Syllabus

12 August 2020

Course Title : Civil Law Review 2

Course Credit : Four (4) units
Pre-requisites : Obligations & Contracts, Sales, Lease, Agency, Partnership
& Trusts, Credit Transactions and Torts & Damages
Pre-requisites to : None
Type of Course : Major Subject
Faculty : Atty. Crisostomo A. Uribe

Course Description :

Civil Law Review 2 is an integration of the principles in Civil Law relating to obligations
& contracts, sales, lease, quasi-contracts, credit transactions, quasi-delicts and damages.
It is basically covered by Book IV, Titles I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII,
XIII, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII & XIX of the Civil Code of the Philippines.

Course Objectives :

1. Understand the basic principles applicable to obligations and its different sources.
2. Identify the rights and obligations of parties to these obligations.
3. Appreciate and apply these fundamental principles to actual business transactions.
4. Encourage diligence and the observance of honesty and fair dealings at all times.
 2

Course Outline

I. Obligations – Arts. 1156-1304

A. In General

1. Definition – Art. 1156

2. Kinds of Obligations as to basis & enforceability – Art. 1423-1430;
RA 6809
3. Prescription of Actions- 1139-1155

Villaroel v. Estrada, 71 Phil 140

Ansay v. NDC, 107 Phil 997
DBP v. Confessor, 161 SCRA 307 (1988)
Heirs of Roldan v. Heirs of Roldan and Heirs of Magtulis, G.R. No. 202578.
27 Sept 2017

4. Elements of Obligations

B. Sources of Civil Obligations – Art. 1157

Sagrada Orden v. NACOCO, 91 Phil 503

FACTS: The land in question belongs to plaintiff Sagrada Orden in whose name the title was
registered before the war

On January 4, 1943, during the Japanese military occupation, the land was acquired by a Japanese
corporation by the name of Taiwan Tekkosho

After liberation on April 4, 1946, the Alien Property Custodian of the United States of America took
possession, control, and custody of the property pursuant to the Trading with the Enemy Act

The property was occupied by the Copra Export Management Company under a custodian
agreement with US Alien Property Custodian. When it vacated the property, it was occupied by
defendant National Coconut Corporation

The plaintiff made claim to the said property before the Alien Property Custodian. Alien Property
Custodian denied such claim

It bought an action in court which resulted to the cancellation of the title issued in the name of
Taiwan Tekkosho which was executed under threats, duress, and intimidation; reissuance of the title
in favor of the plaintiff; cancellation of the claims, rights, title, interest of the Alien property
Custodian; and occupant National Coconut Corporation’s ejection from the property. A right was
also vested to the plaintiff to recover from the defendants rentals for its occupation of the land from
the date it vacated.

Defendant contests the rental claims on the defense that it occupied the property in good faith and
under no obligation to pay rentals.

ISSUE: Whether or not the defendant is obliged to pay rentals to the plaintiff
 3

HELD: No. Nacoco is not liable to pay rentals prior the judgment. If defendant-appellant is liable at
all, its obligations, must arise from any of the four sources of obligations, namley, law, contract or
quasi-contract, crime, or negligence. (Article 1089, Spanish Civil Code.) Defendant-appellant is not
guilty of any offense at all, because it entered the premises and occupied it with the permission of
the entity which had the legal control and administration thereof, the Allien Property Administration.
Neither was there any negligence on its part.

The Metrobank v. Rosales and Yo Yuk To, G.R. No.183204, Jan. 13, 2014
FACTS:

In 2000, respondent Ana Grace Rosales, an owner of a travel agency, and her mother Yo Yuk
To opened a Joint Peso Account10 with petitioner bank.  In May 2002, respondent Rosales
accompanied her client Liu Chiu Fang, a Taiwanese National applying for a retiree’s visa from
the Philippine Leisure and Retirement Authority (PLRA), to petitioner’s branch in Escolta to
open a savings account.

On 31 July 2003, petitioner issued a "Hold Out" order against respondents’ accounts.  On 3 Sept
2003, petitioner filed a criminal case for Estafa through False Pretences, Misrepresentation,
Deceit and Use of Falsified Documents against the respondent.  It was alleged that the
respondents are the one responsible for the unauthorized withdrawal fo $75,000 from Liu Chiu
Fang’s account.  Petitioner alleged that on 5 Feb 2003, it received from the PLRA a Withdrawal
Clearance for the account of Liu Chiu Fang, that in the afternoon of the same day, respondents
went to inform the branch head Gutierrez that Liu Chiu Fang was going to withdraw her
deposits in cash.  Gutierrez told respondents to come back the following day for the bank did not
have enough dollars.  On 6 Feb, respondents accompanied an unidentified impostor to the bank
with enabled them to withdraw Liu Chiu Fang’s dollar deposit.

On 3 Mar 2003, respondents opened a Joint Dollar Account with petitioner bank with an initial
deposit of $14,000.  The bank later discovered that the serial numbers of the dollar notes
deposited by respondents were the same as those withdrawn by the impostor.

On 10 Sept 2004, respondents filed before the RTC of Manila a Complaint for Breach of
Obligation and Contract with Damages, against petitioner. Respondents alleged that they
attempted several times to withdraw their deposits but were unable to because petitioner had
placed their accounts under "Hold Out" status. No explanation, however, was given by petitioner
as to why it issued the "Hold Out" order.  Petitioner alleged that respondents have no cause of
action because it has a valid reason for issuing the "Hold Out" order. It averred that due to the
fraudulent scheme of respondent Rosales, it was compelled to reimburse Liu Chiu Fang the
amount of US$75,000.0050 and to file a criminal complaint for Estafa against respondent
Rosales.

ISSUE:

            Whether or not the Metrobank breached its contract with respondents Rosales.

HELD:

            Yes.  The Court held that Metrobank’s reliance on the “Hold Out” clause in the
Application and Agreement for Deposit Account is misplaced.  Bank deposits, which are in the
nature of a simple loan or mutuum, must be paid upon demand by the depositor.

            The “Hold Out” clause applies only if there is a valid and existing obligation arising
from any of the sources of obligation enumerated in Article 1157 of the Civil Code, to wit: law,
contracts, quasi-contracts, delict, and quasi-delict. In this case, petitioner failed to show that
 4

respondents have an obligation to it under any law, contract, quasi-contract, delict, or quasi-
delict. And although a criminal case was filed by petitioner against respondent Rosales, this is
not enough reason for petitioner to issue a “Hold Out” order as the case is still pending and no
final judgment of conviction has been rendered against respondent Rosales.

            In fact, it is significant to note that at the time petitioner issued the “Hold Out” order, the
criminal complaint had not yet been filed. Thus, considering that respondent Rosales is not
liable under any of the five sources of obligation, there was no legal basis for petitioner to issue
the “Hold Out” order. Accordingly, we agree with the findings of the RTC and the CA that the
“Hold Out” clause does not apply in the instant case.

            In view of the foregoing, the Court found that petitioner is guilty of breach of contract
when it unjustifiably refused to release respondents’ deposit despite demand. Having breached
its contract with respondents, petitioner is liable for damages.

