CASE DIGESTS

FUA vs.YAP FAUCO and YAP SINGCO, defendants-appellants. G.R. No. L-48797 July 30, 1943 The plaintiff obtained in civil case No. 42125 a judgment sentencing the defendants-appellants, to pay P1,538.04 with legal interest and costs. By virtue of a writ of execution, a certain parcel of land belonging to the appellants, assessed at P3,550 and situated in Donsol, Sorsogon was levied upon the provincial sheriff of Sorsogon who, on November 15, 1933, made a notice, that said land would be sold at public auction on December 12, 1933. On December 16, 1933, the appellants executed a mortgage in favor of the appellee, wherein it was stipulated that their obligation under the judgment in civil case No. 41225 was reduced to P1,200 which was made payable in four installments of P300 during the period commencing on February 8, 1934, and ending on August 8, 1935l that to secure the payment of the said P1,200, a camarin belonging to the appellants and built on the above-mentioned land, was...

INCHAUSTI & CO. vs.GREGORIO G.R. No. L-7721 March 25, 1914 This suit is brought for the recovery of a certain sum of money, the balance of a current account opened by the firm of Inchausti & Company with Teodoro Yulo and after his death continued with his widow and children, whose principal representative is Gregorio Yulo. Gregorio Yulo, for himself and in representation of his brothers executed on June 26, 1908, a notarial document whereby all admitted their indebtedness to Inchausti & Company in the sum of P203,221.27 and, in order to secure the same with interest thereon at 10 % / annum, they especially mortgaged an undivided six-ninth of their thirty-eight rural properties, their remaining urban properties, lorchas, and family credits which were listed, obligating themselves to make a forma inventory and to describe in due form all the said properties. On January 11, 1909, Gregorio Yulo in representation of Hijos de T. Yulo answered a letter of the firm of I...

NPC vs. JUDGE DAYRIT G.R. Nos. L-62845-46 November 25, 1983 This is a petition to set aside the Order of the respondent judge. In a Civil Case DANIEL E. ROXAS, doing business under the name and style of United Veterans Security Agency and Foreign Boats Watchmen, sued NPC and two of its officers in Iligan City, to compel the NPC to restore the contract of Roxas for security services which the former had terminated. After several incidents, the litigants entered into a Compromise Agreement on October 14, 1981, and they asked the Court to approve it. On, May 14, 1982, NPC executed another contract for security services with Josette L. Roxas whose relationship to Daniel is not shown. NPC refused to implement the new contract for which reason Daniel filed a Motion for Execution. Acting on the Motion, the respondent judge issued writ of execution. The NPC assails the Order on the ground that it directs execution of a contract which had been novated . Upon the other hand, Roxas claims that s...

Abalos vs. Macatangay, G.R. No. 155043, September 30, 2004 ---- Article 69 regarding ownership, administration, enjoyment and disposition of the community properties FACTS: Spouses Arturo and Esther Abalos are the registered owners of a parcel of land with improvements located at Azucena St., Makati City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 145316 of the Registry of Deeds of Makati. Arturo executed a Receipt and Memorandum of Agreement (RMOA), in favor for the respondent, binding himself to sell to respondent the subject property and not to offer the same to any other party within 30 days from date. Respondent sent a letter to Arturo and Esther informing them of his readiness and willingness to pay the full amount of the purchase price and demanded upon the spouses to comply with their obligation to turn over possession of the property to him. Esther agreed to surrender possession of the property to respondent within 20 days, while the latter promised to pay the balance ...

NPC vs. Dayrit (novation) Held: It is elementary that novation is never presumed; it must be explicitly stated or there must be manifest incompatibility between the old and the new obligations in every aspect. Thus the Civil Code provides: Art. 1292. In order that an obligation may be extinguished by another which substitutes the same, it is imperative that it be so declared in unequivocal terms, or that the old and the new obligations be on every point incompatible with each other. In the case at bar there is nothing in the May 14, 1982, agreement which supports the petitioner's contention. There is neither explicit novation nor incompatibility on every point between the "old" and the "new" agreements. Facts: Daniel Roxas sued NPC to compel the NPC to restore the contract of Roxas for security services which the former had terminated. However, they reached a compromise agreement, and the court approved it. One of the stipulations of the agreement was that the ...

MAGDALENA ESTATE VS. MYRICK 71 PHIL. 346 FACTS: Magdalena Estate, Inc. sold to Louis Myrick lots No. 28 and 29 of Block 1, Parcel 9 of the San Juan Subdivision, San Juan, Rizal. Their contract of sale provides that the Price of P7,953 shall be payable in 120 equal monthly installments of P96.39 each on the second day of every month beginning the date of execution of the agreement. In pursuance of said agreement, the vendee made several payments amounting to P2,596.08, the last being due and unpaid was that of May 2, 1930. By reason of this, the vendor, through its president, notified the vendee that, in view of his inability to comply with the terms of their contract, said agreement had been cancelled, relieving him of any further obligation thereunder, and that all amounts paid by him had been forfeited in favor of the vendor. To this communication, the vendee did not reply, and it appears likewise that the vendor thereafter did not require him to make any further disbursements on acc...