SOCHAYSENG VS TRUJILLO
but not the P6k from the defective steel screen therefore
FACTS: Paulina Sochayseng left their conjugal home which
the defendant, Trujillo knew.
Sochayseng was sick and was attended by her mother
(herein plaintiff)
The latter is asking reimbursement for hospitalization
expenses of 410 and funeral expenses of 320
Records show that total property was 2603, wifes
paraphernal property was 1490, 615 was taken by
wife; total parahernal now is 875, and conjugal
property 1728.
Court provides for a deduction of hospitalization
expenses but not funeral/ 1728-410= 1318 (conjugal
after liab)
Each spouses share is 659.
Wifes share 659+875+410=1944, 320 is to be taken
form it
Yek Ton Lin vs CA
Facts: Yusingco was the owner of the steamship named
Yusinco. The ship was mortgaged to Yek Ton Lin in account
of a promissory note issued by China Bank
The ship needed repairs so it was sent to Earnshaw
Docks and Honolulu Iron works under the guaranty of
Vicente Madrigal who paid the cost of repairs
Madrigal asked for reimbursement but still, the
Hermanos failed to pay.
Madrigal filed a judicial proceeding praying that he be
assigned the right to sell the ship in a public auction
Yek Ton Lin filed an action because it said that it had
the rights over the ship because it was mortgaged to
him. However, it failed to establish the claim so the
public auction proceeded
Yek Ton Lin was the winning bidder.
Issue: WON Yek Ton Lin, as mortgagor who became the
owner of the ship, can claim for the amount of mortgage
credit
Held: No. When Yek became the owner of the ship, a merger
has arised and his only action would be to demand the
amount of the mortgage credit from the purchaser. He
happens to be the purchaser so he cant anymore ask for the
amount.Yek also knew that the ship was mortgaged.
Silahis Vs CA
Facts: Silahis owes Mark Industrial Sales P22, 213.75
representing various goods purchased by the former to the
latter.
Silahis failed to pay despite repeated demands so Mark
filed an action asking for the payment plus interest and
attys fees.
Silahis admitted the allegations of Mark but raised
defense that Mark is indebted to the former because of
the unpaid commission of P22,000 arising from a sale
of sprocket to Dole Co.
Also, there was a defective steel screen purchased from
Mark that was returned by buyer and debited to Silahis
account.
Lower court ordered the compensation of the P22,200
making Silahis liable for P13.75 only plus interest.
De Leon filed an appeal questioning the decision of the
lower court, contended that there was no legal basis of
the said commission, that there was no verbal or
written agreement that Silahis is entiltled to any
commission for the sale.
IAC reversed LCs decision.
What was breached, was the last element (no
controversy) , compensation cannot be claimed from a
breach of contract
SC agrees to IAC that there was no agreement between
Silahis and Mark Enterprises as regards the granting of
commission.
SC affirmed decision of IAC
BPI vs CA
Facts: Reyes opened a savings account with his wife at the
respondent bank. He also opened another account with her
grandmother at the same bank.
His grandmother was receiving pension from US
government and Reyes deposits it in the said bank
account.
His grandmother died but continuously issued with US
Treasury Certificates which Reyes deposited in the
account.
Before the treasury warrant was cleared, Reyes closed
the account and transferred the balance to the other
bank account (with wife)
When the treasury warrant was dishonored, the bank
manager notified Reyes and Reyes verbally authorized
that the amount be debited to the other account.
Later, Reyes demanded the credit of the amount
because it was not there when he intended to use it. He
filed an action for damages.
Trial Court dismissed the petition of Reyes and it held
that compensation was proper because all the
requisites were present
Reyes appealed, CA REVERSED TCs decision, thus this
case at bar
SC held that compensation was proper because all the
requisites were present. Compensation may take place
even if it is against the will of the parties
In addition, if the compensation would not take place, it
would be an unjust enrichment to the part of Reyes
Compensation may still take place because the wife (co-
owner of account) is not a party to the issue.