1. Law – Art. 1158

2. Contracts – Arts. 1159, 1305
3. Quasi-contracts – Arts. 1160, 2142-2175

a. Negotiorum Gestio
b. Solutio Indebiti
c. Other Quasi-Contracts

4. Acts or omissions punished by law – Arts. 1167, 2177, Arts. 100

&104 RPC
5. Quasi-delicts – Arts. 1162, 2176

Saludaga v. FEU, G.R. No. 179337 April 30, 2008

People’s Car v. Commando Security, 51 SCRA 40
Cruz v. Tuazon & Co., 76 SCRA 543
Gutierrez Hermanos v. Orense, 28 Phil 571
Adille v. CA, 157 SCRA 455
Andres v. Mantrust, 177 SCRA 618 (1989)
Puyat & Sons v. Manila, 7 SCRA 970
CBK Power Co. Ltd. v. CIR, G.R. Nos. 198729-30, January15, 2014
Cangco v. MRR, 38 Phil 768
Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, 56 Phil 177

C. Compliance with Obligations – Arts. 19, 1163-1166, 1244, 1246, 1460, 442,
440

D. Kinds of Civil Obligations

1. As to Perfection & Extinguishment

a. pure – Arts. 1179, 1197

b. conditional – Arts. 1181-1190
c. with a term or period – Arts. 1180, 1193-1198

HSBC v. Sps. Broqueza, G.R. No. 178610, November 17, 2010

Pay v. Palanca, 57 SCRA 618
 5

Smith Bell v. Sotelo Matti, 44 Phil 874

Chavez v. Gonzales, 32 SCRA 547
Encarnacion v. Baldomar, 77 Phil 470
Eleizegui v. Lawn Tennis Club, 2 Phil 309
Philbanking v. Lui She, 21 SCRA 53
Lim v. People, 133 SCRA 333
Araneta, Inc. v. Phil. Sugar Estates, 20 SCRA 330
Millare v. Hernando, 151 SCRA 484

Obligations
1A In General-Kinds of obligations as to perfection
[Follow the Outline]

Part One 
Modified True or False.Consider the statement true only when it is absolutely true.
Explain ALL your answers.

Part Two
Multiple Choice.  Choose the best answer.  

Part Three
Give direct and concise but complete answers.    
Cite authorities, if any.

1. Distinguish civil from natural obligation? Give examples of natural obligations?

2. An obligation to pay a sum of money evidenced by a promissory note dated April 29, 2008 is a
natural obligation.

2. Sara borrowed ₱50,000.00 from Julia and orally promised to pay it within six months. When Sara
tried to pay her debt on the 8 month, Julia demanded the payment of interest of 12% per annum because
th

of Sara’s delay in payment. Sara paid her debt and the interest claimed by Julia. After rethinking, Sara
demanded back from Julia the amount she had paid as interest. Julia claims she has no obligation to
return the interest paid by Sara because it was a natural obligation which Sara voluntarily performed and
can no longer recover. Do you agree? Explain. (4%)
E.
No, I do not agree with Julia. For a creditor to be entitled to compensatory interest, the debtor must be in delay. As a rule, in
order for delay to exist, demand must have been made. In this case, there was no demand made upon the expiration of the 6-
month period; thus, Sara cannot be considered in delay, and is not liable to pay compensatory interest. There being no obligation
to pay compensatory interest, Julia must return the interest mistakenly paid since she was not entitled thereto, and delivery was
made merely through mistake. If something is received when there is no right to demand it, and it was unduly delivered through
mistake, the obligation to return arises (Art. 2154, Civil Code)

4. In January 2018, Mrs. A, a married woman on her sixth (6 ) month of pregnancy, was crossing a
th

street when she was suddenly hit by a car being recklessly driven by Mr. X. As a result, Mrs. A
sustained serious injuries and further, suffered an unintentional abortion. Mrs. A was hospitalized
for two (2) months, during which she incurred P400,000.00 in medical fees. Her expenses were all
duly substantiated by official receipts. During the two (2)-month period of her confinement, she was
unable to report for work and earn any salary, which was established at the rate of P50,000.00 per
month. Mrs. A then filed a civil case for damages against Mr. X. 
(a) Based on the case filed by Mrs. A, what is the source of Mr.   X's obligation to her as a
result of his acts? Explain.

It is not delict, because there no conviction. There is no criminal charges filed against the driver. The correct answer is
quasi-delict.
 6

5. Saachi opened a savings bank account with Shanghainese Bank.  He made an initial deposit of
PhP100,000.  Part of the bank opening forms that he was required to sign when he opened the
account was a Holdout Agreement which provided that should he incur any liability or obligation to
the bank, the bank shall have the right to immediately and automatically take over his savings
account deposit.  After he opened his deposit account, the Shanghainese Bank discovered a scam
wherein the funds in the account of another depositor in the bank was withdrawn by an impostor. 
Shanghainese Bank suspected Saachi to be the impostor, and filed a criminal case of estafa against
him.  While the case was still pending with the Prosecutor’s office, the bank took over Saachi’s
savings deposit on the basis of the Holdout Agreement.
(b)          In this case, did the bank have the right to take over Saachi’s bank deposit? 

NO, The “Hold Out” clause applies only if there is a valid and existing obligation arising from any of the
sources of obligation enumerated in Article 1157 of the Civil Code, to wit: law, contracts, quasi-contracts,
delict, and quasi-delict.
In this case, petitioner failed to show that respondents have an obligation to it under any law,
contract, quasi-contract, delict, or quasi-delict.

6. If A was convicted of Murder by the trial court but died before his appeal could be decided by the
Supreme Court, may the estate of A be held civilly liable under delict?

7. In CBK Power v. CIR, was their solutio indebiti? NO. TAXES

COMPANY LIMITED V. CIR: There is solutio indebiti when: (1) Payment is made when there exists no binding relation between the payor, who has no duty
to pay, and the person who received the payment; and (2) Payment is made through mistake, and not through liberality or some other cause. First, there
exists a binding relation between petitioner and the CIR, the former being a taxpayer obligated to pay VAT. Second, the payment of input tax was not
made through mistake, since petitioner was legally obligated to pay for that liability. The entitlement to a refund or credit of excess input tax is solely
based on the distinctive nature of the VAT system.

In Andres v. Mantrust, was their solutio indebiti? YES.

ISSUE: Whether or not the private respondent has the right to recover the second $10,000
remittance it had delivered to petitioner

HELD: Yes. Art 2154 of the New Civil Code is applicable. For this article to apply, the following
requisites must concur: 1) that he who paid was not under obligation to do so; and 2) that payment
was made by reason of an essential mistake of fact.

There was a mistake, not negligence, in the second remittance. It was evident by the fact that both
remittances have the same reference invoice number.

8. Can the employer and his driver-employee be held solidarily liable for breach of contract?
NO. the contract is between passenger and owner

Can the employer and his driver-employee be held solidarily liable under delict? 

9. In an action for damages filed by a passenger of a common carrier, can the latter raise as a defense
that he exercised the diligence required in the selection and supervision of employees?

10. How should an obligation be complied with?

11. In an obligation to deliver a car, would the delivery of a brand new Toyota Wigo be a sufficient
compliance with the obligation? NO

12, Are the following obligations valid, why, and if they are valid, when is the obligation demandable in
each case?
(a) If the debtor promises to pay as soon as he has the means to pay; YES
(b) If the debtor promises to pay when he likes;
(c) If the debtor promises to pay when he becomes a lawyer;
 7

(d) If the debtor promises to pay if his son, who is sick with cancer, does not die within one
year. 
13. What kind of obligation as to Perfection & Extinguishment was the obligation to construct the roads
in Araneta v. Phil Sugar Estates?

