Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
L-63915
(Apr 24, 1985)
Quoting Tanada vs Tuvera: ...Administrative rules and petitioners witnesses and to present evidence, the case was
regulations must also be published if their purpose is to enforce submitted for decision.
or implement existing law pursuant also to a valid delegation.
Respondents appealed but failed to submit the required
printed copies of their record on appeal. Respondents also failed
to act on the appellate courts directive to show cause why their
appeal should not be dismissed.
The resolution dismissing respondents appeal became
final and executory on September 27, 1982, and a writ of
execution issued on February 1, 1983.
Roy vs. CA GR no. 80718
BP 129 (Sec. 39): No record on appeal shall be required
(Jan 29, 1988)
to take an appeal...
Interim of Rules of Court promulgated on Jan 11, 1983
Facts:
(Secs. 18): ...the filing of a record on appeal shall be dispensed
Petitioners firewall collapsed and destroyed the neighbouringwith...
tailoring shop owned by respondents, resulting in physical
(Sec. 19b): ...In appeals in special proceedings in
injuries and death. The RTC found petitioners guilty of accordance with Rule 109 of the Rules of Court and other cases
negligence and awarded damages accordingly, which decision wherein multiple appeals are allowed, the period of appeal shall
was echoed by the CA. On the last day to file an appeal, be 30 days, a record of appeal being required.
petitioners filed a motion for extension of time to file a motion
In a supplemental motion dated April 12, 1983,
for reconsideration, which was denied on the basis of a 1985 respondents maintained that since, under the present law,
jurisprudence that the 15-day period to file an appeal or aprinted records on appeal are no longer required, the rule on
motion for reconsideration cannot be extended. On August 30, technicalities should be relaxed and their right to appeal
1986, the SC resolution clarifying the matter was enforced.
upheld.
On July 29, 1983, the appellate court issued a resolution
Held:
seeking to revive the case.
Petitioners motion was filed on September 9, 1987. It is no
longer covered by the grace period running from June 30-AugustHeld:
30, 1986.
The right to appeal is merely a statutory privilege that
SC decisions do not have to be published in the Official Gazette may be exercised only in the manner provided for by law.
for them to be binding and effective. It is Counsels duty to keep
Quoting Alday vs. Camilon, Statues regulating the
informed on the recent developments in the judiciary.
procedure of the court will be construed as applicable to actions
pending and undetermined at the time of their passage.
Procedural rules are retrospective in that sense and to that
Mun. Govt of Coron vs. Carino
extent.
GR no. L-65894 (Sept 24, 1987)
Facts:
Jan 24, 1978. Pe leased the lot and its improvements from DBP
Tujan filed motion invoking his right to a preliminary
but failed to redeem it within the one year period. DBP then investigation, but during the hearing, his counsel withdrew the
sold the lot to spouses Benzonan on Sept 24, 1979.
same, stating his intention to file a motion to quash on ground
On July 12, 1983, Pe offered to repurchase the land from of double jeopardy. The same motion was granted insofar as
DBP. Upon denial, he filed a complaint for repurchase under Sec subversion is concerned without prejudice to the prosecution for
119 of CA 141. RTC and CA upon appeal both affirmed that the Illegal Possession of firearms.
land should be reconveyed to Pe.
Spouses Benzonan raised the issue of when to count the Held:
five-year period for repurchase from date of foreclosure sale or
At the time of Tujans arrest, the prevailing laws were PD
from expiration of one year period to redeem foreclosed 1866, which punished the illegal possession of firearms and
property?
makes the violation, when done in furtherance of, or incident
Section 119 of CA 141 provides: Every conveyance ofto, or in connection with, the crime of rebellion, insurrection, or
land acquired under the free patent or homestead provision, subversion, a qualifying circumstance to increase penalty to
when proper, shall be subject to repurchase by the applicant, death; and RA 1700, which penalizes any person who
his widow, or legal heirs, within a period of five years from the knowingly, wilfully, and by overt act affiliates with, becomes or
date of conveyance.
remains a member of a subversive association or organization.
