Biblii

G.R. No. L-17587

PHILIPPINE BANKING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. LUI SHE, Respondent. Article 1352. Cause of contract September 12, 1967

FACTS OF THE CASE: Santos executed a contract of lease in favor of Wong Heng. She then executed another contract giving Wong the option to buy the leased premises, conditioned on his obtaining Philippine citizenship. However, his application for such was withdrawn. She thus filed a petition to adopt him hoping to confer citizenship. she now claims that the contracts were made by her because of machinations and inducements practiced by him.

ISSUE/S: Whether or not the contracts with Wong are valid

CONCLUSION: NO. The contracts considered collectively reveal an insidious pattern to subvert the ban against alien landholding. When an alien is given not only a lease of, but also an option to buy, a piece of land, by virtue of which the Filipino owner cannot sell his property then it becomes clear that it is a virtual transfer in stages of the rights of an owner.

G.R. No. L-65510

TEJA MARKETING AND/OR ANGEL JAUCIAN, Petitioner, v. HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, Respondent. (1) Article 1412. unlawful or forbidden cause March 9, 1987 FACTS OF THE CASE: Nale bought from Teja Marketing a motorcycle and a sidecar. It was agreed that the latter will undertake the yearly registration of the motorcycle. Nale used the motorcycle for transporting passengers under the franchise of Teja Marketing. However, Nale failed to pay despite repeated demands. Teja Marketing failed to comply with his obligation to register the motorcycle. A decision was rendered on the basis of “pari delicto”

ISSUE/S: Whether or not respondent court erred in applying the doctrine of “pari delicto” CONCLUSION: NO. Having entered into an illegal contract, neither of the parties can seek relief from the courts, and each must bear the consequences of his acts. The parties operated under the "kabit system" whereby a person who has been granted a certificate of public convenience allows another person to operate under such franchise for a fee. This is contrary to public policy and, thus, void. I

G.R. No. 139982

JULIAN FRANCISCO, Petitioner, v. PASTOR HERRERA, Respondent. Article 1327 and 1390. Vitiated Consent November 21, 2002

FACTS OF THE CASE: Herrera’s father, sold to Francisco two parcels of land. Herrera, contending that the price was grossly inadequate tried to increase the purchase price, to which Francisco refused. Herrera thus filed a complaint for annulment of sale on the ground that his father at that time, had senile dementia.

ISSUE/S: Whether or not the contracts of sale were voidable and capable of being ratified

CONCLUSION: YES. Eligio, Sr. capacity to consent was vitiated by senile dementia, which makes it voidable thus, valid and binding unless annulled through a proper action filed in court. An annullable contract may be rendered perfectly valid by ratification. In this case, respondent received the installment payments from the petitioner, which constitutes = ratification.

G.R. No. 121069

BENJAMIN CORONEL AND EMILIA MEKING VDA. DE CORONEL, Petitioner, v. FLORENTINO CONSTANTINO, AUREA BUENSUCESO, AND THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondent. Article 1317 and 1403. Unenforceable Contracts. February 7, 2003

FACTS OF THE CASE: One half of the disputed property originally owned by Honoria Aguinaldo was inherited by Emilia Coronel together with her sons. The other half was inherited by Florentino Constantino and Aurea Buensuceso. Jess C. Santos purchased the property belonging to Emilia. Santos then sold it to the respondents who then filed a complaint for declaration of ownership.

ISSUE/S: Whether or not the sale was valid

CONCLUSION: YES, only up to the share of Emilia. Emilia signed only in her behalf and not in representation of her three children thus the sale is only binding to her share. The subject property was co-owned, with her petitioner sons who did not ratify the sale. the three brothers weren’t even aware of the sale and there’s no showing of any benefit to them.

G.R. No. 179597

IGLESIA FILIPINA INDEPENDIENTE, Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF BERNARDINO TAEZA, Respondents. Article 1403. Unenforceable contracts February 3, 2014

FACTS OF THE CASE: Supreme Bishop REv. Ga Sold two lots owned by IFI to Bernardino Taeza through installment with mortgage. Subsequently, Taeza completed the payments. Taeza registered the parcels of land and TCTs were issued in his name. A complaint for the annulment of the sale was filed by IFI.

ISSUE/S: Whether or not the sale was valid

CONCLUSION: NO. this case clearly falls under the category of unenforceable contracts. Supreme Bishop Rev. Ga was not authorized to enter into a contract of sale in behalf of IFI. He clearly acted beyond his powers by executing the contract despite the opposition from the laymen’s committee. Thus, IFI is still the rightful owner of the disputed lots.