Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

The world’s largest digital library

0 0 RELATED TITLES
430 views

Digested Cases Civil Law


Uploaded by Hani Haniko on May 14,
2017

Digested cases on civil law from 2010


to 2014 Full description
Case Digest Sales Digest 4. Casum
Cortejo

Save Embed Share Print

Download Search document

VICTORIA S. JARILLO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES


G.R. No. 164435, Septembe@ !", !##".

The subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of one's marriage to


another cannot be considered a valid defense in the crime of bigamy. The
moment the former contracted a second marriage without the previous
one having been judicially declared null and void, the crime of bigamy
was already consummated because at the time of the celebration of the
second marriage, the =rst marriage has not yet been declared null and
void by a court of competent jurisdiction, and is thus still deemed valid
and subsisting.

FLORENCIA G. $IA% v. REP&'LIC OF THE PHILIPPINES


G.R. No. 1(15#!, Feb@)*@+ !, !#1#

In registration cases =led under the provisions of the Public @and


!ct for the judicial con=rmation of an incomplete and imperfect title, an
order dismissing an application for registration and declaring the land as
part of the public domain constitutes res judicata, not only against the
adverse claimant, but also against all persons.

!n amicable settlement or a compromise agreement is in the


nature of a contract and must necessarily comply with the provisions of
!rticle "#"$ of the %ew &ivil &ode which provides that there is no
contract unless the following requisites concurG (") &onsent of the
contracting parties* (+) Lbject certain which is the subject matter of the
contract* (#) &ause of the obligation which is established.

RAL-&N$O S. $E LEON v. 'ENITA T. ONG


G.R. No. 1N#4#5, Feb@)*@+ !, !#1#.
In a contract of sale, the seller conveys ownership of the property
to the buyer upon the perfection of the contract. -hould the buyer default
in the payment of the purchase price, the seller may either sue for the
collection thereof or have the contract judicially resolved and set aside.
The nonNpayment of the price is therefore a negative resolutory
condition. Ln the other hand, a contract to sell is subject to a positive
suspensive condition. The buyer does not acquire ownership of the
property until he fully pays the purchase price. /or this reason, if the
buyer defaults in the payment thereof, the seller can only sue for
damages.

There is a double sale where a property was sold validly on two


separate occasions by the same seller to the two di0erent buyers in good
faith. 1nder !rticle "233 of the &ivil &ode, when neither buyer
registered the sale of the properties with the registrar of deeds, the one
who too4 prior possession of the properties shall be the lawful owner
thereof.

THE CITL -ALOR OF 'AG&IO */0 THE HEA$ OF THE


$E-OLITION TEA- Q ENGR. NA%ITA 'A2E% v. ATTL. 'RAIN
-ASSENG, ReTUo/*V He*@U/T O7U8e@, NCIP9CAR, THE HEIRS OF

J&$ITH CARI2O, JAC:&ELINE CARI2O */0 t;e HEIRS OF -ATEO


CARI2O */0 'ALOSA ORTEGA
G.R. No. 165##3, Feb@)*@+ !, !#1#

5here one's ancestral land claims are still pending before the
%ational &ommission on Indigenous People (%&IP) for the validation, his
rights over said ancestral land, if any, are mere e6pectations. They are
not the present and unmista4able right required for the grant of the
provisional remedy of injunction.

$ORIS &. S&N'AN&N v. A&RORA '. GO


G.R. No. 163!(#, Feb@)*@+ !, !#1#.

1nder !rticle "723 of the &ivil &ode, the lessor is obliged to


maintain the lessee in the peaceful and adequate enjoyment of the lease
for the duration of the contract. 8ence, where the lessor ejected the
lodgers of the lessee without just cause and prior to the e6piration of
contract of lease, the former is liable for breach of contract. -ince said
act was also done in bad faith, moral and e6emplary damages may be
awarded.

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. v. CA */0 NATIVI$A$ */0


ENRI:&E AGANA
G.R. No. 1!6!"N, Feb@)*@+ !, !#1#

5here an employment relationship e6ists, the hospital may be held


vicariously liable under !rticle +"97 in relation to !rticle +"$: of the
&ivil &ode or the principle of respondeat superior. ;ven when no
employment relationship e6ists but it is shown that the hospital holds out
to the patient that the doctor is its agent, the hospital may still be
vicariously liable under !rticle +"97 in relation to !rticle "3#" and
!rticle "$7< of the &ivil &ode or the principle of apparent
authority. =oreover, regardless of its relationship with the doctor, the
hospital may be held directly liable to the patient for its own negligence
or failure to follow established standard of conduct to which it should
conform as a corporation.