In the Mongan and Tupas cases prevailing at the time the
No double jeopardy was found because Tujan was
lot was mortgaged, acquired in a foreclosure sale, and sold arrested for two different offenses springing from two different
subsequently to the Benzonan spouses, it was held that the laws.
five-year period should be counted from the date of the
The effectivity of RA 7636 on September 22, 1992 totally
foreclosure sale.
repealed RA 1700 while the present petition was pending in the
Reversing this decision was the Bellisiano case (1988)SC; and on June 6, 1997, RA 8294 amended PD 1866 to the
which held that the five-year period should be counted from the effect that violation thereof becomes bailable and the death
day after the expiration of the one-year period of repurchase penalty was replaced by 4 years 2 months 1 day to 6 years
allowed in an extrajudicial foreclosure.
imprisonment and a fine of 15,000.
Amending laws were held to have a retroactive effect
Held:
because (1) they are favourable to the accused (2) who is not a
Monge and Tupas cases hold in the instant case for habitual
offender.
The
charge
of
subversion,
now
when a doctrine of this Court is overruled and a different view decriminalized, should be dismissed, and the penalty under RA
adopted, the new doctrine should be applied prospectively and 8294 applied to the illegal possession charge.
should not apply to parties who had relied on the old doctrine
and acted on the faith thereof.
Aguillon vs. Director of Lands
People vs. Pimentel
GR no. 100210 (Apr 1, 1998)
Facts:
Facts:
Held:
punishable by death. However, the ratification of the 1987 stated that the amount in tuition and other fees corresponding
Constitution caused the death penalty to be abolished with the to [these] scholarships should not be subsequently charges to
qualifier that Congress may thereafter provide for it for the recipient students when they decide to quit school or to
compelling reasons involving heinous crimes. On January 1, transfer to another institution.
1994, Congress restored death penalty by virtue of RA no. 7659
Cui asked the Bureau of Private Schools to pass upon the
or the Death Penalty Law.
issue of his right to secure his transcripts without need of
When the 1987 Constitution immediately took effectrefunding Arellano. The Bureau upheld his position and advised
upon its ratification, the case was still in its trial stage.
Arellano, who, nonetheless, refused to issue the transcripts
without refund.
Held:
Arellano questioned the validity of the Memorandum,
The constitutional provision abolishing death penaltyholding that it was not a law; that the provisions are advisory,
obviously intended to give it a retroactive effect with the clause not mandatory; that the Director of Private Schools had no
...any death penalty imposed shall be reduced to reclusion authority to issue it and that, further, it has not been approved
perpetua.
by the corresponding department head not published in the
Since the retroactivity of a penal provision can be made Official Gazette.
effective during three possible stages of a criminal prosecution
(1-commission of the crime and start of the prosecution; 2- Held:
sentence has been passed but service not yet begun; and 3-The SC did not find it necessary to pass upon the validity of the
sentence is being carried out), the death sentence meted in the Memorandum since it found the disputed clause in the contract
present case shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
to be contrary to public policy; hence, null and void, since the
Also, the retroactive application of a law usually divests main purpose of awarding scholarships is to reward merit or to
rights that have already become vested (in this case, the aid gifted students, not to attract and keep them in school for
accuseds rights to be benefited by the abolition of the death the schools private propaganda.
penalty). [Hence] the rule that all statues are to be construed as
having only a prospective operation unless the purpose and Leal vs. IAC
intention of the legislature to give them a retrospective effect is GR no. L-65425 (Nov 5, 1987)
expressly declared or is necessarily implied from the language
used.
Facts:
On March 21, 1941, a compraventa was entered into
between Vicente and Luis Santiago and Cirilio Leal, involving
Cui vs. Arellano University
three parcels of land. Therein was contained the phrase (orig in
GR no. L-15127 (May 30, 1961)
Spanish) they shall not sell to others these three lots but only
to the seller Vicente Santiago or to his heirs or successors,
Facts:
referring to Cirilio Leals heirs.
