DOCTRINE/

PRINCIPLE/
CASE FACTS ISSUE HELD KEYWORD
SUBJECT
MATTER

ARTURO On November 23, 1906, Arturo Pelayo, a physician, filed a WON the defendants No. The Court held that the rendering of medical assistance
PELAYO VS. complaint against Marcelo and Juana Abella. He alleged that on should be held liable for is one of the obligations to which spouses are bound by
MARCELO October 13, 1906 at night, Pelayo was called to the house of the the fees demanded by mutual support, expressly determined by law and readily
LAURON 12 defendants to assist their daughter-in-law who was about to the plaintiff upon demanded. Therefore, there was no obligation on the part of
Phil 453 give birth to a child. Unfortunately, the daughter-in-law died as rendering medical the in-laws but rather on the part of the husband who is not
January 12,
a consequence of said childbirth. Thus, the defendant refuses to assistance to the a party.
1909
pay. The defendants argue that their daughter-in-law lived with defendants’ daughter-in-
her husband independently and in a separate house without any law.
relation, that her stay there was accidental and due to
fortuitous event.
Adorable v. Petitioners Salvador Adorable and Ligaya Adorable were lessees
Court of of a portion of a lot owned by the respondents Francisco Bareng
Appeals, G.R.
and Saturnino Bareng. The Barengs failed to pay their loan to
No. 119466 the Adorables resulting to a compromise agreement between
them whereby the Barengs acknowledged their debt and
promised to pay on or before an agreed date. When the
maturity date arrived, Francisco Bareng still failed to pay the
loan. Thus, a demand letter was sent to him but he still refused
to pay. The Adorables, learning the sale of the parcels of land
made by Francisco Bareng to Jose Ramos, filed a complaint for
the annulment or rescission of the sale on the ground that the
sale was fraudulently prepared and executed.
The Regional Trial Court dismissed the case for lack of cause of
action and declared that the contract of sale between Francisco
Bareng and Jose Ramos valid.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the
Regional Trial Court.
Whether or not the Adorables
had the right to annul or rescind
the contract of sale on the
ground that the Barengs failed
to pay the loan from them.
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. Art.
1177 of the Civil Code provides:
The creditors, after having pursued the property in possession of the debtor
to satisfy their claims, may exercise all the rights and bring all the actions of
the latter for the same purpose, save those which are inherent in his
person; they may also impugn the actions which the debtor may have done
to defraud them.
Thus, the following successive measures must be taken by a creditor before
he may bring an action for rescission of an allegedly fraudulent sale:
Exhaust the properties of the debtor through levying by attachment and
execution upon all the property of the debtor, except such as are exempt by
law from execution;
Exercise all the rights and actions of the debtor, save those personal to him
(accion subrogatoria);
Seek rescission of the contracts executed by the debtor in fraud of their
rights (accion pauliana).
Undertaking the 3rd measure, without availing the 1st and 2nd remedies,
cannot be done. The Adorables have not shown that they have no other
means of enforcing their credit. They also failed to show and prove that the
Barengs had no other property out of which they could have collected this
debt.
National Power Plaintiff Engineering Construction, Inc., being a successful bidder, executed a
Corporation vs. contract in Manila with the National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority
Honorable Court (NAWASA), whereby the former undertook to furnish all tools, labor, equipment
of Appeals and materials, and to construct the proposed 2nd Ipo-Bicti Tunnel, Intake and
Outlet Structures, and Appurtenant Structures, and Appurtenant Features at
Norzagaray, Bulacan and to complete said works within 800 calendar days.
The project involves two major phases: (1) tunnel work covering a distance of 7
kilometres and (2) the outworks at both ends of the tunnel. The ECI already had
completed the first major phase of the work, the Tunnel Excavation Work. Some
portions of the outworks were still under construction. As soon as the plaintiff
corporation had finished the tunnel excavation work at the Bicti site, all the
equipment no longer needed there were transferred to the Ipo site where some
projects were yet to be completed.
On November 4, 1967, Typhoon “Welming” hit Central Luzon, passing through
corporations’ Angat Hydro-electric Project and Dam. Due to the heavy
downpour, the water in the reservoir of the Angat Dam was rising perilously at
the rate of 60 cm per hour. To prevent an overflow of water from the dam, the
National Power Corporation (NPC) caused the opening of the spillway gates.
Extraordinary large volume of water rushed out of the gates, and hit the
installations and construction works of ECI at Ipo site with terrific impact, as a
result of which the latter’s stockpile of materials supplies, camp facilities and
permanent structures and accessories whether washed away, lost or destroyed.
The petitioner was the owner of a Pawnshop where respondent WON the loss of the thing
pawned several pieces of jewelry to secure a loan. After which, pawned exempt
two men entered the pawnshop and took away whatever cash petitioner from liability?
and jewelry were found inside the pawnshop vault. Incident was
entered into the police blotters. Petitioner through a letter
National Power informed respondent of the incident. Respondent requested
Corporation petitioner to prepare the pawned jewelry for withdrawal but the
vs. Honorable latter failed to do as such respondent filed a complaint for
Court of indemnification of the loss of pawned jewelry and damages.
AppealsG.R. Petitioner interposed the defense of Fortuitous event and
No. L-47379 negates negligence.
(May 16,
1988)
Whether or not the destruction
and loss of ECI’s equipment and
facilities were due to force
majeure which will exempt NPC
from liability.
No. The NPC will not be exempted from liability. It is clear from the
appellate court’s decision that based on its findings of fact and that of the
trial court’s, petitioner NPC was undoubtedly negligent because it opened
the spillway gates of the Angat Dam only at the height of typhoon
“Welming” when it knew very well that it was safer to have opened the
same gradually and earlier, as it was also undeniable that NPC knew of the
coming typhoon at least four days before it actually struck. And even
though the typhoon was an act of God or what we may call force majeure,
NPC cannot escape liability because its negligence was the proximate cause
of the loss and damage.
No. By the very evidence, petitioner is guilty of concurrent
or contributing negligence as provided in Art.1170 of the
Civil Code:
Those who in the performance of their obligation are guilty
of fraud, negligence or delay, and those who in any manner
contravene the tenor there of, are liable for damages. Also,
Art.2123 of the Civil Code provides that with regard to
pawnshops and other establishments which are engaged in
making loans secured by pledges, the special laws and
regulations concerning them shall be observed and
subsidiary, the provision on pledge ,mortgage and
antichresis.
The provision on pledge particularly Art.2099 of the Civil
Code provides that the creditor shall take care of the thing
pledge with the diligence of a good father of a family this
means that petitioner must take care of the pawns the way
a prudent person would as to his own personal property.