FERNANDO, Quinnee Elissa S.

2019-04786
Persons and Family Relations – JD 1-7

Ticklers:
A. Read the cases of Garcia vs. CA 212 SCRA 436 and G.F. Equity, Inc. vs. Arturo
Valenzona G.R. No. 156841.

1. Was there abuse of right in the two cases?

In the case of Garcia v. CA, G.R. No. 133140, the abuse of right was when the
petitioner claim that the subject property sold to the Magpayo spouses was in his
possession. However, the records shows record shows that petitioner occupied the
property not in the concept of an owner for his stay was merely tolerated by his
parents. Consequently, it is of no moment that he was in possession of the property
at the time of the sale to the Magpayo spouses. It was not a hindrance to a valid
transfer of ownership.

It was stressed in this case that possession and ownership are two distinct legal
purposes. Ownership exists when a thing pertaining to one person is completely
subjected to his will in a manner not prohibited by law and consistent with the rights
of others. Ownership confers certain rights to the owner, one of which is the right
to dispose of thing by way of sale. On the other hand, possession is defined as the
holding of a thing or the enjoyment of a right. Possession may be had in one of two
ways, possession in the concept of an owner and possession of a holder. One who
possesses as a mere holder acknowledges in another a superior right which he
believes to be ownership, whether his belief be right or wrong.

In the case on G.F. Equity, Inc. v. Valenzona, G.R. No. 156841, the right
abused was the right of G.F. Equity, Inc., respondent, to pre-terminate Valenzona
employment as coach of the Alaska team in the PBA. Valenzona, respondent, filed
a complaint against G.F. Equity, Inc, petitioner, for breach of contract by pre-
terminating the contract without just cause and legal and factual basis. The Court
ruled that the petitioner failed to exercise, in a legitimate manner, its right to pre-
terminate the contract when the petitioner failed to provided legal basis on the pre-
termination the employment of the respondent.
 The act of G.F. Equity of pre-terminating Valenzona’s services is a violation of
the provisions of Article 19 in relation to Article 20 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines. G.F. Equity, Inc., in exercising his right, failed to observe the standards
set by the provisions of Art. 19 that in the exercise of one’s rights, he must act with
justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith, in which
entitled Valenzona to claim damages under Art. 20 of the Civil Code.

2. Cite the point of difference in the two cases.

The difference between the two cases is that in the case of Garcia vs. CA, the
petitioner’s claim to possession of subject property was
B. When is there abuse of right?

There is an abuse of rights when the following elements, under Article 19, are
present: 1) there is a legal right or duty; 2) which is exercised in bad faith; 3) for the
sole intent if prejudicing or injuring another. Moreover, the absence of good faith is
essential to abuse of right.

C. May a person be detained in the hospital for non-payment of bills?

No, a person may not be detained in the hospital for non-payment of bills.

According to Section 2 of the RA No. 9439, a patient who have fully or partially
recovered and wishes to leave the hospital or medical clinic but are financially
incapable to settle his hospitalization expenses (including professional fees and
medicines) shall be allowed to leave the hospital or medical clinic with a right to
demand the issuance of corresponding medical certificate and other pertinent papers
required for the release of the person from the hospital or medical clinic upon the
execution of a promissory note covering the unpaid obligation. However, patients who
stayed in private rooms shall not be covered by this Act.

Therefore, following this Act, a person shall not be detained in the hospital for
non-payment of bills provided that he/ she executed a promissory note covering his
obligations as well as he did not stayed in a private room. Violation of the provisions of
this Act shall be punished accordingly under this Act.
D. Is a breach of promise to marry actionable?

No, as a general rule, a breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong.

The breach of promise to marry is not actionable as defined in the De Jesus vs. Syquia
case, since it has no standing in civil law apart from the right to recover money or
property advanced by the plaintiff upon the faith of such promise. However, the
following acts may cause promise to marry be actionable: 1) if there is fraud or deceit;
2) if expenses are actually incurred; and 3) when a woman is forcibly abducted and
raped.

E. Read the case of Buñag, Jr. vs. CA, et.al, G.R. No. 101749, can an offer of marriage
absolve an accused from rape?

Yes, the offer of marriage can absolve an accused from rape. The case of
Buñag, Jr. vs. CA started as a criminal case but was dismissed by the Pasay City
Fiscal’s Office.

A person who commit a crime, under our laws, is criminally liable for felony and
may also be civilly liable.

In the case of Buñag, Jr. v. CA, the acts of Buñag, petitioner, in abducting
Zenaida Cirilo, respondent, and raping and thereafter promises to marry her in order
to escape criminal liability constitute acts contrary to morals and good customs.
F. Read the cases of John Sycip vs. CA, G.R. No. 76487, and Valenzuea vs. CA, G.R.No.
56168. Can the courts decide the case in favor of a party on the ground of protecting
the underprivileged and the weak? Expound.

Yes, the courts can decide the case in favor of a party on the ground of
protecting the underprivileged and the weak.

