0% found this document useful (0 votes)
308 views7 pages

Key Cases in Obligations and Contracts

The document discusses Philippine contract law and relevant cases. It covers general contract provisions, essential requisites of contracts including consent, object and cause. It also discusses formation, interpretation, rescission and voidability of contracts.

Uploaded by

Gin Francisco
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
308 views7 pages

Key Cases in Obligations and Contracts

The document discusses Philippine contract law and relevant cases. It covers general contract provisions, essential requisites of contracts including consent, object and cause. It also discusses formation, interpretation, rescission and voidability of contracts.

Uploaded by

Gin Francisco
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

OBLIGATIONS and CONTRACTS (ATTY. SIEGFRED B.

MISON)
2nd Semester, 2012-2013
RELEVANT CASES
CONTRACTS:
General Provisions: (Articles 1305 to 1317)
1. A contract is a meeting of minds: (Jardine Davies vs. CA, 333 SCRA
684)
2. Freedom To Stipulate: (Azcuna, Jr. vs. CA, 255 S 215; Manila Bay
Club vs. CA, 245 S 715; De Leon vs. CA, 186 S 345; Batarra vs.
Marcos, 7 P 156; Cui vs. Arellano University, 2 S 205; Ferrazzini vs.
GSell, 34 P 697; Omico Mining and Industrial Corp vs. Vallejos, 63
S 301)
3. Innominate contracts: (Perez vs. Pomar, 2 P
Construction vs. Cathay Pacific Steel, June 29, 2010)

682;

Asian

4. Mutuality of Contracts: (UCPB vs. Beluso, 530 S 567; Joaquin vs.


Mitsumine, 34 P 858; Garcia vs. Legarda, 21 S 555)
5. Relativity of Contracts: (Integrated Packing vs. CA, 333 S 170; DKC
Holdings vs. CA, 329 S 666)
6. Stipulation Pour Autrui: (Marmont Hotel vs. CA, 168 S 373; Coquia
vs. Fieldmens Insurance, 26 S 178; Mandarin Villa vs. CA, 257 S
538; Everett Steamship vs. CA, 297 S 496; Kauffman vs. PNB, 42 P
182; Associated Bank vs. CA, 291 S 513)
7. Contractual Interference: (Gilchrist vs. Cuddy 29 Phil 542, So Ping
Bun vs. CA 314 S 751; Lagon vs. CA, 453 S 616)

8. Contracts are perfected by mere consent: (Luxuria Homes vs. CA,


302 S 315)
9. Real contracts:
10. Unenforceable contracts: (Rallos vs. Felix Go Chan, 81 S 251;
United Namarco Distributors vs. NAMARCO, 114 P 802)
Essential Requisites: (Articles 1318 to 1355)
(1) Consent of the contracting parties (Clarin vs. Rulona, 127 S 512)
(2) Object certain which is the subject matter of the contract
(3) Cause of the obligation.
SECTION 1. Consent
1. Offer: (Korean Air vs. Yuson, June 26, 2010; Rosenstock vs. Burke,
46 P 217)
2. Acceptance:
(1) Absolute vs. Qualified: (Batagan v. Cojuangco, 78 P 481;
Zayco vs. Serra 44 P 326)
(2) In person; via agent; by letter or telegram: (Laudico vs.
Arias, 43 P 270)
(3) Express or implied:
(4) Effects of death, civil interdiction, insanity, or insolvency of
either party before acceptance: (Art 40-41, RPC)
3. Option Contract: (Sanchez vs. Rigos, 45 S 368; Art 1482, NCC)
4. Business advertisements:
(1)
(2)

Mere invitations to make an offer:


Advertisements for bidders:

5. Incapacitated persons to give consent to a contract: (Art 1491,


NCC; Art 87, FC; Art 37-38, NCC)

(1)
(2)
(3)

Minors; exceptions: (Bambalan vs. Maramba, 51 P 417,


Mercado, et al. vs. Espiritu, 37 P 215; Braganza vs. de Ville
Abrille, 105 P 456)
Insane persons and deaf-mutes who do not know how to
write:
Drunk or under hypnotic spell:

