case digest

TABLE OF CONTENTS Obligations The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corp. vs National Steel (Performance)…. Pp. 1 Coroan vs China Banking Corporation (Soliar! "ia#ilit!)………………………… Pp. $ Sps. %onsa! an omarco vs Soli#ank ('tingishment)…… …………………….. Pp. *

Contracts +eorg vs Hol! Trinit! Trinit! College, -nc ('ssential 'lements)……………………………… 'lements)……………………………… Pp.  /o0ales vs ime (/elativit! of Contracts)…………………………………………………… Pp. 2 PN3C vs 4eppel Philippine Holings, -nc (3ption Contract)……………………… Contract)……………………… Pp. 567 Centr! Properties, -nc. vs Ba#iano (Breach of Contract)……………… Contract)……………………………Pp. ……………Pp. 768 Slpicio "ines, -nc vs. Sesante (Breach of Contract)………………………………… Contract)………………………………… Pp. 8619 :ictoria, et al. vs Pilaoan (Simlate Contract)……………………………………… Contract)……………………………………… Pp. 19611 Catha! Paci;ic ente#ella (Breach of Contract)……… Pp. 1161$ Heirs of Nativia vs %ana aricia6Nativia, et, al (:oi Contract)……..Pp. 1$61* Tan vs Hosana (:oi or -neistent Contract)…………………………………………Pp. 1*61 /anara vs elos rancisca San %an………………………… %an………………………………Pp. ……Pp. 12

Sales Thelma /orige? vs. Sps. %aime &
Lease Heirs of +amaliel
 Agency ra. ercees 3liver vs PS Bank & "ilia Castro (Contract of
Partnership ichael C. +! vs
Credit  Tarcisio Calilng vs Paramont -nsrance (Simple "oan)………………………… Pp. $86$ Sps. Tan vs China Banking Corp (
Torts and Damages Techno evelopment vs :iking etal -nstries, -nc ('emplar!)……………... ('emplar!)…………….. . Pp. *1 Sps. Timao vs /ral Bank of San %ose ('emplar! ('emplar! amages)……………………. Pp. *$ 'B itsi arine -nsrance (asi6elict) Pp. * '/<"C3 vs Sposes Slpicio & Patricia /amos (oral an
Lease Heirs of +amaliel
 Agency ra. ercees 3liver vs PS Bank & "ilia Castro (Contract of
Partnership ichael C. +! vs
Credit  Tarcisio Calilng vs Paramont -nsrance (Simple "oan)………………………… Pp. $86$ Sps. Tan vs China Banking Corp (
Torts and Damages Techno evelopment vs :iking etal -nstries, -nc ('emplar!)……………... ('emplar!)…………….. . Pp. *1 Sps. Timao vs /ral Bank of San %ose ('emplar! ('emplar! amages)……………………. Pp. *$ 'B itsi arine -nsrance (asi6elict) Pp. * '/<"C3 vs Sposes Slpicio & Patricia /amos (oral an
THE THE HON HON! !ON ON " SHAN SHANH HA# A# BAN AN!# !#N N CO$PO O$PO$A $AT# T#ON ON%% L#&# L#&#TE TED D 's( 's( NAT#ONAL STEEL CO$PO$AT#ON " C#T) T$*ST BAN!#N CO$PO$AT#ON ($( NO( +,-.,/% Febr0ary 1.% 12+/ 3A$DELE4A% 3(

>3B ST lligan to >3B ST anila an frther increase the amont to E88,999, =hile the secon amenment =as for the eliver! ate of the prime col rolle coils. The prime col rolle coils =ere loae to : Sea ragon ner China 3cean Shipping Compan! =ith Bill of "aing No. H4+ $55991 an the same arrive in Hong Hong 4ong. 4ong. There Thereaft after er,, NSC NSC throg throgh h Cit! Cit! Trst rst facil facilita itate te the collec collectio tion n of its pa!ment from 4lockner #! the "etter of Creit isse #! HSBC. Thereafter, Cit! Trst  sent HSBC a collection 3rer as HSBC ackno=lege the receipt. 4lockner refse pa!ment neither to give an! reason of sch refsal. NSC sent HSBC a eman letter. -SSA'D Fho among the parties #ear the lia#ilit! to pa! the amont state in the "etter of CreitG H'"D The Cort rle #ase on the principle of -nepenence on the la= on "etters of Creit. -n this case, HSBC has the o#ligation as it #ins itself #oth to 4lockner an NSC as it freel! an kno=ingl! kno=ingl! mst perform an act, =here its o#ligation arises from the t=o sorce, >irst, it has a contractal o#ligation to 4lockner =hen it agree to pa! NSC pon the e presentment to it of the "C #! Cit! Trst, Secon, HSBC has the o#ligation to NSC to honor the "C. The o#ligation of HSBC to pa! NSC ner the "C =ill stan inepenent even if 4lockner refse to pa!.