Cui was a scholar of Arellano University. As a condition of
When Cirilio died in 1959, his children inherited the
his scholarship grant, he was made to sign a contract waiving subject lands, which they then either mortgaged or leased.
his right to transfer to another school without refunding Arellano Vicente Santiago approached the Leals and offered to
the equivalent of his scholarship in cash. He studied in Arellano repurchase the properties, but was refused. His complaint for
until the first semester of his fourth year whereupon he specific performance was dismissed by both the trial court and
transferred to Abad Santos University and finished his law the IAC, there being no sale or alienation equivalent to a sale
course there. In order to take the bar exam, he needed the yet. Later on, however, the IAC reversed its decision, ordering
transcripts of his records from Arellano, which were released the Leals to accept the offer of repurchase.
only after he had paid the monetary equivalent of the tuition
The issue now raised is whether the clause gives
fees refunded to him by virtue of the scholarship grant.
Santiago a right of repurchase.
On August 16, 1949, the Director of Private Schools
issued Memorandum No. 38, series of 1949, where in was Held:
Provisions that restrict the right of ownership, indefinite a motion to defer the approval of the compromise agreement,
as to time, are null as being against public order, under Art praying for its annulment on ground of fraud.
1255 of the Civil Code of Spain and Art 1306 of the Civil Code of
Issues raised were (1) the propriety of certiorari as a
the Philippines.
remedy, (2) the validity of the compromise agreement, and (3)
Even assuming the validity of the provision, the law the presence of fraud in the execution of the compromise
requires the vendor to reserve his right to repurchase the thing and/or collation of the properties sold [to Rosalias children by
sold in no uncertain terms, in order for a conventional Juan and Maria during their lifetime].
redemption to take place. There was no such reservation,
express or implied, in the compraventa.
Held:
Furthermore, the phrase en caso de venta should be
Certiorari was the proper remedy because the lower
construed to mean should the buyers wish to sell and not the courts exceeded its jurisdiction when, being only a probate
buyers should sell, in which case, Art 1508 of the Civil code of court, it adjudicated on the title to properties when all it had
Spain (Art 1606 of the Civil Code of the Philippines), applies, power to do was to determine whether the disputed properties
wherein is stated that the right to redeem of repurchase in the should be included in the inventory to be administered.
absence of an agreement as to time, shall last four years from
The compromise agreement and all the waivers therein
the date of the contract. Repurchase under this should have contained were binding. A compromise agreement is a contract
been done in 1945.
whereby the parties, making reciprocal concessions, avoid a
Assuming again that the phrase siempre y cuando estos litigation or put an end to one already commenced. Hence,
ultimos puden hacer de compra (when the buyer has money to judicial approval is not required for its perfection. In the present
buy) can be construed to be an agreement as to time, the case, however, the so-called compromise agreement actually
second paragraph of the same Articles provide that the right partakes more of the nature of a deed of partition. But since all
should exercised within ten years because the law does not its requisites are present (1-no will left by decedent; 2-no debt
favour suspended ownership. In this second case, Santiagos or all debts settled; 3-heirs and liquidators all of age or duly
right to repurchase has already expired, 1966 being 25 years represented if minors; and 4-partition done through public
from the date of contract.
instrument of affidavit duly filed with the register of Deeds) the
compromise agreement/partition is valid.
The contested waiver is also deemed valid because the
heirs waived a known and existing interest (their hereditary
Sanchez vs. CA and Lugod
right vested in them by the death of their father). Furthermore,
GR no. 108947 (Sept 29, 1997)
there is not legal obstacle to an heirs waiver of his/her
hereditary share even if the actual extent of such share is not
Facts:
determined until the subsequent liquidation of the estate. The
Spouses Juan and Maria begot an only child, Rosalia. Sanchezes have also already availed themselves of the benefits
Maria died first. Rosalia was named adminitratrix of her of the compromise. They are thus barred by judicial principle
property, as well of her fathers who was senile at that time. from asking for a recission of a compromise after enjoying their
Upon the death of Juan, his illegitimate children petitioned for benefits. Compromise entered into and carried out in good
administration of his estate, which was opposed by Rosalia. The faith will not be discarded even if there was a mistake of law or
parties entered into and executed a compromise agreement fact..
wherein they agreed to divide the enumerated properties of
Finally, with regards the alleged fraud, there was no
Juan. Item (8) of the same agreement stated that the Sanchezessufficient evidence proving the same. It cannot be presumed.
absolutely and irrevocably waive all their rights, interests, and Even arguing to the contrary, the alleged errors and deficiencies
shares in the property in favour of Rosalia, who was later named regarding the delivery of shares, concealment of properties and
administratrix of her fathers estate.
fraud are questions of fact not reviewable by the SC.
