Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
1171-1173
Saludaga vs FEU
30 April 2008
ART. 1174
JACINTO TANGUILIG doing business under the
name and style J.M.T. ENGINEERING AND
GENERAL
MERCHANDISING, Petitioner, vs.COURT OF
APPEALS and VICENTE HERCE
JR., Respondents
G.R. No. 117190. January 2, 1997
SO ORDERED.
REYES v. TUPARAN
10
11
Art. 1180
PACIFICA MILLARE V. HON. HAROLD M.
HERNANDO G.R. No. L-55480 June 30, 1987
FACTS: A five-year Contract of Lease was
executed between petitioner Pacifica Millare as
lessor and private respondent Elsa Co, married to
Antonio Co, as lessee. Under the written
12
Art. 1182
13
Art. 1190-1192
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. DELOS
ANGELES
L-28602 September 29, 1970
FACTS: UP and ALUMCO entered into a logging
agreement under which the latter was granted
exclusive authority, for a period starting from the
date of the agreement to 31 December 1965,
extendible for a further period of five (5) years by
mutual agreement, to cut, collect and remove
timber from the Land Grant, in consideration of
14
15
16
17
18
Issue:
1. WON the breach of obligation is substantial? YES
2. WON respondent waived their right of
rescission? NO
3. WON rescission is subsidiary? NO
Held:
1. We consider this breach to be substantial.
Cannu failed to comply with her obligation to pay
the monthly amortizations due on the mortgage.
Also, the tender made by Cannu only after the
filing of this case cannot be considered as an
effective mode of payment.
Resolution of a party to an obligation under Article
1191 is predicated on a breach of faith by the
other party that violates the reciprocity between
them. In the case at bar, Cannus failure to pay the
remaining balance of 45K to be substantial. To give
petitioners additional time to comply with their
obligation will be putting premium on their blatant
non-compliance of their obligation. They had all
the time to do what was required of them (i.e., pay
the P45,000.00 balance and to properly assume
the mortgage loan with the NHMFC), but still they
failed to comply. Despite demands for them to pay
the balance, no payments were made.
19
REYES Vs TUPARAN
1 June 2011
FACTS: Petitioner Mila Reyes owns a three-storey
commercial building in Valenzuela City.
Respondent, Victoria Tuparan leased a space on
said building for a monthly rental of P4, 000. Aside
from being a tenant, respondent also invested in
petitioner's financing business. On June 20, 1988,
Petitioner borrowed P2 Million from Farmers
Savings and Loan Bank (FSL Bank) and mortgaged
the building and lot (subject real properties). Reyes
decided to sell the property for P6.5 Million to
liquidate her loan and finance her business.
Respondent offered to conditionally buy the real
properties for P4.2 Million on installment basis
without interest and to assume the bank loan. The
conditions are the following:
20
RELEVANT JURISPRUDENCE
Issue:
1. WON the petitioners can invoke the provisions
of the compromise agreement in order to hold
respondent stopped from making raises in leases
NO
2. WON Victorio may rescind the contract of lease?
YES
Held:
UY V. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 120465, 09 September 1999
21
22
Art. 1193-1197
ROXAS vs ALCANTARA
SCRA 21, March 25, 1982
G.R. No. L-49659
23
Macasaet vs Macasaet
G.R. 154391 92 September 30, 2004
Facts:
Petitioners Ismael and Teresita Macasaet and
Respondents Vicente and Rosario Macasaet are
first-degree relatives. Ismael is the son of
respondents, and Teresita is his wife.
24
Art. 1207-1222
MARSMAN DRYSDALE LAND, INC., VS
PHILIPPINE GEOANALYTICS, INC. AND
GOTESCO PROPERTIES, INC.,
June 29, 2010 G.R. No. 183374
Facts: Marsman Drysdale Land Inc & Gotesco
Philippines Inc. entered into a joint venture
agreement. Marsman is obliged to deliver the
property in a buildable condition, which means
that the old structures are to be demolished, while
Gotesco is obliged to provide cash of P4,200,000.
As stipulated in the contract, Masrman shall not be
obligated to fund the project and that all funds
advanced by the parties (or by 3rd parties) shall
be paid by the joint venture (JV). The JV engaged
the services of Philippine Geoanalytics Inc (PGI) to
provide geotechnical engineering. When PGI billed
the JV for its services, the JV failed to pay its
obligations. Marsman contends that Gotesco is
liable since the latter was solely liable for the
monetary expenses. Gotesco protests that PGI had
yet to complete its services in the contract.
Marsman also failed to clear the property, which
prevented PGI from completing its work. The RTC
ordered Gotesco and Marsman to pay PGI jointly,
while Gotesco is to reimburse Marsman of
P535,353.50, representing PGI's claims. The CA
affirmed the decision of the lower court but it
lowered the reimbursed amount by 50%. The CA
stated that the JV cannot avoid payment of
3rd persons (PGI) since contracts cannot favor or
prejudice a 3rd person.
25
26
27
28
SO ORDERED.
Art. 1226-1230
FILINVEST vs. CA
G.R. No. 115902. 27 Sept 1995
29