$OSAL#NA CA$ODAN 's( CH#NA BAN!#N CO$PO$AT#ON ($( No( 1+25.1% Febr0ary 1.% 12+/ SERENO, CJ.

>or the secrit! of the loan, a real estate mortgage =as eecte an a Sret!
the principal e#tors, Bar#ara an /e#ecca, faile to pa!. She conse@entl! #ecame lia#le to responent #ank for the pa!ment of the e#t of Bar#ara an /e#ecca =hen the latter t=o actall! i not pa!. SPO*SES FLO$ANTE E( 3ONSA) and L*46#&#NDA L( 3ONSA) and &O&A$CO #&PO$T CO(% #NC(% 's( SOL#DBAN! CO$PO$AT#ON 7no8 &ET$OPOL#TAN BAN!   AND T$*ST CO&PAN)9 ($( No( 12/.5:% April /% 12+/ $E)ES% 3(

>actsD Petitioners o#taine a loan in the name of omarco from Soli Bank. The! eecte a promissor! note an secrit! to the loan the! mortgage * parcels of lan. Bt #ecase of the ;inancial crisis on 17 the! =ere strggling to pa!.
as there =as no meeting of the mins #et=een the parties on =hether the loan =ill #e etingishe #! =a! of acion en pago. Necessaril!, pon Tecnogas efalt in its o#ligations, the foreclosre of the /' #ecomes a matter of right on the part of PNB, for sch is the prpose of re@iring secrit! for the loans. BEN3#E B( EO$ 's( HOL) T$#N#T) COLLEE% #NC( ($( No( +:2.2,% 30ly 12% 12+/ PE$E4% 3(

>
Trinit!, is clothe =ith sf;icient athorit! to enter into a loan agreement. Ths, an! agreement or contract entere into #! Sr. ealle as Presient of Hol! Trinit! College relating to the +rop #ears the consent an approval of responent. -t is throgh these !namics that =e cannot falt petitioner for rel!ing on Sr. ealles athorit! to transact =ith petitioner.

3*ANA 6DA( DE $O3ALES 's( &A$CEL#NO D#&E ($( NO( +:.5.,% Febr0ary +2% 12+/ PE$ALTA% 3(

>
Correlating to the general rle on real part!6in6interest on the la= on contracts, as to the eecte pacto e retro contract, it is the venor (petitioner) an the venee (responent), their heirs, sccessors, an assigns have the right to #ring sch action of consoliation of title an o=nership prsant to
PH#L#PP#NE NAT#ONAL O#L CO&PAN) et al( 's( !EPPEL PH#L#PP#NES HOLD#NS% #NC( ($( No( 121252% 30ly 15% 12+/ B$#ON% 3(

>ilipino o=nership =as less than =hat the la= provie for. Therefore, the lease =ol not  #e rene=e for another t=ent! ;ive !ears an there =ill #e no option to prchase. Nevertheless, the PN3C prchase the lan from "?on Steveoring. Fhen 4eppel =as rea! to prchase the lan, ho=ever, PN3C refse hence the case =as ;ile.