14. Pedro promised to give his grandson a car if the latter will pass the bar examinations.  When his
grandson passed the said examinations, Pedro refused to give the car on the ground that the
condition was a purely potestative one.  Is he correct or not? 

15. Zeny and Nolan were best friends for a long time already. Zeny borrowed 310,000.00 from Nolan,
evidenced by a promissory note whereby Zeny promised to pay the loan “once his means permit.”
Two months later, they had a quarrel that broke their long-standing friendship.
Nolan seeks your advice on how to collect from Zeny despite the tenor of the promissory note. what
will your advice be? Explain your answer. 

16. In Millare v. Hernando, was Article 1197 applied? Why or Why not?
In Lim v. People, was Article 1197 applied? Why or Why not?

17. Before the arrival of a period, can a debtor be compelled to perform the obligation?

18. If the period was fixed solely for the benefit of the debtor, may the debtor be compelled to perform
even before the arrival of the period?

2. As to Plurality of Prestation

a. conjunctive
b. alternative – Arts. 1199-1205
c. facultative – Art. 1206

Arco Pulp and Paper Co., Inc. and Santos v. Lim, G.R. No. 206806, June 25, 2014

3. As to rights & obligations of multiple parties – Arts. 1207-1222

a. Joint
b. Solidary – Arts. 927, 1824, 1911, 1915, 1945, 2157, 2194, 2146
Arts. 94, 121 FC ; Art. 90 RPC
c. Disjunctive

Ronquillo v. CA, 132 SCRA 274

Malayan Insurance v. CA, 165 SCRA 536
PNB v. Independent Planters, 122 SCRA 113
Calang and Philtranco vs. People, G.R. No. 190696 August 3, 2010
Ruks Konsult and Construction vs. Adworld Sign and Advertising Corp. and
Transworld Media Ads, G.R. No. 204866 January 21, 2015
TMBI v. Feb Mitsui and Manalastas, G.R. No. 194121, July 11, 2016
Sanico and Castro v. Colipano, G.R. No. 209969, 27 Sept 2017

4. As to performance of prestation – Arts. 1221-1225, 1209-1210

a. Divisible
 8

b. Indivisible
c. Joint indivisible
d. Solidary indivisible

Sps. Lam v. KODAK PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 167615, January 11, 2016

5. As to the presence of an accessory undertaking in case of breach

a. with a Penal Clause – Arts. 1226-1230

Distinguish from Liquidated Damages

Bachrach v. Espiritu, 52 Phil 346

Robes-Francisco v. CFI, 86 SCRA 59
Pamintuan v. CA, 94 SCRA 556
Castillo v. Security Bank, et. al., G.R. No. 196118, July 30, 2014
Sps.Poon v. PRIME SAVINGS BANK, G.R. No. 183794, June 13, 2016
F. Breach of Obligations – Art. 1170

Honrado vs. GMA Network Films, Inc., G.R. No. 204702, January 14, 2015

Manner of Breach
1. fraud – Arts. 1171, 1338, 1344
2. negligence – Arts. 1171-1173
3. delay – Arts. 1169, 1165, 1786, 1788, 1896, 1942
4. any other manner of contravention

Excuses for non-performance

1. Fortuitous Event – Arts. 1174, 552, 1165, 2147, 2159
2. Act of creditor

Cangco v. MRR, 38 Phil 768

Telefast v. Castro, 158 SCRA 445
Meralco v. Ramoy, G.R. No. 158911 March 4, 2008
Mindanao Terminal v. Phoenix Assurance, G.R. No. 162467 May 8, 2009
Jimenez v. City of Manila, 150 SCRA 510
Nakpil & Sons v. CA, 144 SCRA 596; 160 SCRA 334
Gilat Satellite Networks, Ltd. v. UCPB, G.R. No.189563, April 7, 2014
Rivera vs. Spouses Chua, G.R. No. 184458, January 14, 2015
Solar Harvest, Inc. v. Davao Corrugated Carton Corp., G.R.
No. 176868 July 26, 2010
Agcaoili v. GSIS, 165 SCRA 1
Arrieta v. Naric, 10 SCRA 79
Sicam v. Jorge, G.R. No. 159617 August 8, 2007
NPC v. CA, 161 SCRA 334
Fil-Estate v. Sps. Ronquillo, G.R. No. 185798, January 13, 2014
TMBI v. Feb Mitsui and Manalastas, G.R. No. 194121, July 11, 2016

F. Remedies for Breach of Obligations – Arts. 1165-1168, 1170, 1177-1178,

1191-1192, 2236, 302, 1708; Arts. 153, 155 FC; Rule 39 Sec. 13

1. Extra-judicial remedies
 9

a. expressly granted by law – Arts. 1786, 1788, 1526

b. stipulated

2. Judicial remedies
a. principal remedies – Arts. 1191, 1170
b. subsidiary remedies – Arts. 1380, 1177
c. ancillary remedies – Rules of Court

Universal Food Corp. v. CA, 33 SCRA 1

Magdalena Estate v. Myrick, 71 Phil 344
UP v. de los Angeles, 35 SCRA 102
Zulueta v. Mariano, 111 SCRA 206
Palay, Inc. v. Clave, 124 SCRA 638
Angeles v. Calasanz, 135 SCRA 323
Boysaw v. Interphil Promotions, 148 SCRA 635
Pilipinas Bank v. IAC, 151 SCRA 546
Central Bank v. CA, 139 SCRA 46
Unlad Resources Developmentv. Dragon, G.R. No. 149338 July 28, 2008
Swire Realty Dev’t Corp. vs. Jayne Yu, G.R. No. 207133, March 9, 2015
Olivarez Realty v. Castillo, G.R. No. 196251, July 9, 2014
NCLPI v. Lica and PROTON, G.R. No. 176986; January 13, 2016

G. Modes of Extinguishment of Obligations – Art. 1231, Other

Modes:

Saura v. DBP, 44 SCRA 445

1. Payment or performance – Arts. 1232-1244,

1246-1251, 1302; RA 529, RA 8183; PD
72, Secs. 31-32

NPC v. Ibrahim, et al., G.R. No. 175863, February 18, 2015

Land Bank of the Philippines v. Alfredo Ong, G.R. No. 190755, Nov. 24, 2010
J.M. Tuason v. Javier, 31 SCRA 829 Legarda
v. Saldaña, 55 SCRA 324
Azcona v. Jamandre, 151 SCRA 317
Arañas v. Tutaan, 127 SCRA 828
Kalalo v. Luz, 34 SCRA 337
Ponce v. CA, 90 SCRA 533
New Pacific Timber v. Señeris, 101 SCRA 686
Roman Catholic Bishop of Malolos, Inc. v. IAC, 191 SCRA 411, Nov. 16, 1990
Tibajia, Jr. v. CA, 223 SCRA 163, January 4, 1993
Bognot v. RRI Lending Corp., G.R. No. 180144 September 24, 2014
Velasco v. Meralco, 42 SCRA 556
Commissioner v. Burgos, 96 SCRA 831
Filipino Pipe & Foundry Corp. v. NAWASA, 161 SCRA 32
Del Rosario v. Shell, 164 SCRA 556

