The law is the public conscience.

TITLE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (Represented by the Land Tenure Administration, substituted by the Land Authority), plaintiff and appellant, vs. MARIANO F. LICHAUCO, ET AL., defendants. JOSE M. LICHAUCO, TRINIDAD GONZALES, FRANCISCO CASTILLO and JOSE CASTILLO, defendants and appellants August 19, 1972 FACTS The Republic of the Philippines, by authority of Republic Act No. 1400, represented by the Land Tenure Administration, filed on December 2, 1957, in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan a complaint against the defendants for the expropriation of the lands of the "Hacienda El Porvenir", having an area of 1,352.84245 hectares, situated in the municipalities of Tayug, Natividad, San Quintin and Sta. Maria, province of Pangasinan. In the complaint it was alleged, among other things, that the aggregate assessed value of the property was P434,440.00, and that the continuous agrarian conflicts between defendants and their tenants could be solved only

G.R. No. 60210. March 27, 1984.] ARTURO P. SANTOS and ADELINA Y. SANTOS,  Petitioners , v. THE COURT OF APPEALS and AURORA GUTIERREZ,  Respondents . Facts:    This is a petition for review on certiorari from the decision of Court of Appeals affirming the  unlawful detainer case instituted by  Aurora Gutierrez  against  Arturo P. Santos and Adelina Y. Santos. The subject apartment must be vacated on grounds that she needs the premises for her personal use and the necessity of repairs thereon, and that the petitioners were delinquent in the payment of rentals.Petitioners, in their "Answer with Counterclaim" admit that they are "the legitimate tenants and/or lessees of the  apartment with the present rental rate of P250.00 per month, on a month-to-month contract of lease. Issue :   Whether or not the respondent court erred in stating that a contract of lease of residential apartment involving a rental of P250.00 a month may be terminated at the end of the mont

TITLE WELDON CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.COURT OF APPEALS (Second Division) and MANUEL CANCIO, respondents. March 7, 1961 FACTS The present controversy arose from the construction of the Gay Theater building on the corner of Herran and Singalong Streets in Manila. Petitioner WELDON CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION sued the private respondent Manuel Cancio in the then Court of First Instance of Manila to recover P62,378.82 Pesos, which is ten per (10%) of the total cost of construction of the building, as commission, and P23,788.32 Pesos as cost of additional works thereon. Then Court of First, instance of Manila ruled that the agreement between the parties is a contract of supervision of construction found in Exhibit "A" and ordered the theater-owner Cancio to pay the ten per cent (10%) supervision fee or commission provided for in said contract. On appeal by the defendant Cancio, the Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's Decision and dism

TITLE MANUEL M. SERRANO, petitioner, vs. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES; OVERSEAS BANK OF MANILA; EMERITO M. RAMOS, SUSANA B. RAMOS, EMERITO B. RAMOS, JR., JOSEFA RAMOS DELA RAMA, HORACIO DELA RAMA, ANTONIO B. RAMOS, FILOMENA RAMOS LEDESMA, RODOLFO LEDESMA, VICTORIA RAMOS TANJUATCO, and TEOFILO TANJUATCO, respondents. February 14, 1980 FACTS On October 13, 1966 and December 12, 1966, petitioner made a time deposit, for one year with 6% interest, of P150,000.00 with the respondent Overseas Bank of Manila.  Concepcion Maneja also made a time deposit, for one year with 6-½% interest, on March 6, 1967, of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) with the same respondent Overseas Bank of Manila. On August 31, 1968, Concepcion Maneja, married to Felixberto M. Serrano, assigned and conveyed to petitioner Manuel M. Serrano, her time deposit of P200,000.00 with respondent Overseas Bank of Manila. Notwithstanding series of demands for encashment of the aforementi

TITLE Pio San Melizza, petitioner, vs. City of Iloilo, University of the Philippines and The Court Appeals, respondents. FACTS Juliana Melliza a land with a total area of Lot No. 1214 was 29,073 square meters. She donated part of the land to the City of Iloilo and sold the remaining part to Remedios Sian Villanueva. Remedios in turn on November 4, 1946 transferred her rights to said portion of land to Pio Sian Melliza, who obtained Transfer Certificate of Title No. 2492 thereover in his name. On December 10, 1955 Pio Sian Melliza filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo against Iloilo City and the University of the Philippines for recovery of Lot 1214-B or of its value.  The defendants answered, contending that Lot 1214-B was included in the public instrument executed by Juliana Melliza in favor of Iloilo municipality in 1932. After stipulation of facts and trial, the Court of First Instance rendered its decision on August 15, 1957, dismissing the complai