-SSA'D Fhether or not the option to prchase the lan given to 4eppel is vali an spporte #! a vala#le consierationG H'"D

or niformit! an consistenc! in contract interpretation, the #etter rle to follo= is that the consieration for the option contract shol #e clearl! speci;ie as sch in the option contract or clase. 3ther=ise, the offeree mst #ear the #ren of proving that a separate consieration for the option contract eists. +iven or ;ining that the
CENT*$) P$OPE$T#ES% #NC( 's( ED;#N 3( BAB#ANO and E&&A CONCEPC#ON ($( No( 112:,<% 30ly 5% 12+/ PE$LAS=BE$NABE% 3(

>ailre to compl! an violate the terms =ol nllif! an voi the compensation, an other #ene;its he receives. -n the coming events, Ba#iano =as later terminate on the grons of (a) incrring e#rar! $2, $99, Ba#iano categoricall! amitte to CP- Chairman %ose e#rar! 1$, $99, he soght emplo!ment from >irst +lo#al, an ;ive (2) a!s later, =as amitte thereto as vice presient. >rom the foregoing, it is evientl! clear that =hen he soght an eventall! accepte the sai position =ith >irst  +lo#al, he =as still emplo!e #! CP- as he has not formall! resigne at that time. -rrefraga#l!, this is a glaring violation of the MCon;ientialit! of ocments an Non6 Compete ClaseM in his emplo!ment contract =ith CP-, ths, 0stif!ing the forfeitre of his npai commissions. S*LP#C#O L#NES% #NC( 's( NAPOLEON SESANTE% no8 s0bstit0ted by &A$#BEL  AT#LANO% !$#STEN &A$#E% CH$#ST#AN #ONE% !ENNETH !E$$N and !A$#SNA !ATE% all s0rnamed SESANTE ($( No( +<1/,1% 30ly 1<% 12+/ BE$SA&#N% 3(

>ortne -slan in Batangas. 129 passengers =ere reporte lost. 3ne of the srvivor of the passenger, Sesante, ;ile for #reach of  contract =ith amages. -SSA'D 1)

Fhether or not the petitioner is lia#le for #reach of contract =ith amages

$)

Fhether or not the petitioner is lia#le for the responentKs lost #elongings

H'"D 1. Ies.
-n contracts an @asi6contracts, the Cort has the iscretion to a=ar eemplar! amages if the efenant acte in a =anton, fralent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner. -nee, eemplar! amages cannot #e recovere as a matter of  right, an it is left to the cort to ecie =hether or not to a=ar them. >irst of all, eemplar! amages i not have to #e speci;icall! pleae or prove, #ecase the corts ha the iscretion to a=ar them for as long as the evience so =arrante. rthermore, the lia#ilit! of  the common carrier attaches even if the loss or amage to the #elongings reslte from the acts of the common carriers emplo!ees, the onl! eception #eing =here sch loss or amages is e to force ma0ere

$OSA$#O 6#CTO$#A and EL&A P#DLAOAN 's( NO$&#TA 3ACOB P#DLAOAN% HE$&#N##LDA P#DLAOAN and E*FE&#A P#DLAOAN ($( No( +:/.<2% April 12% 12+/ B$#ON% 3(

>
complaint together =ith 'lma for the reformation of arging that the ee of  onation =as simlate. -SSA'D Fhether the contract =as simlate or notG H'"D Fe ;in that the ee of onation =as simlate an the partiesK real intent  =as to enter into a sale. The petitioners arge that the ee of onation =as simlate an that the parties entere into an e@ita#le mortgage. 3n the other han, the responents en! the claim of e@ita#le mortgage an arge that the! valil! ac@ire the propert! via sale. The /TC rle that there =as onation #t onl! as to half of the propert!. The C< agree =ith the responents that the ee of onation =as not  simlate, rel!ing on the presmption of reglarit! of p#lic ocments. Fe ;irst =ell on the genineness of the ee of onation. There are t=o t!pes of simlate ocments  a#solte an relative. < ocment is a#soltel! simlate =hen the parties have no intent to #in themselves at all, =hile it is relativel! simlate =hen the parties conceale their tre agreement. The tre natre of a contract is etermine #! the partiesK intention, =hich can #e ascertaine from their contemporaneos an s#se@ent acts.

