Pre Week

7/24/2019 Pre Week

1/17

PERSONS

VICTOR RONDINA being then armed with a knife and by means of force threat and intimidation

did then and there wi!f"!!y "n!awf"!!y and fe!onio"s!y ha#e carna! know!edge of the com$!ainantherein AAA % a si&teen '()* year o!d !ass against her wi!!+ ,ence Victor was charged with the crime

of ra$e+ ,e was con#icted of the crime and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. D"ring the $endency of

the $roceedings and after abo"t nine months from the date of the a!!eged incident AAA ga#e birth

to a baby gir! CCC on -ay ( (...+ /hether or not Victor sho"!d e&ercise $arenta! a"thority and

s"$$ort o#er CCC0

The Court ordered Victor to acknowledge AAAs offspring CCC and give her support. Article 345 of the

Revised Penal Code provides for three different kinds of civil liabilit that !a be i!posed on the

offender" a# inde!nification$ b# acknowledge!ent of the offspring$ unless the law should prevent hi!

fro! so doing$ and c# in ever case to support the offspring. %ith the passage of the &a!il Code$ the

classification of acknowledged natural children and natural children b legal fiction was eli!inated and

the now fall under the specie of illegiti!ate children. 'ince parental authorit is vested b Article ()* ofthe &a!il Code upon the !other and considering that an offender sentenced to reclusion perpetua

auto!aticall loses the power to e+ercise parental authorit over his children$ no further positive act is

re,uired of the parent as the law itself provides for the child-s status. ence$ /Victor0 should onl be

ordered to inde!nif and support the victi!-s child. The a!ount /and ter!s0 of support shall bedeter!ined b the trial court after due notice and hearing in accordance with Article 12( of the &a!il

Code.(Rondina v. People, G.R. No. 179059, June 13, 2012)

Pri#ate res$ondent%minors 1aren Oanes /ei and 1ami!!e Oanes /ei re$resented by their mother

Remedios Oanes 'Remedios* fi!ed a $etition for !etters of administration a!!eging that they are the

d"!y acknow!edged i!!egitimate chi!dren of Sima /ei 'R"fino 2"y S"sim* who died intestate+

Petitioner $rayed for the dismissa! of the $etition arg"ing that $ri#ate res$ondents sho"!d ha#eestab!ished their stat"s as i!!egitimate chi!dren d"ring the !ifetime of Sima /ei $"rs"ant to Artic!e

(34 of the 5ami!y Code+ RTC denied $etitioner6s -TD+ On a$$ea! $etitioner arg"es that $ri#ate

res$ondents do not ha#e the !ega! $ersona!ity to instit"te the $etition for !etters of administration as

they fai!ed to $ro#e their fi!iation d"ring the !ifetime of Sima /ei in accordance with Artic!e (34 of

the 5ami!y Code+ /hether or not $ri#ate res$ondents are barred by $rescri$tion from $ro#ing

their fi!iation0

o. nder the &a!il Code$ when filiation of an illegiti!ate child is established b a record of birth

appearing in the civil register or a final udg!ent$ or an ad!ission of filiation in a public docu!ent or a

private handwritten instru!ent signed b the parent concerned$ the action for recognition !a be broughtb the child during his or her lifeti!e. owever$ if the action is based upon open and continuous

possession of the status of an illegiti!ate child$ or an other !eans allowed b the rules or special laws$ it!a onl be brought during the lifeti!e of the alleged parent. 6t is clear therefore that the resolution of

the issue of prescription depends on the tpe of evidence to be adduced b private respondents in proving

their filiation. owever$ it would be i!possible to deter!ine the sa!e in this case as there has been no

reception of evidence et. This Court is not a trier of facts. 'uch !atters !a be resolved onl b the

Regional Trial Court after a full7blown trial. (Gu v. !", G.R. No. 1#3707, $epte%&er 15, 200#)

7/24/2019 Pre Week

2/17

/hat are the effects of Voidab!e 7igamo"s -arriage Dec!aration of N"!!ity and Ann"!ment of

-arriages8

7ASIS VOIDA79E 7I2A-O:S

-ARRIA2E 'ART+ ;(*

DEC9ARATION

O5 N:99IT chi!dren name!y @ac"e!ine and @inkie Christie both were acknow!edged as

i!!egitimate in the birth certificate+ /hen Dani!o died intestate they fi!ed for $artition of the estate

