Case Doctrine Facts Ruling

San Idelfonso Line Independent Civil - passenger bus hit a van -cant file separate civil action because they failed to reserve the
vs CA Actions require prior - insurer of van filed civil case against SILI right to file a separate civil case against petitioner
reservation

Rafael Reyes Double Recovery - truck hit a nissan which killed 2 people -aggrieved party can only choose one between filing a case under
Trucking Corp vs - withdrew reservation to file separate civil Art 100 of RPC or Art 2176 of CC. Availing of both will violate the
People case but did not with civil action based on rule against double recovery.
quasi-delict

LRTA vs Navidad Obligation-Source: -Navidad died because of a fight which led him -Only LRTA is liable. There was already a contract when Navidad
Contract to fall off the railings just in time when a train entered the waiting area for the train. LRTA should exercise
came at the station utmost diligence not only on the train but also at the station
-Wife and kids held LRTA, Roman(driver of -Not enough evidence for Prudent and Escartin
train), Escartin(guard), Prudent(security -Roman not liable at all.
agency), liable

Liga vs Allegro Obligation-Source: -After end of contract between Ortigas and -Ortigas is not a party to the case
Resources Contract Liga, Liga entered into a contract with Allegro -Court cant compel Liga to pay to a stranger to the case. Only
- Liga failed to pay limited to parties involved.
-Court asked Liga to pay Ortigas for default of
previous rentals

MSE vs Campos Sources of Obli - Campos filed a case because MSE failed to -Custom is not a source of obligation found in art 1157 of CC.
allow him to participate in buying IPO of
corporations

Diesel default/delay -Diesel failed to finish project at proper time -97.56% is already considered substantial completion. Full
Construction va and only finishing at 97.56% payment will be awarded minus the damages. There’s no delay
UPSI Holdings because UPSI kept changing orders.

Chaves vs Obli with a period -chaves asked gonzales to repair typewriter
Gonalez but failed and gonzales lost parts of the
typewriter
-chavez had it repaired at the expense of
Gonzales for the cost of labor and missing
parts
-CFI only allowed payment of missing parts
-SC finds chaves and gonzales had a perfectec contract under art
1197. Even if there was no period stated, it was assumed from
the nature of the obligation that it will be finished some time in the
future.
-Gonzales is liable under 1167(labor) and 1170(missing parts)
Pantaleon vs Delay/Default -Pantaleon purchased items but was delayed -Resolution: AmEx is not liable because it is not obliged to accept
AmEx because AmEx wasnt able to approve of the the purchase of Pantaleon.
purchase at a reasonable time 3 requisites of default are: Demand, delay and performance.
-1st case: Court found AmEx liable for delay Demand is missing.

Angeles vs Rescission of contract -cancel of contract to sell after default of -Rescission of a contract will not be permitted for a slight or
Calasanz payment casual breach.
-principal: 3920 + 7% int per anum -In the case at bar, substantial performance was already done. It
-4533 was already paid including interest is not enough to warrant rescission.

Roque vs Lapuz Rescission -Roque and Lapuz entered an agreement to -Lapuz cant benifit from Art 1191(3) because he was in delay and
sell certain lots is in bad faith.
-a new agreement was made because of -Pursuant to Art 1191, Roque is entitled for rescission with
failure of the defendant to pay but still after he payment of damages.
wasnt able to pay
-AGreement was cancelled by plaintiff for
nonpayment an had defendant vacate the land
-CA granted lapuz 90 days to pay remaining
balance

Simon vs Adamos Rescission -defendants bought lands from Porciucula, but -although the plaintiff already chose specific performance, they
later the successors asked for the cancellation can still ask for rescission after the impossibility of specific
of the sale performance under Art 1191.
-prior to the cancellation, plaintiff bought said
land from the defendant then asked for
specific performance for failure to deliver said
land
-plaintiff then filed to rescind the sale because
the contract of sale between defendants and
Porcuicula was considered null and void
-defendants claim that plaintiff cant ask for
rescission because they already chose
specific performance

Lim vs People Article 1197 -Lim sold Ayros’s tobaco and promised to give -The obligation is considered demandable because it was stated
the proceeds as soon as it was sold. that the amount should be turned over as soon as it was sold. It
-Lim paid only 240 of what was suppose to be was no use for courts to fix a period therefore Art 1197 does not
800 apply in the case at bar.
Torralba vs De Los Rescission -PHHC entered into a conditional contract with -Petition was denied
Angeles Torralba over a piece of land -it was expressly stated that the sale would be cancelled upon
-it was stated that upon default of payment, nonpayment of Torralba.
PHHC can take back the contract
-upon default, PHHC gave 30 days to revive
contract but Torralba failed
-PHHC then cancelled the sale

Reyes v Tuparan Rescission -Reyes sold her property to Tuparan without
int on installment basis and assumed the bank
loan Reyes obtained
-Tuparan defaulted after a few payments and
Reyes asked for the cancellation of the sale
-The court agrees that a substantial amount of the purchase price
has already been paid. It is only right and just to allow Tuparan to
pay the said unpaid balance of the purchase price to Reyes.
-20% fulfillment is not considered substantial breach of contract.