CATHA) PAC#F#C A#$;A)S LTD( 's( SPS( A$N*LFO and E6EL)N F*ENTEBELLA ($( No( +,,1,-% 30ly 12% 12+/ SE$ENO% C3(

>ente#ella an compan! =as athori?e #! the Speaker of the Hose to travel on of;icial #siness to <stralia to convene =ith the <stralian Parliament. The! #oght Bsiness Class tickets from anila to S!ne! !et the! then change it  to >irst Class. ring the ;light the! =ere not place on the >irst Class section an =as not treate as =hat ;irst class passengers =as meant to #e treate #! the emplo!ees of the carriage. Apon their arrival in the Philippines, the! emane a formal apolog! an pa!ment of amages from petitioner.
Fhether there =as a #reach of contract on the part of the petitionerG

$)

Fhether the petitioners are entitle to amagesG

H'"D 1) -n rance v. +illego, this Cort rle that in an action #ase on a #reach of  contract of carriage, the aggrieve part! oes not have to prove that the common carrier =as at falt or =as negligentJ all that he has to prove is the eistence of the contract an the fact of its nonperformance #! the carrier. -n this case, #oth the trial an appellate corts fon that responents =ere entitle to >irst Class accommoations ner the contract of carriage, an that petitioner faile to perform its o#ligation, $) oral an eemplar! amages are not orinaril! a=are in #reach of  contract cases. This Cort has hel that amages ma! #e a=are onl! =hen the #reach is =anton an eli#eratel! in0rios, or the one responsi#le ha acte fralentl! or =ith malice or #a faith. Ba faith is a @estion of fact that mst #e proven #! clear an convincing evience. Both the trial an the appellate corts fon that petitioner ha acte in #a faith. ernane?, #a faith =as impte #! the trial cort =hen it fon that the gron staff ha not  accore the attention an treatment =arrante ner the circmstances. The #a faith in the present case is even more prononce #ecase petitioners gron staff  ph!sicall! manhanle the passengers #! shoving them to the line, after another staff ha inslte them #! trning her #ack on them.

HE#$S OF LEAND$O NAT#6#DAD AND 3*L#ANA 6( NAT#6#DAD 's( 3*ANA &A*$#ClA=NAT#6#DAD% and SPO*SES 3EAN NAT#6#DAD C$*4 AND 3E$$) C$*4% ($( No( +:,.-.% &arch +.% 12+/ PE$ALTA% 3(

>
-SSA'D Fhether or not the ver#al agreement mae #et=een the si#lings an %liana, covering the shares of Sergio, as pa!ment of his o#ligations is covere #! the Statte of >ras espite the fact that it has #een partiall! eecteG H'"D There is no partial eection of an! contract, =hatsoever, #ecase petitioners faile to prove, in the ;irst place, that there =as a ver#al agreement that =as entere into. 'ven granting that sch an agreement eiste, the assignment of the shares of  Sergio in the s#0ect properties in petitioners favor as pa!ment of Sergios o#ligation cannot #e enforce if there is no =ritten contract to sch effect. Aner the Statte of >ras, an agreement to conve! real properties shall #e nenforcea#le #! action in the a#sence of a =ritten note or memoranm thereof an s#scri#e #! the part! charge or #! his agent.
TO&AS P( TAN% 3$( 's( 3OSE ( HOSANA ($( No( +:2,./% Febr0ary -% 12+/ B$#ON% 3(

>
H'"D The ee of sale as ocmentar! evience ma! #e se as a means to ascertain the trthflness of the consieration state an its actal pa!ment. The prpose of introcing the ee of sale as evience is not to enforce the terms =ritten in the contract, =hich is an o#ligator! force an effect of a vali contract. The ee of sale, rather, is se as a means to etermine matters that occrre in the eection of sch contract, i.e., the etermination of =hat each part! has given ner the voi contract to allo= restittion an prevent n0st enrichment. -t is #asic that if a voi contract has alrea! Q#een performe, the restoration of =hat has #een given is in orer.R This principle springs from
DES#DE$#O $ANA$A% 3$(% 's( 4ACA$#AS DELOS ANELES% 3$( ($( No( 122
>
/esponent then sent Paraa a letter insisting to enforce the ee of Sale =ith /ight to /eprchase. Ho=ever, Paraa insiste that there =as no pacto e retro sale an thereafter tenere an amont of Php 59,999 as pa!ment to the loan. She s#se@entl! iscovere that the responent ha alrea! registere the propert! an falsi;ie her af;iavit allo=ing the sale of the propert!. -SSA'D Fhether #oth petitioner an responent are at faltG H'"D The Cort rle af;irming #oth the ecision of the /TC an C<. L#CE$#A SAN 3*AN CAP#ST$ANO% BEN#NA SAN 3*AN 6AS?*E4% E6A$#STO SAN 3*AN% N#E6ES SAN 3*AN L*ST$E and &AT#LDE SAN 3*AN ?*#LON#O ($( No( +,1/1:% Febr0ary 1.% 12+/ JARDELEZA, J.