SPO&SES -ORRIS CARPO */0 SOCORRO CARPO v. ALALA LAN$,


INCORPORATE$
G.R. No. 1665NN, Feb@)*@+ 3, !#1#.

@aches is the negligence or omission to assert a right within a


reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to
assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it. It does not
involve mere lapse or passage of time, but is principally an impediment to
the assertion or enforcement of a right, which has become under the
circumstances inequitable or unfair to permit.

NORTHSEST AIRLINES, INC. v. SPO&SES E$SAR$ J. HESHAN


AN$ NELIA L. HESHAN AN$ $ARA GANESSA L. HESHAN,
REPRESENTE$ 'L HER PARENTS E$SAR$ AN$ NELIA HESHAN

G.R. No. 1N"11N, Feb@)*@+ 3, !#1#.


=oral damages are neither intended to impose a penalty to the
wrongdoer nor to enrich the claimant. 5hile courts are given discretion
to determine the amount of damages to be awarded, it is limited by the
principle that the amount awarded should not be palpably and
scandalously e6cessive.

SPO&SES E&LOGIO N. ANTA%O */0 NELIA C. ANTA%O v.


LEONI$ES $O'LA$A, $IOS$A$O CELESTRA, LEOPOL$O
CELESTRA, FER$INAN$ CELESTRA, */0 RO'ERTO $O'LA$A
G.R. No. 1N("#(, Feb@)*@+ 4, !#1#
Prior physical possession is the primary consideration in a forcible
entry case. ! party who can prove prior possession can recover
such possession even against the owner himself. 5hatever may be the
character of his possession, if he has in his favor prior possession in time,
he has the security that entitles him to remain on the property until a
person with a better right lawfully ejects him. The party in peaceable
quiet possession shall not be thrown out by a strong hand, violence or
terror.

FLOR -ARTINE%, @ep@e<e/te0 b+ -ACARIO -ARTINE%,


*)t;o@U=e0 @ep@e<e/t*tUve */0 Atto@/e+9U/9F*8t v. ERNESTO G.
GARCIA */0 E$IL'ERTO -. 'R&A
Search Upload
G.R. No. 166536, Feb@)*@+ 4, !#1# EN

! 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
Home Download
the time of such purchase, or before he has notice Searchof document
the claims or
interest of some other person in the property. 8ence, where a judgment
creditor, in registering a notice of attachment in her favor over the
properties of his judgment debtor and noticed that a third party has
Saved already annotated an adverse claim over the same, he cannot be said to
be a buyer in good faith when he later buys the property at a public
auction. The previous inscription must prevail over the former.

G.G. SPORTSSEAR -AN&FACT&RING CORP. */0 NARESH >.


GI$SANI v. 'ANCO $E ORO &NI'AN>, INC., et *V.
Bestsellers G.R. No. 1(4434. Feb@)*@+ (, !#1#

>The test for issuing a T?L or an injunction is whether the facts


Books show a need for equity to intervene in order to protect perceived rights in
equity. In general, a higher court will not set aside the trial court>s grant
or denial of an application for preliminary injunction unless it gravely
abused its discretion as when it lac4s jurisdiction over the action, ignores
Audiobooks relevant considerations that stic4 out of the parties> pleadings, sees the
facts with a blurred lens, ignores what is relevant, draws illogical
conclusions, or simply acts in random fashion.>

Magazines

Documents

Sheet Music

You're reading a preview. Unlock full access with a free trial. Download
Pages 4 to 29 are not shown in this preview. With Free
Trial

HEIRS OF ESTELITA '&RGOS9LIPAT v. HEIRS OF E&GENIO $.


TRINI$A$
G.R. No. 1(5644. -*@8; !, !#1#
>The oneNyear redemption period applied by the &! is the rule that
generally applies to foreclosure of mortgage by a ban4. The period of
redemption is not tolled by the =ling of a complaint or petition for
Thisconducted
annulment of the mortgage and the foreclosure sale document is...
pursuant
Read
to books,
the saiaudiobooks,
d mortgagande. 8more
owever, considering the e6ceptional
circumstances
Scribd surrounding this Useful
case, we will not Not
apply the rule in useful
this
instance
½ pro hac vice.> View
GET — On the App Store

HEIRS OF JOSE LI-, @ep@e<e/te0 b+ ELENITO LI- v. J&LIET


VILLA LI-
G.R. No. 1N!6"#, -*@8; 3, !#1#.

