#judgeprincess

[blahblahnezz]

Review: THE FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES Title 4: Property Relations Between Husband and Wife

Administration of the Conjugal Partneship Property

ARTICLE 125

Neither spouse may donate any conjugal partnership property without the consent of the other. However, either spouse may, without the consent of the other, make moderate donations from the conjugal partnership property for charity or on occasions of family rejoicing or family distress.

Donation, while an act of liberality transfer ownership over properties. It is akin to sale of the same, hence, there is a need for the consent of the other spouse if one of them make a donation of any conjugal property. Otherwise, it is VOID.

[marcomarasigan]

Article 1361 of the Civil Code provides:

"When a mutual mistake of the parties causes the failure of the instrument to disclose their real agreement, said instrument may be reformed"

For Example:

Pedro and Juan agreed on a mortgage of Pedro's car. Pedro prepared the contract. However, Pedro did not realize that the template he used was for a deed of sale. Later on, it was mistakenly signed the Juan.

Question:

May the contract be reformed?

Answer:

Yes, in this case, there was a mutual mistake between Pedro and Juan which caused the failure of the contract to disclose their real agreement.

Art. 1370 of the Civil Code provides:

"If the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulation shall control."

Spouses Solitarios vs Jaques

Facts:

In the case of Spouses Solitarios vs. Spouses Jaques (G.R. No. 199852), the respondents, Spouses Jaques, filed a Complaint for Ownership and Recovery of Possession with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calbayog City. They alleged that they purchased Lot 4089 from the petitioners, Spouses Solitarios, in stages. The respondents claimed that they initially acquired one-half of Lot No. 4089 for ₱7,000.00.

Issue:

The main issue in this case revolved around the validity of the sale of Lot 4089 from Spouses Solitarios to Spouses Jaques. The respondents questioned the transaction, raising concerns about the capacity and mental state of Spouses Solitarios at the time of the sale, in relation to Article 1361 of the Civil Code.

Rulings:

1. The RTC ruled in favor of Spouses Jaques, declaring the sale of one-half of Lot 4089 to be valid and binding. The court found that the transaction was executed in good faith and with full understanding of the terms by both parties.

2. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC, upholding the validity of the sale and dismissing the claims of Spouses Solitarios regarding their mental capacity at the time of the transaction.

3. The Supreme Court, upon review, upheld the rulings of the lower courts, emphasizing that there was no evidence to suggest that Spouses Solitarios were mentally incapacitated or unable to comprehend the nature and consequences of the sale, as required by Article 1361 of the Civil Code.

@judgeprincess

[marisatuito]

Executive Fiat

Means alegal authorative decision that has absolute sanction. From the Latin for "let it be done" the word fiat is a binding edict issued by a person in command.

@Judgeprincess

[jannie-notes]

ART 1365

If two parties agree upon the mortgage or pledge of real or personal property, but the instrument states that the property is sold absolutely or with a right of repurchase, reformation of the instrument is proper

exists, or a writing exists, but the parties do not intend it to express their

final  agreemeReformation is thus not available where no writing exists, or a writing exists, but the parties do not intend it to express their final agreement

Reformation is  that  remedy  by  means  of  which  a  written instrument is amended or rectified so as to express or conform to the real agreement or intention of the parties when by reason of mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct, or accident, the instrument fails to express such agreement or intention.

Reformation is  that  remedy  by  means  of  which  a  written

instrument is amended or rectified so as to express or conform to the

real agreement or intention of the parties when by reason of mistake,

fraud, inequitable conduct, or accident, the instrument fails to express

such agreement or intention.

FLORENCIA VELASQUES VS. JUSTO TEODORO (G.R. No. L-18666 February 17, 1923) Romualdez, J

In this case the heirs of Velasquez seek to recover title to, and possession of certain land.

There are 7 lands in total and the heirs of Velasquez said that they have in their possession 6 parcel of land owned by their parents as a conjugal property and 1 that is in possession of Justo Teodoro.