In 1970, Rosalia and the Sanchezes entered into and
executed a memorandum of agreement modifying the
compromise agreement. However, in 1979, the Sanchezes filed Allied Banking Corp vs CA
Orbecido should be considered capacitated to remarry. some illegality. When a right is exercised in a manner which
The legislative intention behind Article 26 was to avoid the does not conform with the norms enshrined in Article 19 and
absurd situation where the Filipino spouse is still considered results in damage to another, a legal wrong is thereby
married to an alien spouse who is no longer considered married committed for which the wrongdoer must be held responsible.
to him by virtue of a divorce decree obtained abroad.
Damnum absque injuria doesnt apply in abuse of rights.
Jurisprudence cited was Quita vs CA wherein the court hinted,
by way of obiter dictum, that a Filipino divorced by his
naturalized foreign spouse is no longer married under Philippine RCPI vs. CA
law and can thus remarry.
GR no. 79578 (March 13, 1991)
The reckoning point is not the citizenship of the parties
at the time of the celebration of marriage, but their citizenship Facts:
at the time a valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien
Spouses Timan sent a telegram of condolence through
spouse capacitating the latter to remarry.
RCPI. The telegram, however, was typed on a Happy Birthday
These, however, must be proven s that Filipino spouse card and placed inside a Christmasgram envelope. Spouses
may be granted the capacity to remarry:
sued for damages.
(1) Naturalization of the alien spouse;
(2) Fact of the divorce and its conformity to the foreignHeld:
RCPI is guilty of gross negligence, wanton misconduct,
law allowing it;
and
breach
of contract. The Timan spouses chose to send the
(3) The fact of such foreign law; and
telegram
through
a social form which provides for an
(4) That under such foreign law, the alien spouse is also
especially
decorated
form and envelope, and for which they
capacitated to remarry.
paid a premium. RCPIs excuse that it ran out of condolence
cards and envelopes is untenable, for it could have delivered
the message in ordinary form and reimbursed the difference of
Cebu Country Club vs. Elizagaque
costs.
GR no. 160273 (Jan 18, 2008)
In contracts and quasi-contracts, exemplary damages
may
be
awarded if the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent,
Facts:
San Miguel Corp, a special company proprietary memberreckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner. Gross carelessness
of CCCI, designated Elizagaque as a special non-proprietary or negligence constitutes wanton misconduct, which
member, which was approved by CCCIs BOD. Elizagaque later misconduct, performed by RCPI employees, must hold the
filed an applicationfor proprietary membership, purchased company liable, for punitive damages may be recovered for
proprietary shares and was issued a Proprietary Ownershipwilful or wantonly negligent acts in respect of messages, even
though those acts are neither authorized nor ratified.
Certificate.
The application was disapproved, prompting Elizagaque
to write several letters of reconsideration and inquiry as to the
status of his application. No reply was made by the BOD. Meralco vs CA
GR no. L-39019 (Jan 22, 1988)
Elizagaque filed for damages.
Facts:
The Chaves family was a customer of Meralco. They
CCCIs BOD members are liable for damages under the
were
presented
with two overdue bills by Yambao, a Meralco bill
principle of abuse of rights. They failed to print the amended
collector,
who
was
told that the bills would be paid at the
procedure (amended 20 years ago) for admission to the
Meralco
head
office.
One of the bills was thus paid on April 2,
Eligible-For-Membership list on the application form filled out
1965,
but
the
other
was
not.
by Elizagaque.
A right, though by itself legal because recognized or
granted by law as such, may nevertheless become the source of
Held:
purposes of remarriage, in order to do away with any continuing custom, public order, or public policy; (3) such is done with
uncertainty on the status of the second marriage.
INTENT to injure.
Thus, no recovery may be made under either article
because supposing Lim were guilty, it would only be of bad
Nikko Hotel Manila Garden and Ruby Lim vs Reyes aka judgment which, if done with good intentions, cannot amount to
Amay Bisaya
bad faith. Complaints based on either Article must necessarily
GR no. 154259 (Feb 28, 2005)
fail if it has nothing to recommend it but innuendoes and
conjectures.