! partnership e6ists when two or more persons agree to place


their money, e0ects, labor, and s4ill in lawful commerce or business, with
theHEIRS
unders OF
tanEST
dingELIT
thatA the
'&RGOS9LIP
re shall beAaT prov. HEIRS
portiona OFte E&GE
sharinNIO
g of $.
the
TRINI$A$
pro=ts and losses among them. ! contract of partnership is de=ned by
the &ivil &ode
>The as one
oneNyear G.R.
whereNo.two
redemptio n1(5644.
or more
period -*@8; !,the
persons
applied by !#1#
bind themselves
&! is to
the rule that
con tribute mo ney, pro perty, or ind ustry to a com mo n
generally applies to foreclosure of mortgage by a ban4. The period of fun d, with the
intention
redemption of dividing
is not to You're Reading a Preview
the pro=ts
lled by thamong
e =linthemselves.
g of a complaint or petition for
annulment of the mortgage and the foreclosure sale conducted pursuant
to the said mortgCAR-EN age. 8owe$EL ver, PRA$O
conside v.ring the e6ceptional
SPO&SES ANTONIO Unlock L. full access
CA'ALLERO with
*/0a free trial.
LEONAR$A
circumstances surrounding this case, we will not apply the CA'ALLERO
rule in this
G.R.
instance pro hac vice.> No. 14(!!5, -*@8; 3, !#1#.

Download With Free Trial


In the case where the area of an immovable is stated in the
contract based on an estimate, the actual area delivered may not
measure up e6actly with the area stated in the contract. !ccording to
HEIRS
!rticle "23+ OFofJOS
theE&ivil
LI-, @ep@e<e/
&ode, in thete0
saleb+ofELENI TO LI-
real estate, v. J&LIET
made for a lump
sum and not at the rate of a certain VILLA LI-
sum for a unit of measure or number,
there shall
! partnership G.R.
be no increaseNo.or1N!6"#,
e6ists when two-*@8;
decrease of the
or 3,price,
more !#1#. although
persons agree there be a
to place
greater or less
their money, areas labor,
e0ects, or number thanin
and s4ill that stated
lawful in the contract.
commerce or business, with
the understanding that there shall be a proportionate sharing of the
pro=ts5here both among
and losses the area and !the
them. boundaries
contract of the immovable
of partnership is de=nedareby
dec lared, the area cov ere d wi thin the bound aries
the &ivil &ode as one where two or more persons bind themselves of the immovabto le
pre vails ov er the stated are a. In cases of con @ic t
contribute money, property, or industry to a common fund, with thebetwe en areas and
boun daries,
intention it is thethe
of dividing latter whiamong
pro=ts ch should prevail. 5hat really de=nes a
themselves.
piece of ground is not the area, calculated with more or less certainty,
mentioned in its description, but the boundaries therein laid down, as
enclosing the land and indicating its limits.
CAR-EN $EL PRA$O v.
SPO&SES ANTONIO L. CA'ALLERO */0 LEONAR$A CA'ALLERO
-ARIAIn VIRGI
the caseG.R.
NIA V. No.
whereRE-O14(!!5,
the varea
. THE -*@8;
of HONORA3, !#1#.
'LE
an immovab le SECRET ARL
is stated in OF
the
contractFOREIGN
based onAFF
anAIRS , G.R.
estima te, No
the. 16"!#
actual!,are
-*@8;
a deli5, !#1#.
vered may not
measure up e6actly with the area stated in the contract. !ccording to
!rticle-e ctionof 2(d
"23+ the) &ivil
of ?! $+#<
&ode, in >li
themisale
ts the instan
of real ces whe
estate, n for
made a ma rried
a lump
woman may be allowed to revert to the use of her maiden name
sum and not at the rate of a certain sum for a unit of measure or number in her,
pa
there shall be no increase or decrease of the price, although there beee
ss port.> Th es e in stan ces ar e de at h of hu sband, divorce decr a,
annulment or nullity of marriage.
greater or less areas or number than that stated in the contract.