But Justo claimed that he bought the land from the heirs of a certain Leodegaria Valdes which also purched the land from Ramon Velasquez and by the terms of the document, the contract is one of sale

HOWEVER, in one of the clauses in the document, it appears that Velasquez did NOT reserve the right to repurchase the property, but bound himself to return the principal interest. Now, the contract is considered as a mortgage.

ISSUE: Whether the transfers of the subject lands are valid

HELD: the transfer of land is invalid. This aforementioned contract is a mortgage, thus upholding the judgment of the trial court that there was an assignment of error on the part of the respondents in considering the contract is one of sale. Ramon Velazquez did not acquire title to the property by virtue of the contract mentioned. He had no right to transfer it, as he did to Leodegaria Valdez.

[princessjoyvibora]

Obligations and Contracts

Section 4. - Joint and Solidary Obligations

Article 1217

Payment made by one of the solidary debtors extinguishes the obligation.  If two or more solidary debtors offer to pay, the creditor may choose which offer to accept.

He who made the payment may claim from his co-debtors only the share which corresponds to each, with the interest for the payment already made.  If the payment is made before the debt is due, no interest for the intervening period may be demanded.

When one of the solidary debtors cannot, because of his insolvency, reimburse his share to the debtor paying the obligation, such share shall be borne by all his co-debtors, in proportion to the debt of each. (1145a)

Examples: Handsome and Pretty are solidary debtors of Beauty to an amount of 2M. ( In this case the creditor may choose which offer to accept)

Kung sino man ang nagbayad ay maaaring hingin sa kapwa nyang may utang ang kanilang bahagi, kasama ang interest sa kabayarang kanyang binigay.  Kung ang kabayaran ay binigay bago sa takdang araw ng pagkakautang, walang interest ang maaaring mahingi.

Kung ang isa sa mga solidary debtors ay hindi makakapagbalik ng kanyang bahagi sa kabayaran(Reimbursement), lahat ng kasama niyang utang ay babayaran ito na naaayon sa kanilang partihan sa utang.

[sevamelanie28]

Cases for Obligation and Contracts - Article 1181

 Art. 1181. In conditional obligations, the acquisition of rights, as well as the extinguishment or loss of those already acquired, shall depend upon the happening of the event which constitutes the condition.

a. Suspensive – conditions precedent/antecedent. The happening of w/c will give rise to the acquisition of a right – future & uncertain event. 

b. Resolutory – conditions subsequent – rights are lost once the requirement is fulfilled.

CENTRAL PHILIPPINE UNIVERSITY, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, REMEDIOS FRANCO, FRANCISCO N. LOPEZ, CECILIA P. VDA. DE LOPEZ, REDAN LOPEZ AND REMARENE LOPEZ, respondents.

FACTS:

Don Ramon Lopez Sr. signed a deed of donation in 1939 in favor of Central Philippine University with the following conditions:

a) Central Philippine University should only use the land for the construction and operation of the medical college;

b) The aforementioned college shall not transfer, sell, or convey to a third party;

c) The property mentioned above shall be designated as the "Ramon Lopez Campus," and any money derived from it shall be deposited in the "Ramon Lopez Campus Fund."

Don Ramon's heirs, filed a complaint against Central Philippine University for failing to uphold the terms, seeking the cancellation of the donation, reconveyance, and damages on May 31, 1989. The heirs further claimed that Central Philippine University and the National Housing Authority had agreed to exchange the donated property for another parcel of land that belonged to the latter.

The petitioner claimed that private respondents' ability to file the action had lapsed.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petitioner failed to adhere to the resolute conditions that were written on the back of the petitioner's certificate of title without a specific deadline for doing so.

HELD:

Yes. According to Art. 1181, which deals with conditional obligations, the achievement of rights as well as the extinction or loss of those already attained depend on the fulfillment of the conditional event. As a result, it is a definitive agreement when one person lends land to another subject to the latter's construction of a school on the property. Prior to the fulfillment of the requirement, the donation had to be valid. The contribution may be canceled and any rights the donee may have obtained will be declared lost and terminated if the requirement was not met, as is the case in the present instance.