Facts:
Lim, the Executive Secretary of the Nikko Hotel,
organized an exclusive party to which Filart was invited. Reyes Antonia de Jesus, et al. vs Cesar Syquia
alleged that he was a friend of Filarts and that when they met GR no. L-39110 (Nov 28, 1933)
at the lobby of the Nikko Hotel, she invited him to said party,
and that she could vouch for him. During the party, however, he Facts:
was loudly asked to leave by Lim, causing much embarrassment
Antonia begot a male child with Syquia. She presented
and humiliation.
evidence of Syquias recognition of the child by way of letters to
Lim, on the other hand, testified that she discreetly andthe priest who was christen it and several letters addressed to
privately asked Reyes to leave, and that it was he who made a Antonia while she was pregnant. When the child was born, he
scene. Although she did not ask Filart as to whether or not caused a doctor friend of his to attend to Antonia, shouldered
Reyes was of her (Filarts) party, Lim did speak to Filarts sister, expenses during her confinement at the hospital, and thereafter
who said that Filart did not invite Reyes.
lived with her as a common law wife. One year later, when
When Reyes sued for damages, the trial court found in Antonia was showing signs of a second pregnancy, Syquia left
favour of Nikko Hotel and Lim, while the CA held for Reyes.
her and subsequently became married to another girl. Antonia
sued for recognition of her two children, for breach of promise
Held:
to marry, and payment for their maintenance.
Upon review of the facts, the SC found Lims testimony
more credible. She, having been in the hotel business for 20Held:
years, cannot be conceived to be so rude, as such is frowned
Acknowledgement of a natural child does not necessarily
upon in favour of politeness and discretion. Furthermore, Reyes have to be done in a single document, addressed to one, or to
himself testified that when Lim asked him to leave, she was any particular individual. The only requirement is that the
very, very close to him. The court found it hard to believe that writing be indubitably that of the recognizing fathers. As to the
she should be shouting at him from such distance.
second child, there was no proof upon which a judgment could
The doctrine of volenti non fit injuria finds application. be based requiring the defendant to recognize it.
The doctrine refers to self-inflicted injury, or to the consent to
There is likewise no basis for damages for breach to
injury, which precludes recovery of damages by one who has promise, the same not having been satisfactorily proven.
knowingly and voluntarily exposed himself to danger, even Furthermore, breach of promise is not actionable, except for the
though he is not negligent in doing so.
right to recover money or property advanced by the plaintiff
Article 19, containing the principle of abuse of rights, is upon the faith of such promise.
not a panacea for all human hurts and social grievances. Its
standards are: (1) acting with justice; (2) giving everyone his
due; and (3) observing honesty and good faith. Its elements are: Magbanua, et. al., vs IAC and Perez
91) the existence of a legal right or duty; (2) exercise in bad GR nos. L-66870-72 (Jun 29, 1985)
faith of such legal right or duty; and (3) doing so for the sole
INTENT of prejudicing or injuring another.
Facts:
Article 21 refers to acts contra bonus mores and have
Petitioners are tenants of the private respondents, who
the elements: (1) legal act; (2) such is contrary to morals, good diverted the free flow of water from their farm lots, which
caused portions of their landholdings to dry up to their great included in the program, Ledesma let her graduate without
damage and prejudice, after which they were told to vacate honours, and only later instructed the registrar to enter into the
their respective areas for they could no longer plant palay for scholastic records of Delmo her honour.
lack of water.
Delmo and her parents sought damages, but in the
The trial court adjudicated in petitioners favour, which course of the proceedings, Delmo passed away. Her parents
was echoed by the CA with an amendment deleting the award thus represented her.
of moral and exemplary damages.
Held:
Held:
Ledesma is liable for damages. Even though he could not
Petitioners entitled to moral damages under Article 21, furnish Delmo a copy of the Directors decision, he should have
for it appears that the private respondents denied water for informed her of the same and included her name in the list of
their farm lots in an attempt to make them vacate said honour students, or at least met with her father to inform him of
landholdings. They are likewise entitled to exemplary damages the decision, or graduated Violeta Delmo with honours. His
because private respondents acted in an oppressive manner.
disobedience to the order of the Director, his superior,
prejudiced Delmos rights. Such disobedience smacks of
contemptuous arrogance, oppression and abuse of power.
