You are on page 1of 3

14.

Adille vs Ca

Facts:
The property in dispute was originally owned by a certain Felisa Azul; she married
twice in her lifetime. Her first marriage with whom she had as an only child, herein
defendant Rustico Adille; in her second marriage with one Procopio Asejo, her
children herein plaintiffs.

Sometime in 1939, Felisa Asul sold the property in pacto de retro to certain third
persons with a three year old repurchase period. However, Felisa Asul died and was
unable to repurchase the property.

During the period of redemption, Rustico Adille repurchased the property himself
alone and executed a deed of extra-judicial partition representing himself to be the
only heir and child of his mother Felisa with the consequence that he was able to
secure title in his name alone.

His half siblings, herein plaintiffs filed present case for partition with accounting on
the position that he was only a trustee on implied trust when he redeemed the
property, and thus he cannot claim entire ownership of the entire property.

ISSUE:
1) W/N may a co-owner acquire exclusive ownership over the property held in
common?
2) W/N Rustico had constituted himself a negotiorum gestor?

HELD: 1) NO. The right of repurchase may be exercised by a co-owner with aspect to
his share alone. While the records show that the petitioner redeemed the property
in its entirety, shouldering the expenses therefor, that did not make him the owner
of all of it. In other words, it did not put to end the existing state of co-ownership.
The redemption by one co-heir or co-owner of the property in its totality does not
vest in him ownership over it. Under Art. 448 of the Civil Code, each co-owner shall
have a right to compel the other co-owners to contribute to the expenses of
preservation of the thing or right owned in common and to the taxes. Anyone can
exempt himself from this obligation by renouncing. Registration of property does
not mean acquiring ownership.

2) YES. he had constituted himself a negotiorum gestor under Article 2144 of the
Civil Code, or for his exclusive benefit, in which case, he is guilty of fraud, and must
act as trustee, the private respondents being the beneficiaries, under the Article
1456.
130. Land Bank vs. Heirs of Soriano Digest G.R. NO. 178312 : January 30, 2013

BERSAMIN, J.:
FACTS: Marivel Carandang and Joseph Soriano are the children of the late Sps. Jorja
Rigor- Soriano and Magin Soriano, the owners of the two parcels of land located in
Macabucod, Aliaga, Nueva Ecija. The properties became subject to Operation Land
Transfer (OLT) and were valued by the Land Bank and the Department of Agrarian
Reform (DAR) at P10,000.00/hectare. Contending that such valuation was too low
compared to existing valuations of agricultural lands, the heirs commenced an
action for just compensation. They asked that a final valuation of the properties be
pegged at P1,800,000.00, based on Administrative Order No. 61, Series of 1992 and
R.A. No. 6657.

The RTC ordered Land Bank to pay the heirs the amount P1,227,571.10 as just
compensation. Land Bank appealed to the CA. The CA denied the petition. Hence,
Land Bank appealed to the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the appeal, both
parties entered into an agreement re-evaluating the cost of the parcels of land. Thus,
Land Bank submitted a manifestation informing the High Court that the parties have
already filed their Joint Motion to Approve submitting their Agreement dated
November 29, 2012.

ISSUE: Whether or not the present appeal to the Supreme Court should be
dismissed?

HELD: The appeal should be closed and terminated. CIVIL LAW: compromise;
contract The Agreement was a compromise that the parties freely and voluntarily
entered into for the purpose of finally settling their dispute in this case. Under Art.
2028 of the Civil Code, a compromise is a contract whereby the parties, by making
reciprocal concessions, avoid a litigation or put an end to one already commenced.
Accordingly, a compromise is either judicial, if the objective is to put an end to a
pending litigation, or extrajudicial, if the objective is to avoid a litigation. As a
contract, a compromise is perfected by mutual consent. However, a judicial
compromise, while immediately binding between the parties upon its execution, is
not executory until it is approved by the court and reduced to a judgment. The
validity of a compromise is dependent upon its compliance with the requisites and
principles of contracts dictated by law. Also, the terms and conditions of a
compromise must not be contrary to law, morals, good customs, public policy and
public order. A review of the terms of the Agreement, indicates that it is a judicial
compromise because the parties intended it to terminate their pending litigation by
fully settling their dispute.
72. Hydro Resources Contractors vs National Irrigation Administration (GR No
160251, Nov 10, 2005, Santiago) Facts: A contract was entered into between Hydro
and NIA for the project of the latter. The contract price is to be payable partly in
Philippine peso and US dollars. Once the project was being executed, there was
depreciation in value of Peso resulting to price differential. In order to resolve the
issue, the administrator of NIA, Mr Tek, and Hydro made a joint computation of the
amount corresponding to the foreign currency differential. The computation
showed that NIA owed Hydro for the differential. When a demand was made by
Hydro against NIA, NIA refused to pay contending that Mr Tek has no authority to
participate into a joint computation of the foreign currency differential and that Mr
Tek has no authority to bind NIA.

Issue: Whether or not Mr Tek has the authority to bind NIA in the joint computation
of the foreign currency differential.

Held: The SC found out that in the course of the project, Hydro has been dealing with
NIA represented by Mr. Tek. And applying the doctrine of apparent authority, if a
corporation knowingly permits one of its officers to act within the scope of an
apparent authority, it holds him out to the public possessing the power to do those
acts; and thus, the corporation will, as against anyone who has in good faith dealt
with it through such agent, be stopped from denying the agent’s authority.

You might also like