The petitioner has already had more time than a reasonable fifty (50) years to take advantage of the chance to fulfill the requirement, even if it is onerous, in order to make the contribution in its favor permanently legal. Petitioner has completely cut off on its duty as donee for an unreasonable amount of time and failed to fulfill its commitment. Therefore, it is only fair and just to pronounce the subject donation already invalid and canceled for all intents and purposes, requiring the petitioner, as donee, to reconvey the given property back to the donor's heirs, who are the private respondents in this case.

[rdpunzalan]

Article 1208. Law of the Philippines

G.R. No. 194272

SPOUSES AMADO O. IBAÑEZ and ESTHER R. IBAÑEZ, Petitioners vs. JAMES HARPER as Representative of the Heirs of FRANCISCO MUÑOZ, SR., the REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MANILA and the SHERIFF OF MANILA, Respondents

Facts:

Husband and wife Amado and Esther Ibañez (spouses Ibañez) borrowed money from Ma, Consuelo Estrada, and Francisco E. Muñoz, Sr. The sum of P1,300,000 is due from Consuelo E. Muñoz (Ma. Consuelo) in three months, plus interest at a monthly rate of 3%.

The Ibañez spouses signed a Promissory Note[8] obligating them to pay Ma jointly and severally. The loan sum with interest was given to Consuelo and Consuelo... In support of Ma, the Ibañez couples signed a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage[10]. Concerns between Consuelo and Consuelo regarding a piece of property and its upgrades.

The terms of the promissory note were also included in the mortgage.

Furthermore, it stated that Ma. If any of the following circumstances arise: (1) the mortgagor files a petition for bankruptcy or payment suspension; (2) the mortgagor fails to perform or complies with any covenant, agreement, term, or condition of the mortgage. Consuelo and Consuelo shall have the right to foreclose the mortgage immediately.

On September 23, 1997, Ma. Consuelo filed a claim claiming that the drawee had refused to respect any check payments and that the terms of the mortgage had been broken since November 17, 1996. Ma. Consuelo and Consuelo filed a request to have the mortgage on the property foreclosed.

The couples Ibañez filed a complaint[13] for an injunction and damages against Francisco, Ma. along with requests for a writ of preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order. Consuelo, Consuelo, Clerk of Court, Ex-Officio Sheriff, Sheriff-in-Charge, and Manila City Register of Deeds.

The real estate mortgage was allegedly novated, therefore there was no justification for continuing with the foreclosure, according to the complaint.

The spouses of Ibañez claimed in an amended complaint they had filed on December 12th, 1997, that Francisco, Ma. had conducted the public auction. As the top bidders, Consuelo and Consuelo begged that the Ex-Officio Sheriff and the Sheriff-in-Charge refrain from signing the certificate of sale in favor of Francisco, Ma. and Consuelo.

They further urged that the Register of Deeds of Manila be restrained from recording the certificate of sale in the event that it has already been issued.

The RTC approved the Amended Compromise Agreement and adopted it as its Hatol.

Maria C. Muoz, Angelina M. Crocker, and Maria Elena M. Webster, the heirs of Francisco, who were enraged and represented by James Harper, filed a Petition for Certiorari[51] before the CA in accordance with Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court.

The CA determined that Francisco, Ma. was mentioned in both the Hatol and the Amended Complaint. As the creditors and the parties entitled to the revenues of the Amended Compromise Agreement, Consuelo and Consuelo. Due to the Deed of Assignment only being executed in Ma's favor. Consuelo and Consuelo, the spouses Ibaez's debt to Francisco was yet unpaid. Thus, the right to rely on paragraph 2.5 of the Compromise Agreement, which calls for the overturning of the trial court's judgment maintaining the status quo, remains with Francisco's heirs.

The RTC was informed of Francisco's passing on June 29, 2006, according to the documents, and the CA denied that there had been a legal substitution of parties. The RTC retained jurisdiction to favorably rule on the heirs' application to lift the status quo order and issue the writ of execution despite the late notification of death's submission.

