Magdalena State  v  Antonio& Herminia Rodriguez  (JNR)18 Scra 967 Dec 17, 1966

Obligations and Contracts

PETITIONER: Magdalena State

RESPONDENT:   Antonio & Herminia Rodriguez

FACTS

Antonio & Herminia  bought 2,191 SQM lot in Quezon City  from Magdalena State. In view of the unpaid balance of 5,000  on account of purchase price, they executed promissory note for 5,000 which promised to pay with out any demand and with interest of 9 %  that payment be made within 60 days from Jan 1957.

On the same day, Antonio & Herminia executed also a bond on favor of Magdalena State which embodied bonding company Luzon Surety Company to pay the 5,000 balance to Magdalena, but the bonding company be notified in writing within 10 days from the moment there was default otherwise the undertaking become null and viod.

June 1957 the obligation becomes due and demandable the surety company paid Madalena State the 5,000, shortly thereafter, Magdalena demanded payment of 6.55.89 for accumulated interest on principal which was refused…

View original post 225 more words

Advertisements

Lucia Gomez, Et. Al. vs. Ng Fat, Et. Al.

Obligations and Contracts

Case Digest

G.R. No. L-93 and L-94 April 25, 1946

Lucia Gomez, ET Al.,

Vs.

Ng Fat, ET AL.,

Paras,J.:

Facts:

In these two cases, Dee Choy Pio Lee and Ng Fat failed to settle their payment in rental to the plaintiff from February 1945 up to the date of the complaint. The two answered the complaint that the plaintiff had stopped sending their collector. The court of First Instance of Manila rendered judgement in favor of the plaintiffs from which the defendants have appealed. The appellants defense is meritorious. That during that time there was acute house shortage in Manila and it is hard to believe that they would either desire or afford to lose their leaseholds at that time. It may also be remarked that appellants’ alleged default cannot give way to their ejectment, since it is attributable in part to plaintiffs’ omission or neglect to collect. The…

View original post 111 more words

Effects of Trial In Absentia on the Rights of the Accused

Pipo Calusa

Trial In Absentia

Trial in absentia is a stage in a criminal proceeding where the trial is being held even without the physical presence of the accused. Trial in absentia is allowed in our jurisdiction and is indeed authorized by the Constitution. Section 14 (2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides:

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused: Provided, that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear…

View original post 1,423 more words

Lim Tay vs. Court of Appeals

Obligations and Contracts

FACTS

Sy Guiok and Sy Lim secured a loan from Lim Tay in the amount of P40,000.  This was secured by a contract of pledge whereby the former pledged their 300 shares of stock each in Go Fay & Company to the latter.  However, they failed to pay their respective loans.  Hence, Lim Tay filed a petition for mandamus against Go Fay & Company with the SEC praying that an order be issued directing the corporate secretary of the said corporation to register the stock transfers and issue new certificates in favor of Lim Tay.

Go Fay & Company filed its answer contending that SEC had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint on the ground that since Lim Tay was not a stockholder of the company, no intra corporate controversy took place; and furthermore, that the default of payment of Sy Guiok and Sy Lim did not automatically vest in…

View original post 209 more words

Panganiban vs. Cuevas (7 Phil. 477)

Obligations and Contracts

G.R. No. 2001            February 14, 1907

SALVADOR PANGANIBAN, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
AGUSTIN CUEVAS, defendant-appellant.

Del-Pan, Ortigas, & Fisher for appellant.
Isabelo Artacho for appellee.

ARELLANO, C.J.:

FACTS

The defendant, Agustin Cuevas, was ordered to return the said property to the plaintiff, Panganiban, the owner of a camarin (a bamboo nipa construction) and lot.  He sold and transferred the same to one Francisco Gonzales for the sum of 1,300 pesos.

On August, 1900, Francisco Gonzales sold the property to Agustin Cuevas for the same price, and on the said 13th of August, 1900, Cuevas asked for and was granted, in ex parte proceedings, the judicial possession of the property on the 14th of the said month.  Subsequently, on the 10th of August, he attempted to pay Panganiban the sum of 200 pesos, which he deposited in court,

On the 1st of October of the same year, 1900, Cuevas brought…

View original post 459 more words

Julian Naval vs. Hermogenes Benavides

Obligations and Contracts

Case Digest

G.R. No. L-3348 July 26,1907

Julian Naval, Plaintiff-appellant

vs.

Hermogenes Benavides, defendant-appellee

Johnson,J.:

Facts:       

On July 1904, the plaintiff entered into a written contract with the defendant for the construction of a house worth P5,730.00. Due to certain changes they agreed that the plaintiff will expend additional labor and materials in the construction of the house and the defendant should pay for the said additional labor and materials. The additional expenses amounted to P1,663.70 but the defendant insist that it was only a matter of two or three hundred pesos. The court made a judgement in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for the sum of P270 with 6% interest from the date of the decision (February 19,1906) and for the cost. Both plaintiff and defendant presented an exception to the decision of the lower court. The plaintiff presented a bill of exceptions while the…

View original post 189 more words

Toribio vs. Foz (34 Phil. 913)

Obligations and Contracts

G.R. No. 11039           September 13, 1916

FELISA TORIBIO, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
DOLORES FOZ, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

Vicente Foz for appellants.
Eugenio Testa for appellee.

TORRES, J.:

FACTS

On August 22, 1914, counsel for Felisa Toribio filed a complaint in the said court alleging as a cause of action, that the plaintiff sold to the defendant Dolores Foz and to her husband Buenaventura Toribio his rights to redemption and lease in the property having certificate of title No. 2263, issued by the register of deeds of the city of Manila, for the sum of P2,200, less that of P700 which the plaintiff owed to the defendant spouses.

The record shows, it to have been duly proven that the plaintiff, Felisa Toribio, was the owner of a parcel of urban property situated at the intersection of Calles Raon and Sales of the district of Santa Cruz, Manila, having certificate…

View original post 657 more words