Art. 24 of the Civil Code states that the in all contractual, property or other
relations, when one of the parties is at a disadvantage on account of his moral
dependence, ignorance, indigence, mental weakness, tender age or other handicap,
the courts must be vigilant for his protection.

In the cases of Heir of John Sycip vs. CA, the court affirmed the decision of the
CA to restore the possession of property in question to the private respondents,
Talinanap Matualaga and Melencio Yu, by declaring null and void ab initio all
documents of conveyance of sale by the petitioners. Any transaction involving real
properties with Non-Christian Filipinos must be approved by the provincial governor of
the place; otherwise, it is null and void.

In the Valenzuela vs. CA, the Supreme Court found that the bank acted
fraudulent and anomalous transactions involving the officers of the Rural Bank of
Lucena, Inc. The bank took advantage of the old man with limited education. Hence,
in the exercise of the Court’s duty to protect the rights of people with limited education,
it affirmed the lower court’s decision, based on Article 24, NCC

Therefore, the provisions of Art. 24 of the Civil Code provides the protection to
a person who is at a disadvantaged position as well as protects the rights of the less
privileged.
G. Read Quisumbing vs. Meralco, G.R. No. 142943. Can Meralco outrightly disconnect
service on the ground of non-payment of bills?

No, Meralco cannot outrightly disconnect service on the ground of non-

payment of bills.

Under the law, Meralco may immediately disconnect electric service on the
ground of alleged meter tampering, but only if the discovery of the cause is personally
witnessed and attested to by an officer of the law or by a duly authorized representative
of the Energy Regulatory Board. If there is no government representative, the prima
facie authority to disconnect granted to Meralco by R.A. 7832 cannot apply.

In this case, the petitioners’ situation fell under the disconnection in case of or
to prevent fraud upon the Company but, it must follow the requisites before a
disconnection may be made. This is also true in regard to the provisions of Revised
Order No. 1 of the former Public Service Commission which requires a 48-hour written
notice before a disconnection may be justified. However, these requisites were not
complied with.

Therefore, Meralco had no legal right to immediately disconnect the

Quisumbing spouses’ electrical supply without observing the requisites of the law and
with due process.
H. Read the case of Ledesma vs. CA, G.R. No. 54598. Will an action for damages lie
against a college president for depriving her to graduate magna cum laude because
she lent money when she was not allowed to do so?

Yes, the college president will be held liable for damages on the ground of
depriving a college student to graduate magna cum laude.

Under Art. 27 of the Civil Code provides that any person suffering material or
moral loss because a public servant or employee refuses or neglects, without just
cause, to perform his official duty may file an action for damages and other relief
against the latter, without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative action that may
be taken.

In the case of Ledesma vs. CA, college president Ledesma, petitioner, dropped
Delmo from the membership of the school club and deprived her for graduating with
any awards from the school. Delmo appealed to the Bureau of Public School in which
directed the petitioner not to deprive Delmo of any award she is entitled to. However,
petitioner let Delmo graduate as plain student instead of being awarded with latin honor
for magna cum laude. As a result, Delmo went through a painful ordeal brought about
by the petitioner’s neglect of duty and callousness. The petitioner, due to his neglect
of duty and callousness, was held liable for damages under Article 27 of the Civil Code
for failure to graduate a student with honors.
I. May victims of tortures and abuses during martial law claim damages? Read Aberca
vs. Gen. Ver, G.R. No. 69866

Yes, victims of tortures and abuses during martial law may claim damages.

Art. 32 of the Civil Code provides the basic constitutional rights and liberties of
a person and violation of such may give rise to criminal and civil liability.

The complaint in the case of Aberca vs. Ver, alleges facts showing how the
petitioners, constitutional rights and liberties under Art. 32 of the Civil Code were
violated and impaired by the defendants. Said complaint contains a detailed recital of
abuses done to the petitioners.

If allegations against all the defendants, if admitted hypothetically and proven,

would be sufficient to establish a cause/s of action against respondents under the Art.
32 of the Civil Code. Thus, victims of tortures and abuses during martial law may claim
damages.
J. Read the case of Jervoso vs. People and CA, G.R. No. 89306. If the heirs of the victim
in a homicide case reserved the filing of a separate civil action, can the recover
damages from the accused in the criminal case?

Yes, heirs of the victim in a homicide can recover for damages from the
accused in the criminal case.

Art. 33 of the Civil Code provides that in cases of defamation, fraud and
physical injuries, a civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the
criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed
independently of the criminal prosecution, shall require only a preponderance of
evidence.

In the case of Jervoso vs. People and CA, the filing of a separate civil action
for damages against the accused by the heirs of the deceased victim is authorized
under Art. 33 of the Civil Code. The Supreme Court ruled that “physical injuries’’ in
under this Article is used in a generic sense which includes consummated, frustrated
or attempted homicide.

Therefore, the heirs of the victim in a homicide can recover for damages from
the accused in the criminal case.