$resenting the notariBed acknow!edgement+ The !egitimate chi!dren of Dani!o ob?ected that the case

sho"!d be dismissed since it wi!! be a co!!atera! attack of the stat"s of the chi!dren and the same was

denied d"e to !ack of merit+ It was a$$ea!ed to the CA b"t was remanded to the RTC+ The RTC

then r"!ed on the same iss"e and dismiss the case contending that dec!aration of heirshi$ can on!y

be made in a s$ecia! $roceeding seeking for the estab!ishment of stat"s or right+ /hether or not

@inkie and @ac"e!ine were Dani!o6s !egitimate chi!dren0

Fes. The filiation of illegiti!ate children$ like legiti!ate children$ is established b >(# the record of birth

appearing in the civil register or a final udg!entG or >1# an ad!ission of legiti!ate filiation in a publicdocu!ent or a private handwritten instru!ent and signed b the parent concerned. 6n the absence thereof$

filiation shall be proved b >(# open and continuous possession of the status of legiti!ate childG or >1# an

other !eans allowed b the Rules of Court or other special laws. The due recognition of an illegiti!ate

child in a record of birth$ a will$ a state!ent before a court of record$ or in an authentic writing is in itselfa consu!!ated act of acknowledge!ent of the child and no further action is re,uired. %here instead a

clai! for recognition is predicated on other evidence !erel tending to prove paternit i.e. outside a

record of birth$ a will$ a state!ent before the court of court or an authentic writing$ a udicial action

within the application of statute of li!itation is necessar. A scrutin of the records show that the are

born within a valid !arriage$ thereb the are legiti!ate children of =anilo. urisprudence is strongl

settled that the para!ount declaration of legiti!ac b law cannot be attacked collaterall$ one that can

onl be repudiated in a direct suit brought for such purpose. (e Jesus v. -state o ecedent Juan

Ga%&oa ion, GR No. 1277, 4cto&er 2, 2001)

/hat is now the r"!e on mortgage enc"mbrance a!ienation or dis$osa! of s$o"se6s e&c!"si#e

$ro$erty "nder R+A+ No+ (=43>0

The sa!e rule applies. R.A. o. (25)1 is onl a curative statute that re!oved the superfluit in Art. (((.

5ami!y Code R+A+ No+ (=43>

7/24/2019 Pre Week

4/17

Article (((. A spouse of age !a !ortgage$

encu!ber$ alienate or otherwise dispose of his or

her e+clusive propert$ without the consent of the

other spouse$ and appear alone in court to litigate

with regard to the sa!e.

Art. (((. 9ither spouse !a !ortgage$ encu!ber$

alienate or otherwise dispose of his or her e+clusive

propert.E

E&$!anation8@Article ((( >of &a!il Code# is rendered superfluous b Article 134$ as a!ended b Republic Act *B2$

which lowers the !aorit age to eighteen ears which is also the age of e!ancipation and the age when a

person ac,uires the legal capacit to enter into a contract of !arriage. Also$ Article 13* of the &a!il

Code provides that e!ancipation shall ter!inate parental authorit over the person and propert of the

child who shall then be ,ualified and responsible for all acts of civil life$ save the e+ceptions established

b e+isting law in special cases. Thus$ Article ((( should !erel state that @eitherE spouse !a !ortgage$

encu!ber$ alienate$ or otherwise dispose of his or her e+clusive propert.E ($ta. aria, Persons and

a%il Relations *a+ 5t-d., p. 507/50)

Disc"ss the $ro$erty regimes of the two kinds of "nions witho"t marriage+

ART+ (;3 ART+(;

APP9ICA7I9ITdue to absence of for!al re,uisites#

(. %ith legal i!pedi!ent to !arr.

- Adulterous relationships

- ?iga!ous or polga!ous !arriages

- 6ncestuous !arriages

- Void !arriages b reason of public polic

under Art. 3B

SA9ARIES /A2ES

Hwned in e,ual shares. 'eparatel owned b the parties.