>rancisca San %an =as a tenant of the petitioners in a 5,999 s@are meter lan in Camarines Sr. The t=o parties mae an agreement after=ars that San %an =ill transfer the the other 5,999 s@are meters agricltral lan the petitioners o=n in Naga Cit!.

Fhen >rancisca ie her chilren an granchilren of >rancisca aske the =ife of r. <#ella if the! col #il their propert! on the other propert! =hich >ranisca vacate in =hich the =ife approve.
THEL&A $OD$#*E4% @oined by her h0sband 's( SPO*SES 3A#&E S#OSON "  A$&# S#OSON% et al( ($( No( +::+,2% 30ly 1<% 12+/ $E)ES% 3

>
lot to responents. The petitioner ;ile a complaint for the eclaration of Nllit! of  the secon sale. This time, she presente a signe an notari?e ee of sale. -SSA'D Fhether or not the transaction mae #et=een Neri an petitioner /orige? =as a contract of sale or a contract to sellG H'"D -tKs a mere contract to sell. espite the enomination of their agreement as one of sale, the circmstances ten to sho= that Neri agree to sell the s#0ect  propert! to Thelma on the conition that title an o=nership =ol pass or #e transferre pon the fll pa!ment of the prchase price. This is the ver! natre of a contract to sell, =hich is a M#ilateral contract =here#! the prospective seller, =hile epressl! reserving the o=nership of the propert! espite eliver! thereof to the prospective #!er, #ins himself to sell the propert! eclsivel! to the prospective #!er pon fl;illment of the conition agree pon, i.e., the fll pa!ment of the prchase price.M -t =as like=ise esta#lishe that Thelma =as not a#le to pa! the fll prchase price, an that she =as onl! a#le to pa! P$,$*.29 of the agree selling price of Pl ,$*,999.99. oreover, the allege eliver! of the propert!, even if tre, is irrelevant consiering that in a contract to sell, o=nership is retaine #! the registere o=ner in spite of the partial pa!ment of the prchase price an eliver! of possession of the propert!. Ths, in /o@e v.
OSCA$ S( 6#LLA$TA 's( A*D#OSO TALA6E$A% 3$( ($( No( 12,21+% Febr0ary -% 12+/ CARPIO, J.

>
Talavera =ith an nreasona#le amont =hich =as covere #! a ee of <#solte Sale. -SSA'D Fhether or not there =as an e@ita#le mortgage #et=een the partiesG H'"D Fe agree =ith the lo=er cortsK assessment of the facts. The conct of the parties prior to, ring, an after the eection of the ees of sale ae@atel! sho=s that petitioner sol to responent the lots in @estion to satisf! his e#ts. /esponent =as a#le to sf;icientl! eplain =h! the presmption of an e@ita#le mortgage oes not appl! in the present case. The inae@ac! of the prchase price in the t=o ees of sale ate 18 a! $991 =as spporte #! an
 ANEC#TA $EO$#O 's( &A$#A C$#SOLOO 6DA( DE C*L#% TH$* HE$  ATTO$NE)=#N=FACT ALF$EDO C*L# 3$( ($( No( +,255:% 3an0ary 12% 12+/ 3A$DELE4A% 3(

