Barcellano vs Banas
FACTS: Respondent Dolores Banās, an heir of Bartolome Banās owned a lot in Bacacay, Albay. Adjoining the said
lot is a property owned by Vicente Medina. In 1997, Medina offered his lot for sale to the owners of the adjoining
lots. The property was eventually sold to Armando Barcellano. The heirs of Banās contested the sale and
conveyed their intention to redeem the property. However, according to Medina, the deed of sale has been
executed. There was also mention that the Banās heirs failed to give the amount required by Medina for them
to redeem the lot. Action to redeem the property was filed before the RTC. It denied the petition on the ground
that the Banās heirs failed to exercise their right to redemption within the period provided in article 1623 of
NCC. On appeal, such ruling was reversed.
ISSUE: W/N the RTC decision to deny the Banās heirs of their right of legal redemption is valid
HELD
The court denied the petition and affirmed the appellate court decision granting the Banās heirs the right to
redeem the subject property. The decision was based on the provisions of article 1623 NCC.
We need only to discuss the requirement of notice under Art. 1623 of the New Civil Code, which provides that:
The right of legal pre-emption or redemption shall not be exercised except within thirty days from the notice in
writing by the prospective vendor, or by the vendor, as the case may be. The deed of sale shall not be recorded
in the Registry of Property, unless accompanied by an affidavit of the vendor that he has given written notice
thereof to all possible redemptioners.
A written notice must be issued by the prospective vendor. Nothing in the record and pleadings submitted by
the parties showed that there was a written notice sent to the respondents. Without a written notice, the period
of 30 days within which the right of legal redemption may be exercised does not exist. In this case, the law was
clear. A written notice by the vendor is mandatory
Ace Navigation Co. Inc., petitioner v. FGU Insurance Corporation and Pioneer Insurance and Surety
Corporation, respondents
Facts:
Cardia Limited shipped on board the vessel M/V Pakarti Tiga at Shanghai Port, China, 8260 metric tons
(or 165,200 bags) of Grey Portland Cement to be discharged at the Port of Manila and delivered to its
consignee, Heindrich Trading Corp. The subject shipment was insured with respondents FGU Insurance Corp.
and Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corp. against all risks for the amount of Php 18,048,421.00. Regency Express
Lines S.A., chartered by Sky International, Inc. having entered into a contract with Shinwa Kaiun Kaisha Ltd. to
which the subject vessel was chartered by the owner Pakarti Tata, was the one which directly dealt with
Heindrich and accordingly issued Clean Bill of Lading No. SM-1.
The vessel arrived at the Port of Manila and the shipment was discharged. Upon inspection by Heindrich and
Ace Navigation Co. Inc, agent of Cardia Limited, it was found that out of the 165,200 bags of cement, 43,905
bags were in bad order and condition. The respondents, unable to collect the sustained damages from Cardia
Limited and Regency Express Lines S.A., each paid Heindrich separately totaling to Php 711,727.34 and became
sub rated to all the rights and causes of action accruing to Heindrich. Respondents filed a complaint for damages.
Ace Navigation Co. Inc. claimed it was not a real party-in-interest from whom the respondents can demand
compensation. The respondents maintain that Ace Navigation Co. Inc is a ship agent and not a mere agent of
Cardia, as found by both the CA and the RTC.
Issue:
Whether or not Ace Navigation Co. Inc. be held liable for damages sought by FGU Insurance Corporation and
Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation.
Decision:
Article 586 of the Code of Commerce provides that “the ship owner and the ship agent shall be civilly liable for
the acts of the captain and for the obligations contracted by the latter to repair, equip and provision the vessel,
provided the creditor proves the amount claimed was invested therein. By ship agent is understood the person
entrusted with the provisioning of a vessel, or who represents her in the port in which she may be found.” Due
to the above provision, the Court disagreed with respondents’ contention. Thus, Ace Navigation Co. Inc. cannot
be held liable for damages sought by the respondents.
Republic v. Sandiganbayan
FACTS:
• The Republic commenced Civil Case No. 0033 in the Sandiganbayan by complaint, impleading as
defendants respondent Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. (Cojuangco) and 59 individual defendants.
• Cojuangco allegedly purchased a block of 33,000,000 shares of SMC stock through the 14 holding
companies owned by the CIIF Oil Mills. For this reason, the block of 33,133,266 shares of SMC stock shall be
referred to as the CIIF block of shares.