PROPERT< AC:IRED EFC9:SIVE9< 7< EIT,ER PART==; b"t was "nab!e to bring his wife to @a$an and e#ent"a!!y !ost contact with each other+

/itho"t the first marriage being disso!#ed in >== -arinay married Shinichi -aekara who

bro"ght -arinay to @a$an+ After s"ffering ab"se from -aekara -arinay was ab!e to reestab!ish

her re!ationshi$ with 5"?iki who he!$ed her obtain a ?"dgment from a fami!y co"rt in @a$an in>=(= which dec!ared the marriage between -arinay and -aekara #oid on the gro"nd of bigamy+

5"?iki fi!ed with the RTC a $etition for the recognition of the foreign ?"dgment which the RTC

denied as it considered the $etition as a co!!atera! attack on the #a!idity of marriage between

-arinay and -aekara+ /hether 5"?iki has $ersona!ity to fi!e the $etition "nder R"!e (= R"!es of

Co"rt+

F9'. There is no doubt that the prior spouse has a personal and !aterial interest in !aintaining the

integrit of the !arriage he contracted and the propert relations arising fro! it. There is also no doubt

that he is interested in the cancellation of an entr of a biga!ous !arriage in the civil registr$ whichco!pro!ises the public record of his !arriage. The interest derives fro! the substantive right of the

spouse not onl to preserve >or dissolve$ in li!ited instances# his !ost inti!ate hu!an relation$ but also

to protect his propert interests that arise b operation of law the !o!ent he contracts !arriage. Thesepropert interests in !arriage include the right to be supported Iin keeping with the financial capacit of

the fa!ilI and preserving the propert regi!e of the !arriage. &uiki has the personalit to file a petition

to recogniJe the apanese &a!il Court udg!ent nullifing the !arriage between ;arina and ;aekara

on the ground of biga! because the udg!ent concerns his civil status as !arried to ;arina. &or the

sa!e reason he has the personalit to file a petition under Rule (2B to cancel the entr of !arriage

between ;arina and ;aekara in the civil registr on the basis of the decree of the apanese &a!il

Court. (ui6i v. arina, G.R. No. 19#09, June 2#, 2013)

PROPERT1# indispensable re,uisites !ust concur$ na!el" >(# the

plaintiff or co!plainant has a legal or an e,uitable title to or interest in the real propert subect of the

actionG and >1# the deed$ clai!$ encu!brance$ or proceeding clai!ed to be casting cloud on his title !ust

be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its pri%a acie appearance of validit or legal

efficac. e need not be in possession of said propert. 6t can thus be seen that for an action for ,uieting

of title to prosper$ the plaintiff !ust first have a legal$ or$ at least$ an e,uitable title on the real propert

subect of the action and that the alleged cloud on his title !ust be shown to be in fact invalid. (-landPilippines, ;nc. vs. Garcia, G.R. No. 17329, e&ruar 17, 2010)

/I99S AND S:CCESSION

/hat is the doctrine of de$endent re!ati#e re#ocation0

The rule that where the act of destruction is connected with the !aking of another will so as to fairl raise

the inference that the testator !eant the revocation of the old to depend upon the efficac of the new

disposition intended to be substituted$ the revocation will be conditional and dependent upon the efficac

of the new dispositionG and if for an reason$ the new will intended to be !ade as a substitute isinoperative$ the revocation fails and the original will re!ain in full force.

6t is usuall applied where the testator cancels or destros a will or e+ecutes an instru!ent intended to

revoke a will with a present intention to !ake a new testa!entar disposition as a substitute for the old$

and the new disposition is not !ade of or fails of effect for sa!e reason. (estate -state o ariano olo

v. olo, GR No. */253, $epte%&er 21, 1951)

Disting"ish Preterition from Disinheritance

7/24/2019 Pre Week

7/17

PRETERITION DISIN,ERITANCE

=eprivation of a co!pulsar heir of his legiti!ate

is tacit.

