San Sebastian College Recoletos Manila
2015 Case Digest for Civil Law Review 2
Submitted to: Att! Att! Crisostomo Criso stomo "ribe Submitted b: #arl $ustin %! Conce&cion Class number: '
(able (able of Contents )*RL+)DA S! MAR+LA, v! MARC#L+)* %! MAR(+)#.
R"/S /*)S"L( A)D C*)S(R"C(+*) vs! AD*RLD S+,) A)D AD#R(+S+), C*R*RA(+*) and (RA)S*RLD M#D+A ADS3 +)C!3 4 ,#*R,# C! *), vs! $*S# ! D"#6AS 5 MAR+(* (! %#R)AL#S3 S! )*R(7#S( A+RL+)#S 8 7+L++)# (R"S( C*MA)9 S! L*R* R*AS A)D #"#M+A R*AS ; %A)/ * (7# 7+L++)# +SLA)DS S! AMAD*R D*M+),* ' M+LA,R*S C! R#9#S S! #L+ ! AS")C+*) < 9"L+M +)(#R)A(+*)AL +)(#R)A(+*)AL C*MA)9 C*MA)9 L(D!3 L(D!3 $AM#S 9"3 $*)A(7A) $*)A(7A) 9"3 A)D ALM#R+C/ (+#), L+M3 S! +)(#R)A(+*)AL +)(#R)A(+*)AL #C7A),# #C7A),# %A)/ =)* ")+*) ")+*) %A)/ * (7# 7+L++)#S>3 10 +RS( *(+MA R#AL(9 C*R*RA(+*)3 etitioner3 vs! S#C"R+(R*) S#C"R+(9 S#R+C#S3 S#R+C#S3 +)C!311 C#%" S(A(# C*LL#,# * SC+#)C# A)D (#C7)*L*,9 =CSCS(>3 R#R#S#)(#D %9 %9 +(S +)C"M%#)( R#S+D#)( S! L"+S S! M+S(#R+*3 ,A%R+#L S! M+S(#R+*3 RA)C+S S! M+S(#R+*3 (7#LMA S! M+S(#R+*3 A)D #S(#LA S! M+S(#R+*?(A,+MACR"12 MA)"#L MA)"#L $"SA9 $"SA9A)3ALR#D* A)3ALR#D* $"SA9 $"SA9A)3 A)D M+C7A#L M+C7A#L $"SA9 $"SA9A)3 S! $*R,# $*R,# S*M%+LLA3 1. S*"S#S SAL SALAD*R A%#LLA A)D ALMA A%#LLA3S! S*"S#S R*M#* A%#LLA A)D A))+# A%#LLA 14 %A),/* %A),/* S#)(RAL ), +L++)AS3 #(+(+*)#R3 S! A,"S(+) L+%*?*)3 L+%*? *)3 R#S*)D#)(! 15 MA9%A)/ 7+L++)#S3 +)C! =*RM#RL9 )%?R#"%L+C %A)/ S! S*"S#S *SCAR A)D )#)+(A (ARR*SA3 18 )# *RLD D##L*#RS A)D MA)A,#M#)(3 +)C!3 S! AMA C*M"(#R L#AR)+), C#)(#R3 +)C!3 AMA C*M"(#R L#AR)+), C#)(#R3 +)C!3 S! )# *RLD D##L*#RS A)D MA)A,#M#)(3 +)C!3 1; DR! $A+M# (! (! CR"-3 v! #L+C+S+M* #L+C+S +M* ! ! A,AS3 $R!3 1'
2
)*RL+)DA S! MAR+LA,3 etitioner3 v! MARC#L+)* %! MAR(+)#-3 Res&ondent! ,!R! )o! 201'<23 $ul 223 2015 #RLAS?%#R)A%#3 $! +RS( D++S+*) Solutio +ndebiti acts: *n $ul .03 1<<23 Rafael Martine@ =Rafael>3 res&ondents fatBer3 obtained from &etitioner a loan in tBe amount of 1803000!003 witB a sti&ulated montBl interest of ve &ercent =5>3 &aable witBin a &eriod of siE =8> montBs! (Be loan was secured b a real estate mortgage over a &arcel of land covered b (ransfer Certicate of (itle =(C(> )o! (?20'400! Rafael failed to settle Bis obligation u&on maturit and des&ite re&eated demands3 &rom&ting &etitioner to le a Com&laint for $udicial oreclosure of Real #state Mortgage before tBe R(C of +mus3 Cavite3 %rancB <0; =R(C?+mus> on )ovember 103 1<<53' docFeted as Civil Case )o! 120'?<5 ,udicial foreclosure case> MeanwBile3 &rior to Rafaels notice of tBe above decision3 res&ondent agreed to &a Rafaels obligation to &etitioner wBicB was &egged at 8'<3000!00! After maFing a total &ament of 4003000!003 Be eEecuted a &romissor note dated ebruar 203 1<<' =subGect )>3 binding Bimself to &a on or before MarcB .13 1<<' tBe amount of 2'<3000!003 Hre&resenting tBe balance of tBe agreed nancial obligation of IBisJ fatBer to I&etitionerJ!H After learning of tBe $anuar .03 1<<' Decision3 res&ondent refused to &a tBe amount covered b tBe subGect ) des&ite demands3 &rom&ting &etitioner to le a com&laint for sum of mone and damages before tBe court a Kuo on $ul 23 1<<'3 docFeted as Civil Case )o! <'?0158 =collection case>! +ssue: BetBer tBe &ament of Rafael constitutes solutio indebiti 7eld: 9es! (Bus3 as of $anuar .03 1<<'3 onl tBe amount of 2853800!00 was due under tBe loan contract3 and tBe recei&t of an amount more tBan tBat renders &etitioner liable for tBe return of tBe eEcess! Res&ondent3 Bowever3 made furtBer &ament in tBe amount of 1003000!00 on tBe belief tBat tBe subGect loan obligation Bad not et been satised! SucB &aments were3 tBerefore3 clearl made b mistaFe3 giving rise to tBe Kuasi?contractual obligation of solutio indebiti under Article 2154 in relation to Article 218. of .
tBe Civil Code! )ot being a loan or forbearance of mone3 an interest of 8 &!a! sBould be im&osed on tBe amount to be refunded and on tBe damages and attornes fees awarded3 if an3 com&uted from tBe time of demand until its satisfaction! ConseKuentl3 &etitioner must return to res&ondent tBe eEcess &aments in tBe total amount of 1.43400!003 witB legal interest at tBe rate of 8 &!a! from tBe ling of tBe Answer on August 83 1<<' inter&osing a counterclaim for sucB over&ament3 until full settled!