5here both the area and the boundaries of the immovable are
declared, the area covered within the boundaries of the immovable
prevails over the stated area. In cases of con@ict between areas and
boundaries, it is the latter which should prevail. 5hat really de=nes a
piece of ground is not the area, calculated with more or less certainty,
mentioned in its description, but the boundaries therein laid down, as
enclosing the land and indicating its limits.

-ARIA VIRGINIA V. RE-O v. THE HONORA'LE SECRETARL OF


FOREIGN
-ection 2(d) AFF
of AIRS
?! $+, G.R.
#< >liNo. 16"!#
mits !, tan
the ins -*@8; 5, !n#1#.
ces whe a married
SPO&SES
woman may beNOR-AN
allowed to>. CERTE%A,
revert to the JR.
use */0 -A.
of her ROSANILA
maiden V. her
name in
CERTE%A, A-A$A P . VILLA-ALOR */0 HER-INIO VILLA-ALOR,
passport.> These instances are death of husband, divorce decree,
JR.of
annulment or nullity v. marriage.
PHILIPPINE SAVINGS 'AN>
G.R. No. 1"##N(, -*@8; 5, !#1#.

The requirement for at least two participating bidders provided in the


original version of paragraph 2 of !.=. %o. <<N":N:2N: is not found in !ct %o.
#"#2. The twoNbidder rule is provided under P.A. %o. "2<3 and its
implementing rules with respect to contracts for government infrastructure
projects because of the public interest involved. !lthough there is a public
interest in the regularity of e6trajudicial foreclosure of mortgages, the private
interest is predominant.

LEIGHTON CONTRACTORS PHILIPPINES, INC. v. CNP


IN$&STRIES, INC.
G.R. No. 16#"N!, -*@8; ", !#1#.
In a contract for a piece of wor4, a claim for the cost of additional
wor4SPO&SES NOR-AN
arising from changes>. in CERTE%A,
the scope ofJR. */0
wor4 -A.
can ROSANILA
only be allowedV.upon
CERTE%A, A-A$A P. VILLA-ALOR */0 HER-INIO
theG (") written authority from the developer or project owner VILLA-ALOR,
ordering or
allowing the writteJR.nv.cha
PHILIPPINE
nges in wor4 SAVINGS
and (+)'AN>
written agreement of
partiesThe
with regardG.R.
to No.
the 1"##N(,
increase in -*@8;
price or5, !#1#.
cost due to provided
requirement for at least two participating bidders the change in
in the
wor4 orversion
original You're Reading a Preview
designofmodi=cation.
paragraph 2 of The absence
!.=. of one or
%o. <<N":N:2N: is the other in
not found condition
!ct %o.
bars the recovery of additional costs.
#"#2. The twoNbidder rule is provided under P.A. %o. "2<3 and its
implementing rules with respect to contracts for government infrastructure
Unlock full access with a free trial.
projects because of the public interest involved. !lthough there is a public
TEOFISTO
interest in the O2O, PRECL
regularity O. NA-'ATAC,
of e6trajudicial VICTORIA
foreclosure O. -AN&GAS
of mortgages, the private
*/0 POLOR
interest is predominant. O . CONSOLACION v. VICENTE N . LI-
G.R. No. 154!N#, -*@8; ", !#1#.
Download With Free Trial
Buieting of title is a common law remedy for the removal of any
cloud, doubt, or uncertainty a0ecting title to real property. 5henever
there is LEIGHTON
a cloud on C ONTRACTOR
title S PHILIPPINES
to real property or any interest, INC.in vreal
. CNPproperty
by reason of any instrument, IN$&STRIE S, INC.
record, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding
that isIn a contractG.R.
apparently for aNo.
valid or 16#"N!,
e0ective,
piece -*@8;
but
of wor4, ais, in",truth
claim !#1#. andcost
for the in fact, invalid,
of additional
ine0ective, voidable, or unenforceable, and may be
wor4 arising from changes in the scope of wor4 can only be allowed prejudicial to upon
said
title, an written
theG (") action may be brought
authority to remove
from the such
developer orcloud
project or owner
to quiet the title.
ordering or
allowing the written changes in wor4 and (+) written agreement of
partiesPrescription
with regard , in
togeneral, is a min
the increase ode of acquiring
price or cost due or losing
to the own ership
change in
and other real rights through the lapse of time in the
wor4 or design modi=cation. The absence of one or the other condition manner and under
the
barsconditions laidof
the recovery down by law.costs.
additional