TITLE Jose M. Ocampo, petitioner, vs. Hon. Conrado V. Sanchez.etc., et  al., respondents. FACTS Mr. Jose M. Ocampo, the Petitioner, is the owner of two parcels of land located in Quiapo, Manila. On December 29, 1948, he leased said property to Vicente Uy. Mr.Vicente Uy erected a bldg. in the said property with the agreement that the bldg. would become a property of Mr. Ocampo after the expiration of ten years. The failure of Mr. Uy to comply with his obligations under said contract of lease, Mr. Ocampo filed a complaint in the lower court that the contract of lease be cancelled and that the building constructed on the land by Uy be declared forfeited in favor of Ocampo, and the settlement of all the unpaid accounts of Mr. Uy. Both parties submitted a compromised agreement to the lower court and the said agreement was approved. On June 13, 1953, Ocampo filed with the Court of First Instance of Manila a motion alleging that Uy had failed his obligations with regards th

TITLE Modesta Borcena, AntonioGimeno  Jr., Estela Gimeno, Rolando Gimeno, Edgardo Gimeno and Anelia Gimeno, petitioners, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, Hon. Clemente D. Paredes, Romulo C. Basa, Leovino Legaspi and Hon. Zotico Tolete respondents. FACTS -           On July 6, 1981, the petitioners, engaged the legal services of respondent Gil P. de Guzman with the condition that they will give a total of 25% of their claim as for the attorney’s fee. -           On this same date, respondent de Guzman filed a complaint for damages against the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System. -           On June 18, 1982, Atty. de Guzman filed a motion for preliminary attachment praying that an order be issued attaching properties of the defendants amounting to P710,000.00 plus 20% thereof representing attorney's fees, or a total of P852,000.00. The motion was granted upon plaintiffs' posting a bond of P852,000.00 issued by a bonding company accept

Navales vs. Rias et. al. FACTS: Vicente Navales constructed a house in the land owned by Eulogia Rias. By virtue of the decision of the justice in the action instituted by Rias against Navales, the deputy sheriff who carried the judgment into execution was obliged to destroy the house and remove it from the land, according to the usual procedure in the action for ejectment. Navales filed a complaint with the CFI of Cebu claiming for damages against the defendants. The court rendered judgment declaring that the decision entered by the justice of peace and the execution of the order by the sheriff were illegal, that the defendants were thereby liable for damages. ISSUE: Whether or not the defendants were liable for damages. HELD: No. The judgment rendered by the justice of peace for the ejectment of the house of Navales, not having been appealed from, had become final. There was no reason why it should not be enforced when it had already become final and acquired by the natu

Perez vs Pomar 2 Phil. 682 (1903) March 12, 2016 FACTS Perez filed in the Court of First Instance of Laguna a complaint asking the Court to determine the amount due him for services rendered as an interpreter for Pomar and for judgement to be rendered in his favor. Pomar, on his part, denied having sought the services of Perez, contending that, Perez being his friend, he only accepted the services for they were rendered in a spontaneous, voluntary and officious manner. ISSUE Whether or not consent has been given by the other party. HELD Yes. It does not appear that any written contract was entered into between the parties for the employment of the plaintiff as interpreter, or that any other innominate contract was entered into, but whether the plaintiff’s services were solicited or whether they were offered to the defendant for his assistance, inasmuch as these services were accepted and made use of by the latter, there was a tacit and mutual consent as to the ren

Facts: Bachrach entered into a contract with Golingco, he sold a truck with the latter which was secured by a promissory note and a chattel mortgage on the truck. The promissory note provided that there would be payment of 25% attorney’s fees. ISSUE Whether or not, if there is an express written contract for fees between an attorney and his client, may the court still disregard the contract. . HELD Yes, because a contract for attorney’s fees is different from other contracts. It may be disregarded if the amount fixed is unconscionable or unreasonable, considering the value of the work accomplished.(NOTE:)A claim for attorney’s fees may be asserted either in the very action in which the services in question have been rendered, or in a separate action. If the first alternative is chosen, the court may pass upon said claim even if its amount were less than the minimum prescribed by law for the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the case for so long as the mai