Ledesma vs CA
Exemplary or corrective damages have the purpose of
GR no. 96914 (Jul 23, 1992)
proving an example or correction for the public good.
Facts:
said to have acted in good faith, which connotes an honest the client has been paid upon request or upon maturity of the
intention to abstain from taking undue advantage of another, placement, the banks obligation to said client remains
even though the forms and technicalities of the law, together unextinguished. Furthermore, it has been held that: Payment
with the absence of all information or belief of facts, wouldmade by debtor to a wrong party does not extinguish the
render the transaction unconscientious. The want of care to theobligation as to the creditor, if there is no fault or negligence
conscious disregard of civil obligations couple with a conscious which can be imputed to the latter. Even when the debtor acted
knowledge of the cause naturally calculated to produce them, in utmost good faith and by mistake as to the person of his
and conscious indifference to the rights or welfare of thecreditor, or through error induced by the fraud of a third person,
person(s) who may be affected by ones act or omission can the payment to one who is not in fact his creditor, or authorized
support a claim for damages by the one thus injured.
to receive such payment, is void...such payment does not
prejudice the creditor, and accrual of interest is not suspended
by it.
Allied Banking Corp vs Lim Sio Wan
The last indorser is liable for the amount in the
GR no. 133179 (March 27, 2008)
negotiable instrument even if a previous indorsement was
forged (by virtue of sections 65 and 66 of the Negotiable
Facts:
Instruments Code). Thus, a collecting bank that indorses a
Lim Sio Wan deposited a money market placement withcheck bearing a forged indorsement and presents it to the
Allied. Before its maturity, however, an officer of Allied received drawee bank guarantees all prior indorsements, including the
a phone call instructing her to pre-terminate Lim Sio Wans forged indorsement, and ultimately should be liable therefor.
placement, issue a check representing the proceeds thereof,The exception is when the issuance of the check itself was
and to give the check to one Santos, who was going to pick it attended with negligence, in which case th4e institution issuing
up. The check was crossed For Payees Account Only and thus the check becomes just as, or more, liable than the collecting
delivered to Santos. The same check was deposited in the bank.
account of FCC at Metrobank with Lim Sio Wans indorsement.
The question to be asked in determining proximate
FCC had earlier deposited a money market placementcause is: If the event did not happen, would the injury have
with Producers Bank, with Santos handling their account. When resulted? If the answer is NO, then the event is the proximate
placement matured, FCC demanded the proceeds. On the same cause.
day the Allied officer received the phone call, the mangers
As to the question of unjust enrichment. Article 22 of the
check was deposited in FCCs account, purportedly representing Civil Code provides that every person who through an act of
the proceeds of its placement in Producers.
performance by another, or any other means, acquires of comes
Metrobank guaranteed the check, which was funded by into possession of something at the expense of the latter
Allied without checking the authenticity of Lim Sio Wans without just cause or legal ground, shall return the same to
purported indorsement. It was only after more than six months him.
after funding the check that Allied informed Metrobank that the
Producers was unjustly enriched (when a person unjustly
signature was forged.
retains a benefit to the loss of another, or when a person retains
Upon the supposed maturity of the placement, Lim Sio money or property of another against the fundamental
Wan went to Allied to withdraw it, only to be informed that itprinciples of justice, equity and good conscience) because the
had been pre-terminated upon her instructions. This Lim Sio deposit made to FCC had the effect of terminating its
Wan denied, and upon which she sued Allied.
indebtedness to FCC.
FCC, on the other hand, cannot be held to have been
Held:
unjustly enriched, for when the check was deposited in its
Allied and Metrobank were both found guilty ofaccount purportedly from Producers, its placement with
negligence.
Producers had already matured, thus justifying the deposit.
The relationship between a bank and its client is one ofAlso, as it was not a party in any stage of the negotiation of the
debtor-creditor. The bank deposit (as well as a money market check, the forgery cannot be raised against it.
placement) is in the nature of a simple loan or mutuum. Until