Hernandez vs.

Court of Appeals

No. L-41132, 160 SCRA 821 , April 27, 1988

Facts:

In 1959, Fr. Garcia applied for the registration in his name of Lots 1-A, 1-B, and 2
of Plan Psu-174210 in San Dionisio, Paranaque. The property adjoined that of Hernandez, and
both properties were once owned by San Buenaventura. A boundary dividing the properties was
set by cadastral surveyors from the Bureau of Lands through laying down official monuments.
The monuments were set along a line which the landowners previously agreed upon as the
correct boundary between the properties. Hernandez did not oppose the application leaving the
heirs of Andres Buenaventura as the only oppositors.

Hernandez learned of an anomaly of the application when the court ordered the
registration of the lots in Fr. Garcia’s name. The Court of First Instance ruled that Garcia is the
owner of Lots 1-A and 2 while the heirs-oppositors as owners of Lot 1-B. The Court of Appeals
ruled that Fr. Garcia is the absolute owner by acquisitive prescription.

Hernandez re-filed his petition for the opening of the decree. The application was
irregular because it disregarded the existing Bureau of Lands monuments designating boundaries
which was previously agreed upon. He was misled to believe that no encroachment was made by
Fr. Garcia.

Trial Court and Court of Appeals dismissed the petition. Under the Statute of
Frauds, the agreement regarding the boundaries is unforceable because it was not reduced to
writing. Hence, this petition.

Issue:

Whether or not Hernandez is entitled to the relief sought.

HELD:

Yes. The Statute of Frauds finds no application to this case. Not every agreement
"affecting land" must be put in writing to attain enforceability. Under the Statute of Frauds,
Article 1403(2) (e) of the Civil Code, such formality is only required of contracts involving
leases for longer than one year, or for the sale of real property or of an interest therein.
Hernandez's testimony is thus admissible to establish his agreement with Fr. Garcia as to the
boundary of their estates. It is also to be noted that the presence of Hernandez's tenants on the
land within his side of the border, were this to be reckoned from the "mojones," further
buttresses his claim.

ISIDORA L. CABALIW and SOLEDAD SADORRA vs. SOTERO SADORRA, et al

G.R. No. L-25650 June 11, 1975

Cabaliw v. Sadorra – G.R. No. 25650

Facts:

Cabaliw was the second wife of Benigno. During their marriage, they bought 2 parcels of land.
They had a daughter Soledad. Benigno abandoned his wife Cabaliw, thus the latter filed an
action in court for support. The Court ordered Benigno to pay her P75 a month. However,
Benigno did not pay and instead sold their property to his son-in-law Soterro. The transaction
was done without Isidora’s consent. Prior to the sale, Soterro already knew that there was a
judgment rendered against his father-in-law but proceeded to buy the property anyway. When
Cabaliw found out, she instituted an action along with her daughter to recover the properties.

Issue:

Is there a presumption of fraud?

Held:

Yes. Alienations by onerous title are presumed fraudulent when made by persons against whome
some judgment has been rendered or some writ of attachment has been issued. Benigno was
ordered by the Court to pay Cabaliw support and he failed to do so. Instead, he sold his
properties to his son-in-law. The close relationship between Benigno and Soterro is a badge of
fraud. Soterro knew about the judgment against Benigno but proceeded to purchase the
properties anyway. He cannot be said to be a purchaser in good faith. The presumption of fraud
is not overcome by the fact that the transactions were all made in the nature of public instruments
between Soterro and Benigno. The properties sold were conjugal properties. These cannot be
sold without Cabaliw’s consent.

Republic vs PLDT
GR No. L-18841 January 27, 2017

FACTS:
The Bureau of Telecommunications set up its own Government Telephone System by utilizing its own
appropriation and equipment and by renting trunk lines of the PLDT to enable government officers to
call private parties. One of the rules of PLDT is the prohibition on the Bureau’s public use of the service
furnished for the private use of said Bureau. The Bureau has extended its services to the general public
since its inception (also using the lines of PLDT). PLDT contends that said bureau was violating the
conditions under which their Private Branch Exchange is inter-connected with the PLDT’s facilities and
after giving an ultimatum, PLDT disconnected the trunk lines rented by the Bureau, effectively isolating
the Philippines from the rest of the world (except United States). Petitioner thus filed for judgment
commanding PLDT to execute a contract with plaintiff.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the PLDT may be forced to execute a contract with petitioner

HELD:
The parties cannot be coerced to enter into a contract where no agreement is had between them. While
the Republic may not compel the PLDT to celebrate a contract with it, the Republic may, in the exercise
of the sovereign power of eminent domain, require the telephone company to permit interconnection
of the government telephone system and that of the PLDT subject to just compensation. The use of
PLDT’s lines and services are subjected to a burden to the respondent for the public use and benefit,
thus, they constitute properties over which the power of eminent domain may be exercised.