Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, 619 SCRA 280:: G.R. No. 192123, March 10, 2014

Garcia vs.
Court of Appeals, 619 SCRA 280: The Maceda Law applies to contracts of sale of
real estate on installment payments, including residential condominium apartments, but
excluding: (a) industrial lots, (b) commercial buildings, and (c) sales to tenants.
However, the Court held that where the bank with undue haste when it granted and
released the loan in less than three days, it also acted negligently in preparing the Real
Estate Mortgage as it failed to indicate that Concepcion was signing it for and on behalf
of petitioner. We need not belabor that the words as attorney-in-fact of, as agent of,
or for and on behalf of, are vital in order for the principal to be bound by the acts of his
agent. Without these words, any mortgage, although signed by the agent, cannot bind the
principal as it is considered to have been signed by the agent in his personal capacity.
A surety is an insurer of the debt, whereas a guarantor is an insurer of the
solvency of the debtor. A suretyship is an undertaking that the debt shall be
paid; a guaranty, an undertaking that the debtor shall pay. Stated differently,
a surety promises to pay the principals debt if the principal will not pay,
while a guarantor agrees that the creditor, after proceeding against the
principal, may proceed against the guarantor if the principal is unable to pay.
A surety binds himself to perform if the principal does not, without regard to
his ability to do so. A guarantor, on the other hand, does not contract that the
principal will pay, but simply that he is able to do so. In other words, a surety
undertakes directly for the payment and is so responsible at once if the
principal debtor makes default, while a guarantor contracts to pay if, by the
use of due diligence, the debt cannot be made out of the principal.
Dr. Fernando P. Solidum v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 192123, March 10,
2014:
An action upon medical negligence whether criminal, civil or administrative calls for
the plaintiff to prove by competent evidence each of the following four elements, namely:
(a) the duty owed by the physician to the patient, as created by the physician-patient
relationship, to act in accordance with the specific norms or standards established by his
profession; (b) the breach of the duty by the physicians failing to act in accordance with
the applicable standard of care; (3) the causation, i.e., there must be a reasonably close
and causal connection between the negligent act or omission and the resulting injury; and
(4) the damages suffered by the patient.
Art. 1491. The following persons cannot acquire by purchase, even at a public
or judicial auction, either in person or through the mediation of another:
(1) The guardian, the property of the person or persons who may be under his
guardianship;
(2) Agents, the property whose administration or sale may have been
entrusted to them, unless the consent of the principal has been given;
(3) Executors and administrators, the property of the estate under

administration;
(4) Public officers and employees, the property of the State or of any
subdivision thereof, or of any government-owned or controlled corporation, or
institution, the administration of which has been intrusted to them; this
provision shall apply to judges and government experts who, in any manner
whatsoever, take part in the sale;
(5) Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of superior and inferior

courts, and other officers and employees connected with the administration
of justice, the property and rights in litigation or levied upon an execution
before the court within whose jurisdiction or territory they exercise their
respective functions; this prohibition includes the act of acquiring by
assignment and shall apply to lawyers, with respect to the property and
rights which may be the object of any litigation in which they may take part
by virtue of their profession.
(6) Any others specially disqualified by law. (1459a)
Art. 1492. The prohibitions in the two preceding articles are applicable to
sales in legal redemption, compromises and renunciations.
Equitable Mortgage
1. price of the sale with right to repurchase is UNUSUALLY INADEQUATE
2. when the vendor remains possession as lessee or otherwise
3. when after expiration of the right to repurchase, another instrument
extended the period of redemption.
4. when purchaser retains for himself a part of the purchase price.
5. when vendor binds himself to pay taxes on the thing sold.
6. in any other cases where it may be inferred that the real intention of the
parties is to secure the payment of debt.

Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, 619 SCRA 280:: G.R. No. 192123, March 10, 2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, 619 SCRA 280:: G.R. No. 192123, March 10, 2014

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, 619 SCRA 280:: G.R. No. 192123, March 10, 2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Garcia vs.

(3) Executors and administrators, the property of the estate under

(5) Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of superior and inferior

(6) Any others specially disqualified by law. (1459a)

You might also like