6. Vice of Consent: (Hernandez vs. Hernandez, March 9, 2011)


(1) Mistake: (Gomez vs. Linton, 45 P 653; Atilano vs. Atilano,
28 P 231; Teran vs. Villanueva, 56 P 677)
a. Illiterates: (Tan vs Mandap 429 S 712; Dela Cruz vs.
Dela Cruz 419 S 648)
b. Adhesion: (Calilap-Asmeron vs. DBP, November 23,
2011)
(2) Violence:
(3) Intimidation:
(4) Undue influence: (Martinez vs. HSBC, 15 P 252, Baez vs.
CA, 59 S 15; Vales vs. Villa, 35 P 769)
(5) Fraud: (Strong vs. Gutierrez, 6 P 680; Woodhouse vs. Halili
93 P 526; Cacho vs. Bonifacio 476 S 869; Araneta vs. De
Paterno 91 P 786; Tuason vs. Marquez, 45 P 381; Songco
vs. Sellner, 37 P 254; Azarraga vs. Gay 52 P 599)
7. Usual exaggerations in trade:
8. Mere expression of an opinion: (Songco vs. Sellner, 37 P 254)
9. Misrepresentation:
(1) By a third person: (Hill vs. Veloso, 31 P 160)
(2) In good faith: (Asiasin vs. Jalandoni, 45 P 296)
10. Simulation of a contract:
(1) Absolute vs. relative: (Rodriguez vs. Rodriguez, 127 P 294;
Gonzales vs. Trinidad, 67 P 682; Borromero vs. Borromeo,
98 P 432; Bravo Guerrero vs. Bravo, 465 S 244)

SECTION 2. - Object of Contracts


(1) Commerce of Men: (Blas vs. Santos, 1 S 899; Uson vs. Del
Rosario, 92 P 530)
(2) Impossible Things or Services: (Castro vs. Longa, 89 P 581)
SECTION 3. - Cause of Contracts
(1) Presumption: (Raet vs. CA, 295 S 677; PBC vs. Lui She, 21 S 52;
Saquid vs. Security Finance Inc., 477 S 256)
(2) Kinds:
(3) Cause vs. Motive: (Liguez vs. CA, 102 P 577; Gonzales vs.
Trinidad, 67 P 682)
(4) Legality: (Velez vs. Ramas, 40 P 787, Liam Law vs. Olympic
Sawmill, 129 S 449)
(5) Lesion: (Art 1381, NCC)
CHAPTER 3
FORM OF CONTRACTS
(1) Forms
a. No Form: (Tan vs. Lum, 296 S 455; San Lorenzo Devt Corp.
vs. CA, 449 S 99)
b. Exception: (Art 748, 749, 1581, 1874, 2134, 1956, 1773,
1403(2))
c. Prescriptibility: (Vdc de Espiritu vs. CFI of Canta, 47 S 354)
(2) Form for Convenience: (Shaffer vs. Palma, 131 P 22, Hawaiian
Phil. Co. vs. Hernaez, 45 P 746; Dauden vs. delos Angeles, 137 P
900)
CHAPTER 4
REFORMATION OF INSTRUMENTS (Articles 1359 to 1369)
(1) Basis: (San Miguel Brewery vs. Law Union and Rock, 40 P 674)
(2) Definition: (Sarming vs. Dy, 383 S 131)
(3) Requisites: (Dizon vs. Gaborro, 83 S 688, City of Cabanatuan vs.
Lazaro, 39 S 653; Emilio vs. Rapal, March 30, 2010)

(4) When Available: (Jayme vs. Alampay, 62 S 131, Ong Chua vs.
Carr, 53 P 975)
CHAPTER 5
INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS (Articles 1370 to 1379)
Rule 130, Sec. 9, 10, 12, 14 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure
General Rule: (Heirs of Amparo del Rosario vs. Santos, 108 S 43;
Labasan vs. Lacuesta, 86 S 16; Prisma Construction vs. Pantaleon,
March 9, 2010; Martin vs. DBS Bank, June 16, 2010)
(1) Intention of the Parties: (Ramos vs. Heirs of Ramos Sr., 381 S
594; Carceller vs. CA, 302 S 719; Almeda vs. Bathala Marketing,
542 S 470)
(2) Interpretation as a Whole: (Bundalian vs. CA, 129 S 645)
(3) Custom or Usage: (Art. 12 NCC, Sec. 2-3, Rule 129 New Rules of
Evidence; Sec. 10-19, Rules of Court; Andreas vs. BPI, 47 P 795)
(4) Obscure words: (Ildefonso vs. Sibal, 106 P 287; Ong Yong vs.
Tiu, 375 S 614; Govt of the Phil vs. Derham Bros, 36 P 960)
CHAPTER 6
RESCISSIBLE CONTRACTS (Articles 1380 to 1389)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)

