Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
SY
CA No. 34, 29 April 1946
76 Phil 581
On the other hand, Obejera contends that there was no such deposit. The
alleged offer to transfer property was made under undue influence and pressure. He
filed an action before the Court of First Instance of Batangas to annul the agreement
transferring the property. The Court of First Instance ruled in favor of Obejera, for
which Sy now files an appeal for its reversal.
Issue:
Whether or not the agreement executed by Obejera should be annulled.
Held:
Yes.
Ratio:
First, the Court cited the fact that Villena and his son participated in the
hiding of the valuables. This shows that Sys claim that Obejera alone is responsible
is false. Second, Obejera did not have absolute control or access to the dug-out.
Assuming there was indeed a contract of deposit, the Old Civil Code and
jurisprudence states that in case of loss not attributable to the obligor (e.g. due to a
fortuitous event), the loss falls upon the owner of the thing. Third, the agreement to
transfer the property is void for lack of cause or consideration. There is no such
cause/consideration since Obejera is not responsible for the loss. Fourth, the
agreement to transfer is likewise void for being executed under duress. There was
evidence to show that Obejera was under pressure to execute said agreement.
Disposition:
Affirmed.