JOCELLN -. S&A%O v. ANGELITO S&A%O */0 REP&'LIC OF


THEPHILIPPINES
TEOFISTO O2O, PRECL
G.R. No. O. NA-'ATAC,
1644"3, VICTORIA
-*@8; 1#, !#1#. O. -AN&GAS
*/0 POLOR O. CONSOLACION v. VICENTE N. LI-
8abitual
Buieting of G.R. isNo.
drun4enness,
title 154!N#,
a common -*@8;
gambling
lawand ", !#1#.
refusal
remedy for to
the=nd a job,ofwhile
removal any
ind icativ
cloud, e of or
doubt, psychological inc
uncertainty apacity,title
a0ecting do to not, byproperty.
real themselv es, show
5henever
psycholog ical incapacity . !ll these simply indicate di0iculty, neglect
there is a cloud on title to real property or any interest in real property or
m ere refu sal to pe rf o rm m arital ob ligations that, as
by reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding the cite d
jurisprudence holds, cannot be considered to be constitutiv
that is apparently valid or e0ective, but is, in truth and in fact, invalid, e of
ps ychologicavoidable,
ine0ective, l incapaci ortyunenforceable,
in the absenc ande may
of pr ooprejudicial
be f that thes e said
to are
title, an action may be brought to remove such cloud or to quiet the title.

Prescription, in general, is a mode of acquiring or losing ownership


and other real rights through the lapse of time in the manner and under
the conditions laid down by law.

JOCELLN -. S&A%O v. ANGELITO S&A%O */0 REP&'LIC OF


THEPHILIPPINES
G.R. No.
8abitual drun4enness,1644"3, -*@8;
gambling 1#, !#1#.
and refusal to =nd a job, while
indicative of psychological incapacity, do not, by themselves, show
manifestations of an incapacity
psychological incapacity rooted
. !ll these in some
simply debilitating
indicate psychological
di0iculty, neglect or
condition or illness.
mere refusal to perform marital obligations that, as the cited
jurisprudence holds, cannot be considered to be constitutive of
TITAN
psyc CONSTR&CTION
hologica l incapacity in CORP
the .abv.se-AN&EL
nce of pr A.oo$AVI$,
f that SR.thes*/0
e are
-ARTHA S. $AVI$
G.R. No. 16"54(, -*@8; 15, !#1#.

!ll property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal


partnership, unless it be proved that it pertains e6clusively to the
husband or to the wife. Lne is not required to prove that the property
was acquired with funds of the partnership. ? ather, the presumption
applies even when the manner in which the property was acquired does
not appear. /ailure to overturn such presumption, the property is deemed
to be part of the conjugal partnership. 8ence, in conveying the same, the
consent of both spouses is required. !bsent the consent of one spouse
would render the sale null and void.

'AN> OF THE
manifestations PHILIPPINE
of an ISLAN
incapacity rooted in$S v. RELNAL$
some debilitatingR. S&ARE%
psychological
G.R.
condition or illness. No. 16NN5#, -*@8; 15, !#1#.
%egligence is de=ned as >the omission to do something which a
reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily
reguTITAN
late thCONSTR&CTION
e conduct of huCORP man a0 . v.airs
-AN&EL
, would A. do$AVI$,
, or theSR. */0
doin g of
You're Reading a Preview
-ARTHA S . $A VI$
something which a prudent man and reasonable man could not do.>
!ll propertyG.R. of theNo. 16"54(,
marriage is -*@8;
presumed 15,to!#1#.
belong to the conjugal
The following are the conditions
partnership, unless it be proved that it pert for the award
ains e6 of clmoral
usiveldamagesG
y to the
(") the re is an Unlock
in jury >full
5 access
8; T8; with
? L a
? free
husband or to the wife. Lne is not required to prove thatalthe
% L trial.
T p hy sic , mproperty
ental or
psychological
was acquired >with clearly sustained
fund s of the by the
part nersclaimant* (+) rthe
hip. ? athe , theculpable
presumpacttion
or
omission is factually established* (#) the wrongful act
applies even when the manner in which the property was acquired does or omission of the
defendant
not appear.is/ailure
the pro6imate cause of the injury sustained by theisclaimant*
and (3) the award ofDownload With Free Trial
to overturn
damages
such
is
presumption,
predicated on
to be part of the conjugal partnership. 8ence, in conveying any
the property
of the cases
deemed
statedthe
the same, in
article ++"< of the civil code.
consent of both spouses is required. !bsent the consent of one spouse
would render the sale null and void.

