OCAMPO vs HON. CONRADO V. SANCHEZ Case Digest

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 the compromise agreement and prayed the execution of what was written in the compromise agreement .After hearing both parties the lower court made a decision in favour of Mr. Uy.  Jose Ocampo filed a petition on the Higher Court to review the decision of Hon. Conrado Sanchez. The petition was denied because the Higher Court came to conclusion that the lower court acted in accordance with the principles of law and what was reasonable.



ISSUE

Whether or not the decision of Honorable Conrado V. Sanchez, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, in favor of Vicente Uy, co-respondent is prudent based on the compromise agreement that both the petitioner and respondents agreed upon.



HELD

Yes, the lower court considered that the good faith of the respondent to settle his account even he somehow violated the compromise agreement. Mr. Uy is willing to settle all his pending accounts with Mr. Ocampo. The eagerness of Mr. Ocampo for the execution of the compromise agreement will award him the ownership of the building erected by Mr. Uy in his property .The lower court view that the sole interest of the appellant is just to favour himself, in the expense of others. The higher court denied the petition because they have seen no unreasonable or injustice in the decision in the lower court.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

OBLIGATION & CONTRACTS Art. 1156 - 1161

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.
Read more

Article 1278

Image
Compensation By: Gretzen M. Colona Article 1278. Compensation shall take place when two persons, in their own right, are creditors and debtors of each other. Compensation is the extinguishment to the concurrent amount of the debts of two persons who, in their own right, are debtors and creditors of each other. Ang compensasyon ay magaganap kung parehong may utang at nagpautang ang bawat isa sa isa't isa. Example: D owes C 5000 Php. C owes D 5000 Php. The parties do not need to pay each other as their obligations are extinguished by compensation. Kinds of Compensation 1. By its effect or extent. a. Total- when both obligations are of the same amount.  b. Partial- when the two obligations are of different amounts. 2. By its cause or origin: a. Legal- when it takes place by operation of law even without the knowledge of the parties. b. Voluntary- when it takes place by agreement of the parties. c. Judicial- when it takes place by order from a
Read more

PEREZ vs POMAR Case Digest

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
Read more