R"/S /*)S"L( A)D C*)S(R"C(+*)3 etitioner3 vs! AD*RLD S+,) A)D AD#R(+S+), C*R*RA(+*) and (RA)S*RLD M#D+A ADS3 +)C!3 Res&ondents! ,!R! )o! 204'88
$anuar 213 2015
+RS( D++S+*) #RLAS?%#R)A%#3 $!: $oint and Solidar *bligation acts: Adworld alleged tBat it is tBe owner of a ;5 ft! E 80 ft! billboard structure located at #DSA (ula3 ,uadalu&e3 %arangFa Mandaluong3 wBicB was misaligned and its foundation im&aired wBen3 on August 113 200.3 tBe adGacent billboard structure owned b (ransworld and used b ComarF colla&sed and crasBed against it! Resultantl3 on August 1<3 200.3 Adworld sent (ransworld and ComarF a letter demanding &ament for tBe re&airs of its billboard as well asloss of rental income! *n August 2<3 200.3 (ransworld sent its re&l3 admitting tBe damage caused b its billboard structure on Adworlds billboard3 but nevertBeless3 refused and failed to &a tBe amounts demanded b Adworld! (ransworld averred tBat tBe colla&se of its billboard structure was due to eEtraordinaril strong winds tBat occurred instantl and uneE&ectedl3 and maintained tBat tBe damage caused to Adworlds billboard structure was Bardl noticeable! (ransworld liFewise led a (Bird? art Com&laint against RuFs3 tBe com&an wBicB built tBe colla&sed billboard structure in tBe formers favor!1RuFs admitted tBat it entered into a contract witB (ransworld for tBe construction of tBe latters billboard structure but +t contended tBat wBen (ransworld Bired its services3 tBere was alread an eEisting foundation for tBe billboard and tBat it merel nisBed tBe structure according to tBe terms and conditions of its contract witB tBe latter +ssue: BetBer RusFs sBould be Gointl and severall liable witB (ransworld 7eld: 9es!
4
+n tBis case3 tBe CA correctl aNrmed tBe R(Cs nding tBat (ransworlds initial construction of its billboards lower structure witBout tBe &ro&er foundation3 and tBat of RuFss nisBing its u&&er structure and Gust merel assuming tBat (ransworld would reinforce tBe weaF foundation are tBe two =2> successive acts wBicB were tBe direct and &roEimate cause of tBe damages sustained b Adworld! orse3 botB (ransworld and RuFs were full aware tBat tBe foundation for tBe formers billboard was weaFO et3 neitBer of tBem tooF an &ositive ste& to reinforce tBe same! (Be merel relied on eacB otBers word tBat re&airs would be done to sucB foundation3 but none was done at all! Clearl3 tBe foregoing circumstances sBow tBat botB (ransworld and RuFs are guilt of negligence in tBe construction of tBe formers billboard3 and &erforce3 sBould be Beld liable for its colla&se and tBe resulting damage to Adworlds billboard structure! As Goint tortfeasors3 tBerefore3 tBe are solidaril liable to Adworld! eril3 HIGJoint tortfeasors are tBose wBo command3 instigate3 &romote3 encourage3 advise3 countenance3 coo&erate in3 aid or abet tBe commission of a tort3 or a&&rove of it after it is done3 if done for tBeir benet! (Be are also referred to as tBose wBo act togetBer in committing wrong or wBose acts3 if inde&endent of eacB otBer3 unite in causing a single inGur! "nder Article 21<4 2< of tBe Civil Code3 Goint tortfeasors are solidaril liable for tBe resulting damage! +n otBer words3 Goint tortfeasors are eacB liable as &rinci&als3 to tBe same eEtent and in tBe same manner as if tBe Bad &erformed tBe wrongful act tBemselves ,#*R,# C! *),3 etitioner3 vs! $*S# ! D"#6AS3 Res&ondent! ,!R! )o! 1'55<2
$une 153 2015
S#C*)D D++S+*) %R+*)3 $!: Resolution acts: DuePas and ong entered into a verbal Goint venture contract wBere tBe agreed to engage in tBe food business and to incor&orate a Bolding com&an under tBe name Alliance 7oldings3 +nc! =Alliance or tBe &ro&osed cor&oration>! +ts ca&itali@ation would be SiEt ive Million esos =85 Million>3 to wBicB tBe would contribute in eKual &arts! ong wrote DuePas informing Bim of Bis decision to cancel tBe Goint venture agreement! 7e also asFed for tBe refund of tBe 5 Million tBat Be advanced!14 +n res&onse3 DuePas admitted tBat Be could not immediatel return tBe mone since Be used it to defra tBe business eE&enses of Danton and %aFcom! (o meet ongs demand3 DuePas &ro&osed several scBemes for &ament of tBe 5 Million ++ssue: BetBer tBe &arties failed to com&l witB tBeir res&ective obligation 7eld: 9es (Be Court Bolds tBat tBe Goint venture agreement between ong and DuePas is deemed eEtinguisBed tBrougB rescission under Article 11<2 in relation witB Article 11<1 of tBe Civil Code! DuePas must tBerefore return tBe 5 Million tBat ong initiall contributed since rescission reKuires mutual restitution! After rescission3 tBe &arties must go bacF to tBeir original status before tBe 5
entered into tBe agreement! DuePas cannot Fee& ongs contribution as tBis would constitute unGust enricBment! )o damages sBall be awarded to an &art in accordance witB tBe rule under Article 11<2 of tBe Civil Code tBat in case of mutual breacB and tBe rst infractor of tBe contract cannot eEactl be determined3 eacB &art sBall bear Bis own damages!