Special Forms of Payment

a. Dation in Payment – Art. 1245
b. Application of Payments – Arts. 1252-1254, 1248
c. Payment by Cession or assignment – Art. 1255
 10

d. Tender of Payment and Consignation – Arts. 1256 - 1261

Filinvest v. Phil Acetylene, 111 SCRA 421

Citizens Surety v. CA, 162 SCRA 738
PNB v. DEE, Antipolo Properties, Inc., (now Prime East Properties, Inc.)
and AFP-RSBS, Inc., G.R. No. 182128, February 19, 2014
Soco v. Militante, 123 SCRA 160
Immaculata v. Navarro, 160 SCRA 211
Del Carmen v. Spouses Sabordo, G.R. No. 181723, August 11, 2014
Dalton v. FGR Realty, G.R. No. 172577 19 January 2011

2. Loss of the thing due or Impossibility of Performance – Arts.

12621269, 1189, 1174, 1165, 1268, 1942, 1979, 2147, 2159

People v. Franklin, 39 SCRA 363

Laguna v. Manabat, 58 SCRA 650
Occeña v. Jabson, 73 SCRA 637

3. Condonation or remission of the debt – Arts. 1270-1274, 748, 749

4. Confusion or Merger of Rights – Arts. 1275-1277, 1215, 1217

5. Compensation – Arts. 1278-1290, 1243, 1215

Kinds of Compensation
a. legal
b. conventional facultative c.
judicial

Gan Tion v. CA, 28 SCRA 235

PNB v. Ong Acero, 148 SCRA 166
Francia v. IAC, 162 SCRA 753
Republic v. de los Angeles, 98 SCRA 103
Solinap v. del Rosario, 123 SCRA 640
Sycip v. CA, 134 SCRA 317
Cia Maritima v. CA, 135 SCRA 593
Int’l. Corporate Bank v. IAC, 163 SCRA 296
Mindanao Portland Cement v. CA, 120 SCRA 930
Bank of the Philippines v. CA, G.R. No. 136202 January 25, 2007 Union
Bank v. DBP, G.R. No.191555, January 20, 2014

6. Novation – Arts. 1291-1304, 1215

Kinds of Novation
a. As to its nature
i) subjective or personal
ii) objective or real

b. As to its form
i) express
ii) implied
 11

Fua v. Yap, 74 Phil 287

Japan Airlines v. Simangan, G.R. No. 170141, April 2008
Anamer Salazar v. J.Y. Brothers Marketing Corp., G.R. No. 171998, Oct. 20, 2010
Metropolitan Bank vs. Rural Bank of Gerona, Inc., G.R. No. 159097, July 5, 2010
Arco Pulp and Paper Co., Inc. and Santos v. Lim, G.R. No. 206806, June 25, 2014
Millar v. CA, 38 SCRA 642
Sandico v. Piguing, 42 SCRA 322
NPC v. Dayrit, 125 SCRA 849
Integrated Construction v. Relova, 146 SCRA 360
Cochingyan v. R & B Surety, 151 SCRA 339
Balila v. IAC, 155 SCRA 262
People’s Bnk v. Syvel’s, 164 SCRA 247
Rodriguez v. Reyes, 37 SCRA 195
Odiamar v. Odiamar Valencia, G.R. No. 213582, June 28, 2017

II. Contracts – Arts. 1305-1422

A. In General

1. Definition – Arts. 1305

Auto-contract – Arts. 1491, 1646, 1890

2. Elements of Contracts
a. essential
b. natural
c. accidental

Batchelder v. CB, 44 SCRA 45

B. Fundamental Characteristics/Principles of Contracts

1. Consensuality of Contracts – Arts. 1305, 1317

Contract of Adhesion

Republic v. PLDT, 26 SCRA 620

Corpus v. CA, 98 SCRA 424
Ejercito, et.al. v. Oriental Assurance Corp., G.R. No. 192099 July 8, 2015

2. Autonomy of Contracts – Arts. 1306, 1799, 2088, 2130

Daisy Tiu v. Platinum Plans, G.R. No. 163512 February 28, 2007
Cui v. Arellano University, 2 SCRA 205
Saura v. Sindico, 107 Phil 336
Leal v. IAC, 155 SCRA 394

3. Mutuality of Contracts – Arts. 1308-1310, 1182

Acceleration Clause
 12

Escalation Clause

Banco Filipino Savings V. Navarro, 152 SCRA 346 (1987)

Florendo v. CA, 265 SCRA 678 (1996)

4. Obligatory Force of Contracts – Arts. 1159, 1315-1316, 749

New World v. AMA CLC, G.R. No. 187930, February 23, 2015

5. Relativity of Contracts – Arts. 1311-1314, 1177-1178, 1381(3) Privity

of Contracts

Saludo, Jr. vs. Security Bank Corp., G.R. No. 184041, October 13, 2010
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company vs. Reynado and Adrandea, G.R.
No. 164538 August 9, 2010
Prudential Bank vs. Abasolo, G.R. No. 186738 September 27, 2010
Asian Cathay Finance and Leasing Corporation vs. Spouses Cesario
Gravador and Norma de Vera,et. al, G.R. No. 186550 July 5, 2010
Velasco v. CA, 95 SCRA 616
Kauffman v. PNB, 42 Phil 182
Bonifacio Bros. v. Mora, 20 SCRA 261
Florentino v. Encarnacion, 79 SCRA 192
Bank of America v. IAC, 145 SCRA 419
Marimperio v. CA, 156 SCRA 368
Daywalt v. Corp de PP Agustinos, 39 Phil 587
Gilchrist v. Cuddy, 29 Phil 542 (1915)
Estate of K.H. Hemady v. Luzon Surety, 100 Phil 389 (1956)
So Ping Bun v. CA, 314 SCRA 751 (1999)
Sanico and Castro v. Colipano, G.R. No. 209969, 27 Sept 2017

C. Classification of Contracts

1. according to degree of dependence

a. preparatory – Arts. 1479, 1767, 1868
b. principal – Arts. 1458, 1638, 1642, 1933, 1962
c. accessory – Arts. 2047, 2085
2. according to perfection
a. consensual – Arts.1315, 1475
b. real – Arts. 1316, 1934
c. formal – Arts. 1356

3. according to solemnity or form – Arts. 1356

a. any form
b. special form

4. according to purpose
a. transfer of ownership – Arts. 725, 1458, 1638
b. conveyance of use – Arts. 562, 1642, 1933
c. rendition of service – Arts. 1642, 1868

5. according to nature of obligation produced

 13

a. bilateral – Arts. 1642, 1458

b. unilateral – Arts. 2047, 2093

6. according to cause – Arts. 1350

a. onerous – Arts. 1458, 1638, 1642
b. gratuitous or lucrative – Arts. 725, 1933
c. remuneratory

