Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
GR No. 186382
April 5, 2010
Article 1157 of the New Civil Code
FACTS:
The appellant, Domingo Paniterce, was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crimes of Rape and Acts of Lasciviousness. That sometime in 1997, the accused
with grave abused of confidence being the father of the victim with lewd designs by
means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously succeed in having carnal knowledge with his 10 years old daughter,
against her will and without her consent.
However, during the pendency of the case, the accused died at prison. A copy of the
death certificate was given to the court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the civil liability of the accused pending appeal is extinguished upon
his death.
HELD:
No. Death of the accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal liability and
only the civil liability directly arising from and based solely on the offense
committed. The claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of (the)
accused, if the same may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than
delict.
Article 1157 of the Civil Code enumerates these other sources of obligation from
which the civil liability may arise as a result of the same act or omission:
a) Law
b) Contracts
c) Quasi-contracts
d) Crimes or Acts or Omission Punished by law
e) Quasi-delicts
Hence, where the civil liability survives, an action for recovery therefor may be
pursued but only by way of filing a separate civil action to be enforced either
against the executor/administrator or the estate of the accused, depending on the
source of obligation upon which the same is based.
separate account. No law prohibited him from depositing the amount as he did and
no law changed his responsibility because of that act.
The stipulation is a not an option contract but a right of first refusal and as such the
requirement of a separate consideration for the option, has no applicability in the
instant case. The consideration is built in the reciprocal obligation of the parties. In
reciprocal contract, the obligation or promise of each party is the consideration for
that of the other. (Promise to lease in return of the right to first refusal)
With regard to the impossibility of performance, only Carmelo can be blamed for not
including the entire property in the right of first refusal. Court held that Mayfair may
not have the option to buy the property. Not only the leased area but the entire
property.
having made any judicial or extrajudicial demand for delivery before receipt of the
notice of turnover.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there was no delay on the part of petitioner Megaworld since there
was no demand from respondent Tanseco.
HELD:
Article 1169 of the Civil Code provides: xxx In reciprocal obligations, neither party
incurs in delay if the other does not comply or is not ready to comply in a proper
manner with what is incumbent upon him. From the moment one of the parties
fulfills his obligation, delay by the other begins. The Contract to Buy and Sell of the
parties contains reciprocal obligations, i.e., to complete and deliver the
condominium unit on October 31, 1998 or six months thereafter on the part of
Megaworld, and to pay the balance of the purchase price at or about the time of
delivery on the part of Tanseco. Compliance by Megaworld with its obligation is
determinative of compliance by Tanseco with her obligation to pay the balance of
the purchase price. Megaworld having failed to comply with its obligation under the
contract, it is liable therefor.
Moreover, Megaworld cannot avail itself of the benefits of Art. 1174 of the Civil Code
1997 Asian financial crisis cannot be generalized to be unforeseeable and beyond
the control of a business corporation. A real estate enterprise engaged in the preselling of condominium units is concededly a master in projections on commodities
and currency movements, as well as business risks. The fluctuating movement of
the Philippine peso in the foreign exchange market is an everyday occurrence,
hence, not an instance of caso
fortuito. Megaworld's excuse for its delay does not thus lie.
HELD:
Yes. The loan agreement implied reciprocal obligations.
Under Article 1169 of the New Civil Code, when one party is willing and ready to
perform, the other party not ready nor willing incurs in delay.
In the case at bar, Tolentino executed real estate mortgage, he signified willingness
to pay. That time, the banks obligation to furnish the P80K loan accrued. Now, the
Central Bank resolution made it impossible for the bank to furnish the P63K balance.
The prohibition on the bank to make new loans is irrelevant because it did not
prohibit the bank from releasing the balance of loans previously contracted.
Insolvency of debtor is not an excuse for non-fulfillment of obligation but is a breach
of contract. The bank was in default and Tolentino may choose bet specific
performance or rescission w/ damages in either case. But considering that the bank
is now prohibited from doing business, specific performance cannot be granted.
Rescission is the only remedy left, but the rescission should only be for the P63K
balance.