal in Special Proceedings denying the allowance of the will of the late
Gregorio Gatchalian on the ground that the attesting witnesses did not acknowledge it
before a notary public as required by law.

Gregorio Gatchalian a widower, 71 years old died in the municipality of Pasig, Province
of Rizal leaving no forced heirs.

On April 2 of the same year appellant filed a petition with the above named court for
the probate of said alledged will wherein he was instituted as sole heir.

Felipe Gatchalian Aurora G. Camins, Angeles G. Cosca, Federico G. Tubog, Virginia G.

Talanay and Angeles G. Talanay appellees herein opposed the petition on the ground
among others that the will was procured by fraud that the deceased did not intend the
instrument signed by him to be as his will and that the deceased was physically and
mentally incapable of making a will at the time of the alleged execution of said will.
After due trial, the court rendered the appealed decision finding the document to be
the authentic last will of the deceased but disallowing it for failure to comply with the
mandatory requirement of Article 806 of the Civil Code, that the will must be
acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses.

ISSUE

Won the will was executed in accordance of Art 806 of the Civil Code.

HELD

No, Article 806 of the NCC reads: The will must be acknowledged before a notary
public by the testator and witnesses. The notary public shall not be required to retain
a copy of the will or file another with the office of the Clerk of Court.
 Azuela v. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 122880 (2006)

FACTS

Petitioner Felix Azuela sought to admit to probate the notarial will of Eugenia E.
Igsolo. However, this was opposed by Geralda Castillo, who was the attorney-in-fact of
“the 12 legitimate heirs” of the decedent. According to her, the will was forged, and
imbued with several fatal defects. Particularly, the issue relevant in this subject is that
the will was not properly acknowledged. The notary public, Petronio Y. Bautista, only
wrote “Nilagdaan ko at ninotario ko ngayong 10 ng Hunyo 10 (sic), 1981 dito sa
Lungsod ng Maynila.”

ISSUE

Whether or not the will is fatally defective as it was not properly acknowledged before a
notary public by the testator and the witnesses as required by Article 806 of the Civil
Code.

RULING

Yes, the will is fatally defective. By no manner of contemplation can those words be
construed as an acknowledgment.

An acknowledgement is the act of one who has executed a deed in going before some
competent officer or court and declaring it to be his act or deed. It involves an extra
step undertaken whereby the signore actually declares to the notary that the executor
of a document has attested to the notary that the same is his/her own free act and
deed.