7. according to risk
a. commutative
b. aleatory – Arts. 2010

8. according to name
a. nominate
b. Innominate – Arts. 1307

9. according to subject matter

a. thing
b. right
c. service

D. Stages of Contracts

1. Negotiation

Contract of Option – Arts. 1324, 1479, 1482

Sanchez v. Rigos, 45 SCRA 368

2. Perfection

Tong Brothers Co. v. IAC, 156 SCRA 726

Velasco v. CA, 51 SCRA 439

3. Performance
4. Consummation

E. Essential Elements of Contracts – Arts. 1318

1. consent of the contracting parties –
Arts. 1319-1346, 37-42, 739, 1476(4), 1490-1491, 1533(5), 1646, 1782,
1409(7)
Arts. 87, 124, 234 FC; RA 6809; Art. XII, Secs. 7 & 8 1987 Constitution

Cognition Theory
Manifestation Theory

2. object certain which is the subject matter of the contract – Arts. 1347-
1349, 1311, 1178
3. cause of the obligation_– Arts. 1350-1355
4. Delivery
5. Due observance of prescribed formalities
 14

Clemente v. CA, Jalandoon, GR No. 175483, October 14, 2015

Pentacapital Investment Corp. vs. Mahinay, G.R. No. 171736 July 5, 2010
Ong Yiu v. CA, 91 SCRA 223
Weldon v. CA, 154 SCRA 618
C & C Commercial Corp. v. Menor, 120 SCRA 112
Tang v. CA, 90 SCRA 236
Cariño v. CA, 152 SCRA 529
Lagunzad v. Gonzales, 92 SCRA 476
Law v. Olympic Sawmill, 129 SCRA 439

F. Form of Contracts – Arts. 1356-1358

1. any form – oral

2. special form

a. validity – Arts. 748, 749, 1744, 1773, 1874, 1956, 2134,

Act 1147, Sec. 22
b. enforceability – Arts. 1403, 1878
c. greater efficacy or convenience – Arts. 1358

Lao Sok v. Sabaysabay, 138 SCRA 134

Gallardo v. IAC, 155 SCRA 248
Paredes v. Espino, 22 SCRA 1000
Sps. Aguinaldo v. TORRES, G.R. No. 225808, 11 September 2017

G. Reformation of Contracts – Arts. 1359-1369

H. Interpretation of Contracts – Arts. 1370-1379

Lim v. CA, 99 SCRA 668

Republic v. Castellvi, 58 SCRA 336
Eastern Shipping v. Margarina-Verkaufs-Union, 93 SCRA 256

I. Kinds of Contracts as to Validity

1. Valid and binding

2. Valid but defective
i) Rescissible Contracts – Arts. 1380-1389, 1191 ii)
Voidable Contracts – Arts. 1390-1402, 1327-1328, 1330
iii) Unenforceable Contracts – Arts. 1403-1408, 1317, 1878
3. Void or Inexistent – Arts. 1409-1422, 1318, 1353, 1378, 1491, 1898

Rescissible Contracts
Cabaliw v. Sadorra, 64 SCRA 310
Hongkong & Shanghai Bank v. Pauli, 161 SCRA 634

Voidable Contracts
Felipe v. Heirs of Aldon, 120 SCRA 628
 15

House Int’l. v. IAC, 151 SCRA 703

Poole-Blunden v. Union Bank, G.R. No. 205838, 29 November 2017

Unenforceable Contracts
Ortega v. Leonardo, 103 Phil 870
Carbonel v. Poncio, 103 Phil 655
Babao v. Perez, 102 Phil 756
Cabague v. Auxilio, 92 Phil 294
Yuvienco v. Dacuycuy, 104 SCRA 668
Clarin v. Rulona, 127 SCRA 512
Bisaya Land Transportation v. Sanchez, 153 SCRA 532

Void or Inexistent
Clemente v. CA, Jalandoon, GR No. 175483, October 14, 2015
Hernandez v. CA, 160 SCRA 821
Rubias v. Batiller, 51 SCRA 120
Javier v. vda. De Cruz, 80 SCRA 343
Menil v. CA, 84 SCRA 413
Director of Lands v. Alba, 88 SCRA 513
Tongoy v. CA, 123 SCRA 99
Lita Enterprises v. IAC, 129 SCRA 79
Arsenal v. IAC, 143 SCRA 40
Manotok Realty v. IAC, 149 SCRA 372
Portugal v. IAC, 159 SCRA 178
Yanas v. Acaylar, 136 SCRA 52
Barsobia v. Cuenco, 113 SCRA 547
Godinez v. Fong, 120 SCRA 223
Yap v. Grageda, 121 SCRA 244
Pineda v. de la Rama, 121 SCRA 671
Liguez v. CA, 102 Phil 577
Philbanking v. Lui She, 21 SCRA 52
Avila v. CA, 145 SCRA 541
Teja Marketing v. IAC, 148 SCRA 347
Briones v. Cammayo, 41 SCRA 404

Special Contracts
 16

SALES

A. In General

Definition – Art. 1458, 1488

Characteristics - Art. 1458, 1475
Kinds of Sale - Art. 1458, 1463
Distinguished from other transactions – Art. 1245, 1466, 1467, 1468

B, Elements of a Contract of Sale

Essential Elements - Art. 1459-1465, 1469-1474, 1489, 1327, 1390, 1403, 1489, 1490,
1491, 1492, 1348, 1347, 1624-1627
1. consent of the contracting parties
2. determinate subject matter [thing or right]
3. price certain in money or its equivalent
Natural Elements
Accidental Elements

C, Perfection of the Contract

Contract of Option
Formalities of Contract of Sale - Art. 1483

D. Rights and Obligations of the Vendor

To transfer ownership - Art. 1459, 1477-1478

Double Sales
Risk of Loss - 1480
To deliver the object -
Warranties

E. Rights and Obligations of the Vendee

Payment of Price
Right of Inspection
Acceptance

Maceda Law – Realty Installment Buyer Act [RA 6552]

F. Remedies for Breach of Contract

Remedies of an Unpaid Seller

Remedies of the Buyer - Art. 1481

Recto Law – Sale of Movables on Installment - Art. 1484, 1486

G. Extinguishment of Sale

Causes
Redemption [Conventional & Legal]
 17

Quiroga v. Parsons Hardware, 38 Phil 501

Sanchez v. Rigos, 45 SCRA 368
First Optima Realty Corporation, vs. Securitron Security Services Inc.
G.R. No. 199648, January 28, 2015
Martinez v. CA, 56 SCRA 647
Mapalo v. Mapalo, 17 SCRA 114
Paredes v. Espino, 22 SCRA 1000
Kuenzle & Streiff v. Macke & Chandler, 14 Phil. 610
Sun Bros. V. Velasco, 54 O.G. 5143
Bautista v. Sioson, 39 Phil 615
Lawyer’s Cooperative v. Tabora, 13 SCRA762
Carumba v. CA, 31 SCRA 558
Katigbak v. CA, 4 SCRA 243
Song Fo & Co. v. Hawaiian Phil. Co., 47 Phil 821
Gerardino v. CA, 50 SCRA 646
Doromal v. CA, 66 SCRA 575
Heirs of Jose Reyes, Jr. v. Amanda Reyes, G.R. No. 158377 August 13, 2010
Cebu State College of Science & Technology v. Misterio, et. al., GR No. 179025,
June 17, 2015
Ko, et al. v. Aramburo, et al, G.R. No. 190995, 09 Aug 2017

