Song Fo and Company vs. Hawaiian Philippine Company Gr. No.

23769
Ponente: Justice George Malcolm

Song Fo and Company contracted Hawaiian Philippine Company to provide the former with some molasses.
Song Fo paid some of its obligation on time, while some payments are around 20 days late. Despite some of
these delays, Hawaiian continued to supply molasses to Song Fo.
Sometimes in 1983, Hawaiian sent a letter to Song Fo, rescinding the contract of the delivery of molasses.
This prompted Song Fo to file a case for breach of contract against Hawaiian. In its defense, Hawaiian contended
that due to the default of the payment by Song Fo, they were forced to cancel the contract.

Issue: Whether or not the recession of the contract is justified.

Cetus Development vs. Court of Appeals GR No. 77648

Ponente: Justice Leo Medialdea

Private respondents are lessors of the premises owned by Susana Realty. The lease agreement was done
verbally and rentals are collected monthly by a collector.
In March 1984, Susana Realty sold the property to Cetus Development. The respondents continued to pay their
rentals to Cetus through its collector. However, from July – September 1984, no collector came. As they don’t know
where to pay, one of the respondents called the petitioner and was told that someone will come to get the rent but
no one came to collect them. As a result, respondents failed to pay the rent for those three months.
Not long after, respondents received a uniform demand letter which demanded payments of the unpaid rentals
and ordering them to vacate the premises within 15 days. Despite payment of unpaid rentals, Centus still proceeded
with the ejectment case for respondent’s failure to vacate the premises.

Issue: Whether or not there was a cause of action for the ejectment case?

Aerospace Chemical Industries vs. Court of Appeals GR No. 108129

Ponente: Justice Leonardo Quisumbing

Petitioner Aerospace bought 500MT of sulfuric acid from respondent Philphos. It was agreed that 100MT will
be picked up from respondent’s land ports at Basay and the 400MT will be picked up from Sangl, Toledo City. It was
also agreed that the petitioner shall secure the means to transport the orders.
On august 6 1986, respondents sent an advisory letter reminding the petitioners to withdraw its sulfuric
acid at Basay as they have incurred incremental expenses of P2,000 each day of delay.
On November 19 1986 petitioner chartered MT sultan Kayumanggi to withdraw the sulfuric acid to the
designated load ports. Due to some defects, it was only able to withdraw 70MT of sulfuric acid at Basay and only
158Mt at Sangi, Toledo. It eventually sank carrying with 228 MT of sulfuric acid.
Subsequently, petitioner hired/ chartered another vessel, MT Don Victor which can carry at most 500MT to
withdraw the remaining sulfuric acid left unloaded due to sultan Kayumanggi’s sinking.
In its desire to utilize the ship to its full capacity, petitioner ordered another 228MT of sulfuric acid,
the same amount carried by MT Kayumanggi when it sank. The petitioner paid the said order.
Respondent wrote a letter stating that it could not accommodate the said order as there was lack of supply
as of the moment. Petitioner likewise failed to lift the remaining sulfuric acid and instead demanded delivery of
the additional order from respondent.
Later petitioner filed an action for damages against respondent. Respondents countered by stating that
because of petitioner’s delay loading the sulfuric acid, they suffered incremental expenses and asked for damages
as well.
The trail court dissolved the petitioner, stating that the sinking was due to force majeur and it was
defendant’s obligation to replace those quantities lost by the sinking.
The CA reversed the trial court’s decision. Hence this petition. In this petition, Aerospace posed the
following arguments:
1. The sinking was due to force majeur
2. By paying the purchase price ahead of time, they already complied with the initial condition under the
sales contract.
3. By the time the ship is ready to made the orders, it was respondents who filled to comply with their
obligations.

Issue: Whether or not petitioners are liable to pay damages?