MAR+(* (! %#R)AL#S3 #(+(+*)#R3 S! )*R(7#S( A+RL+)#S3 R#S*)D#)(! ,!R! )o! 1'2.<5 Q 2015?10?05 %R+*)3 $!: Second division ortuitous #vent acts: (Be &etitioner Marito (! %ernales is a lawer3 a universit dean3 and a board member of tBeSangguniang anlalawigan of Camarines Sur! *n 1 *ctober 20023 Be and several otBer &rominent &ersonalities from %icol were on tBeir wa to 7onolulu3 7awaii3 as tBe delegates of a trade and tourism mission for tBe &rovince! (Be were econom class &assengers of )ortBwest Airlines ligBt )o! 10 from Manila to 7onolulu via )arita3 $a&an At around 8:00 &!m!3 a t&Boon Bit $a&an3 leading to tBe cancellation of most igBts3 including )A ligBt )o! 10! 7owever3 )A did not cancel ligBt )o! 223 also bound for 7onolulu later tBat nigBt3 to minimi@e delas and to accommodate stranded &assengers in case tBe t&Boon would subside! (Be &assengers of ligBt 22 were called for boarding at around 11:00 &!m! and tBe delegates boarded tBe sButtle taFing tBem to tBe air&lane! %ut before tBe sButtle bus could leave3 )A Customer Service Agent (suruFi *BasBi entered tBe sButtle and informed tBe &etitioner tBat Be could not taFe ligBt 22 as no available seat was left for Bim! tBe &etitioner led a com&laint for moral and eEem&lar damages against tBe res&ondent )A for breacB of tBeir contract of carriage! (Be &etitioner alleged tBat *BasBis rude
8
treatment3 Bis eGection from tBe sButtle bus3 tBe resulting missed obligations due to tBe igBts dela3 and tBe Bumiliation from tBe ordeal caused Bim immense mental anguisB and moral sBocF! +ssue: BetBer tBe storm is an event in wBicB )A can be eEem&t from liabilities! 7eld: 9es! (Be &etitioner &aints tBe dismal &icture tBat Be was forced to use tBe &ublic comfort rooms and slee& on tBe oor liFe HtBe beggars of uia&o and %aclaran!H 7e fails to mention tBougB tBat tBe 13500 otBer stranded &assengers Bad to endure tBe same discomforts tBat Be eE&eriencedO )A did not maliciousl single Bim out! All tBe stranded &assengers suTered tBe same eE&erience because of (&Boon 7igos! )A did tBe neEt best tBing it could and &rovided tBe &assengers witB blanFets3 snacFs3 and otBer comforts available under tBe circumstances! (Be arrival of (&Boon 7igos was an eEtraordinar and unavoidable event! +ts occurrence made it im&ossible for )A to bring tBe &etitioner to 7onolulu in time for Bis commitments! e cannot Bold tBe res&ondent liable for a breacB of contract resulting from a fortuitous event! Moreover3 we nd tBat )A did not act in bad faitB or in a wanton3 fraudulent3 recFless3 or o&&ressive manner! *n tBe contrar3 it eEerted its best eTorts to accommodate tBe &etitioner on ligBt )o! 22 and to lessen tBe &etitioners discomfort wBen Be and tBe otBer &assengers were left to &ass tBe nigBt at tBe terminal! (Bus3 tBe CA did not err in dismissing tBe com&laint!
;
7+L++)# (R"S( C*MA)93 #(+(+*)#R3 S! L*R* R*AS A)D #"#M+A R*AS3 R#S*)D#)(S! ,!R! )o! 1;1'<; Q 2015?10?14 $ARD#L#-A3 $!: (Bird division Legal com&ensation acts: *n A&ril 103 1<;<3 tBe S&ouses RoEas3 (C3 and Roben Construction and urnisBing ,rou&3 +nc! entered into Ha contract of building construction3H under wBicB (C granted an additional loan of B& <003000 to tBe S&ouses RoEas to enable tBem to nisB tBeir ongoing Bousing &roGects! (Bis was su&erseded b a new Hcontract of building constructionH wBere Rosendo ! Domingue@3 $r! =HDomingue@H> substituted Roben Construction as tBe contractor under tBe same terms and conditions! (Be new contract sti&ulated tBat (C ma onl release tBe &roceeds of tBe loan for tBe &urcBase of materials and su&&lies wBen reKuested b Domingue@ and witB tBe conformit of tBe S&ouses RoEas! +nvoices covering materials &reviousl &urcBased witB tBe funds sBould also be submitted to (C before an subseKuent release of funds is made (C3 Bowever3 released to Domingue@ tBe sum of B& ';03000 out of tBe B& <003000 altBougB tBe S&ouses RoEas Bad agreed onl to tBe release of not more tBan B& 45030003 as evidenced b a &romissor note dated A&ril 113 1<; tBat eacB one of tBe obligors be bound &rinci&all3 and tBat Be be at tBe same time a &rinci&al creditor of tBe otBerO =b> tBat botB debts consist in a sum of mone3 or if tBe tBings due are consumable3 tBe be of tBe same Find3 and also of tBe same Kualit if tBe latter Bas been statedO =c> tBat tBe two debts be dueO =d> tBat tBe be liKuidated and demandableO and =e> tBat over neitBer of tBem tBere be an retention or controvers3 commenced b tBird &ersons and communicated in due time to tBe debtor!
'
7ere3 tBe fourtB reKuisite is absent! A debt is liKuidated wBen its eEistence and amount are determined! Com&ensation can onl taFe &lace between certain and liKuidated debtsO it cannot eEtend to unliKuidated3 dis&uted claims! Since tBe loan obligation3 including its amount and demandabilit3 is still being dis&uted in CA?,!R! C)o! .0.403 (Cs credit cannot be considered liKuidated as of et! ConseKuentl3 no legal com&ensation could Bave taFen &lace between (Cs loan credit and tBe S&ouses RoEas Gudgment credit!
