CIVIL LAW DIGESTS OF CASE DIGESTS

1. Maitim vs. Aguila, G.R. No. 218344, March 21, 2022 BUT, the requirement of art 40 (dec of nullity of mariage) is MERELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF
Vicarious Liability - defense of vicarious liability - employers must submit concrete proof, including REMARRAIAGE AND does not affect the accused’s right to collaterally attack the validity of the void ab
documentary evidence that he has diligent in the selection of his employers. initio marriage in cirim prosec for bigamy.

Res Ipsa Loquitur - the thing speaks for itself. Because when the first marriage is void ab initio, it clearly is missing one of hte elements of bigamy,
which is a prior valid marriage. There can be no crime if that element is absent. There is nothing to
Vicarious liability in a EE ER REL - when injury is caused by the negligence of the employee, there is a annul, as it did not exist in the first place. It is merely a declaration of a status or condition that no such
presumption of negligence on the part of the ER in the selection and/or supervision after the selection. marriage existed.

2. Purificacion vs. Villanueva, G.R. No. 191359, November 11, 2020 Is a judicial declaration of nullity of marriage necessary to establish the invalidity of a void ab
Actions against any COA under Agricultural Land Reform Code - 3 years prescription. initio marriage in a bigamy prosecution?
NO. The requirement of getting a jud declaration of nullity of marriage is only FOR THE PURPOSES
3. Pulido vs. People, G.R. No. 220149, July 27, 2021 OF REMARRIAGE but not as a defense in bigamy. Therefore, in crim prosecutions for bigmy, the
Even when your marriage is declared void, a final judgment declaring it void FOR THE PURPOSE OF accused can validly interpose the defense of a void ab initio marriage even without obtaining a judicial
REMARRIAGE IS REQUIRED. declaration of absolute nullity.

1983 - Pulido was married to Arcon in a civil ceremony in Cavite.

1995 - entered into marriage with Arcon 4. Pryce Corp. vs. Nolasco, G.R. No. 203990, August 24, 2020
2007 - Pulido stopped going home to Arcon and confessed he was having an affair with Baleda. VALID RECISSION UNDER RA 6552 (Maceda Law)
Arcon charged Pulido and Baleda with Bigamy. seller may cancel when these conditions are all present:
1. defaulting buyer has paid less than 2 yars of installments
Pulido: both the Arcon and Baleda marriage was null and void. Arcon marriage did not have a valid 2. seller must give defaulting buyer a 60 day grace period from the time the installment becomes
marriage license, Baleda did not have a marriage ceremony. due
3. buyer fails to pay the installment at the expiration of the 60 day period
Baleda: I only learned he was married in 2007, and before that she has already filed a petition to annul 4. seller may cancel contract after lapse of 30 days from buyers receipt of notice of
her marriage with pulido, and it was declared null and void by the RTC because it was bigamous. caoncellation and/or demand for rescission by notarial act

RTC: Pulido guilty of bigamy, acquitted Baleda. Remedies of a defaultnig buyer in the absence of valid rescission
CA: affirmed - all elements of bigamy were present: the first marriage that was allegedly null and void 1. pay in advance any installment at any time, with or without interest
still did not have a judicial declaration of the nulity of the prior marriage with Arcon. 2. pay full unpaid balance of the purchase price at any time without interest, annotate the full
payment in the cert of title
SC: 3. claim equitable refund of prior payments made by the deafualitng buyer to the seller
Retroactive Application -
Art 40 applies retroactively on marriages celebrated before the Family Code as long as it does not
prejudice or impair vested/acquired rights. And so a judicial declaration of nullity of marriage is still 5. PNB vs. Bal, G.R. No. 207856, November 18, 2020
required FOR THE PURPOSES OF REMARRIAGE. SOLIDARY LIABILITY is not presumed - it must be expressly stated, or there is a law requiring it to
be solidary.
Does the subsequent declaration of nullity of hte first and second marriage constitute a valid
defesnse in bigamy?
Yes. The subsequent declaration of nullity of the 1st and 2nd marriage is now a valid defense in
bigamy because a void marriage produces no effects except those declared by law concerning the 6. Panacan Lumber Co. vs. Solidbank Corp., G.R. No. 226272, September 16, 2020
properties of the alleged spouses, the legitimacy of their children. Personal notice to mortgagor in extrajud is not necessary.
EXCEPT: included in the contract that personal notice is additionally required to be given to the
mortgagor.
 CIVIL LAW DIGESTS OF CASE DIGESTS
9. Lopez vs. Saludo, G.R. No. 233775, September 15, 2021
What is required: Posting of the notice of sale in 3 public places and the publication of that notice in a Trust is the legal relationship between 1 person having equitable ownership in property and another
newspaper of general circulation. owning legal title tothe property; the equitable ownership entitling him to the performance of certain
duties and exercise of certain powers by the latter.
7. Nagaño vs. Tanjangco, G.R. No. 204218, May 12, 2021
if you are a tenant-beneficiary under PD27(Tenants Emancipation Decree), any transfer you have made Pet Lopez told Resp Saludo that she knew land that was offered as a reasonable price. REsp gave
will be considered void. this is to guarantee the coitnued possession, cltivaitn and enjoyment by he 15M to Peet , with the agreement that Pet would sign the Deed of sale and hold properties in trust for
bneeficiary of the land that he tills. and subsequently reconvey to resp.