Barons Marketing Corp vs Court of Appeals and Phelp Dodge Phils Inc [G. R. No. 126486. February 9, 1998] 286 SCRA 96 Case Digest FACTS · August 31, 1973. Phelps Dodge appointed Barons Marketing as one of its dealers of electrical wires and cables effective Sept. 1, 1973. Defendant was given 60 days credit for its purchases of Phelps Dodge’s electrical products · Barons Marketing purchased, on credit, from Phelps Dodge’s electrical wires and cable in the total amount of P4,102,483.30. This was then sold to MERALCO, Baron Mktg being the accredited supplier of the electrical requirements of MERALCO. · Under the sales invoices issued by Phelps Dodge to Barons Mktg for the subject purchases, it is stipulated that interest at 12% on the amount of atty’s fees and collection. Baron’s Mktg paid P300,000 out of its total purchases leaving an unpaid account of P3,802,478.20. Phelps Dodge wrote Barons Mktg demanding payment of its outstanding obligations due Phe

DOMINGO DE LA CRUZ, plaintiff-appellant, vs. NORTHERN THEATRICAL ENTERPRISES INC., ET AL, defendants-appellees. FACTS Northern Theatrical Enterprises Inc., operated a movie house in Laoag and plaintiff DOMINGO DE LA CRUZ, hired as a special guard whose duties were to guard the main entrance of the cine, to maintain peace and order and to report the commission of disorders within the premises. Benjamin Martin wanted to crash the gate or entrance of the movie house. Infuriated by the refusal of plaintiff De la Cruz to let him in without first providing himself with a ticket, Martin attacked him with a bolo. De la Cruz defended himself as best he could until he was cornered, at which moment to save himself he shot the gate crasher, resulting in the latter's death. De la Cruz was charged with homicide, after a re-investigation conducted by the Provincial Fiscal the latter filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was granted by the court in January 1943. On July 8, 1947,

LEUNG BEN VS. P. J. O’BRIEN, JAMES A. OSTRAND and GEO. R. HARVEY, Judges of First Instance of the City of Manila April 6, 1918 FACTS: On December 12, 1917, an action was instituted in the Court of First Instance of Manila by P.J. O’Brien to recover of Leung Ben the sum of P15,000, all alleged to have been lost by the plaintiff to the defendant in a series of gambling, banking, and percentage games conducted during the two or three months prior to the institution of the suit. The plaintiff asked for an attachment against the property of the defendant, on the ground that the latter was about to depart from the Philippines with intent to defraud his creditors. This attachment was issued. The provision of law under which this attachment was issued requires that there should be a cause of action arising upon contract, express or implied. The contention of the petitioner is that the statutory action to recover money lost at gaming is not such an action as is contemplated in this

ASJ CORPORATION, plaintiff-appellant VS. EVANGELISTA, defendant-appellee February 14, 2008 FACTS This case is a petition for review on certiorari on the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan Branch 9 in Civil Case No. 745-M-93. Respondents Efren and Maura Evangelista are owners of R.M. Sy Chicks, a business engaged in selling chicks and egg by-products. For hatching and incubation of eggs, they availed the services of ASJ Corp., owned by San Juan and his family. After years of doing business with the ASJ Corp., the respondents delayed payments for the services of ASJ Corp, prompting owner San Juan to refuse the release of the hatched egg. The respondents tendered Php 15,000 to San Juan for partial payment which San Juan accepted but he still insisted on the full settlement of respondents’ accounts before releasing the chicks and by-products. He also threated the respondents that he would impound their vehicl

Obligation & Contracts By: Pineda Article 1156 Obligation - An obligation is a juridical necessity to give, to do or not to do.  The term obligation is derived from the Latin word " Obligatio " which means tying or binding. The words " juridical necessity " connote that in case of noncompliance, there will be legal sanctions. As per Brugi, Obligation is a juridical tie between two persons, by virtue of which one of them, the creditor, has the right to demand of the other, the debtor, a definite prestation. On the other hand, Manresa defined it as a legal relation established between one party and another whereby the latter is bound to the fulfillment of a prestation which the former may demand of him. Arias defined obligation is a juridical relation  whereby a person (called the creditor) may demand from another (called the debtor) the observance of determinate conduct, and, in case of breach, may obtain satisfaction from the assets of the latter.