<
%A)/ * (7# 7+L++)# +SLA)DS3 #(+(+*)#R3 S! AMAD*R D*M+),*3 R#S*)D#)(! ,!R! )o! 18<40; Q 2015?0.?25 +RS( D++S+*) Leonardo U De Castro 3 $!: )oavation acts: Amador admitted tBat Bis wife bougBt a car and was mortgaged to ar #ast %anF and (rust Com&an Bile tBe were still &aing for tBe car3 Carmelita ,on@ales got interested to bu tBe car and is willing to assume tBe mortgage! After furnisBing tBe banF IwitBJ tBe Deed of Sale dul notari@ed3 Carmelita ,on@ales subseKuentl issued a cBecF &aable to ar #ast %anF and (rust Com&an and tBe remaining &ostdated cBecFs were returned to tBem! %ased on tBe a&&lication of &ament &re&ared b I%+sJ witness3 Carmelita ,on@ales made &aments from )ovember 143 1<<5 to December 1<<5! Aside from tBese &aments on Ma 1<3 1<<;3 Carmelita ,on@ales issued a cBecF to ar #ast %anF in tBe amount of .'534.1!80! +n 1<<83 Be received a &Bone call from a certain Marvin *rence asFing for tBeir assistance to locate tBe car wBicB Carmelita ,on@ales bougBt from tBem! 7is lawer went to Land (rans&ortation *Nce for assistance! rom tBe time Ms! ,on@ales started to &a3 tBe never received an demand letter from ar #ast %anF! (Bereafter3 on ebruar 2<3 1<<;3 tBe received a demand letter from #s&ino Law *Nce IonJ beBalf of I#%(CJ! 7is lawer made a re&l on MarcB .13 1<<; stating tBerein tBat tBe motor veBicle for wBicB tBe loan was obtained Bad been sold to Carmelita ,on@ales as of $ul 53 1<<4 witB tBe Fnowledge and a&&roval of tBeir client! +ssue: BetBer or not tBere Bad been a novation of tBe loan obligation witB cBattel mortgage of tBe s&ouses Domingo to %+ so tBat tBe s&ouses Domingo were released from said obligation and Carmelita was substituted as debtor! 7eld: )o (Be burden of establisBing a novation is on tBe &art wBo asserts its eEistence! Contrar to tBe ndings of tBe Court of A&&eals and tBe R(C3 Amador failed to discBarge sucB burden as Be was unable to &resent &roof of tBe clear and unmistaFable consent of %+ to tBe substitution of debtors! irst3 tBat %+ =or #%(C> Bad a co& of tBe Deed of Sale and Assum&tion of Mortgage eEecuted between Merc and Carmelita in its le does not mean tBat it Bad consented to tBe same! (Be ver Deed itself states: (Bat tBe #)D## ICarmelitaJ assumes as BeVsBe Bad assumed to &a tBe aforecited mortgage in accordance witB tBe original terms and conditions of said mortgage3 and tBe &arties Bereto IMerc and CarmelitaJ Bave agreed to seeF tBe conformit of tBe M*R(,A,## I#%(CJ!I.0J (Bis brings tBe Court bacF to tBe original Kuestion of wBetBer tBere is &roof of tBe conformit of %+! (Be Court notes tBat tBe documents of %+ concerning tBe car loan and cBattel mortgage are still in tBe name of tBe s&ouses Domingo! )o new &romissor note or cBattel mortgage Bad been eEecuted between %+ =or 10
#%(C> and Carmelita! #ven tBe account itself is still in tBe names of tBe s&ouses Domingo! (Be absence of obGection on tBe &art of %+ =or #%(C> cannot be &resumed as consent! $uris&rudence reKuires &resentation of &roof of consent3 not mere absence of obGection! Amador cannot rel on %abst wBicB involved a diTerent factual milieu! M+LA,R*S C! R#9#S3 #(+(+*)#R3 S! #L+ ! AS")C+*)3 R#S*)D#)(! ,!R! )o! 1<80'. Q 2015?11?11 (Bird division #RAL(A3 $!: Simulated Contracts acts: etitioner claimed tBat since tBe earl '0s3 sBe and Ber late Busband were tBe owners3 witB tBe rigBt to occu& and &ossess a &arcel of land =subGect land>3 wBicB is also a sugarcane &lantation3 witB an area of more or less .!5 Bectares located at atling3 Ca&as3 (arlac and forms &art of a "!S! Militar Reservation! Sometime in 1<'83 &etitioner Bired res&ondent as a caretaFer of tBe subGect land! +n 1<<;3 tBe %ases Conversion and Develo&ment AutBorit =%CDA> launcBed a resettlement &rogram for tBe victims of tBe Mt! inatubo eru&tion and began to looF for &ossible resettlement sites in (arlac and tBe subGect lot was among tBose considered! (Bereafter3 according to &etitioner3 in order to &revent tBe %CDA from converting Ber &ro&ert into a resettlement site3 sBe and res&ondent eEecuted a contract3 antedated on $une 153 1<<.3 transferring Ber rigBts over tBe subGect land to tBe res&ondent! +ssue: wBetBer tBe transfer of tBe land to res&ondent is a simulated contract tBat will void tBe transfer 7eld: )o! So far3 a&&ellants averments evince an obvious Fnowledge and voluntariness on Ber &art to enter into tBe alleged simulated contract! itBout tBe sligBtest doubt3 a&&ellant3 as &laintiT in tBe court below3 utterl foiled to adduce an evidence of a&&ellees bad faitB or fraud in &rocuring Ber signature to tBe contract or tBat Be violated tBeir real intention3 if an3 in eEecuting it! +t must be stressed tBat tBe determination of wBetBer one acted in bad faitB is evidentiar in nature! +ndeed3 tBe unbroFen Guris&rudence is tBat HIbJad faitB Ior fraudJ under tBe law cannot be &resumedO it must be establisBed b clear and convincing evidence! (Be allegation of simulation of contract as well as lacF of consent andVor vitiated consent remains to be &roven! As it stands3 e &erceive tBat tBe contract b its ver terms and conditions3 on $une 153 1<<.3 a&&ellant sim&l intended to transfer tBe subGect land to a&&ellee! +t is a cardinal rule tBat if tBe terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt as to tBe intention of tBe contracting &arties3 tBe literal meaning of its sti&ulation sBall control 11
12
9"L+M +)(#R)A(+*)AL C*MA)9 L(D!3 $AM#S 9"3 $*)A(7A) 9"3 A)D ALM#R+C/ (+#), L+M3 #(+(+*)#RS3 S! +)(#R)A(+*)AL #C7A),# %A)/ =)* ")+*) %A)/ * (7# 7+L++)#S>3 R#S*)D#)(! ,!R! )o! 20.1.. Q 2015?02?1' (7+RD D++S+*) Dacion en ago R#9#S3 $!: acts: *n $une 23 20003 i%anF3 a commercial banF3 granted 9ulim3 a domestic &artnersBi&3 a credit facilit in tBe form of an *mnibus Loan Line for 530003000!003 as evidenced b a Credit Agreement wBicB was secured b a CBattel Mortgage over 9ulims inventories in its mercBandise wareBouse at 108 4tB Street3
1.