=eprivation of a co!pulsor heir of his legiti!ate

is e+pressed

;a be voluntar but the law presu!es that it is

involuntar

Alwas voluntar

8aw presu!es that there has been !erel an

oversight or !istake on the part of the testator

=one with intent and legal cause

H!itted heir gets not onl his legiti!e but also his

share in the free portion not disposed of b wa of

legacies

7/24/2019 Pre Week

8/17

propert rights$ and hence$ survives the death of petitioner ;e!oracion. (!ru v. !ru, G.R. No. 173292,

$epte%&er 1, 2010)

5ort"nato c!aimed a $ortion of the !egitime being an i!!egitimate son of the deceased by

incor$orating a /ai#er of ,ereditary Rights s"$$osed!y signed by the rest of the 7orromeo6s+ In

the wai#er of the nine '.* heirs re!in"ished to 5ort"nato their shares in the dis$"ted estate+ The$etitioners o$$osed this /ai#er for reason that this is witho"t force and effect beca"se there can be

no effecti#e wai#er of hereditary rights before there has been a #a!id acce$tance of the inheritance

from the heirs who intend to transfer the same+ /hether or not a /ai#er of ,ereditary Rights can

be e&ec"ted witho"t a #a!id acce$tance from the heirs in "estion+

F9'. The prevailing urisprudence on waiver of hereditar rights is that the properties included in an

e+isting inheritance cannot be considered as belonging to third persons with respect to the heirs$ who b

fiction of law continue the personalit of the for!er. The heirs succeed the deceased b the !ere fact of

death. ;ore or less$ ti!e !a elapse fro! the !o!ent of the death of the deceased until the heirs enter

into possession of the hereditar propert$ but the acceptance in an event retroacts to the !o!ent of the

death$ in accordance with article B of the Civil Code. The right is vested$ although conditioned upon the

adudication of the corresponding hereditar portion. (;ntestate -state o *ate

7/24/2019 Pre Week

9/17

the neighborhood. The part who asserts ownership b adverse possession !ust prove the presence of the

essential ele!ents of ac,uisitive prescription.

Ac,uisitive prescription of real rights !a be ordinar or e+traordinar. Hrdinar ac,uisitive prescription

re,uires possession in good faith and with ust title for ten ears. 6n e+traordinar prescription$ ownershipand other real rights over i!!ovable propert are ac,uired through uninterrupted adverse possession for

thirt ears without need of title or of good faith .(;%uan v. !ereno, G.R. No. 1#7995, $epte%&er 11,2009)

Differentiate Ac"isiti#e Prescri$tion and E&tincti#e Prescri$tion8

Ac,uisitive Prescription 9+tinctive Prescription

>(# The ac,uisition of ownership and other real

rights through possession of a thing in the !anner

and condition provided b law

>1# ;a be ordinar or e+traordinar

>a# Hrdinar" re,uires possession of things ingood faith and with ust title for the ti!e fi+ed

b law.>b# 9+traordinar" ac,uisition of ownership and

other real rights without need of title or of

good faith or an other condition

The loss or e+tinguish!ent of propert rights or

actions through the possession b another of a thing

for the period provided b law or through failure to

bring the necessar action

Re,uires positive action of the possessor who is notthe owner

Re,uires inaction of the owner out of possession orneglect of one with a right to bring his action

Applicable to ownership and other real rights Applicable to all kinds of rights$ whether real or

personal

Vests the propert and raise a new title in the

occupant

Vests the propert and raise a new title on the

occupant

Can be proven under the general issue without its

being affir!ativel pleaded

'hould be affir!ativel pleaded and proved to bar

the action or clai! of the adverse part

Results in the ac,uisition of ownership or other realrights in a person as well as the loss of said

ownership or real rights in another

;erel results in the loss of a real or personal right$or bars the cause of action to enforce said right.

O79I2ATIONS AND CONTRACTS

Can a sing!e act or omission gi#e rise to different ca"ses of action0

Fes. A single act or o!ission does not alwas !ake a single cause of action. 6t can possibl give rise to

two separate civil liabilities on the part of the offender L (# e= delictoor civil liabilit arising fro! cri!es

and 1# independent civil liabilities or those arising fro! contracts or intentional torts. The onl caveat

provided in Article 1()) of the Civil Code is that the offended part cannot recover da!ages twice for thesa!e act or o!ission. (*i% v. >ou !o Pin, GR No. 17525#, "uust 23, 2012).

Disting"ish Rescission or Reso!"tion from Rescission by reason of !esion0

Art+ ((.( CC L Rescission or Reso!"tion Art+ (G( CC L Rescission by reason of !esion

Applies onl to reciprocal obligations$ such that a

part-s beach thereof partakes of a tacit resolutor

=oes not appl to reciprocal obligations$ and

therefore$ action is not based on a breach of an

7/24/2019 Pre Week

10/17

condition which entitles the inured part to

rescission.

obligation.