144sqm Property belonged to spouses Tanjanco and 2 brothers. they were given emancipation Resp is claiming he is true owner and pet merely holds the same in trust for him. presented checks
patents. April 1983, the 144 property was transferred to Luis Tanjangco and siblings. issued in the name of pet fo the payment of purchase price.

1999 Nagano filed for retention of 5 hectares each pursuant to CARP. they alleged that tanjancco were Pet claims she purchase the subject properties pursuant to deed of sale. she further claim dthat resp
dq to retain, because they already owned more than 24 hectares of land in the subject property. volunteer to finance the renovation of the house on account of their special relationship, and thereafter
resp and family occupied the properties.
during the pendency, luis tanjangco and siblings executed a deed of partition, giving 20 hectares to
each respondent, 19 to federico, and 20 to antonio. by that time, they each owned less than 24 RTC: Respondent owner. thre was an implie trust between resp and pet. Resp was able to prove by
hectares.. preponderance of evid that he was the one who apid the properties.
CA: affirm RTC
DAR RD: tanjangco not entitled to retention because owned more than 24 hectares.
DAR SEC - affimed RD but used the ground that they owned more thna 7 hectares of other agri lands. SC: there was implied trust when a property is sold and the legal estate is granted to one party but the
MR to DAR - denied price is paid by anothe for the purpose of haing the beneficial interest of the property.
OP - reinstated RD decision ,still not entitled to retention.
CA - reinstated DAR SEC Burden of proof that there is a trust is on the party alleging the existence, and the proof must be clear
and satisfactory.
SC: the partition made by the tanjangcos are irrelevant because it was executed AFTER the application
for retention is filed. what is important is that when the yfiled the application for retention, they owned 10. Purisima vs. Sps. Medrano, G.R. No. 200484, November 18, 2020
the entire subject property, andt hat the application covered the entire subject prop, and not the 95. so Verbal contract on sale of real property is unenforceable, unless ratified.
at the time of application, they each owned more than 24 hectares which disqualifies them,
Statute of Frauds is applicable only to executory contracts - not to contracts that are already or partially
8. Municipality of Corella vs. Philkonstrak Development Corp., G.R. No. 218663, February 28, 2022 performed.
Quantum Meruit - as much as he deserves - a persomn may recover a reasonable value of the thing he
dlieverd or service rendered. This is done to prevent undue enrihcment based on equitable postulate
that it is unjust for a person to retain a benefit without paying for it.
11. Land Bank vs. Del Moral, Inc., G.R. No. 187307, October 14, 2020
Here, Munc of Corella engaged in the services of Philkon which was later on denied because of the Res judicata - a final judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive
absence of a municipal ordinance that gave authority to the mayor to enter in to contracts in behalf of as to the rights of the parties and their privies, and constitutes an absolute bar to susequent actions
Corella. However, even in the absence/invalidity of a written contract, Philkon should still be paid for involving the same claim, demand or cause of action.
the services rendered under the principle of quantum meruit. Further, Corella cannot be unjustly
enriched and allowed to retain the benefits of the services rendered without properly paying for it. Res Judicata
1. there must be a final judgment or order
2. court must have jurisdiction over the SM and the parties
3. judgement must be on the merits
4. and there should, between the two parties, an identity to parties, subject matter and cause of
action.
 CIVIL LAW DIGESTS OF CASE DIGESTS
Res Judicata 1. Recissible because of lesion or prejudice
1. there must be a final judgment or order - done by RTC and affirmed by CA 2. Recissible because of fraud or bad faith
2. court must have jurisdiction over the SM and the parties - SM computation of just compensation 3. because of the special provisions of law
3. judgement must be on the merits
4. and there should, between the two parties, an identity to parties, subject matter and cause of
action.

