OBLICON COVERAGE (3") 2020 ARTICLES: 1306 - AUTONOMY of CONTRACTS, 1, GOLANGCO v. PCIB 485 S 293 2. CASTRO v. TAN 605 S 231 3, MALLARI v. PRUDENTIAL BANK 697 S 555 1308 - MUTUALITY of CONTRACTS 1, PNB v. CA 238 $20 2. ALLIED BANKING v. CA 284 S 357 3. FLOIRENDO, JR. v, METROBANK 532 $ 43 4, JUICO v. CHINA BANKING 695 $ 520 5. PNB v. MANALO 717 S 254 6. JONSAY v. SOLID BANK 788 S 552 (REYES) 7. SECURITY BANK v. SPS. RODRIGO MERCADO 868 S 323 (ARDELEZA) 311-1314 RELATIVITY of CONTRACTS = Who are bound thereby and exceptions = When may third persons interfere in a contract: 1. 1311 (2) on stipulation pour autri,requisites BALUYOT v. CA 311 $29 2.1312 ~ Contracts creating real rights 3. 1313 — Contracts intended to defraud creditors Exception to the exception: 1314— Third person induces a party to violate his contract - Requisites - Nature of liability of the inducer and the induced OTHER CASES: 1315 1. INTEGRATED PACKAGING v CA 333 S171 2. A & C MINIMART Vv. VILLAREAL 535 $ 489 3. BORROMEO v. CA 550 S 269 4, HEIRS of LLENADO v. LLENADO 580 $ 546 5. VALLIDO v.PONO 696 § 381 6. PNB v. DEE 717 S 14 7. ROJALES v. DIME 783 S 575 8. DE ROCA v. DABUYA 857 S 305 (DEL CASTILLO) 9. ASIAN TERMINALS v. PADOSON STAINLESS STEEL CORP. 868 8 56 (TUAM) = 1319 PERFECTION/STAGES/CONSENSUAL/REAL and ESSENTIAL REQUISITES OF CONTRACTS. 1324 - 1, JARDINE DAVIES v. CA 333 $ 684 2. SOLER v. CA 358 $ 57 3. PROVINCE of CEBU v. MORALES 546 315, 4, GARCIA v. THIO 518 S433 5. PANGAN v. PERRERAS 597 $ 253, 6. GARCIA v. THIO 518 S 433 7, ROBERN DEVELOPMENT v. PEOPLE’S LANDLESS 693 S 24 8. SMI v. POSADAS 776 S 219 9. FEDERAL BUILDERS v. POWER FACTORS 820 S 78 (BERSAMIN) 10. DESIDERIO DALISAY INV. INC v. SSS 860 S 554 (VELASCO, JR) OPTION CONTRACT - When offeror has the right to withdraw the option and its exception « Effect if offer is immediately accepted = What constitutes CONSIDERATION, 1. VILLAMOR v. CA 202 $ 607 2. ADELFA PROPERTIES v. CA 240 $ 5653. SAN MIGUEL PROPERTIES v. SPOUSES HUANG 336 $ 737 4, LIMSON v. CA 357 S 209 357 S 209 Distinctions between OPTION MONEY and EARNEST MONEY 5. TAYAG v. LACSON 426 $ 282 6. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL OIL v. KEPPEL HOLDINGS 798 $ 65 1330 — 1344 DEFECTS of the WILL - When may MISTAKE invalidate CONSENT Requirement upon party enforcing the contract when one of the parties is ‘unable to read or contract is in a language not understood by him -When is FRAUD committed, requisites, types Distinctions between FRAUD under Article 1171 and FRAUD falling under Article 1338 -TOLERATED FRAUD CASES: 1, FONTANA RESORT v. TAN 664 $382 2. DELA CRUZ v. DELA CRUZ 419 S 648 3. FELICIANO v. ZALDIVAR 503 S 122 4, CRUZ v. CRUZ 856 S 563 (DEL CASTILLO) 1345 -1346 SIMULATION of CONTRACTS inctions between RELATIVE SIMULATION and ABSOLUTE SIMULATION OF CONTRACTS I. VILLEGAS v. RURAL BANK of TANJAY 588 S 436 2. VILACERAN v. DE GUZMAN 666 S 454 3. CABALU v. TABU 681 S 625 4, HEIRS of INTAC v. CA 684 $ 625, 5. PHIL. BANKING CORP. v. DY 685 $ 567 6. CLEMENTE v. CA 772 S 339 7. REYES v. ASUNCION 774 $ 615 8. TANCHULING v. CANTELA 774 $ 406 9, VICTORIA v. PIDLAOAN 791 $ 16 10. STA. FE REALTY v. SISON 802 S 1 1347-1349 OBJECT of CONTRACTS ~General rule and its exceptions ~ Future inheritance as valid object of contracts. 1380 - 1355 CAUSE of CONTRACTS. - Classification of contracts as to cause CASE: CALANASAN v. DOLORITO 710 S 505 = Distinctions between CAUSE and MOTIVE = MOTIVE becoming the cause of the contract CASE: LIQUEZ v. CA 102 PHIL 577 = _ Effect of absence of cause or cause is unlawful CASES: I. VELEZ v. RAMAS 40 PHIL 787 2. MACTAL v, MELEGRITO GR#L-16114 MARCH 24, 1961 = _ Presumption if cause is not stated in a contract CASE: MENDOZA v. PALUGOD, SR. 867 S 299 (CAGUIOA) - _ Effect if there is lesion or inadequacy of cause 1356 -1358 - FORMS of CONTRACT “General rule and its exceptions when form is required = When law requires a document to observe a certain form = Contracts/ agreements that must be in a public instrument for purposes of affecting third persons and/or convenience between the parties 1. MARTINEZ v. CA 358 S 38 2. TEOCO v. METROBANK 575 S82 3. SPILLE v. NICORP 773 S 67 4. BITTE v, JONAS 777 S 489 5. AGUINALDO v. TORRES, JR. 839 S 354 6. KABISG REAL WEALTH v. YOUNG BUILDERS CORP. 856 S 307. DIAMPOC v. BUENAVENTURA 859 S 422 (DEL CASTILLO) 8. COCA BOTTLERS v. SORIANO 861 S 93 (TIJAM) 1359 ~ 1369 REFORMATION OF INSTRUMENTS Meaning, eason and requisites of REFORMATION ~ Grounds for reformation ~ Cases when REFORMATION not allowed 1, BENTIR v. LEANDA 330 S 591 2. VILLEGAS v. ARIONA 425 S 57 3. MARTIRES v. CHUA 694 S 38 4, ROSARIO v. ALVAR $39 S 138 5, MAKATI TUSCANY CONDO v. MULTIREALTY DEV. 861 S 448 (LEONEN) 1370 - 1379 INTERPRETATION of CONTRACTS Purpose of contract interpretation = Rules in case doubts are impossible to settle and the doubts refer to incidental circumstances. Effect if doubts are cast the principal object ofthe contract 1. SECURITY BANK v. CASIS S 63 2, FORTUNE MEDICARE v. AMORIN 719 S 133 3. CENTURY PROPERTY v. BABIANO 795 S 671 (A. 1370) 4, RODRIGUEZ v. SIOSON 798 $ 526 (a. 1371) 5. PNB v. ALONDAY 805 S 657 (A. 137) 6. CATHAY LAND, INC. v. AYALA LAND, INC. 836 $ 490