According to Section 16, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court, the attorney shall be held accountable for failing to notify the court of the client's passing, not the client's heirs.

The Revised Rules of Court's Section 16, Rule 3 states: Sec. 16. Party death; proper counsel. It is the duty of the party's counsel to notify the court within thirty (30) days of the party's passing of the fact of the death and to provide the name and address of the party's legal representative or representatives whenever a party to an ongoing action passes away without the claim being thereby extinguished. The court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor heirs if the attorney fails to fulfill this obligation. The heirs of the deceased may be substituted for the deceased without the need for the appointment of an executor or administrator.

If no legal representative is named by the counsel for the deceased party, or if the one so named fails to appear within the specified period, the court may order the opposing party, within a specified time, to obtain the appointment of an executor or administrator for the estate of the deceased, and the latter shall promptly order said executor or administrator to appear and be substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from notice. If paid for by the opposing party, the court fees associated with obtaining such an appointment may be recovered as costs.

As a result, the trial court gravely abused its discretion when it ruled that Harper could not be added as a party to the case due to the absence of a valid substitution.[77] By denying Francisco's heirs recognition, the trial court denied them the chance to compel compliance with any rights they might have under the terms of the Amended Compromise Agreement.

Issues:

Whether Francisco was a real party in interest;Whether there was valid substitution of parties; andWhether all the provisions of the Amended Compromise Agreement have been complied with.

Ruling:

The Revised Rules of Court's Section 2, Rule 3 states: Sec. 2. parties involved. - The party entitled to the benefits of the lawsuit or the party that stands to benefit or be harmed by the verdict in the case is the true party in interest. Every action must be brought or defended in the name of the actual party with an interest, unless the law or these Rules specifically provide otherwise.

[noelmendozasblog]

Obligations and Contracts. Article 1199

ART. 1199. A person alternatively bound by different prestations shall completely perform one of them.

The creditor cannot be compelled to receive part of one and part of the other undertaking. (1131)

Kinds of obligation according to object:

(1). Conjunctive obligation. — one where the debtor has to perform several prestations; it is extinguished only by the performance of all of them.

(2). Alternative obligation - several objects being due, the fulfillment of one is sufficient, determined by the choice of the debtor who generally has the right of election.

(3). Facultative obligation - only one thing is due but the debtor has reserved the right to substitute it with another.

EXAMPLE:

D borrowed from C P10,000. It was agreed that D could comply with his obligation by giving C P10,000, or a color television set, or by painting the house of C.

The delivery of the P10,000, or a color television set, or the painting

of the house of C, is sufficient to comply with the obligation. Performance must be complete. C cannot be compelled to accept, for instance, P5,000 and half of the television, thereby establishing a co-ownership between them, or P5,000, and the painting of a part of his house. (Art. 1199, par. 2.) In the case of Agoncillo, et al. vs. Javier, 38 Phil. 424. wherein there was an agreement provided that the defendants are to convey the house and lot in the event of failure to pay the appellees the debt in money at its maturity, the issue was whether or not the agreement that the defendant-appellant, at the maturity of the debt, will pay the sum of the money lent by the appellees or will transfer the rights to the ownership and possession of the house and lot bequeathed to the former by the testator in favor of the appellees, is valid. It was held that the stipulation is valid because it is simply an alternative obligation, which is expressly allowed by law. The agreement to convey the house and lot on an appraised value in the event of failure to pay the debt in money at its maturity is valid. It is simply an undertaking that if debt is not paid in money, it will be paid in another way. In the case of ONG GUAN CAN v. CENTURY INSURANCE CO.