Rescission vs. Resolution: (Article 1191 and 1592)


Requisites: (Cannu vs. CA, 459 S 80)
Fraud of Creditors: (CBC vs. CA, 327 S 378; Oria vs. McMicking
21 P 243)
Accion Pauliana: (Article 1177)
Alienation of Things under Litigation: (Contreras vs. CBC, 76 P
709; Rule 13, Section 14 RRC)
Others: (Articles 1098, 1189, 1526, 1534, 1539, 1542, 1556,
1560, 1567, 1659; Rosencor Devt Corp. vs. Inquing, 354 S 119)
Subsidiary Action: (Suria vs. IAC, 151 S 661; Regalado vs.
Luchsinger, Regalado vs. Luchsinger, 5 P 625; Goquiolay vs.
Sycip, 9 S 663)
Restriction: (Goldenrod vs. CA, 299 S 141)

(9)

Presumption of Fraud: (Cabaliw vs. Sadorra, 64 S 310; Alpuerto


vs. Perez Pastor, 38 P 785; Ayles vs. Reyes, 18 P 243; Lee vs
Bangkok Bank, Feb 9, 2011)

CHAPTER 7
VOIDABLE CONTRACTS (Articles 1390 to 1402)
(1) Incapacity and Vice of Consent
(2) Ratification: (Uy Soo Lim vs. Tan Unchuan, 38 P 552; De Luna vs
Linatoc, 74 P 15; Rosales vs. Reyes, 25 P 495)
(3) Prescription
(4) Restitution: (Philippine Trust Co. vs. Roldan, 99 P 393)
CHAPTER 8
UNENFORCEABLE CONTRACTS (n) (Articles 1403 to 1408)
(1) Different Kinds:
(a) No authority: (Bumanlag vs. Alzate, 144 S 480; Rallos vs
Felix Go Chan, 81 S 259)
(b) Statute of Frauds: (Almirol vs. Monserrat, 48 P 67;
Hernandez vs. Andal, 78 P 196; Robles vs. Lizarraga, 42 P
584; Reiss vs. Memije, 15 P 350; Syquia vs. CA, 151 S 507)
(c) Both parties incorporated
(2) Ratification: (Averia vs. Averia, 436 S 459; Abrenica vs. Gonda,
Abrenica vs. Gonda, 34 P 739)
(3) Attack by Third Persons: (Ayson vs. CA, 97 P 965)
CHAPTER 9
VOID AND INEXISTENT CONTRACTS
(1) Kinds: (Ariaga vda. de Gurrea vs. Suplico, 488 S 332; Tongoy vs.
CA, 123 S 99; Rongavilla vs. CA, 294 S 289; Calimlim Canullas
vs. Fortun 129 S 675; Mapalo vs. Mapalo, 123 P 979; Manzano
vs. Garcia, Nov. 28, 2011)

(2) Imprescriptibility: (Ras vs. Sua, 134 P 131; Angeles vs. CA, 102 P
1006; Terre vs. Terre, 211 S 7; Atienza vs. Brillantes, 243 S 32;
MWSS vs. CA, 297 S 287)
(3) In pari delicto: (Batarra vs. Marcos, 7 P 156; Santos vs. Roman
Catholic Church, 94 P 405)
(a) Exceptions: (Articles 1413 1419)
Forms: (Articles 1356 to 1358)
Reformation of Instruments: (Articles 1359 to 1369)
Emilio vs. Rapal, March 30, 2010
Interpretation of Contracts: (Articles 1370 to 1379)
Prisma Construction vs. Pantaleon, March 9, 2010;
Martin vs. DBS Bank, June 16, 2010
Rescissible Contracts: (Articles 1380 to 1389)
Voidable Contracts: (Articles 1390 to 1402)
Unenforceable Contracts: (Articles 1403 to 1408)
Void Contracts: (Articles 1409 to 1422)
Ordua vs. Fuentebella, June 29, 2010

You might also like