the effect of res judicata is that the judgment will bar the prosecution to file a second action upon the
same claim

12. Willy vs. Julian, G.R. No. 207051, December 1, 2021

Possession is the holding of the thing and the enjoyment of the use thereof.

13. Viloria vs. Heirs of Gaetos, G.R. No. 206240, May 12, 2021
in quieting of the title, the burden to show preponderance of evidence lies on the plaintiff to show that
they have an equitable and legal title to or interest in the real property subject of the action.

Requisites for an action to quiet title to prosper:

1. pln has a legal or equitable title to or interest in the real property subject of the action
2. deed, claim, encumbrance or proceeding claimed to be casing cloud on his title must be shown
to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of avalidie

14. Valdez vs. Heirs of Catabas, G.R. No. 201655, August 24, 2020
A posseor/occupant may already be a possessor in the concept of an owner proper to the
determination that the property is alienable and disposable agri land.

Hindi kelangan na maging alienable muna sha before sha maging possessor in the concept of an
owner.

The period of possession may include the period of adverse possession prior to the declaration that the
land is alienable and disposable. Pwede isama sa bilang.

Two modes of disposing public lands through confirmation or imperfect or incomplete titles:
1. judicial confirmation
2. administrative legislation (granting of free patents)

15. Valdes vs. La Colina Development Corp., G.R. No. 208140, July 12, 2021
Recission is a remedy granded by law to the contracting parties, and even to 3rd persons, to secure the
reparation of damages caused to them by a contract, even if ti should be valid by reason of external
causes resulting in a pecuniary prejudice to one of the ocntracting parties or their creditors, the result of
which, is the resotratino of things to their condition at the moment prior to celebration of said contract.

Kinds of REcissible Contracts:

 CIVIL LAW DIGESTS OF CASE DIGESTS
16. Uy-Belleza vs. Civil Registrar of Tacloban, G.R. No. 218354, 15 September 2021 38. Integrated Credit and Corporate Services vs. Cabreza, G.R. No. 203420. February 15, 2021

17. In Re: Petition for the Probate of the Will of Consuelo Santiago Garcia vs. Natividad Garcia Santos, G.R. No. 39. Home Guaranty Corp. vs. Manlapaz, G.R. No. 202820. January 13, 2021
204793, 08 June 2020
40. Heirs of Marquez vs. Heirs of Hernandez, G.R. Nos. 236826. March 23, 2022
18. Sps. De Vera vs. Catungal, G.R. No. 211687, 10 February 2021
41. Heirs of Magsaysay vs. Sps. Perez, G.R. No. 225426. June 28, 2021
19. Sps. Ponce vs. Aldanese, G.R. No. 216587, 4 August 2021
42. Heirs of Latoja vs. Heirs of Latoja, G.R. No. 195500. March 17, 2021
20. Sps. Torrecampo vs. Wealth Development Bank Corp., G.R. No. 221845, March 21, 2022
43. Heirs of Godines vs. Demaymay, G.R. No. 230573, June 28, 2021
21. Sps. Liu vs. Espinosa, G.R. No. 238513, July 31, 2019
44. Heirs of Bagaygay vs. Heirs of Paciente, G.R. No. 212126. August 4, 2021
22. Sps. Genotiva vs. Equitable-PCI Bank, G.R. No. 213796, June 28, 2021
45. Goldwell Properties Tagaytay, Inc., vs. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, G.R. No. 209837, May 12,
23. Silva vs. Lo, G.R. No. 206667, June 23, 2021 2021

24. Equitable PCI Bank vs. Manila Adjusters & Surveyors, Inc., G.R. No. 166726, November 25, 2019 46. Gemina vs. Heirs of Espejo, G.R. No. 232682, September 13, 2021