The reparation of da!ages for the breach is purel

secondar.

The cause of action is subordinated to the e+istence

of an econo!ic preudice. ence$ where the

defendant !akes good the da!ages caused$ the

action cannot be !aintained or continued.

Predicated on breach of faith Predicated on inur to econo!ic interests of thepart plaintiff < lesion.

Principal action that is retaliator in character 'ubsidiar action

Article ((($ as presentl worded$ speaks of the re!ed of rescission in reciprocal obligations within the

conte+t of Article ((14 of the Hld Civil Code which uses the ter! Iresolution.I The re!ed of resolution

applies onl to reciprocal obligations such that a part-s breach thereof partakes of a tacit resolutor

condition which entitles the inured part to rescission. The present article$ as in the Hld Civil Code$

conte!plates alternative re!edies for the inured part who is granted the option to pursue$ as principal

actions$ either a rescission or specific perfor!ance of the obligation$ with pa!ent of da!ages in each

case. Hn the other hand$ rescission under Article (3B( of the Civil Code$ taken fro! Article (1( of the

Hld Civil Code$ is a subsidiar action$ and is not based on a part-s breach of obligation.> Congregation of

the Religious of the Virgin ;ar v. Hrola$ :R o. (*)2$ April 32$ 122B#

Disting"ish the fo!!owing contractsM Rescissib!e Voidab!e :nenforceab!e and #oid ContractsM

7ASIS VOID RESCISSI79E VOIDA79E :NEN5ORCEA79E

ature Absence of

essentialele!ents of a

contract

=efect is in its

effects$ which iseither against one

of the parties or a

third person

Consent is

vitiated or thereis incapacit to

give consent

There is a contract but

which cannot beenforced

Conse,uences o legal effects.

Cannot beratified

Contract re!ains

valid if no actionis filed. Produceslegal effects.

;a be ratified ;a be ratified

Persons to raise

the action

ullit can be

set up against

an person

asserting right

arising fro! itand his

successors in

interest not

protected b

law

Hnl parties !a

rescind the

contract

ullit !a onl

be raised b the

parties to the

contract

Cannot be assailed b

third persons

Prescription =oes notprescribe

%ithin four >4#ears

%ithin four >4#ears

=oes not prescribe

/hat are the gro"nds for e&ting"ishment of ob!igations0

a. ? pa!ent or perfor!anceG

7/24/2019 Pre Week

11/17

b. ? the loss of the thing dueG

c. ? the condonation or re!ission of debtG

d. ? the confusion of !erger of the rights of creditor and debtorG

e. ? co!pensation

f. ? novation.g. Annul!ent

h. Rescissioni. &ulfill!ent of a resolutor condition

. Prescription >Art. (13($ CC#

Differentiate A!ternati#e and 5ac"!tati#e ob!igations0

A!ternati#e Ob!igations Art+ ((.. Ci#i! Code 5ac"!tati#e Ob!igations Art+ (>=) Ci#i! Code

6n alternative obligation$ there is !ore than one

obect and the fulfill!ent of one is sufficient$

deter!ined b the choice of the debtor who

generall has the right of election. >Arco Pulpand Paper Co. v. 8i!$ :R o. 12*B2*$ une 15$

12(4#

6n facultative obligations$ onl one prestation has

been agreed upon but the debtor !a render

another in substitution.

The right to choose an alternative re!ed lies

onl with the debtor. >-?uita&le ;nsurance and!asualt !o%pan v. Rural ;nsurance and $uret

!o%pan, GR N4. */173#, Januar 31, 19#2)

;a be co!plied with b deliver of one of the

obects or b perfor!ance of one of theprestations which are alternativel due.

;a be co!plied with b the deliver of another

obect or b the perfor!ance of anotherprestation in substitution of that which is due.

8oss

7/24/2019 Pre Week

12/17

/hen does $ayment e&ting"ishes an ob!igation0

6n general$ a pa!ent in order to be effective to discharge an obligation$ !ust be !ade to the proper

person. Thus$ pa!ent !ust be !ade to the obligee hi!self or to an agent having authorit$ e+press or

i!plied$ to receive the particular pa!ent. ence$ absent an showing that the respondent agreed to thepa!ent of the contract price to another person$ or that she authoriJed CruJ to clai! the check on her

behalf$ the pa!ent$ to be effective !ust be !ade to her. >Repu&lic o te Pilippines, represented & te!ie o te Pilippine National Police vs. i u u . e Gu%an, G.R. No. 175021, June 15, 2011)

Disting"ish E&$romission and De!egacion+

E&$romission De!egacion

6nitiative for change does not e!anate fro! the

debtor$ and !a even be !ade without his consent$

since it consists in a third person assu!ing his

obligation.