>
The /TC rle against aria #ecase for reemption to sccee there mst  #e a vali consignation of the reprchase price if
. The P#lic "an "a= oes not ;i the form an manner in =hich reconve!ance ma! #e enforce, nor prescri#e the metho an manner in =hich eman therefor shol #e maeJ an! act =hich shol amont to a eman for reconve!ance shol, therefore, #e sf;icient. (Anerscoring spplie.) -n "ee v. Cort of
&ELEC#O DO&#NO 's( SPO*SES ENA$O &OL#NA and ELENA B( &OL#NA% s0bstit0ted by ESTE$ &OL#NA ($( No( 1221<.% April 12% 12+/ B$#ON% 3

>lora omingo entere into a contract of loan =ith sposes olina. The! mae as secrit! the propert! the! o=ne consisting of a V nivie portion over an 18,15 s@. meter lan. Fhich in trn the! transferre the interest to olina

elecio, one of the chilren of lora, learne of the transfer an ;ile a Complaint for
E?*#TABLE SA6#NS BAN!% 's $OSAL#NDA C( PALCES ($( No( 1+.<51% &arch :% 12+/

B$#ON% 3 >
-n the !ear of $992, Palces prchase a van throgh a loan a=are #! '@ita#le Savings Bank. The loan =as secre #! a promissor! note an a Chattel ortgage.
HE#$S OF A&AL#EL ALBANO 's( SPS( $OBE$TO and &ENA $A6ANES ($( No( +,-/.5% 30ly 12% 12+/ 3A$DELE4A% 3(

Spose /avanes are the registere o=ner of a parcel of lan in =hich the petitioners has #ilt a t=o6store! hose an lease the lan =ith the agreement that  the! =ill vacate the propert! once the responent eman to. /esponents then re@este for them to vacate the premises #ecase their aghter =ill #il a hose

on it. The petitioners oes not =ant to leave the premises arging that the! ha a vali contract =ith /o#erto. -SSA'D Fhether the lease contract entere into #! petitioner /o#erto =as vali an =ol sta! the eection of the 0gmentG

H'"D No it =as not. To or min, instea of a spervening event, the eection of  the lease contract partakes of the natre of a compromise. < compromise is a contract =here#! the parties, #! making reciprocal concessions, avoi litigation or pt an en to one alrea! commence. Anfortnatel! for petitioners, the compromise that the! effecte is =anting of one of the essential re@isites of a vali an #ining compromise66consent of all the parties in the case. -t is nispte that  onl! /o#erto entere into a lease contract =ith petitioners. ena i not sign it, #t  on the contrar!, enonces its eection as #eing one in evient #a faith an =ithot athorit! from her as the sole o=ner of the propert!. Consiering that ena i not participate in the eection of the lease contract, the compromise is not  #ining on her. -n aition, the compromise is also not vali even #et=een petitioners an /o#erto #ecase the recors sho= that the lan in @estion is inee a paraphernal prope1i! of ena. Fithot an athori?ation sho=ing that  /o#erto is acting on #ehalf of ena, he has no right an po=er to enter into a lease contract involving enas eclsive propert!. Besies, even assming that the propert! is con0gall! o=ne #! responent6sposes, this oes not #esto= pon /o#erto the po=er to enter into a lease contract =ithot the consent of his =ife. Fe have eplaine in /oas v. Cort of
D$A( &E$CEDES OL#6E$ 's( PH#L#PP#NE SA6#NS BAN! " L#L#A CAST$O ($( No( 1+.5/<% April .% 12+/ &endoa% 3(

>
Becase of the great retrns of the transaction 3liver =as persae #! Castro to o#tain a creit line =orth 19 illion pesos that =as secre #! a real estate mortgage. The petitioner fon ot that Castro i not pa! the #alances of the loan as instrcte #! him an that there =ere fralent transactions. The petitioner sa= the ;inal eman letter sent to her. -SSA'D Fhether or not a contract of agenc! eists #et=een 3liver an CastroG H'"D -n this case, 3liver an Castro ha a #siness agreement =herein 3liver =ol o#tain loans from the #ank, throgh the help of Castro as its #ranch managerJ an after ac@iring the loan procees, Castro =ol len the ac@ire amont to prospective #orro=ers =ho =ere =aiting for the actal release of their loan procees. 3liver =ol gain  to 2 interest per month from the loan procees of  her #orro=ers, =hile Castro =ol earn a commission of 19 from the interests. Clearl!, an agenc! =as forme #ecase Castro #on herself to rener some service in representation or on #ehalf of 3liver, in the frtherance of their #siness prsit. < contract of agenc! ma! #e inferre from all the ealings #et=een 3liver an Castro.
&ACTAN=CEB* #NTE$NAT#ONAL A#$PO$T A*THO$#T) 's( $#CHA$D E( *NCH*AN ($( No( +,15-<% 30ne +% 12+/ &ENDO4A% 3(