25. Seming vs. Alamag, G.R. No. 202284, March 17, 2021 47. Garcia vs. Santos Ventura Hocorma Foundation, Inc., G.R. No. 224831, September 15, 2021

26. Rico vs. Union Bank, G.R. No. 210928, February 14, 2022 48. Garcia vs. Esclito, G.R. No. 207210, March 21, 2022

27. Reyes vs. Sps. Garcia, G.R. No. 225159, March 21, 2022 49. Ganancial vs. Cabugao, G.R. No. 203348, July 6, 2020

28. Republic vs. Tapay, G.R. No. 157719, March 2, 2022 50. Estate of Rodriguez vs. Republic, G.R. No. 214590, April 27, 2022

29. Republic vs. Ponce-Pilapi, G.R. No. 219185, November 25, 2020 51. Gaoiran vs. CA, G.R. No. 215925, March 7, 2022

30. Republic vs. PNP, G.R. No. 198277, February 8, 2021 52. Ende vs. Roman Catholic Prelate, G.R. No. 191867, December 6, 2021

31. Republic vs. Herederos de Ciriaco Chunaco Disteleria Incorporada, G.R. No. 200863, October 4, 2020 53. Dominguez vs. Bank of Commerce, G.R. No. 225207, September 29, 2021

32. Republic vs. Heirs of Sps. Bajao, G.R. No. 207647, January 11, 2021 54. DBP vs. Heirs of Danico, G.R. No. 196476, September 28, 2020

33. Republic vs. Castillo, G.R. No. 190453, February 20, 2020 55. Daniel vs. Magkaisa, G.R. No. 203815, December 7, 2020

34. Republic vs. Caraig, G.R. No. 197389, October 12, 2020 56. Dacquel vs. Sps. Sotelo, G.R. No. 203946, August 4, 2021

35. Republic vs. Abellanosa, G.R. No. 205817, October 6, 2020 57. City of Tanauan vs. Millonte, G.R. No. 219292, June 28, 2021

36. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines vs. Tiongco, G.R. No. 212136, October 4, 2021 58. Carullo-Padua vs. Padua, G.R. No. 208258, April 27, 2022

37. Jacinto vs. Litonjua, G.R. No. 207675. January 20, 2021 59. Cardinez vs. Sps. Cardinez, G.R. No. 213001, August 4, 2021
 CIVIL LAW DIGESTS OF CASE DIGESTS
60. Cabilao vs. Tampan, G.R. No. 209702, March 23, 2022

61. BPI vs. Central Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 197593, October 12, 2020

62. BDO vs. Ypil, G.R. No. 212024, October 12, 2020

63. Bacala vs. Heirs of Sps. Poliño, G.R. No. 200608, February 10, 2021

64. Atienza vs. Golden Ram Engineering Supplies & Equipment Corp., G.R. No. 205405, June 28, 2021

65. Asset Pool A (SPV-AMC), Inc., vs. Sps. Berris, G.R. No. 203194, April 26, 2021

66. Asian Construction and Development Corp. vs. Metro Structures, Inc., G.R. No. 221147, September 29, 2021

67. Aromin vs. Heirs of Sps. Somis, G.R. No. 204447, May 03, 2021

68. Arakor Construction and Development Corp. vs. Sta. Maria, G.R. No. 215006, January 11, 2021

69. Allied Banking Corporation vs. Sps. Macam, G.R. No. 200635, February 1, 2021

70. Alde vs. City of Zamboanga, G.R. No. 214981, November 04, 2020

71. Agro Food and Processing Corp. vs. Vitarich Corp., G.R. No. 217454, January 11, 2021

72. People vs. Constantino, G.R. No. 251636, February 14, 2022

73. Domilos vs. Sps. Pastor, G.R. No. 207887, March 14, 2022

74. Republic vs. Heirs of Booc, G.R. No. 207159, February 28, 2022

75. Republic vs. Kikuchi, G.R. No. 243646, June 22, 2022

76. Dayrit vs. Norquillas, G.R. No. 201631 December 7, 2021

77. Heirs of de Lara vs. Rural Bank of Jaen, Inc., GR No. 212012, March 28, 2022

78. BIR vs. Tico Insurance Company, G.R. No. 204226, April 18, 2022

79. Heirs of Gonzales vs. Sps. Basas, G.R. No. 206847, June 15, 2022