=ebtor >delegante# offers or initiates the

change$ and the creditor >delegatorio# accepts a

third person >delegado# as consenting to the

substitution. Consent need not be given

si!ultaneousl.

>(# Hld debtor is released

>1# 6nsolvenc of the new debtor does not revive

the old obligation in case the old debtor did notagree to e+pro!ision

>3# 6f with knowledge and consent of old debtor$

new debtor can de!and rei!burse!ent of the

entire a!ount paid and with subrogation ofcreditor-s rights.

>4# 6f without knowledge of the old debtor$ new

debtor can de!and rei!burse!ent onl up to the

e+tent that the latter has been benefited without

subrogation of creditor-s rights.

>(# 6nsolvenc of the new debtor revives the

obligation of the old debtor if it was anterior and

public$and known to the old debtor.

>1# ew debtor can de!and rei!burse!ent of the

entire a!ount he has paid fro! the original debtor.

e !a co!pel creditor to subrogate hi! to all ofhis rights

'Testate Estate of 9aBaro -ota #+ Serra 2R No+ 9%>>>4 5ebr"ary (; (.>4*

SA9ES AND OT,ER SPECIA9 CONTRACTS

/hat is Tacita Recond"ccion0

6f at the end of the contract$ the lessee should continue enoing the thing leased for (5 das with the

ac,uiescence of the lessor$ and unless a notice to the contrar b either part has previousl been given$ it

is understood that there is an i!plied new lease$ not for the period of the original contract$ but for the ti!e

established in Articles (*B1 and (*B) of the CC. The other ter!s of the original contract shall be

revived >Art (*)2$ CC#.

Disting"ish Contract of abso!"te sa!e from contract to se!!

CHTRACT H& 'A89 CHTRACT TH '988

as all the ele!ents of sale" consent to transfer

ownership$ deter!inate subect !atter$ and price

certain or its e,uivalent

8acks consent to transfer ownership

The prospective seller thereb transfers the title

of ownership to the prospective buer

The prospective seller e+plicitl reserves the

transfer of title to the prospective buer

7/24/2019 Pre Week

13/17

The seller agrees or obliges hi!self to transfer

ownership of the subect propert for price

certain or its e,uivalent

The seller agrees or obliges hi!self to fulfill his

pro!ise to sell the subect propert when the

entire a!ount of the purchase price is delivered

to hi!

The non7pa!ent of the purchase price partakes

a resolutor condition$ i.e. b such occurrence

put an end to a transaction that once upon a ti!ee+isted

The full pa!ent of the purchase price partakes

of a suspensive condition$ the non7fulfil!ent of

which prevents the obligation to sell fro! arising

The vendor has lost and cannot recover the

ownership of the land sold until and unless the

contract of sale id itself resolved and set aside

Hwnership is retained b the prospective seller

without further re!edies b the prospective

buer.

'ources" Paras>122B#G abus v. Pacson$ :.R. o. (*(3(B$ ove!ber 15$ 122

Disting"ish Right of Pre%em$tion #+ Right of Redem$tion

Right of pre7e!ption Right of rede!ption

Hwner of an adoining land has a right or pre7

e!ption at a reasonable price when"

a. rban land is so s!all and so situated thata !aor portion of it cannot be used for an

practical purpose within a reasonable ti!eG

b. %as bought !erel for speculationG

c. %as resold

6f the resale has been perfected$ the owner of the

adoining land shall have a right of rede!ption$

also at a reasonable pricePriorit if two or !ore adoining owners want to

redee!" owner whose intended use of the land

appears to be best ustified

Arises before the sale Arises after the sale

o rescission because no sale e+ists et There can be rescission of the original sale

The action is directed against prospective seller Action is directed against buer

PARTNERS,IP A2ENC< AND TR:ST

Disting"ish Ca$ita!ist Partner from Ind"stria! Partner

7ASIS CAPITA9IST PARTNER IND:STRIA9 PARTNER

Contribution Contribute !one and propert Contribute industr >!ental or

phsical#

As to prohibition to engage in

other business

Prohibited fro! engaging in

business of sa!e nature as that of

partnership$ unless there is astipulation to the contrar.