The clause cited by the appellant is as follows: "The Company may at its option reinstate or replace the property damaged or destroyed, or any part thereof, instead of paying the amount of the loss or damage, or may join with any other Company or insurers in so doing, but the Company shall not be bound to reinstate exactly or completely, but only as circumstances permit and in reasonable sufficient manner, and in no case shall the Company be bound to expend more in reinstatement than it would have cost to reinstate such property as it was at the time of the occurrence of such loss or damage, nor more than the sum insured by the Company thereon." This clause of the policies is valid, its effect is to make the obligation of the insurance company an alternative one, that is to say, that it may either pay the insured value of the house, or rebuild it

[legisservitaepax]

Family Code

Facts

In 1981, Leni Choa and Alfonso Choa were wed. Cheryl Lynne and Albryan are their two children. Alfonso sought the dissolution of his marriage to Leni in 1993. He then submitted an updated case asking for their marriage to be declared null and void due to his mental incompetence. The trial judge additionally stated that Leni had to refute Alfonso's quantum evidence in order for the lawsuit to be dismissed after the trial.

Alfonso stated that Leni charged him with perjury, concubinage and deportation which reveals latter's psychological incompetence because according to him it clearly demonstrated that his wife not only wanted him behind bars but also to expel outside the country.

 ISSUE:

Whether or not Alfonso Chua presented quantum evidence for the declaration of nullity of his marriage with Leni on the ground of psychological incapacity.

 Ruling:

The proof was insufficient and revealed a serious abuse of discretion that bordered on absurdity. Alfonso testified and expressed his displeasure over three facets of Leni's personality: her lack of concern for young people, her immaturity, and her lack of desire for procreative sexual activity. However, none of these three traits—either separately or all three taken together—constitute psychological incapacity. Gravity, legal precedence, and incurability are the three characteristics that psychological incapacity must exhibit. There must be more going on than just a problem, a resistance, or a disregard for marital duties. It is not enough to just have irreconcilable conflicts and competing personalities to qualify as psychologically disabled.

[blahblahnezz]

Case: Tshiatel Uy vs CA

(G.R. No. 102726, May 27, 1994)

In Relation to Article 91 What Constitute Community Property

FACTS: 

Private respondent Natividad Calaunan-Uy was the common-law wife of the late Menilo B. Uy, Sr., for about thirty-six (36) years. Their union bore four children — Melito, Jr., Nilda, Melvin and Merlito — all surnamed Uy.

On October 31, 1990, soon after the death of Menilo Uy, Sr., petitioners Tshiate Uy and Ramon Uy initiated before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 65, Makati, Metro Manila. Special Proceedings entitled "In the Matter of the Petition for Letters of Administration of the Estate of Menilo B. Uy, Sr."

On 28 February 1991, private respondent filed a motion to hold the special proceedings in abeyance. The day before, or on 27 February 1991, private respondent filed for "Partition of Properties Under Co-ownership," against the Estate of Menilo Uy, Sr. (supposedly represented by their four children).

Petitioner Tshiatel Uy filed an omnibus motion, alleging that by virtue of a Hong Kong marriage, she was the surviving legal spouse of Menilo, Sr. She prayed that she and her son Ramon Uy be allowed to intervene in the civil case, submitting at the same time their answer in intervention.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Co-Ownership can be claimed by the alleged surviving spouse.

HELD:

The decision of the court was set aside reinstating the order of the trial court. The action of partition is predicated on the alleged co-ownership between Natividad and Menilo, the property evidently acquired during the period of their common-law relationship.

Art. 147 - When a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage, their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules of co-ownership.

[marcomarasigan]

Article 1334 of the Civil Code provides:

"Mutual error as to the legal effect of an agreement when the real purpose of the parties is frustrated, may vitiate consent".

Requisites:

○ The error must be mutual;

○ It must be as to the legal effect of an agreement; and

○ It must frustrate the real purpose of the parties.

For example:

Pedro and Juan executed an agreement to contribute 50% each in purchasing the land of Roger because they will use it to set up a business. However, when they started to raise funds, they found out that the amount they have agreen upon is insufficient due to so many taxes to pay aside from the principal amount of Roger's land.

Question:

Can Pedro and Juan backout from their agreement?