LL$IA L. ROA v. HEIRS OF SANTIAGO E'ORA, et *V


G.R. No. 16113N, -*@8; 15, !#1#.
'AN> OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLAN$S v. RELNAL$ R. S&ARE%
%egligence G.R.
The claim of No.
ind
is de=ned16NN5#,
efeasibilit
as >the-*@8;
y of 15,
the pe
omission to!#1#.
tition
doer>s title und
somethin er the
g which a
Torrens
reasonablandle mantitle, system
guided wouldupon be thocorrect
se conif aera
sid previous
tions whi validch title to the
ordina rily
same
regulaparcel
te theofco land
nduc did nothu
t of e6ist.
manIf a0 theai=rst
rs, woregistered
uld do, owner
or thehad doainvalid
g of
title and never
something whichparted
a prudentwith manit nor handed or man
and reasonable delivered to anyone
could not do.> its
owner>s duplicate of the transfer certi=cate of title, he should not be
faultedThe forfollowing
any act are which, without hisfor
the conditions 4nowledge
the award , brought
of moral about
damagesGthe
issuance of another certi=cate upon which
(") there is an injury > 58;T8;? L? %LT physical, mental or a purchaser in good faith and
for value could
psychological > rely . If the
clearly title ofby
sustained purchaser in good
the claimant* faithculpable
(+) the and for act value
or
will be upheld,
omission then established*
is factually registered owners (#) the without
wrongfulthe actleast fault onoftheir
or omission the
part could is
defendant bethe
divested
pro6imateof their
cause title
of and deprived
the injury of theirby
sustained property. -uch
the claimant*
disastrous results which would sha4e and destroy
and (3) the award of damages is predicated on any of the cases stated the stability of land
in
tarticle
itles h a d no t b e e n
++"< of the civil code.f ore s e en b y th ose w h o h a d e n do w e d with
indefeasibility land titles issued under the Torrens system.

LL$IA L. ROA v. HEIRS OF SANTIAGO E'ORA, et *V


G.R.
The claim of No.
ind 16113N,
efeasi -*@8;
bility of 15,
the pe !#1#.
titioner>s title under the
Torrens land title system would be correct if a previous valid title to the
same parcel of land did not e6ist. If the =rst registered owner had a valid
title and never parted with it nor handed or delivered to anyone its
owner>s duplicate of the transfer certi=cate of title, he should not be
faulted for any act which, without his 4nowledge, brought about the
issuance of another certi=cate upon which a purchaser in good faith and
for value could rely. If the title of purchaser in good faith and for value
will be upheld, then registered owners without the least fault on their
part could be divested of their title and deprived of their property. -uch
disastrous results which would sha4e and destroy the stability of land
titles had not been foreseen by those who had endowed with
indefeasibility land titles issued under the Torrens system.

S&LPICIO LINES, INC. v. $O-INGO E. C&RSO,


-ELECIO E. C&RSO, SEG&N$O E. C&RSO, VIR
$IOS$A$A E. C&RSO, */0 CECILIA E
G.R. No. 15N##", -*@8; 1N, !#1

!s a general rule, moral damages are not re


for damages predicated on a breach of contract, unl
bad faith. !s an e6ception, moral damages may be
breach of contract of carriage that results in the deat
accordance with !rticle "973, in relation to !rticle +
&ode. The foregoing legal provisions set forth the
moral damages. The omission from !rticle ++:7 (#)
sisters of the deceased passenger reveals the legislat
You're
them from Reading
the a Preview
recovery of moral damages for menta
of the death of the deceased. Inclusio unius est e6clus
Unlock full access with a free trial.