>
/esponent claims he is the rightfl o=ner of the t=o parcels of lan =hich he #oght from the heirs of one 'genio +oine? =hich it trne ot that the lot =as sol #! or the principal to confer the right pon an agent to sell real estate, a po=er of attorne! mst so epress the

po=ers of the agent in clear an nmistaka#le langage. Fhen there is an! reasona#le o#t that the langage so se conve!s sch po=er, no sch constrction shall #e given the ocment. Fithot a special po=er of attorne! specif!ing his athorit! to ispose of an immova#le,
his grantors share in the partition of the propert! o=ne in common. Since a co6 o=ner is entitle to sell his nivie share, a sale of the entire propert! #! one co6 o=ner =ithot the consent of the other co6o=ners is not nll an voiJ onl! the rights of the co6o=nerLseller are transferre, there#! making the #!er a co6o=ner of the propert!. -n the case at #ench, althogh the sale transaction insofar as the other heirs of the registere o=ners =as voi, the sale insofar as the etent of
&#CHAEL C( *) 's( ATT)( LENN C( ACOTT ($( No( 12/+.<% 3an0ary +-% 12+/ &ENDO4A% 3(

>

-n essence, these provisions articlate that it is the act of a partner =hich case loss or in0r! to a thir person that makes all other partners soliaril! lia#le =ith the partnership #ecase of the =ors Man! =rongfl act or omission of an! partner acting in the orinar! corse of the #siness,M Mone partner acting =ithin the scope of his apparent athorit!M an Mmisapplie #! an! partner =hile it is in the csto! of the partnership.M The o#ligation is soliar! #ecase the la= protects the thir person, =ho in goo faith relie pon the athorit! of a partner, =hether sch athorit! is real or apparent. -n the case at #ench, it =as not sho=n that +! or the other partners i a =rongfl act or misapplie the mone! or propert! he or the partnership receive from +acott. < thir person =ho transacte =ith sai partnership can hol the partners soliaril! lia#le for the =hole o#ligation if the case of the thir person falls ner or sai reason, it is the general rle ner
TA$C#S#O S( CAL#L*N 's( PA$A&O*NT #NS*$ANCE et( al( ($( No( +:5/.+% 30ly ++% 12+/ BE$SA&#N% 3

>
Fhether or not the o#ligation earne a compon interest. H'"D The onl! interest to #e collecte from the responents is the 1 per annm on the principal o#ligation of 718,729.99 reckone from 3cto#er 7, 187 ntil fll pa!ment. There =as no #asis for the petitioner to claim compone interest  prsant to
SPS( 3*AN CH*) TAN and &A$) TAN s0bstit0ted by their s0r'i'ing heirs% 3OEL TAN and E$#C TAN% 's(CH#NA BAN!#N CO$PO$AT##ON ($( No( 1221::% April +,% 12+/ PE$E4% 3(

>
-SSA'D Fhether or not the foreclose properties are enogh to settle the o#ligationG H'"D The Cort anchore its ecision in favor of responent follo=ing the provisions on pa!ment of e#ts ner the Civil Coe, particlarl!
TECHNO DE6ELOP&ENT " CHE&#CAL CO$PO$AT#ON 's( 6#!#N &ETAL #ND*ST$#ES% #NCO$PO$ATED ($( No( 12-+<:% 30ly .% 12+/ PE$ALTA% 3(