+RS( *(+MA R#AL(9 C*R*RA(+*)3 etitioner3 vs! S#C"R+(R*) S#C"R+(9 S#R+C#S3 +)C!3 Res&ondent! ,!R! )o! 1<<84' $anuar 2'3 2015 S#C*)D D++S+*) D#L CAS(+LL*3 $!: #arnest mone acts: (Be &etitioner looFing to eE&and business and add to its eEisting oNces3 res&ondent U tBrougB its ,eneral Manager3 Antonio #lea@ar =#lea@ar> sent a letter to tBe &etitoner oTering to &urcBase tBe subGect &ro&ert at 83000!00 &er sKuare meter! A series of tele&Bone calls ensued3 but onl between #lea@ar and 9oungs secretarO #lea@ar liFewise &ersonall negotiated witB a certain Maria Remoso =Remoso>3 wBo was an em&loee of &etitioner! At tBis &oint3 #lea@ar was unable to &ersonall negotiate witB 9oung or tBe &etitioners board of directors! Sometime tBereafter3 #lea@ar &ersonall went to &etitioners oNce oTering to &a for tBe subGect &ro&ert in casB3 wBicB Be alread brougBt witB Bim! 7owever3 9oung declined to acce&t &ament3 saing tBat sBe still needed to secure Ber sisters advice on tBe matter! 10SBe liFewise informed #lea@ar tBat &rior a&&roval of &etitioners %oard of Directors was reKuired for tBe transaction3 to wBicB remarF #lea@ar re&lied tBat res&ondent sBall instead await sucB a&&roval!11 *n ebruar 43 20053 res&ondent sent a Letter of even date to &etitioner! +t was accom&anied b Bili&&ine )ational %anF CBecF )o! 248;;3 issued for 1003000!00 and made &aable to &etitioner! (Be cBecF was eventuall de&osited witB and credited to &etitioners banF account (Bereafter3 res&ondent tBrougB counsel demanded in writing tBat &etitioner &roceed witB tBe sale of tBe &ro&ert +ssue: BetBer tBere is a contract of sale wBen tBe res&ondent acce&ted tBe su&&osed earnest mone! 7eld )o! +n tBe &resent case3 tBe &arties never got &ast tBe negotiation stage! )otBing sBows tBat tBe &arties Bad agreed on an nal arrangement containing tBe essential elements of a contract of sale3 namel3 =1> consent or tBe meeting of tBe minds of tBe &artiesO =2> obGect or subGect matter of tBe contractO and =.> &rice or consideration of tBe sale!.4 Res&ondents subseKuent sending of tBe ebruar 43 2005 letter and cBecF to &etitioner U witBout awaiting tBe a&&roval of &etitioners board of directors and 9oungs decision3 or witBout maFing a new oTer U constitutes a mere reiteration of its original oTer wBicB was alread reGected &reviouslO tBus3 &etitioner was under no obligation to re&l to tBe ebruar 43 2005 letter! +t would be absurd to reKuire a &art to reGect tBe ver same oTer eacB and ever time it is madeO otBerwise3 a &erfected contract of sale could sim&l arise from tBe failure to reGect tBe same oTer made for tBe BundredtB time!1Yw&Bi1 (Bus3 said letter cannot be considered as evidence of a &erfected sale3 wBicB does not eEist in tBe rst &laceO no binding obligation
14
on tBe &art of tBe &etitioner to sell its &ro&ert arose as a conseKuence! (Be letter made no new oTer re&lacing tBe rst wBicB was reGected! C#%" S(A(# C*LL#,# * SC+#)C# A)D (#C7)*L*,9 =CSCS(>3 R#R#S#)(#D %9 +(S +)C"M%#)( R#S+D#)(3 #(+(+*)#R3 S! L"+S S! M+S(#R+*3 ,A%R+#L S! M+S(#R+*3 RA)C+S S! M+S(#R+*3 (7#LMA S! M+S(#R+*3 A)D #S(#LA S! M+S(#R+*?(A,+MACR"-3 R#S*)D#)(S! ,!R! )o! 1;<025 Q 2015?08?1; (7+RD D++S+*) #RAL(A3 $!: RigBt of Redemtion acts: *n MarcB 1'3 1<803 tBe rovincial %oard of Cebu donated 41 &arcels of land3 covering 104!5441 Bectares of tBe %anilad riar Lands #state to tBe SA7S subGect to two =2> conditions: =1> tBat if tBe SA7S ceases to o&erate3 tBe ownersBi& of tBe lots would automaticall revert to tBe &rovince3 and =2> tBat tBe SA7S could not alienate3 lease or encumber tBe &ro&erties! +n tBe meantime3 tBe rovince of Cebu sougBt to recover tBe 41 &arcels of land it &reviousl donated to SAL+S on tBe basis of an initial re&ort of its &rovincial attorne tBat SA7S Bad no &ersonalit to acce&t tBe donation3 and tBus3 tBe deed it eEecuted was void! *n August 1<3 1<''3 res&ondents Luis3 ,abriel3 rancis3 (Belma3?all surnamed Misterio3 and #stella S! Misterio?(agimacru@3 as Beirs of tBe late Asuncion Sadaa3 informed tBe tBen ,overnor of tBe rovince of Cebu3 #milio *smena3 tBrougB a letter3 of tBeir intention to re&urcBase tBe subGect &ro&ert as sti&ulated in tBe Deed of Sale (Bereafter3 on MarcB 1.3 1<<03 res&ondents3informed &etitioner of tBeir intention to eEercise tBeir rigBt to re&urcBase under tBe Deed of Sale on tBe ground tBat tBe SA7S Bad ceased to eEist! 7owever3 &etitioners ocational ScBool Su&erintendent ++3 $esus (! %onilla3 informed res&ondents tBat SA7S still eEisted as onl tBe name of tBe scBool was cBanged! +ssue: BetBer can tBe rigBt to redeem tBe &ro&ert still eEist 7eld:)o! +n tBe Decision dated $une 2.3 20053 tBis Court ruled tBat since3 &etitioner and res&ondents in tBis case did not agree on an &eriod for tBe eEercise of tBe rigBt to re&urcBase tBe &ro&ert Berein3 res&ondents ma use said rigBt witBin four =4> ears from tBe Ba&&ening of tBe allocated conditions contained in tBeir Deed of Sale: =a> tBe cessation of tBe eEistence of tBe SA7S3 or =b> tBe transfer of tBe scBool to otBer site!I2'J 7owever3 due to res&ondents failure to eEercise tBeir rigBt to redeem tBe &ro&ert witBin tBe reKuired four =4> ears from tBe time wBen SA7S Bad ceased to eEist3 or from $une 103 1<'.3 tBe date of eTectivit of % %lg! 4123 tBis Court Beld tBat res&ondents are barred b &rescri&tion! EE (o re&eat3 Article 1808 eE&ressl &rovides tBat in tBe absence of an agreement as to tBe &eriod witBin wBicB tBe vendor a retro ma eEercise Bis rigBt to re&urcBase3 tBe same must be done witBin four =4> ears from tBe eEecution of tBe contract! +n tBe event tBe contract s&ecies a &eriod3 tBe same cannot eEceed ten =10> ears! (Bus3 wBetBer it be for a &eriod of four =4> or ten =10> ears3 tBis Court consistentl im&lements tBe law and limits 15
tBe &eriod witBin wBicB tBe rigBt to re&urcBase ma be eEercised3 adamantl striFing down as illicit sti&ulations &roviding for an unlimited rigBt to re&urcBase! +ndubitabl3 it would be ratBer absurd to &ermit res&ondents to re&urcBase tBe subGect &ro&ert u&on tBe occurrence of tBe second sus&ensive condition3 &articularl3 tBe relocation of SA7S on *ctober .3 1<<;3 tBe time wBen &etitioner ceded tBe &ro&ert to tBe rovince of Cebu3 wBicB is nearl fort?one =41> ears after tBe eEecution of tBe Deed of Sale on December .13 1<58! (Bis Court must3 tBerefore3 &lace it u&on itself to su&&ress tBese Finds of attem&ts in Fee&ing witB tBe fundamentall acce&ted &rinci&les of law MA)"#L $"SA9A)3ALR#D* $"SA9A)3 A)D M+C7A#L $"SA9A)3 #(+(+*)#RS3 S! $*R,# S*M%+LLA3 R#S*)D#)(! ,!R! )o! 18.<2' Q 2015?01?21 +RS( D++S+*) %#RSAM+)3 $!: Lease acts: ilson $esena =ilson> owned four &arcels of land situated in )ew Lucena3 +loilo! *n $une 203 1<;03 ilson entered into an agreement witB res&ondent $orge Sombilla =$orge>3 wBerein ilson designated $orge as Bis agent to su&ervise tBe tilling and farming of Bis riceland in cro& ear 1<;0?1<;1! *n August 203 1<;13 before tBe eE&iration of tBe agreement3 ilson sold tBe four &arcels of land to (imoteo $usaan =(imoteo>! $orge and (imoteo verball agreed tBat $orge would retain &ossession of tBe &arcels of land and would deliver 110 cavans of &ala annuall to (imoteo witBout need for accounting of tBe cultivation eE&enses &rovided tBat $orge would &a tBe irrigation fees! rom 1<;1 to 1<'.3 (imoteo and $orge followed tBe arrangement! +n 1<;53 tBe &arcels of land were transferred in tBe names of (imoteos sons3 namelO Manuel3 Alfredo and MicBael =&etitioners>! +n 1<'43 (imoteo sent several letters to $orge terminating Bis administration and demanding tBe return of tBe &ossession of tBe &arcels of land! +ssue: BetBer or not tBe relationsBi& between tBe &etitioners and res&ondent is tBat of agenc or agricultural leaseBold 7eld: Agricultural lease! (Be claim of (imoteo tBat $orge was Bis agent contradicted tBe verbal agreement Be Bad fasBioned witB $orge! % assenting to $orges &ossession of tBe land sans accounting of tBe cultivation eE&enses and actual &roduce of tBe land &rovided tBat $orge annuall delivered to Bim 110 cavans of &ala and &aid tBe irrigation fees belied tBe ver nature of agenc3 wBicB was re&resentation! (Be verbal agreement between (imoteo and $orge left all matters of agricultural &roduction to tBe sole discretion of $orge and &racticall divested (imoteo of tBe rigBt to eEercise Bis autBorit over tBe acts to be &erformed b $orge! Bile in &ossession of tBe land3 tBerefore3 $orge was acting for Bimself instead of for (imoteo! "nliFe $orge3 (imoteo did not benet wBenever tBe &roduction increased3 and did not suTer wBenever tBe &roduction decreased! (imoteos interest was limited to tBe deliver of
18
tBe 110 cavans of &ala annuall witBout an concern about Bow tBe cultivation could be im&roved in order to ield more &roduce!
1;
S*"S#S SALAD*R A%#LLA A)D ALMA A%#LLA3 #(+(+*)#RS3 S! S*"S#S R*M#* A%#LLA A)D A))+# A%#LLA3 R#S*)D#)(S! ,!R! )o! 1<5188 Q 2015?0;?0' S#C*)D D++S+*) L#*)#)3 $!: Mutuum acts: (Be &etitioners alleged tBat res&ondents obtained a loan from tBem in tBe amount of 5003000!00! (Be loan was evidenced b an acFnowledgment recei&t dated MarcB 223 1<<< and was &aable witBin one =1> ear! etitioners added tBat res&ondents were able to &a a total of 2003000!00Z 1003000!00 &aid on two se&arate occasionsZleaving an un&aid balance of .003000!00! (Be res&ondents claimed tBat tBe were a&&roacBed b &etitioners3 wBo &ro&osed tBat if res&ondents were to HundertaFe tBe management of wBatever mone I&etitionersJ would give tBem3 I&etitionersJ would get 2!5 a montB witB a 2!5 service fee to Ires&ondentsJ!H (Be 2!5 tBat eacB &art would be receiving re&resented tBeir sBaring of tBe 5 interest tBat tBe Goint venture was su&&osedl going to cBarge against its debtors! Res&ondents furtBer alleged tBat tBe one ear averred b &etitioners was not a deadline for &ament but tBe term witBin wBicB tBe were to return tBe mone &laced b &etitioners sBould tBe Goint venture &rove to be not lucrative! Moreover3 tBe claimed tBat tBe entire amount of 5003000!00 was dis&osed of in accordance witB tBeir agreed terms and conditions and tBat &etitioners terminated tBe Goint venture3 &rom&ting tBem to collect from tBe Goint ventures borrowers! (Be were3 Bowever3 able to collect onl to tBe eEtent of 2003000!00O Bence3 tBe .003000!00 balance remained un&aid! +ssue: BetBer wBat Bas been contracted b tBe &arties is a mutuum! 7eld: 9es! *n MarcB 223 1<<<3 res&ondents eEecuted an acFnowledgment recei&t to &etitioners3 wBicB states: %atan3 AFlan MarcB 223 1<<< (Bis is to acFnowledge recei&t of tBe Amount of ive 7undred (Bousand =5003000!00> esos from Mrs! Alma R! Abella3 &aable witBin one =1> ear from date Bereof witB interest! Annie C! Abella =sgd!>
Romeo M! Abella =sgd!>I..J =#m&Basis su&&lied>
(Be teEt of tBe acFnowledgment recei&t is uncom&licated and straigBtforward! +t attests to: rst3 res&ondents recei&t of tBe sum of 5003000!00 from &etitioner Alma AbellaO second3 res&ondents dut to &a tacF tBis amount witBin one =1> ear from MarcB 223 1<<
loan3 &etitioners delivered to res&ondents witB tBe corres&onding condition lat res&ondents sBall &a tBe same amount to &etitioners witBin one =1> ear! %A),/* S#)(RAL ), +L++)AS3 #(+(+*)#R3 S! A,"S(+) L+%*?*)3 R#S*)D#)(! ,!R! )o! 1;.'84 Q 2015?11?2. (Bird Division R#9#S3 $!: orclosure of Real #state Mortgage acts: Agustin Libo?on3 togetBer witB Bis wife3 Mercedes Libo?on =S&ouses Libo?on>3 secured loans from tBe Rural %anF of 7inigaran3 +nc!3 in tBe amounts of 1003000!00 and .003000!003 res&ectivel! (Be S&ouses Libo?on eEecuted &romissor notes &aable to! tBe order of tBe Rural %anF for a &eriod of .80 das or until August 243 1<<' and Se&tember 123 1<<'3 res&ectivel! As securit for tBe loan3 tBe S&ouses Libo?on liFewise eEecuted a Deed of Real #state Mortgage over a &arcel of land witB (ransfer Certicate of (itle )o! (? 8;12< in favor of tBe Rural %anF of 7inigaran! MeanwBile3 on Se&tember 1<3 1<<;I8J and *ctober 1;3 1<<;3 tBe Rural %anF of 7inigaran3 in turn3 secured a loan witB now &etitioner3 %angFo Sentral ng ili&inas =%S> in tBe amount of '003000!00 and 8403000!003 res&ectivel! (Be Rural %anF of 7inigaran eEecuted a document denominated as H&romissor note witB trust recei&t agreement!HI'J As a securit for tBe loan3 tBe Rural %anF of 7inigaran &ledged and de&osited to %S &romissor notes witB su&&orting (C(s3 including tBe &romissor note and (C( of tBe S&ouses Libo?ons mortgaged witB tBe former! +ssue: BetBer tBe &ledge of Rural %anF of 7inigaran gave tBe %angFo Sentral ng ili&inas tBe rigBt to forclose tBe mortgage! 7eld: )o! (Be mere &ledge and de&osit of tBe mortgage contract3 transfer certicate of title and &romissor note eEecuted b tBe tBe Rural %anF of 7inigaran in favor of %S3 does not &roduce tBe eTect of giving %S tBe autBorit to intervene witB tBe transaction between tBe S&ouses Libo?on and tBe Rural %anF of 7inigaran3 mucB less foreclose tBe mortgaged &ro&ert of tBe S&ouses Libo?on! +n tBe absence of a notari@ed deed of assignment3 %S cannot be considered as an assignee wBo can &roceed against tBe S&ouses Libo?ons &ro&ert! Moreover3 tBe Rural %anF of 7inigaran in fact Bas no autBorit to &ledge tBe securit documents to %S during tBe term of tBe real estate mortgage contract between tBe Rural %anF of 7inigaran and tBe S&ouses Libo?on because if it is witBin tBe term of tBe contract3 tBe mortgaged &ro&ert 1<
remains
to
be
tBe
&ro&ert
of
tBe
latter!
+t must be stressed tBat for a contract of &ledge to be valid3 it is necessar tBat: =1>tBe &ledge is constituted to secure tBe fulllment of a &rinci&al obligationO! =2> tBe &ledgor be tBe absolute owner of tBe tBing &ledgedO and =.> tBe &erson constituting tBe &ledge Bas tBe free dis&osal of Bis &ro&ert3 and in tBe absence tBereof3 tBat Be be legall autBori@ed for tBe &ur&ose! MA9%A)/ 7+L++)#S3 +)C! =*RM#RL9 )%?R#"%L+C %A)/ S! S*"S#S *SCAR A)D )#)+(A (ARR*SA3 ,!R! )o! 21.014 Q 2015?10?14 irst Division #RLAS?%#R)A%#3 $!: orclosure of Real #state Mortgage acts: =MabanF>3 a loan in tBe amount of <13000!00! (Be loan was secured b a Real #state Mortgage dated $anuar 53 1<'1 =real estate mortgage> over a 500?sKuare meter &arcel of land situated in San Carlos Cit3 )egros *ccidental =subGect &ro&ert>3 covered b (C( )o! (?584<3I;J and tBe im&rovements tBereon! After &aing tBe said loan3 or sometime in MarcB 1<'.3 S&s! (arrosa obtained anotBer loan from MabanF in tBe amount of 803000!00 =second loan>3 I ears from tBe time tBe rigBt of action accrues3 i!e!3 wBen tBe mortgagor defaults in tBe &ament of Bis obligation to tBe mortgageeO otBerwise3 it will be barred b &rescri&tion and tBe mortgagee will lose Bis rigBts under tBe mortgage! 7owever3 mere delinKuenc in &ament does not necessaril mean dela in tBe legal conce&t! (o be in default is diTerent from mere dela in tBe grammatical sense3 because it involves tBe beginning of a s&ecial condition or status 20
wBicB
Bas
its
own
&eculiar
eTects
or
results!
+n order tBat tBe debtor ma be in default3 it is necessar tBat: =a> tBe obligation be demandable and alread liKuidatedO =b> tBe debtor delas &erformanceO and =c> tBe creditor reKuires tBe &erformance Gudiciall or eEtraGudiciall3 unless demand is not necessar )# *RLD D##L*#RS A)D MA)A,#M#)(3 +)C!3 S! AMA C*M"(#R L#AR)+), C#)(#R3 +)C!3 AMA C*M"(#R L#AR)+), C#)(#R3 +)C!3 #(+(+*)#R3 S! )# *RLD D##L*#RS A)D MA)A,#M#)(3 +)C!3 R#S*)D#)(! ,!R! )o! 1';<.0 and ,!R! )o! 1''250 Q 2015?02?2. +RS( D++S+*) S#R#)*3 C!$!: LiKuidated Damages acts: )ew orld is tBe owner of a commercial building located at )o! 1104?111' #s&aPa corner aredes Streets3 Sam&aloc3 Manila! +n 1<<'3 AMA agreed to lease tBe entire second oor of tBe building for its com&uter learning center3 and tBe &arties entered into a Contract of Lease covering tBe eigBt?ear &eriod from 15 $une 1<<' to 14 MarcB 2008! (Be montBl rental for tBe rst ear was set at 1'135003 witB an annual escalation rate eKuivalent to 15 for tBe succeeding ears! +t was also &rovided tBat AMA ma &reterminate tBe contract b sending notice in writing to )ew orld at least siE montBs before tBe intended date! +n case of &retermination3 AMA sBall be liable for liKuidated damages in an amount eKuivalent to siE montBs of tBe &revailing rent! *n tBe evening of 8 $ul 20043 AMA removed all its oNce eKui&ment and furniture from tBe leased &remises! (Be following da3 )ew orld received a letter from AMA dated 8 $ul 2004I10J stating tBat tBe former Bad decided to &reterminate tBe contract eTective immediatel on tBe ground of business losses due to a drastic decline in enrollment! AMA also demanded tBe refund of its advance rental and securit de&osit! +ssue: BetBer AMA is liable for liKuidated damages 7eld: 9es! +tem )o! 14 of tBe Contract of Lease states: (Bat IAMAJ ma &re?terminate tBis Contract of Lease b notice in writing to I)ew orldJ at least siE =8> montBs before tBe intended date of &re? termination3 &rovided3 Bowever3 tBat in sucB case3 IAMAJ sBall be liable to 21
I)ew orldJ for an amount eKuivalent to siE =8> montBs current rental as liKuidated damagesO uite notable is tBe fact tBat AMA never denied its liabilit for tBe &ament of liKuidated damages in view of its &retermination of tBe lease contract witB )ew orld! Bat it claims3 Bowever3 is tBat it is entitled to tBe reduction of tBe amount due to tBe serious business losses it suTered as a result of a drastic decrease in its enrollment! EEE +t is Kuite eas to understand tBe reason wB a lessor would im&ose liKuidated damages in tBe event of tBe &retermination of a lease contract! retermination is eTectivel tBe breacB of a contract3 tBat was originall intended to cover an agreed u&on &eriod of time! A denite &eriod assures tBe lessor a stead income for tBe duration! A &retermination would suddenl cut sBort wBat would otBerwise Bave been a longer &rotable relationsBi&! Along tBe wa3 tBe lessor is bound to incur losses until it is able to nd a new lessee3 and it is tBis loss of income tBat is sougBt to be com&ensated b tBe &ament of liKuidated damages! DR! $A+M# (! CR"-3 etitioner3 v! #L+C+S+M* ! A,AS3 $R!3 Res&ondent! ,!R! )o! 2040<53 $une 153 2015 S#C*)D D++S+*) M#)D*-A3 $! Res +&sa LiKuitor acts: +n Bis Com&laint?ANdavit5 for Serious Bsical +nGuries tBrougB RecFless +m&rudence and Medical Mal&ractice against Dr! Agas3 Dr! Cru@ alleged3 among otBers3 tBat sometime in Ma 200.3 Be engaged tBe services of St! LuFes Medical Center =SLMC> for a medical cBecF?u&O tBat after being admitted in SLMC on Ma 2'3 200.3 Be underwent stool3 urine3 blood3 and otBer bod uid tests conducted b tBe em&loees and doctors of tBe said Bos&italO tBat on Ma 2<3 200.3 Be was sent to tBe ,astro?#nterolog De&artment for a scBeduled gastrosco& and colonosco&O tBat because tBe s&ecialist assigned to &erform tBe &rocedure was nowBere to be found3 Be gave tBe colonosco& results to tBe attending female anestBesiologist for tBe information and consideration of tBe assigned s&ecialistO tBat3 tBereafter3 Be was sedated and tBe endosco&ic eEamination was carried outO tBat wBen Be regained consciousness3 Be felt tBat sometBing went wrong during tBe &rocedure because Be felt di@@3 Bad cold clamm &ers&iration and eE&erienced breatBing diNcultO tBat Be could not stand or sit u&rigBt because Be felt so eEBausted and so mucB &ain in Bis abdomenO tBat wBen Be was about to urinate in tBe comfort room3 Be colla&sedO tBat Be tried to consult tBe s&ecialist wBo &erformed tBe colonosco& but Be was nowBere to be foundO and tBat Bis cardiologist3 Dra! Agnes Del Rosario3 was able to observe Bis critical condition and immediatel referred Bim to tBe surgical de&artment wBicB sus&ected tBat Be Bad BemorrBage in Bis abdomen and advised Bim to undergo an emergenc surgical o&eration!
22
+ssue: BetBer res is&a liKuitor a&&lies in tBe colonosco& and tBe internal bleeding sustatined b Dr! Cur@ 7eld: )o! Dr! Agas was able to establisB tBat tBe internal bleeding sustained b Dr! Cru@ was due to tBe abnormal condition and conguration of Bis sigmoid colon wBicB was beond Bis control considering tBat tBe said condition could not be detected before a colonosco&ic &rocedure! Dr! Agas adeKuatel eE&lained tBat no clinical ndings3 laborator tests3 or diagnostic imaging3 sucB as E?ras3 ultrasound or com&uted tomogra&B =C(> scan of tBe abdomen3 could Bave detected tBis condition &rior to an endosco&ic &rocedure! S&ecicall3 Dr! Agas wrote:cBanRoblesvirtualLawlibrar *n tBe otBer Band3 in tBe &resent case3 tBe correlation between &etitioners inGur3 i!e!3 tear in tBe serosa of sigmoid colon3 and tBe colonosco& conducted b res&ondent to tBe &etitioner clearl reKuires tBe &resentation of an eE&ert o&inion considering tBat no &erforation of tBe sigmoid colon was ever noted during tBe la&arotom! +t cannot be overem&Basi@ed tBat tBe colonosco&e inserted b tBe res&ondent onl &assed tBrougB tBe inside of &etitioners sigmoid colon wBile tBe damaged tissue3 i!e!3 serosa3 wBicB caused tBe bleeding3 is located in tBe outermost laer of tBe colon! +t is tBerefore im&ossible for tBe colonosco&e to toucB3 scratcB3 or even tear tBe serosa since tBe said membrane is beond reacB of tBe colonosco&e in tBe absence of &erforation on tBe colon!1. Dr! Cru@ failed to rebut tBis!
2.