Download With Free Trial


PAN PACIFIC SERVICE CONTRACTORS, INC. */
S&LPICIO
ROSARIO LINES,
v. E:&ITINC. v. $O-INGO
A'LE PCI 'AN> E. C&RSO,
?@o@me@V+
-ELECIO E. C&R
CO--ERCIAL SO, SEG&N$O E.
INTERNATIONAL C&RSO
'AN>a , VIR
G.R. N
$IOS$A$A E. C&R1(, SO,!#1#.
*/0 CECILIA E
G.R.
!s a general No.
rule, 15N##",
moral -*@8;
damages are1N,
not!#1
re
!rticle predicated
for damages "<27 of the on&ivil &ode,ofwhich
a breach refers
contract, unlto
speci=cally
bad faith. !smandates that no
an e6ception, moralinterest shall may
damages be due
be
e6pressly stipulated
breach of contract ofin writing.that
carriage Therefore, payment
results in the deato
is allowed only
accordance withifG!rticle
(") there wasinanrelation
"973, e6presstostipulation
!rticle +
interest* and (+) the agreement for the payment
&ode. The foregoing legal provisions set forth the of in
in writing.
moral The concurrence
damages. The omission of the!rticle
from two conditions
++:7 (#)
payment
sisters of of
themonetary
deceased interest.
passenger reveals the legislat
them from the recovery of moral damages for menta
of the death of the deceased. Inclusio unius est e6clus