Violation of this$ he is re,uired to

bring to the co!!on funds an

profits derived b hi! fro! his

transactions. ?ut he shall

personall bear all the losses.

Cannot engage in other business$

otherwiseG >a# he !a be

e+cluded fro! the partnershipplus da!agesG or >b# benefits he

obtained fro! the other business

can be availed of b the partners

plus da!ages

Profits 'hares profits according to

agree!ent thereonG if none$ pro

rata to his contribution

%hat is ust and e,uitable under

the circu!stances

8osses &irst$ the stipulation as to lossesG

if none$ the agree!ent as to

profits$ if none$ pro rata to hiscontribution

%ithout preudice to

rei!burse!ent against the capital

partners.

7/24/2019 Pre Week

14/17

Disting"ish between 2enera! and S$ecia! Agency

2ENERA9 A2ENC< SPECIA9 A2ENC3# Anthing left fro! either shall be applied to satisf the other.

(-=press ;nvest%ents v. aan eleco%%unications, GR Nos. 1757/59, ece%&er 5, 2012)

CREDIT TRANSACTIONS

Disting"ish between e"ity or redem$tion and right of redem$tion+

E:IT< O5 REDE-PTION RI2,T O5 REDE-PTION

Right of the defendant !ortgagor to e+tinguish

and retain ownership of the propert b paing

the a!ount fi+ed in the decision of the court

within 2 to (12 das after entr of udg!ent

or even after the sale but prior to its

confir!ation.

Right granted to the debtor7!ortgagor$ his

successor in interest or an udicial creditor of

said debtor7 !ortgagor or an person having a

lien in the propert subse,uent to its !ortgagor

deed of trust under which the propert within (

ear fro! registration of the sheriff-s certificate

of sale.

7/24/2019 Pre Week

15/17

/0nder Act. o. 3(35$ the purchaser in a foreclosure sale has$ during the rede!ption period$ onl an

inchoate right and not the absolute right to the propert with all the acco!paning incidents. e onl

beco!es an absolute owner of the propert if it is not redee!ed during the rede!ption period. As a

conse,uence of the inchoate character of the purchaserKs right during the rede!ption period$ Act. o.

3(35$ as a!ended$ allows the purchaser at the foreclosure sale to take possession of the propert onlupon the filing of a bond$ in an a!ount e,uivalent to the use of the propert for a period of twelve >(1#

!onths$ to inde!nif the !ortgagor in case it be shown that the sale was !ade in violation of the!ortgage or without co!pling with the re,uire!ents of the law.(-r%ita@o v. Palas (G.R. No. 173#)

#9 $!R" 15, Januar 23, 2013)

/hat is a dragnet c!a"se0

As a general rule$ a !ortgage liabilit is usuall li!ited to the a!ount !entioned in the contract.

owever$ the a!ounts na!ed as consideration in a contract of !ortgage do not li!it the a!ount for

which the !ortgage !a stand as securit if$ fro! the four corners of the instru!ent$ the intent to secure

future and other indebtedness can be gathered. This stipulation is valid and binding between the parties

and is known as the Iblanket !ortgage clauseI also known as the Idragnet clause. (Ra%ona Ra%os and

te -state o *uis . Ra%os vs. Pilippine National :an6, 4pal Portolio ;nvest%ents ($P(1M# per annu! 7 as reflected in the case of 9astern 'hipping 8ines

;anual of Regulations for on7?ank &inancial 6nstitutions$ before its a!end!ent b ?'P7;? Circular

o. ) 7 but will now be si+ percent >*M# per annu! effective ul ($ 12(3. 6t should be noted$

nonetheless$ that the new rate could onl be applied prospectivel and not retroactivel. Conse,uentl$ the

twelve percent >(1M# per annu! legal interest shall appl onl until une 32$ 12(3. Co!e ul ($ 12(3the new rate of si+ percent >*M# per annu! shall be the prevailing rate of interest when applicable.