Answer:

Yes, applying Article 1334 of the Civil Code, there was a mutual error between Pedro and Juan in a sense that they did not anticipate the other expenses that may arise from purchasing the land of Roger. That mutual error touched the legal effects of their agreement since they can no longer buy the land of Roger because of insufficiency of funds. Lastly, their real purpose is frustrated. Therefore, Juan and Pedro can backout from their agreement.

Kasilag vs. Rodriguez

Facts:

In the case of Kasilag vs. Rodriguez [69 Phil 217], the parties entered into a contract of mortgage of improvements on land acquired through homestead to secure a debt. Subsequently, a verbal contract was made where possession of the land was conveyed to Kasilag under certain conditions. The issue arose when it was contested whether Kasilag was a possessor in good faith.

Issue:

The main issue in the case was whether Kasilag should be considered a possessor in good faith based on his lack of knowledge regarding the contract of antichresis, as stated in Article 1334 of the Civil Code.

Rulings:

1. The court ruled that the possession by Kasilag and the reception of the land's fruits, elements of the contract of antichresis, were illegal and void due to the contract being a lien, prohibited by Section 116 of Act No. 2874.

2. Despite Kasilag's ignorance of certain legal aspects, the court held that excusable ignorance could be the basis of good faith. Kasilag's lack of knowledge about the provisions of the law was considered excusable, thus establishing his good faith in taking possession of the land.

3. Kasilag's actions were deemed to be in good faith based on his belief that he was not violating land alienation prohibitions. Therefore, he was considered a possessor in good faith and was given options regarding the improvements introduced on the land.

@judgeprincess

[jedidiahsioco]

In Re: Petition for Change of Name of Julian Lim Carulasan Wang vs. Cebu City Civil Registrar

G.R. No 159966 30 March 2005

Case Digest

Facts:

Julian Lin Carulasan Wang was born in Cebu City on February 20, 1998 to parents Anna Lisa Wang and Sing-Foe Wang who were then not yet married to each other. When his parents subsequently got married on September 22, 1998, they executed a deed of legitimation of their son so that the child’s name was changed from Julian Lin Carulasan to Julian Lin Carulasan Wang.

The parents of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang plan to stay in Singapore for a long time because they will let him study there together with his sister named Wang Mei Jasmine who was born in Singapore. Since in Singapore middle names or the maiden surname of the mother are not carried in a person’s name, they anticipate that Julian Lin Carulasan Wang will be discriminated against because of his current registered name which carries a middle name. Julian and his sister might also be asking whether they are brother and sister since they have different surnames. Carulasan sounds funny in Singapore’s Mandarin language since they do not have the letter “R” but if there is, they pronounce it as “L.” It is for these reasons that the name of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang is requested to be changed to Julian Lin Wang.

Issue: 

Whether or not dropping of middle name of a minor child is allowed under Philippine laws.

Held:

No. The State has an interest in the names borne by individuals and entities for purposes of identification, and that a change of name is a privilege and not a right, so that before a person can be authorized to change his name given him either in his certificate of birth or civil registry, he must show proper and reasonable cause, or any compelling reason which may justify such change. Otherwise, the request should be denied.

[jannie-notes]

ARTICLE 1333

- Here, it is assumed that the party was prepared to assume the risk. This is especially true for agreements that are obviously aleatory in nature.

-to invalidate a contract, there must be 1) real error which is inevitable and 2) unknown facts

CASE:

DOMINGO REALTY, INC. vs. COURT OF APPEALS

(G.R. NO. 126236 : January 26, 2007;LEONARDO QUISUMBING)

Acero constructed a factory building knowing that the property he was occupying is encroaching on a portion of the property of Domingo Realty. Under the Compromise Agreement, Acero promised to clear all structures within 60 days. But then, Acero filed a Motion to Nullify the Compromise Agreement on the ground of vagueness and mistake. The issue is WON the Compromise Agreement entered between petitioner and private respondent be set aside on the ground of vagueness and mistake. It was held that the agreement was valid. In the case at hand, Acero admitted that he is occupying some part of Domingo Realty’s property that is why he cannot claim mistake or error.