SPO&SES -ELCHOR */0 SAT&RNINA AL$E


'ERNAL, OLL-PIA '. ERNAL, J&ANITO '. 'ER
$. 'ERNAL
PAN PACIFIC SER VICE
G.R. No.CONTRAC
16"336, TORS
-*@8;, INC. */
1(, !#1
ROSARIO v. E:&ITA'LE PCI 'AN> ?@o@me@V+
CO--ERCIAL
?egistrationINTERNATIONAL 'AN>a
is not the equivalent of G.R.
title, N
b
evidence thereof.
!rticle "<27Title as a&ivil
of the 1(,
concept !#1#.
of which
&ode, ownership
referssho
to
with the certi=cate
speci=cally mandates of title
thatasno
evidence
interestofshall
such beowners
due
e6pressly stipulated in writing. Therefore, payment o
is
of allowed
an onlyorifGas
injured, (")
a there was anfor
punishment e6press
those stipulation
guilty of o
PEOPLEand
interest* OF (+)
THE thePHI LIPPINES
agreement forv.the-ARCELO
payment of'&in
The'ALim&LOT
position of e6emp$ELOS
, RICHAR$ lary dam ages is
TRINO also jus
,conditions
HER-IN
in writing. The
+++< of the &ivil concurrence
&ode in order of the two
to setSALVA$OR
an e6ample for
SORIANO
payment of monetary */0 EL-ER
interest. ?*pt
G.R. No. 1N!35N, -*@8; 1", !#1
THE -&NICIPALITL
1nder !rticle ++#: OFofHAGONOL,
the &ivil &ode,'&LACAN,
e6empla@
HON. FELIB
awarded V. OPLE,
in criminal cases -)/U8Up*
when the V -*+o@
crime, */0
was FELcom
pe@<o/*V 8*p*8Ut+ v . HON.
more aggravating circumstances, (in this case, SI-EON P. $&-$
8*p*8Ut+ This
strength). *< t;e P@e<U0U/TtoJ)0Te
is intended serve o@as t;e REGIONA
deterrent to s
'RANCH
and SPO&SES
as N, CE'
vindication & undue
-ELCHOR
of CITLc */0 HON . CLER>
SAT&RNINA
su0erings OF AL$E
and wantonCO&R in
SHERIFF o@ t;e REGIONAL
'ERNAL, OLL-PIA '. ERNAL, J&ANITO '. 'ER TRIAL CO&RT o@ C
CLER> OF CO&RT D EB9OFFICIO $. 'ERNAL SHERIFF OF
TRIAL CO&RT o@ '&LACAN
G.R. No.the 16"336,*/0 ;U< $EP&TIESc
-*@8; 1(, !#1
You're Reading
?egistration isa Preview
GO >O LI- CHAO, $OING '&SINESS &N$ERb
not equivalent of title,
evidence thereof. Title as a concept of ownership sho
STLLE >$ S&RPL&< G.R. No. 16(!(", -*@
Unlock full access with a free trial.
with the certi=cate of title as evidence of such owners
The -tatute of /rauds found in paragraph (+),
&iv
of an Download
il injured,
&od e, req With
or uir a Free
as es forTrial
enforcea
punishment forbilthose
ity cer tain of
guilty coo
therein
The impo tosit
be
ionevidenced
of e6empby larysome
damnoteages or is memoran
also jus
noncompliance
PEOPLE
+++< of theOF THE
&ivil withdethis
&oPHI requirement
inLIPPINES
order to setv. an is ample
-ARCELO
e6 simplyfor tha
'& t
enforced
'AL&LOT under the given$ELOS
, RICHAR$ contracts. TRINOIf an, HER-IN
action is n
court, it shall warrant a*/0
SORIANO dismissal,
EL-ERunless SALVA$OR there has ?*pb
total or partial performance
G.R. of the obligation
No.of1N!35N, -*@8; on !#1
1", the
1nder !rticle ++#: the &ivil &ode,
In the latter case, the case is e6cluded from the cov e6empla
awarded
THEissal
dism sinbase
criminal
-&NICIPALITL d on cases when
OFforce
unen HAGONOL, the
abil ity crime rwas
'&LACAN,
unde the com
sta@
mo
HONre . party
either aggrav
FELIB at
mayV.inthen
g cienforce
OPLE, rcum stanitsceclaims
-)/U8Up* s,V -*+o@
(in against
th,is*/0ca se,o
FEL
the
strength).
pe@<o/*VThis8*p*8Ut+
is intended to serve
v. HON. as deterrent
SI-EON P. $&-$ to s
and as vindication
8*p*8Ut+ of undue su0erings
*< t;e P@e<U0U/T J)0Te o@ t;e and REGIONA
wanton in
'RANCH
PEOPLE N, OFCE'
THE & PH
CITL c HON. CLER>
ILIPPINES OF CO&R
v. ANTHONL
SHERIFF o@ t;e REGIONAL
G.R. TRIAL
No. 1(4(#", CO&RT
-*@8; o@ C
!", !#1
CLER> OF CO&RT D EB9OFFICIO SHERIFF OF
TRIAL ThCO&RT
ere are o@tw'&LACAN
o legal ba*/0
ses ;U<
for $EP&TIESc
awarding e
GO >O
!rticles LI-and
++#: CHAO,+++<$OING
of the '&SINESS &N$ER
&ivil &ode. !lso 4no
STLLE
>vindictive>
The >$ S&RPL&<
damages,
-tatute G.R.or
e6emplary
of /rauds foundNo. 16(!(",dama
incorrective
paragraph -*@
(+),
serve
&ivil &odas ae,deterrent
requires toforserious
enforceawrong
bilitydoings,
certainand co
undue su0erings and wanton invasion
therein to be evidenced by some note or memoran of the right
punishment
noncompliance for those
with guilty of outrageous
this requirement is conduct.
simply tha
enforced under the given contracts. If an action is n
L&CITA
court, it shall warrant A. CANTOJA
a dismissal, v. HARR
unless there L hasS.b
G.R. No. 16(3(6,
total or partial performance -*@8; !",
of the obligation on !#1
the
In the latter case, the case is e6cluded from the cov
dismissalThes owner
based ofonthe property
unen adjoining
forceabil ity undeforeshore
r the sta
or lands covered with water bordering
either party may then enforce its claims againstupon shores
the oo
la4es or rivers, shall be given preference to ap
adjoining his property as may not be needed for
subject to the laws and regulations governing lands
reason for that preferential right is the same as
giviPEOPLE
ng accret OF THE
ions toPHthILIPPINES
e riparian v.owANTHONL
ner, which
compen sat
Th eres
e ar e G.R.
the tw No.
ripoari
lega1(4(#",
an low ner
ba -*@8;
ses for
fo r the
awar !",
di !#1
min
ding utieo
su0ers by
!rticles reason
++#: andof+++<
the destructive
of the &ivilforce
&ode. of !lso
the wate
4no
littoral lands, he who loses by the encroachments
>vindictive> damages, e6emplary or corrective dama of
by its recession.
serve as a deterrent to serious wrong doings, and
undue su0erings and wanton invasion of the right
punishment for FLOR$ELI%A E-ILIO v. conduct.
those guilty of outrageous 'IL-A RA

L&CITA A. CANTOJA v. HARRL S.


G.R.
The owner of theNo. 16(3(6,
property -*@8;foreshore
adjoining !", !#1
or lands covered with water bordering upon shores o
la4es or rivers, shall be given preference to ap
adjoining his property as may not be needed for
subject to the laws and regulations governing lands
reason for that preferential right is the same as
giving accretions to the riparian owner, which
compensates the riparian owner for the diminutio
su0ers by reason of the destructive force of the wate
littoral lands, he who loses by the encroachments of
by its recession.

FLOR$ELI%A E-ILIO v. 'IL-A RA