Contention of the Republic of the Philippines:
That Cojuangco is the undisputed "coconut king" with unlimited powers to deal with the coconut levy funds,
who took undue advantage of his association, influence and connection, acting in unlawful concert with
Defendants Ferdinand E. Marcos, misused coconut levy funds to buy out majority of the outstanding shares of
stock of San Miguel Corporation.
Defendants Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr., and ACCRA law offices plotted, devised, schemed, conspired and
confederated with each other in setting up, through the use of coconut levy funds, the financial and corporate
framework and structures that led to the establishment of UCPB, UNICOM, COCOLIFE, COCOMARK. CIC, and
more than twenty other coconut levy-funded corporations, including the acquisition of San Miguel Corporation
shares and its institutionalization through presidential directives of the coconut monopoly.
Ruling of the Sandiganbayan:
Amended Complaint in Civil Case No. 0033-F was dismissed for failure of plaintiff to prove by preponderance of
evidence its causes of action against defendants with respect to the twenty percent (20%) outstanding shares
of stock of San Miguel Corporation registered in defendants’ names
Republic of the Philippines appealed the case to the Supreme Court invoking that coconut levy funds are public
funds. The SMC shares, which were acquired by respondents Cojuangco, Jr. and the Cojuangco companies with
the use of coconut levy funds – in violation of respondent Cojuangco, Jr.’s fiduciary obligation – are, necessarily,
public in character and should be reconveyed to the government.
ISSUE:
Whether Respondent Cojuangco Jr. used the coconut levy funds to acquire SMC shares in violation of the his
fiduciary obligation as a public officer.
Ruling of the Supreme Court:
• Cojuangco violated no fiduciary duties
It does not suffice, as in this case, that the respondent is or was a government official or employee during
the administration of former Pres. Marcos. There must be a prima facie showing that the respondent unlawfully
accumulated wealth by virtue of his close association or relation with former Pres. Marcos and/or his wife.
Republic’s burden to establish by preponderance of evidence that respondents’ SMC shares had been
illegally acquired with coconut-levy funds was not discharged.
The conditions for the application of Articles 1455 and 1456 of the Civil Code (like the trustee using trust
funds to purchase, or a person acquiring property through mistake or fraud), and Section 31 of the Corporation
Code (like a director or trustee willfully and knowingly voting for or assenting to patently unlawful acts of the
corporation, among others) require factual foundations to be first laid out in appropriate judicial proceedings.
Hence, concluding that Cojuangco breached fiduciary duties as an officer and member of the Board of Directors
of the UCPB without competent evidence thereon would be unwarranted and unreasonable.
Thus, the Sandiganbayan could not fairly find that Cojuangco had committed breach of any fiduciary
duties as an officer and member of the Board of Directors of the UCPB. For one, the Amended Complaint
contained no clear factual allegation on which to predicate the application of Articles 1455 and 1456 of the Civil
Code, and Section 31 of the Corporation Code. Although the trust relationship supposedly arose from
Cojuangco’s being an officer and member of the Board of Directors of the UCPB, the link between this alleged
fact and the borrowings or advances was not established. Nor was there evidence on the loans or borrowings,
their amounts, the approving authority, etc. As trial court, the Sandiganbayan could not presume his breach of
fiduciary duties without evidence showing so, for fraud or breach of trust is never presumed, but must be alleged
and proved.
The thrust of the Republic that the funds were borrowed or lent might even preclude any consequent
trust implication but is more inclined to be a contract of loan. To say that a relationship is fiduciary when existing
laws do not provide for such requires evidence that confidence is reposed by one party in another who exercises
dominion and influence. Absent any special facts and circumstances proving a higher degree of responsibility,
any dealings between a lender and borrower are not fiduciary in nature.
DISPOSITION:
The Court DISMISSES the petitions for certiorari and, AFFIRMS the decision promulgated by the
Sandiganbayan on November 28, 2007 in Civil Case No. 0033-F.
The Court declares that the block of shares in San Miguel Corporation in the names of respondents
Cojuangco, et al. subject of Civil Case No. 0033-F is the exclusive property of Cojuangco, et al. as registered
owners.
------------------NO CASE DIGEST FOR UMIPIG VS PEOPLE------------------
