Contracts Jurisprudence
Contracts Jurisprudence
Contracts Jurisprudence
FACTS:
On January 6, 1961 the plaintiff, Philippine Amusement Enterprises, Inc.,
entered into a contract with the defendant Soledad Natividad, whereby the
former leased to the latter an automatic phonograph, more popularly
known as "jukebox". Sometime thereafter, Natividad wrote a letter to
plaintiff requesting for the return of the jukebox to the company. Natividad
reasoned out that said jukebox is defective. The plaintiff however,
contended that the stocking up of coins is quite normal in any coin-
operated phonograph. It then rightfully re-installed a new jukebox in
replacement of the first one.
On August 4 and October 16, 1961, plaintiff demanded from defendant
spouses the compliance to renew the lease contract. Defendants refused
the demand and ordered for the rescission of the contract in their favor by
reason of the plaintiff's failure to perform its obligation to render the
automatic phonograph suitable for the purpose for which it was intended.
• ISSUE:
FACTS:
In 1977, the parties entered into a contract for the use of the electric light
post of CASURECO by NATELCO in operation of its telephone service. In
consideration, NATELCO agreed to install free of charge ten-telephone connection
for the use of CASURECO. The term of the contract shall be as long as NATELCO has
need for the electric light post of the CASURECO, it being understood that the same
contract shall be terminated by any reason whatsoever, if CASURECO is forced to
stop or abandon its operation as a public service.
• After 10 years, CASURECO filed a case against NATELCO for
the reformation of contract with damages on the ground that
it was too-one sided in favor of NATELCO. That after 11 years,
the cable strung by NATELCO was much heavier due to the
increase in volume of their subscribers, worsened by the fact
that their linemen bore holes through the post at which
points those post were broken during typhoons. NATELCO
used posts in the towns outside Naga without any contract or
permission from CASURECO. After filing the complaints,
NATELCO had refused to pay despite the demands made.
NATELCO’s answered that CASURECO did not sufficiently state
the cause of action for the reformation of contract and that it
was barred by the prescription because it was filed after 10
years.
• The trial court ruled in favor of CASURECO,
ordering the reformation of contract and
ordering NATELCO to pay CASURECO the
compensation for the use of their post in
Naga. Moreover, CASURECO was ordered to
pay the monthly bills for the use of the
telephones. Disagreeing with the judgment,
NATELCO appealed to the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.
• ISSUE: