1.
CATHOLIC VICAR APOSTOLIC VS. CA G.R. NO. 80294-95 September 21, 1988/. G!"#!$#%
&!#t'( The whole controversy started when the herein petit petition ioner er fled fled an applic applicati ation on or regis registra tratio tion n o land lands s 1, 2, 3 and and 4 in La Trini rinida dad, d, Beng Bengue uett on Septemer !, 1"#2$ The heirs o %uan &alde' and the heirs o (gmidio )cta )ctavi vian ano o fled fled an oppo opposi sitio tion n on lots lots 2 and and 3, respectively$ )n *ovemer 1+, 1"#!, the land registration court confrmed the registrale title o the petitioner$ )n appeal y the private respondent respondent heirs, the ourt o -ppeal -ppeals s reve reverse rsed d the decisi decision on and cancel cancelled led &icar.s title or lots 2 and 3$ The heirs fled a motion or reconsideration, reconsideration, praying that that the lots lots e order ordered ed regis register tered ed under under their their names$ The ourt o -ppeals denied the motion or lac/ lac/ o su0cie su0cient nt merit merit$$ Both Both partie parties s then then came came eore the Supreme ourt, however, the S, in a minute resolution, denied oth petitions$ The heirs then fled cases or the recovery and possession o the lots$ uring uring trial, trial, &icar &icar conten contende ded d that that it has een in posse ssessio sion o the the su suect ect lots ots or or +! years ars continuo continuously usly and peaceull peaceully y and has constructe constructed d permanent structures thereon$ )n the other other hand, hand, respo responde ndents nts argue argue that that the petitioner is arred rom setting up the deense o ownership or long and continuous possession y the prior udgment o the ourt o -ppeals under the principle o res udicata$ •
•
•
•
•
•
I'')e'( 1$ ether ether &icar had een een in possession possession o the suect suect lots merely as aileeo aileeorro rrower wer in commodatu commodatum, m, a gratuitous loan or use$ 2$ het hethe herr the the case case viol violat ated ed the the prin princi cipl ple e o res udicata$ 3$ ho is entitled entitled to the possess possession ion and ownershi ownership p o the land5 He*+( 1$ 6riva 6rivate te respo respond ndent ents s we were re ale to prove prove that their predec predecesso essors7 rs7 house house was orrowed orrowed y petitione petitionerr &icar icar ate aterr the the chur church ch and and the the conv conven entt were ere destroyed$ destroyed$ They never as/ed or the return o the house house,, ut ut when when they they allowe allowed d its ree ree use, use, they they ecame ailors in commodatum and the petitioner the ailee$ The ailees7 ailure ailure to return the the suect matter o commodatum to the ailor did not mean adverse possession on the part o the orrower$ The ailee held in trust the property suect matter o commodatum$ The adverse adverse claim o petitioner petitioner came only in 1"!1 when it declared the lots or ta8ation purposes purposes$$ The action action o petitione petitionerr &icar y such such adverse claim could not ripen into title y way o ordin ordinary ary ac9uis ac9uisiti itive ve pres prescri cripti ption on ecau ecause se o the asence o ust title$ 2$ 6etiti tition one er was in posse osses ssion sion as orr orrower in commodatum up to 1"!1, when it repudiated the trust trust y declar declaring ing the propert properties ies in its name name or ta8ati ta8ation on purpose purposes$ s$ hen hen petiti petitione onerr applie applied d or registration o Lots 2 and 3 in 1"#2, it had een in posse possessi ssion on in concep conceptt o owner owner only only or eleve eleven n years$ years$ )rdinary )rdinary ac9uisit ac9uisitive ive prescrip prescription tion re9uire re9uires s possession or ten years, ut always with ust title$ (8traord (8traordinary inary ac9uisiti ac9uisitive ve prescrip prescription tion re9uire re9uires s 3: years$ )n the aove fndings o acts supported y evidence evidence and evaluated evaluated y the ourt o -ppeals, -ppeals, a0rmed y this ourt, e see no error in
respondent appellate court7s ruling that said fndings are res udicata etween the parties$ They can no longer e altered y presentation o evidence ecause those issues were resolved with fnality a long time ago$ To ignore the principle o res udicata would e to open the door to endless litigations y continuous determination o issues without end$ 3$ 6ursuant to the said decision in -;$<$ *o$ 3==3: <, the two lots in 9uestion remained part o the pulic lands$ This is the only logical conclusion when the appellate court ound that neither the petitioner nor private respondents are entitled to confrmation o imperect title over said lots$ >ence, the ourt fnds the contention o petitioner to e well ta/en in that the trial court and the appellate court have no lawul asis in ordering petitioner to return and surrender possession o said lots to private respondents$ Said property eing a pulic land its disposition is suect to the provision o the 6ulic Land -ct, as amended$ ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 2.
RPLIC VS. OS V. AGTAS G.R. NO. L-144 O#t%ber 25, 192/. P!+**!
&!#t'( )n @ay =, 1"4=, %ose Bagtas orrowed rom the Bureau o -nimal Andustry 3 ulls or 1 year or reeding purposes, suect to reeding ee or 1: o the oo/ value o the ulls$ Cpon the e8piration o the contract, Bagtas as/ed or a renewal or another year$ The renewal granted was only or 1 ull$ Bagtas oDered to uy the ulls at its oo/ value less depreciation, ut the Bureau told him that he should either return the ulls or uy it at oo/ value$ •
•
•
•
Bagtas ailed to pay the oo/ value, and so the
u/ raid, thus, their oligation have already een e8tinguished since the contract is a commodatum, hence, the loss through ortuitous event should e orne y the owner$
I'')e( hether, depending on the nature o the contract, the respondent is liale or the death o the ull$ He*+( Fes$ ommodatum is essentially gratuitous$ >owever, in this case, there is a 1: charge$ A this is considered compensation, then the contract would e a lease contract$ Cnder -rticle 1#+1 o the ivil ode, the lessee is liale as possessor in ad aith ecause he had continuous possession o the ull even ater the e8piry o the contract$ -nd even i the contract e a commodatum, Bagtas is still liale ecause -rt$ 1"42 o the ivil ode provides that a ailee in a contract o commodatum is liale or loss o the thing even i it should e through a ortuitous eventG i he /eeps it longer than the period stipulatedG and i the thing loaned has een delivered with appraisal value, unless there is a stipulation e8empting the ailee rom responsiility in case o a ortuitous event$
3. SARA IPORT 6PORT CO. VS. 7P G.R. NO. L-2498 Apr* 2, 192/. !!*"t!* &!#t'( Saura Anc$ applied or an industrial loan in the amount o 6!::,:::$:: rom the owever, despite the ormal e8ecution o the loan agreement and upon ree8amination,
•
•
•
•
•
•
paying contractual commitments it had entered into, in connection with its ute mill proect$ The trial court ruled in avor o the petitioner holding that there was a perected contract etween the parties and that the deendant was guilty o reach thereo$
I'')e( hether there was a perected contract etween the parties5 He*+( There was indeed a perected consensual contract, as recogni'ed in -rticle 1"34 o the ivil ode, which provides, J-n accepted promise to deliver something, y way o commodatum or simple loan is inding upon the parties, ut the commodatum or simple loan itsel shall not e perected until the delivery o the oect o the contract$ There was undoutedly oDer and acceptance in this caseK the application o Saura, Anc$ or a loan o 6!::,:::$:: was approved y resolution o the deendant, and the corresponding mortgage was e8ecuted and registered$ But this act alone alls short o resolving the second issue and the asic claim that the deendant ailed to ulfll its oligation and the plaintiD is thereore entitled to recover damages$ The action thus ta/en y oth partiesSaura7s re9uest or cancellation and
e8tinguishment, said perected consensual contract to deliver did not constitute a real contract o loan$ ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 4.
&RANCISCO HRRRA VS. PTROPHIL G.R. NO. L-48349 7e#ember 29, 198/. Cr)
&!#t'( )n ecemer !, 1"#", >errera and 6etrophil entered into a lease agreement wherey the ormer leased to the latter a portion o his property or a period o 2: years, suect to the condition that monthly rentals o 62,"3:$2: should e paid and there should e an advance payment o rentals or the frst eight H=I years o the contract ased on 62,"3:$+: per month discounted at 12 interest per annum eore registration o lease$ 6etrophil paid the advance rentals or the frst = years, sutracting the amount o 61:1,:1:$+3, the amount it computed as constituting the interest or discount or the frst = years, in the total sum o 61=:,2==$4+$ )n -ugust 2:, 1"+:, 6etrophil inormed >errera that there had een a mista/e in the computation o the interest, and therey reduced the amount to 6"=,=2=$:3$ >errera sued 6etrophil or the sum o 6"=,=2=$:3, with interest, claiming this had een illegally deducted rom him in violation o the Csury Law$ 6etrophil argued that the amount deducted was not usurious interest ut was given or paying the rentals in advance or = years$ •
•
•
•
•
•
The trial court ruled in avor o 6etrophil$ )n appeal, >errera insisted that such interest is violative o the Csury Law, and that he had neither agreed to nor accepted 6etrophil.s computation o the total amount to e deducted or the = years advance rentals$
I'')e( hether the contract etween the parties o one o loan or lease$ He*+( The contract etween the parties is one o lease, and not o loan$ At is clearly denominated a JLease -greement$N *owhere in the contract is there any showing that the parties intended a loan rather than a lease$ The provision or the payment o rentals in advance cannot e construed as a repayment o a loan ecause there was no grant or orearance o money as to constitute an indetedness on the part o the lessor$ )n the contrary, the deendant was discharging is oligation in advance y paying the eight years rentals, and it was or this advance payment that it was getting a reate or discount$ The provision or a discount is not unusual in lease contracts$ -s to its validity, it is settled that the parties may estalish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions, as they may want to include, and as long as such agreements are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, pulic policy or pulic order, they shall have the orce o law etween them$ ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????
5.
INTGRAT7 RALT: CORP. VS. PN
G.R. NO. L-005 )"e 28, 1989/. Re;!*!+% &!#t'( owever, ater the due dates o the time deposit certifcates, )B@ did not pay 6*B, which prompted the latter to fle a complaint to collect rom A< and Santos the loan o 6+::,:::$::$ At impleaded )B@ as a deendant to compel it to redeem and pay to it Santos. time deposit certifcates with interest plus damages$ An their -nswer to the complaint, A< and Santos alleged that 6*B has no cause o action against them ecause their oligation to 6*B was ully paid or e8tinguished upon the irrevocale assignment o the time deposit certifcates$ )n the other hand, )B@ denied /nowledge o the time deposit certifcates alleging that the same does not appear in its oo/s o account$ )n %anuary 3:, 1"+#, the trial court rendered udgment in avor o the plaintiD 6*B$ •
•
•
•
•
•
)n appeal, the ourt o -ppeals, modifed the decision o the lower court and deleted the portion
o the udgment ordering )B@ to pay A< and Santos whatever amounts they will pay to 6*B$ I'')e( hether the liaility o A< and Santos with 6*B should e deemed to have een paid y virtue o the deed o assignment made y the ormer in avor o 6*B$ He*+( The acts and circumstances leading to the e8ecution o the deed o assignment, as ound y the court a 9uo and the respondent court, yield said conclusion that it is in act a pledge$ The deed o assignment has satisfed the re9uirements o a contract o pledgeK H1I that it e constituted to secure the ulflment o a principal oligationG H2I that the pledgor e the asolute owner o the thing pledgedG H3I that eh persons constituting the pledge have the ree disposal o their property, and in the asence thereo, that they e legally authori'ed or the purpose$ The urther re9uirement that the thing pledged e placed in the possession o the creditor, or o a third person y common agreement was complied with y the e8ecution o the deed o assignment in avor o 6*B$ ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????? .
RPLIC VS. CA G.R. NO. L-4145 N%
&!#t'( The heirs o omingo Baloy applied or a registration o title or their land$ Their claim is anchored on their possessory inormation title ac9uired y omingo Baloy though the Spanish @ortgage Law, coupled with their continuous, adverse and pulic possession over the land in 9uestion$ •
•
•
•
The irector o Lands opposed the registration alleging that such land ecame pulic land through the operation o -ct *o$ =2+ o the 6hilippine ommission$ )n *ovemer 2#, 1":2, pursuant to the e8ecutive order o the 6resident o the C$S$, the area was declared within the C$S$ *aval
I'')e( hether the occupancy o the CS *avy over the suect land is in the concept o an owner, hence, such possession cannot e ac9uired y prescription$ He*+( learly, the occupancy o the CS *avy was not in the concept o owner$ At parta/es o the character o a commodatum$ At cannot thereore militate against the title o omingo Baloy and his successorsininterest$ )ne.s ownership o a thing may e lost y prescription y reason o another.s possession i such possession e under claim o ownership, not where the possession is only intended to e transient, as in the case o the CS *avy.s occupation o the land concerned, in which case, the owner is not divested o his title, although it cannot e e8ercised in the meantime$ ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????? .
ARGARITA =INTOS VS. C> G.R. NO. L-4240 N%
&!#t'( 6laintiD Puintos and deendant Bec/ entered into a contract o lease, wherey the latter occupied the ormer.s house in @$>$ el 6ilar St$, @anila$ )n %anuary 14, 1"3#, the contract o lease was novated, wherein Puintos gratuitously granted to Bec/ the use o urnitures, suect to the condition that Bec/ would return them to the plaintiD upon demand$ Thereater, Puintos sold the property to @aria and
•
•
•
•
•
I'')e(
hether deendant Bec/ complied with his oligation o returning the urniture to Puintos when it deposited the urniture to the sheriD$ He*+( The contract entered into etween the parties is one o commodatum, ecause under it the plaintiD gratuitously granted the use o the urniture to the deendant, reserving or hersel the ownership thereoG y this contract the deendant ound himsel to return the urniture to the plaintiD, upon the latter.s demand$ The oligation voluntarily assumed y the deendant to return the urniture upon the plaintiD.s demand, means that he should return all o them to the plaintiD at the latter.s residence or house$ The deendant did not comply with this oligation when he merely placed them at the disposal o the plaintiD, retaining or his eneft the three gas heaters and the our electric lamps$ The provisions o -rt$ 11#" o the ivil ode cited y counsel or the parties are not s9uarely applicale$ The trial court, thereore, erred when it came to the legal conclusion that the plaintiD ailed to comply with her oligation to get the urniture when they were oDered to her$ -s the deendant had voluntarily underta/en to return all the urniture to the plaintiD, upon the latter.s demand, the ourt could not legally compel her to ear the e8penses occasioned y the deposit o the urniture at the deendant7s ehest$ The latter, as ailee, was not entitled to place the urniture on depositG nor was the plaintiD under a duty to accept the oDer to return the urniture, ecause the deendant wanted to retain the three gas heaters and the our electric lamps$ The costs in oth instances should e orne y the deendant ecause the plaintiD is the prevailing party$ The deendant was the one who reached the contract
o commodatum, and without any reason he reused to return and deliver all the urniture upon the plaintiD.s demand$ An these circumstances, it is ust and e9uitale that he pay the legal e8penses and other udicial costs which the plaintiD would not have otherwise derayed$ ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 8.
RPLIC VS. OS GRIAL7O G.R. NO. L-20240 7e#ember 31, 195/. ?!*+
&!#t'( An the year 1"43, %ose ;rialdo otained fve loans rom the Ban/ o Taiwan, Ltd$, in Bacolod ity in the total sum o 61,2=1$"+ with interest at the rate o # per annum, compounded 9uarterly$ These loans are evidenced y fve promissory notes e8ecuted y the appellant in avor o the Ban/ o Taiwan$ To secure the payment o the loans, the appellant e8ecuted a chattel mortgaged on the standing crops on his land /nown as >acienda ampugas in >inigiran, *egros )ccidental$ By virtue o &esting )rder 64 and under the authority provided or in the Trading with the (nemy -ct, the assets in the 6hilippines o the Ban/ o Taiwan were vested in the ;overnment o the Cnited States$ These assets, including the loans in 9uestion, were suse9uently transerred to the inigiran, *egros )ccidental$ •
•
•
•
•
The inerior court, ater hearing, dismissed the case on the ground that the action had prescried$ >owever, on appeal to the EA o *egros )ccidental, the trial court ruled in avor o the
I'')e( hether the
JAn an oligation to deliver a generic thing, the loss or destruction o anything o the same /ind does not e8tinguish the oligation$N
The chattel mortgage on the crops growing on appellant.s land simply stood as a security or the ulflment o appellant.s oligation covered y the fve promissory notes, and the loss o the crops did not e8tinguish his oligation to pay, ecause the account could still e paid rom other sources aside rom the mortgaged crops$ ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 9.
&LI6 7LOS SANTOS VS. AGSTINA ARRA G.R. NO. L-4150 &ebr)!r$ 10, 1910/. T%rre'
&!#t'( An the latter part o 1":1, @agdaleno %imenea orrowed and otained rom plaintiD Eeli8 e los Santos ten frstclass caraaos to e used at the animalpower mill o his hacienda without recompense or remuneration ut under the sole condition that they should e returned to him as soon as the wor/ at the mill was terminated$ >owever, %imenea did not return the caraaos notwithstanding the act that the plaintiD claimed their return ater the wor/ at the mill was fnished$ Suse9uently, %imenea died and -gustina arra was appointed y the court as administrati8 o %imenea.s estate$ 6laintiD presented his claim to the commissioners o %imenea.s estate or the return o his ten caraaos ut the commissioners reected his claim, hence, he was prompted to fle an action against -gustina %arra or the return o the ten frstclass caraaos loaned to the late %imenea, or their present value, and to pay the costs$ An her -nswer, deendant %arra admitted that the late %imenea as/ed the plaintiD to loan him ten caraaos, ut that he only otained three secondclass •
•
•
•
•
•
animals, which were aterwards transerred y sale y the plaintiD to %imenea$ -ter trial on the merits, the trial court ruled in avor o the plaintiD ordering the deendant to return the remaining # second and third class caraaos, or the value thereo at the rate o 612: each$
I'')e( hether the contract is one o a commodatum, hence, deendant must return the caraaos to the plaintiD or pay or their value$ He*+( Fes$ The caraaos were loaned or given on commodatum as these were delivered to e used y deendant$ hen deendant ailed to return the caraaos upon demand y the plaintiD, there is no dout that deendant is under the oligation to indemniy the owner thereo y paying him their value$ Since the = caraaos were not the property o the deceased nor o any o his descendants, it is the duty o the administrati8 o the estate to return them or to indemniy the owner or their value$ ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????
10.
ALAN7RA INA VS. RPRTA PASCAL G.R. NO. L-8321/O#t%ber 14, 1913/. Are**!"% &!#t'(