>
calle Altra?inc Primer. The petitioner spplie the primer an the necessar! personnel to spervise the application on the fa#ricate items. The fa#ricate items in trn =ere spplie to PN3C6'C. Ho=ever, the fa#ricate items #egn eveloping rst. /esponent then emane for the pll6ot of the items in the epense of the petitioner. Then, PN3C6'C prompte the responent to ;inish the pro0ect as schele an if ela! =ill #e incrre the! =ill #e lia#le. Becase of the ela! the contract price =as ecrease #! PN3C6'C. Therefore, responent claims for sm of mone! an amages against PN3C6'C for the remaining #alance of the contract price, an against the petitioner for the allege repairs one on the amage fa#ricate items. -SSA'D Fhether or not petitioner is entitle to eemplar! amages an attorne!Ks feesG H'"D No, it is not. ive ($2) Per Cent of the total amont of the o#ligation e an emana#le, in the natre of attorne!s fees.M Ths, instea of the P$99,999.99 attorne!s fees, as =ell as the P2,999.99 honorarim per appearance, the a=ar of attorne!s fees mst #e compte on the #asis of sai stiplation, =hich provies for a t=ent!6;ive percent ($2) charge on the total amont e to petitioner Techno.

SPS( &A&E$TO and ADEL#A T#&ADO 's( $*$AL BAN! OF SAN 3OSE et( al( ($( No( 12+.-/% 30ly ++% 12+/ B$#ON% 3(

>
Petitioners eecte a real estate mortgage over a parcel of lan an a chattel mortgae over a rice mill machiner! an a iesel engine as secrit! to a loan from /ral Bank of San %ose. irst, the! ma! #e impose #! =a! of eample or correction onl! in aition, among others, to compensator! amages, an cannot #e recovere as a matter of right, their etermination epening pon the amont of compensator! amages that ma! #e a=are to the claimant. Secon, the claimant mst ;irst  esta#lish his right to moral, temperate, li@iate, or compensator! amages.
 ANNA &A$#E L( *&ABON 's( PH#L#PP#NE NAT#ONAL BAN! ($( No( 1215+.% 30ly 15% 12+/ B$##ON% 3(

>
=ent to the #ank to =ithra= the mone!, she =as enie access #ecase her recors =ere missing an Salvoro =as no=here to #e fon.
TO$$ES=&AD$#D B$O!E$AE% #NC( 's( FEB &#TS*# &A$#NE #NS*$ANCE CO(% #NC( ($( +:.+1+% 30ly ++% 12+/ B$#ON% 3(

>
Son! Philippines, -nc. (Son!) has engage the services of petitioner to ship varios electronic goos from Thailan an ala!sia to its =arehose in "agna. TB- s#contracte the services of BT trcking services to transport the goos from the port of anila to "agna =arehose. Son! kne= of the contract #et=een BT an TB-. The trcks of BT arrive an picke p the goos ho=ever the! cannot leave the port e to trck #an an the follo=ing a! =as a Sna!. Therefore, there =as a ela! for t=o a!s. Come eliver! a! onl! three trcks arrive at the =arehose =hile the forth trck =as fon a#anone on a roa =ith the river an the shipment missing. TB- then emane pa!ment from BT for the lost shipment #t BT refse. BT allege that the goos =ere hi0acke. 3n the other han, Son! ;ile a claim on its insrer of goos, =hich =as itsi, =hich in trn emane pa!ment from TB-.

-SSA'D Fhether or not TB- or BT ma! #e hel lia#le for @asi6 elictG H'"D -n the present case, the shipper, Son!, engage the services of TB-, a common carrier, to facilitate the release of its shipment an eliver the goos to its =arehose. -n trn, TB- s#contracte a portion of its o#ligation  the eliver! of  the cargo  to another common carrier, BT. espite the s#contract, TBremaine responsi#le for the cargo. Aner
contract an the o#ligorKs failre to perform his o#ligation. 3n the other han, the plaintiff in clpa a@iliana mst clearl! esta#lish the efenantKs falt or negligence #ecase this is the ver! #asis of the action. -n the present case, itsiKs action is solel! premise on TB-Ks #reach of contract. itsi i not even se BT, mch less prove an! negligence on its part. -f BT has entere the pictre at all, it is #ecase TB- se it for reim#rsement for the lia#ilit! that TB- might incr from its contract of carriage =ith Son!Litsi. e#rar! 19, $915 B/-3N, %. >