Barter or Exchange

Murphy v. Trinidad, 44 Phil 649

Biagtan v. Oller, 62 Phil 933
 18

LEASE

I. Nature

A. Kinds of Lease

1. Lease of things [Art. 1642]

2. Lease of work or service [Art. 1642]
a. household service
b. contract of labor (employment contract)
c. contract for a piece of work
d. contract with common carriers(contract of carriage)
3. Lease of right – License/Franchise

B. Definitions
C. Characteristics
D. Distinguished from other contracts/legal relations

II. Essential Elements

A. consent
B. object /purpose : period
C. cause
Formalities

III. Rights and Obligations of the Lessor & Lessee

A. Necessary repairs
B. Improvements
C. Collapse of a building
D. Reduction of the Rent
E. Extension of the Lease
F. Right of First Refusal
G. Sublease & Assignment of the Lease

IV. Rights and Obligations of Third Persons

A. Suppliers
B. Buyers
 19

V. Termination of the Lease

A. Loss of the thing

B. Death of either party
C. Expiration of the period
Implied New Lease or Tacita Reconduccion

Spouses Chung v. Ulanday construction, Inc., G.R. No. 156038, October 11, 2010
Cebu Bionic Builders Supply, Inc. v. DBP, G.R. No. 154366, November 17, 2010
Mores v. Yu-Go, G.R. No. 172292 July 23, 2010
Dee v. CA, 176 SCRA 651 (1989)
Herrera v. Herrera, 7 Phil 274
Gonzales v. Mateo, 74 Phil 573
Dakudao v. Judge Consolacion, 122 SCRA 877 (1983)
Manlapat v. Salazar, 98 Phil 356
Equatorial Realty Dev’t, Inc. v. Mayfair Theater, Inc., 264 SCRA 483, November 21, 1996
Pamintuan v. CA, 42 SCRA 344
Heirs of Dimaculangan v. IAC, 170 SCRA 393 (1989)
Fermin v. CA, 196 SCRA 723

AGENCY

I. In General : Nature
A. Definition
B. Characteristics
C. Distinguished from/compared with other relations
[Features of a contract of agency]

II. Kinds of Agency

A. Actual agency
Kinds of Actual Agency
1. As to manner of creation: express & implied
2. As to compensation
3. As to scope of authority

B. Apparent or Ostensible Agency (Art. 1473)

C. Agency by Estoppel (Art. 1431)

III. Essential Elements of a Contract of Agency

(1) Consent of the contracting parties: principal & agent only
(2) Object : execution of a juridical act
(3) Cause : presumed to be for compensation Form : 1869, 1874, 1878

IV. Obligations of the Agent A. To carry out the agency

1. To act within the scope of his authority. (Art. 1881)
2. To act on behalf of his principal. (Art. 1868) Liability of two
or more agents …:

B. To render an accounting of his transactions and to deliver… (Art. 1891)

C. To be responsible for the acts of the substitute. (Art. 1892)
D. Rules applicable to a commission agent :
Rules applicable to a guarantee commission agent: Del credere agent
 20

V. Rights and Obligations of the Principal

A. To comply with all the obligations which the agent may have contracted
within the scope … and in representation of the principal. (Art. 1910)
B. To advance to the agent the sums necessary …. Art. 1912)
C. To reimburse the agent the sums advanced … (Art. 1912, 1918)

Liability when there are two or more principals : solidary (Art. 1915)
Rights of Third Persons in Incompatible contracts with agent and principal

VI. Modes of Extinguishment of Agency : Art 1919

Rallos v. Felix Go Chan & Sons Realty Corp, 81 SCRA 251

Fressel v. Mariano Uy Chaco Sons & Co., 34 Phil 122
Rallos v. Yangco, 20 Phil 269
Macke v. Camps, 7 Phil 553
Jimenez v. Rabot, 38 Phil 357
Insular Drug v. PNB, 58 Phil 683
Domingo v. Domingo, 42 SCRA 131
Austria v. CA, 39 SCRA 527
Barretto v. Santa Maria, 26 Phil 440
Coleongco v. Claparols, 10 SCRA 577
PARTNERSHIP

I. In General
A. Definition
B. Characteristics of Partnership as a Contract
C. Distinguished from other Combinations and Relations

II. Essential Requisites

A. Consent of the contracting parties; B. Object certain : to engage in lawful
activity
C. Cause
Formal Requirements

III. Classes of Partnerships

A. As to its Object : Universal & Particular Partnership
B. As to Liability of Partners : General & Limited Partnership
C. As to term : Fixed Term, Particular Undertaking & Partnership at Will

IV. Classes of Partners

A. According to their liability : General & Limited Partners
B. According to their contribution : Capitalist Partner & Industrial Partner
C. According to the time they join the partnership : Incoming
D. According to Special Duties : Managing [Article 1792]

V. The property rights of a partner are: [Articles 1800 to 1814]

A. His rights in specific partnership property;
B. His interest in the partnership; and
C. His right to participate in the management.

VI. Obligations of Partners Among Themselves

 21

A. To make good his promised contribution

B. Fiduciary Duty
C. To participate in the losses
Nature of Liabilityof individual partners:
Pro-rata, Subsidiary, Joint or Solidary

VII. Obligations of Partners with Regard to Third Persons

VIII. Dissolution, Winding Up and Termination

A. Nature & Effect of Dissolution
B. Causes of Dissolution
C. Distribution of Assets

IX. Limited Partnership

Yulo v. Yang Chiao Seng, 106 Phil 111

Tuazon v. Bolanos, 95 Phil 106
Abong v. WCC, 54 SCRA 54 (1973)
Arbes v. Polistico, 53 Phil 489
Gatchalian v. Collector, 67 Phil 606
Campos Rueda & Co. v. Pacific Commercial Co., 44 Phil 916
CIR v. Suter, 27 SCRA 152
Dauden-Hernaez v. de los Angeles, 27 SCRA 1276
Sancho v. Lizarraga, 55 Phil 601
Pang Lim v. Lo Seng, 42 Phil 282
Catalan v. Gatchalian, 105 Phil 1270 (1959)
Island Sales, Inc. v. United Pioneers, 65 SCRA 554
Trusts

1. In General
2. Kinds of Trusts
a. Express
b. Implied

Valdez v. Olarga, 51 SCRA 71

Uy Aloc v. Cho Jan Jing, 19 Phil 202
Escober v. Locsin, 74 Phil 86

Credit Transactions : Loan, Deposit, Guaranty & Suretyship

I. Nature of Credit Transactions

A. Definition
B. Scope
C. Distinguished from Bailments

II. Loans
A. Definition : Purpose
B. Kinds of Loan :
I. Commodatum : Precarium
 22

II. Mutuum or Simple Loan

C. Characteristics
D. Essential Elements : Consent, Object, Cause
Formalities

E. Rights & Obligations of Bailor & Bailee in Commodatum

Liability for loss/deterioration due to a fortuitous event [Art. 1942/1943]