(Nacar v. Galler ra%es (G.R. No. 1971) 703 $!R" 39, "uust 13, 2013)

9AND TIT9E AND DEEDS

A!egarbes was granted a >;%hectare ,omestead Patent in (.4>+ In (.44 howe#er the !and was

s"bdi#ided into three 'G* !ots L 9ot Nos+ (G(G. and (;= as a conse"ence of $"b!ic !and

s"bdi#ision+ 9ot (G. was a!!ocated to C"stodio and 9ot (;= was a!!ocated to $etitioner Virt"cio+

7oth C"stodio and Virt"cio fi!ed ,omestead A$$!ication and were granted+ A!egarbes fi!ed $rotest

o$$osing the homesteads of C"stodio and Virt"cio c!aiming that his a$$ro#ed a$$!ication co#ered

the who!e area inc!"ding 9ot Nos+ (G. and (;= b"t was denied and he was ordered to #acate

s"b?ect !and b"t he ref"sed+ In (..3 Virt"cio then fi!ed a com$!aint for Reco#ery of Possession

and Ownershi$ with Pre!iminary In?"nction before the RTC+ A!egarbes arg"ed that the his

7/24/2019 Pre Week

16/17

$ossession of 9ot Nos+ (G (G. and (;= had been o$en contin"o"s $eacef"! and "ninterr"$ted in

the conce$t of an owner for more than G= years and had ac"ired s"ch !ots by ac"isiti#e

$rescri$tion+ The RTC in >==( r"!ed in fa#or of Virt"cio and ordered A!egarbes to #acate 9ot No+

(;=+ The CA on the other hand r"!ed that A!egarbes became i$so ?"re owner of 9ot (;= and

therefore entit!ed to retain $ossession of itby reason of ac"isiti#e $rescri$tion+ '(* /hether or not

A!egarbes ac"ired ownershi$ o#er the s"b?ect $ro$erty by ac"isiti#e $rescri$tion0 '>* /hether

or not the $eriod of ac"isiti#e $rescri$tion was interr"$ted in (.)( or in (.4; when A!egarbesfi!ed the $rotest0

(. The 'C ruled that Ithe CA was$ therefore$ correct in ruling that Alegarbes beca!e ipso ureowner of

8ot (42 entitling hi! to retain possession of it because he was in open$ continuous and e+clusive

possession for over thirt >32# ears of alienable public land.I Article ((2* of the ew Civil Code$ in

relation to its Article )(1$ provides that prescription is a !ode of ac,uiring ownership through the lapse

of ti!e in the !anner and under the conditions laid down b law. nder the sa!e law$ it states that

ac,uisitive prescription !a either be ordinar or e+traordinar. Hrdinar ac,uisitive prescription

re,uires possession of things in good faith and with ust title for a period of ten ears$ while e+traordinar

ac,uisitive prescription re,uires uninterrupted adverse possession of thirt ears$ without need of title or

of good faith.

1. Civil interruption takes place with the service of udicial su!!ons to the possessor. %hen no action is

filed$ then there is no occasion to issue a udicial su!!ons against the respondents. The period of

ac,uisitive prescription continues to run. Article ((55 of the ew Civil Code refers to the interruption of

prescription of actions. 6nterruption of ac,uisitive prescription$ on the other hand$ is found in Articles((127((15 of the sa!e Code. Thus$ Virtucio-s reliance on Article ((55 for purposes of tolling the period

of ac,uisitive prescription is !isplaced. The onl kinds of interruption that effectivel toll the period of

ac,uisitive prescription are natural and civil interruption.(

7/24/2019 Pre Week

17/17

Pro+i!ate Cause Re!ote Cause Concurrent cause 6ntervening Cause

That which$ in the

natural and continuous

se,uence$ unbroken b

an efficient$ intervening

cause$ produces theinur$ and without

which the result would

not have occurred.

>8a!bert v. heirs of Ra

Castillon$ :R o.

(*2)2$ &ebruar 13$

1225#

A prior and re!ote

cause cannot be !ade the

basis of an action if such

re!ote cause did nothing

!ore than furnish thecondition or give rise to

the occasion b which

the inur was !ade

possible$ if there

intervened between such

prior or re!ote cause and

the inur a distinct$

successive$ unrelated$

and efficient cause of

the inur$ even thoughsuch inur would not

have happened but forsuch condition or

occasion. (People v.