F. Rights & Obligations of Bailor & Bailee in Mutuum

To pay interest : Kinds : Rate

G. Modes of Extinguishment

Macalinao v. BPI G.R. No. 175490 September 17, 2009

Catholic Vicar Apostolic v. CA, 165 SCRA 515 (1988)
Republic v. Bagtas, 6 SCRA 262 (1962)
Saura Import & Export v. DBP (1972)
Herrera v. Petrophil Corp., 146 SCRA 385
Integrated Realty Corp v. PNB, 174 SCRA 295 (1989)
Republic v. CA, 146 SCRA 15 (1986)
Quintos v. Beck, 69 Phil 108 (1939)
Republic v. Grijaldo, 15 SCRA 638 (L-20240, Dec. 31, 1965)
De los Santos v. Jarra, 15 Phil 147 (1910)
Mina v. Pascual, 25 Phil 540 (1913)
Briones v. Cammayo, 41 SCRA 404 (1971) Lopez
v. del Rosario, 44 Phil 98 (1922)
Zobel v. City of Manila, 47 Phil 169 (1925)
Reformina v. Tomol, 139 SCRA 260 (1985)
Liam Law v. Olympic Sawmill Co., 129 SCRA 439 (1984)
Banco Filipino v. Navarro, 152 SCRA 346 (1987)
PNB v. IAC and Maglasang, 183 SCRA 133 (1990)
PNB v. CA and Padilla, 196b SCRA 536 (1991)
PNB v. CA and Fernandez, 238 SCRA 80 (1994)
Florendo v. CA, 265 SCRA 678 (1996)

III. Deposit

1. Nature : Definition : Purpose

2. Kinds of Deposit
1. Extra-judicial: Conventional & Necessary : Irregular Deposit
2. Judicial
3. Characteristics
4. Essential Elements : Subject Matter
5. Rights & Obligations of Depositor and Depositary
6. Modes of Extinguishment

BPI v. IAC, 164 SCRA 630 (1988)

BPI v. CA, 232 SCRA 302 (1994)
Serrano v. CB, 96 SCRA 96 (1980)
Lua Kian v. Manila Railroad, 19 SCRA 5 (1967)
Javellana v. Lim, 11 Phil 141 (1908)
Baron v. David, 51 Phil 2 (1927)
 23

Vintola v. IBAA, 150 SCRA 578, G.R. # 73271 May 29, 1987
Sia v. People, 121 SCRA 661 (1983)
Gonzales v. Go Tiong and Luzon Surety, 104 Phil 492 (1958)
Consolidated Terminals v. Artex Development Co., 63 SCRA 46 (1975)
Roman Catholic Bishop v. de la Peña, 26 Phil 144 (1913)

III. Aleatory Contracts – Insurance, Gambling, Life Annuity

Rivera v. People’s Bank & Trust Co., 73 Phil 546

Leung Ben v. O’Brien, 38 Phil 182

IV. Guaranty and Suretyship : Distinctions

A. Nature : Definition : Purpose

B. Characteristics
C. Effects of Guaranty
1. Between the Guarantor and the Creditor : Benefit of Excussion
2. Between the Guarantor and the Debtor : Subrogation
3. Between Co-Guarantors : Benefit of Division

D. Modes of Extinguishment

Imperial Insurance, Inc. v. De los Angeles, 111 SCRA 24 (1982)

Machetti v. Hospicio de San Jose, 43 Phil 297 (1922)
Castellvi v. Sellner, 41 Phil 142 (1920)
Severino v. Severino, 56 Phil 187 (1931)
Wise & Co. v. Tanglao, 63 Phil 372 (1936)
Manila Surety & Fidelity v. Almeda, 34 SCRA 136
RCBC v. Arro, 115 SCRA 777 (1982)
Republic v. Pal-Fox Lumber Co., 43 SCRA 365 (1972)
Southern Motors, Inc. v. Barbosa, 99 Phil 263 (1956)
Central Surety and Insurance v. Ubay, 135 SCRA 58 (1985)
Manila Surety & Fidelity v. Almeda, 34 SCRA 136 (1970)
Associated Insurance & Surety Co., Inc. v. Bacolod, 105 Phil 246 (1959)

Credit Transactions : Pledge, Mortgage & Antichresis

I. Provisions common to Pledge and Mortgage [Arts. 2085-2092]

A. Nature : Definition : Purpose

B. Essential elements
C. Indivisibility of the Contract
D. Pactum Commissorium
E. Right to recover deficiency : Who is entitled to excess?
 24

F. Equity & Right of Redemption

II. Pledge [Arts. 2093-2123 NCC]

1. In general
a. Kinds of Pledge
b. Characteristics of Pledge
c. Extent/Coverage of the Pledge
B. Rights and Obligations of the Pledgor [Debtor or Third Person]
C. Rights and Obligations of the Pledgee [Creditor]
D. Modes of Extinguishment

III. Chattel & Real Estate Mortgage

[Arts. 2140-2141, 1484-1485 NCC, Act No. 1508, Chattel Mortgage Law (1906),
Art. 319, RPC]
[Arts. 2124-2131 NCC, Rule 68, Act. No. 3135]

A. In general
1. Characteristics
2. Subject Matter
3. Extent/Coverage of the Mortgage
B. Essential Requisites
Formal Requisite; Affidavit of Good Faith
C. Rights and Obligations of the Mortgagor [Debtor or Third Person]
D. Rights and Obligations of the Mortgagee [Creditor]
E. Modes of Extinguishment

IV. Antichresis [Arts. 2132-2139 NCC]

A. Nature and Characteristics

B. Rights and Obligations of the Debtor and Creditor

V. Concurrence and Preference of Credit [Arts. 2236-2251 NCC; Act No. 1956, as amended,
Insolvency Law]
A. General Provisions
B. Classification of Credits
C. Order of Preference of Credits

Rural Bank of Caloocan, Inc. v. CA, 104 SCRA 151(1981)

Vda. De Bautista v. Marcos, 3 SCRA 434 (1961)
Dayrit v. CA, 36 SCRA 549 (1970)
Yuliongsiu v. PNB, 22 SCRA 585 (1968)
Manila Surety & Fidelity v. Velayo, 21 SCRA 515 (1967)
Piansay v. David, 12 SCRA 227 (1964)
Makati Leasing and Finance Corp v. Wearever Textile, 122 SCRA 296 (1983)
Northern Motors, Inc. v. Coquia, 68 SCRA 374 (1975)
 25

Lanuza v. de Leon, 20 SCRA 369 (1967)

Bundalian v. CA, 129 SCRA 645 (1984)
Rosales v. Yboa, 120 SCRA 869 (1983)
Tioseco v. CA, 143 SCRA 705 (1986)
Dulay v. Cariaga, 123 SCRA 794 (1983)
PNB v. CA, 140 SCRA 360 (1985)
DBP v. Mirang, 66 SCRA 141 (1975)
Co v. PNB, 114 SCRA 842 (1982)
Alpha Insurance and Surety v. Reyes, 106 SCRA 274 (1981)
Marcelo Steel Corp v. CA, 54 SCRA 89 (1973)
PNB v. Adil, 118 SCRA 110 (1982)
Ocampo v. Domalanta, 20 SCRA 1136 (1967)
Samonte v. CA, 141 SCRA 189 (1986)
Ramirez v. CA, 144 SCRA 292 (1986)
 26

Torts & Damages

I. Introduction
A. Nature of Quasi-delict
B. Quasi-delict distinguished from Tort, Crime, Contract
C. Scope/Sources of Law

II. Elements of Quasi-Delict

A. Act or Omission, there being Fault or Negligence

1. Concept of Negligence
2. Standard of Care : Degree of Diligence
3. Proof of Negligence : Burden of Proof

Presumptions of Negligence
Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur

B. Damage or Injury
C. Causal Connection between the Act or Omission and the Damage

III. Persons liable

A. The Tortfeasor
B. Vicarious Liability : Persons liable for Tortious Acts of another
C. Nature of Liability
D. Defenses
1. Absence of an element
2. Fortuitous Event
3. Contributory Negligence
4. Prescription
5. Doctrine of Last Clear Chance
6. Double Recovery
7. Lack of Jurisdiction

Air France v. Carrascoso, 18 SCRA 155 [1966]

Calalas v. CA, 332 SCRA 356 [2000]
Heirs of Guaring, Jr. v. CA, 269 SCRA 283 [1997]
BLTB Co. Inc. v. CA, 64 SCRA 427 [1975]
Phil Bank of Commerce v. CA, 269 SCRA 695 [1997]
Soliman v. Tuason, 209 SCRA 47 [1992]
Dulay v. CA, 243 SCRA 220 [1995]
Garcia v. Florido, 52 SCRA 420 [1973]
Valenzuela v. CA, 253 SCRA 303 [1996]
Canlas v. Asian Savings Bank, 326 SCRA 415 [2000]
Hedy Gan v. CA, 165 SCRA 378 [1988]
Ong v. Metropolitan Water District, 104 Phil 398 [1958]
D.M. Consunji v. Juego, 357 SCRA 249 [2001]
Ramos v. CA & de los Santos Medical Center, 321 SCRA 584 [1999]
Reyes v. Sisters of Mercy Hospital, 341 SCRA 760 [2000]
Heirs of Ildefonso Cosculluela v. RGIC, 179 SCRA 511 [ 1989]
Board of Liquidators v. Heirs of Kalaw, 20 SCRA 987 [1967]
Gabeto v. Araneta, 42 Phil 252 [1921]
Fernando v. CA, 208 SCRA 714 [1992]
 27

Javellana v. Tayo, 6 SCRA 1042 [1962]

PNB v. CA, 83 SCRA 237 [1978]
City of Manila v. Teotico, 22 SCRA 267 [1968]
Cuadra v. Monfort, 35 SCRA 160 [1970]
Libi v. IAC, 214 SCRA 16 [1992]
Tamargo v. CA, 209 SCRA 518 [1992]
BA Finance Corp v. CA, 215 SCRA 715 [1992]
Phil. Rabbit Lines v. Phil. American Forwarders, 63 SCRA 231 [1975]
Ramos v. Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. of the Phils, 19 SCRA 289 [1967]
Merrit v. Government of P.I., 34 Phil 311 [1916]
Palafox v. Province of Ilocos Norte, 102 Phil 1186 [1958]
St. Francis High School v. CA, 194 SCRA 341 [1991]
Palisoc v. Brillantes, 41 SCRA 548 [1971]
Worcester v. Ocampo, 22 Phil 42 [1912]
Metro Manila Transit Corp. v. CA, 223 SCRA 521 [1993]
Singapore Airlines v. Pajo, 122 SCRA 671 [1983]
Bachelor Express v. CA, 188 SCRA 216 [1990]
Gotesco Investment Corp v. Chatto, 210 SCRA 18 [1992]
Board of Liquidators v. Heirs of Kalaw, 20 SCRA 987 [1967]
PNR v. CA &Tupang, 139 SCRA 87 (1985)
Escueta v. Fandialan, 61 SCRA 278 [1974]
Picart v. Smith, 37 Phil 809 [1918]
LBC Air Cargo v. CA, 241 SCRA 619 [1995]
Tayag v. Alcantara, 98 SCRA 723 [1980]
Fernandez v. Manila Electric & Railroad Co., 14 Phil 274 [1909]
UE v. Jader, 325 SCRA 804 [2000]
Grand Union Supermarket v. Espino & CA, 94 SCRA 953 [1979]
Hermosisima v. CA, 109 Phil 629 [1960]
Tanjanco v. CA, 18 SCRA 994 [1966]
Velasco v. Meralco, 40 SCRA 342 [1971]
City of Manila v. Garcia, 19 SCRA 413 [1967]
Dr. Jaime Cruz v. Agas, GR No. 204095, June 15, 2015

IV. Liability for Torts : Damages

A. In General

B. Kinds of Damages

1. Actual or Compensatory
2. Moral
3. Nominal
4. Temperate or Moderate
5. Liquidated
6. Exemplary or corrective

Villarey Transit v. CA, 31 SCRA 511 [1970]

People v. Quilaton, 205 SCRA 279 [1992]
People v. Balanag, 236 SCRA 474 [1994]
Cojuangco v. CA, 309 SCRA 602 [1999]
LBC Express v. CA, 236 SCRA 602 [1994]
 28

Ponce v. Legaspi, 208 SCRA 377 [1992]

Bayani v. Panay Electric Co, 330 SCRA 759 [2000]
Mayo v. People, 204 SCRA 642 [1991]
Solis & Yarisantos v. Salvador, 14 SCRA 887 [1965]
Radiowealth Finance v. Del Rosario, 335 SCRA 288 [2000]
Wassmer v. Velez, 12 SCRA 648 [1964]
Sarkies Tours v.IAC, 124 SCRA 588 [1983]
New World Developers and Management, Inc. v. AMA Computer
Learning Center, G.R. No. 187930, February 23, 2015

Prescribed Textbooks:

Arturo M. Tolentino, Commentaries & Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the Philippines,
Vol. 4, Central LawBook Pub., 1987

Balane, Ruben F, Jottings and Jurisprudence in Civil Law (Obligations and Contracts),
Central Book Supply, 2018 Edition

Araceli Baviera, SALES, UP Law Center, 1981

Cesar L. Villanueva, Law on Sales, 2009 Edition, Rex Printing Company, Inc.

Esteban B. Bautista, Treatise on Philippine Partnership Law, Rex Book Store, 1978

Hector S. De Leon, Comments and Cases on Partnership, Agency, and Trusts, Eighth
Edition, Rex Printing Company, Inc., 2010

Hector S. De Leon, Comments and Cases on Credit Transactions, Eighth Edition, Rex
Printing Company, Inc., 2010

References:

1. Melencio S. Sta. Maria, Obligations and Contracts, Texts and Cases, Rex Book
Store., 2003
2. Hector S. De Leon, Comments and Cases on Sales and Lease, Sixth Edition, Rex
Printing Company, Inc., 2005
3. D. P. Jurado, Comments & Jurisprudence on Obligations and Contracts, Rex
Bookstore, Twelfth Revised Edition 2009

Teaching Methods/Strategies

A question-and-answer format will basically be employed to determine whether the

student read and understood the provisions of the law and the decisions of the Supreme
Court. Quizzes will also be administered to check knowledge, understanding and the
 29

analyzing skills of the students. Lectures, group discussions and visual aids may be used
when applicable.

Grading Criteria:
AUSL DLSU, LPU, UMak SSC
MidTerm Exam 30% 20% 30%
Recitation & Quizzes 30% 30% 40%
Final Exam 40% 50% 30%