Digest the following cases:

1. Omengan vs. Philippine National Bank

Facts:
The petitioners-spouses' request for a P3 million revolving credit line was granted in
October 1996 by the Philippine National Bank (PNB) Tabuk (Kalinga) Branch. Two home
lots served as collateral for the loan. Branch Manager Henry Montalvo released the initial
P2.5 million on three different occasions. However, Montalvo refused to give the last half
million because of a letter that was reportedly delivered by Edgar's sister. Manuel Acierto
finally took over Montalvo's position as branch manager. Acierto offered the petitioners the
final P500,000 in cash and suggested that their credit limit be increased by P2,000,000
provided that Edgar's sister agreed. However, petitioners were unable to get Edgar's sister's
approval. PNB therefore decides to postpone the release of the extra P2 million.

Edgar Omengan demanded the release of the P2 million and asserted that the requirement
for its release was inserted without his approval to the terms of his credit line arrangement
with PNB. PNB turned down his inquiry. The court ruled in favor of the petitioners after they
brought a claim for contract violation and damages against PNB. The RTC ruling was
overturned and overturned by the CA.

Issue:
Was there a breach of contract?

Stand:
No contract was broken in this instance since the parties decided on a credit line of P3
million. Petitioners who subsequently asked for an increase in their credit limit had the full
amount released to them. The credit committee of PNB gave this approval under certain
conditions. Regarding the additional loan, there was no genuine agreement reached, and
PNB committed no breach of the contract. Regarding the expansion of the credit line, there
was no finalized contract.

2. Ferrazzini vs. Gsell

Facts:
The problem arose when the defendant was accused of wrongfully terminating the plaintiff,
who had worked for him for an indefinite period of time. The defendant admitted that he did
so without providing written advice, but he maintained that the plaintiff's absence and
disobedience made the termination legal. Because the plaintiff won the earlier ruling, the
defendant is now requesting an appeal. The defendant claims that according to their
contract, the petitioner is not permitted to accept work within five years of the agreement's
expiration. However, it is found that the plaintiff has a different work contract, which is
against their agreement.

Issue:
Whether a plaintiff's ability to engage into a contract can be restricted and whether such an
agreement is against public policy?

Stand:
No. The Court concluded that it is the law's policy not to lightly interfere with people's ability to
engage into contracts, provided that this does not go against current morality or society's best
interests. As a result, the contract between the plaintiff and defendant is obviously unlawful
because it prevents the former from earning a living.

3. Daywalt vs. Agustinos recoletos

Facts:
Teodorica Endencia signed a contract in 1902 that required her to give Geo the property. W.
Daywalt, a plot of land located in the Mangarin neighborhood of the town of Bulalacao, which is
now San Jose, in the aforementioned province.

To this end, they were bound by numerous contracts. The Torrens certificate was eventually
given to Teodorica Endencia, but during the legal procedures for registering the land, an official
survey revealed that the tract's area was actually closer to 1.248 hectares than the 452 hectares
specified in the contract.

Teodorica Endencia expressed reluctance to provide the buyer the entire tract of land in light of
this development, claiming she never planned to sell such a huge quantity of land and that she
had been deceived about its size.
Due to her attitude, Daywalt was eventually successful in a lawsuit.

La Corporación de los Padres Recoletos, the defendant, is the owner of a different estate on the
same island that is situated next to the property Teodorica Endencia sold to Geo. Daywalt, W.

The defendant corporation received the Torrens certificate once it was ultimately issued in 1909
in Teodorica Endencia's favor; it was then transported to Manila and kept in P. 's custody and
control there. Until the plaintiff's delivery was forced by the Supreme Court's order in 1914, Juan
Labarga, the procurador and top officer of the defendant corporation, was in charge.

The plaintiff is suing the defendant corporation for P24,000 in damages for using and occupying
the property in question due to cattle pasturing there during the specified time period.
Issue:
Does the alleged unwarranted interference warrant an increase in the permitted damages?

Stand:
No. The awarded damages are enough to cover the plaintiff's costs for using and occupying the
land over its entire use. According to Article 1902 of the Civil Code, anybody who harms another
through an action or omission that demonstrates fault or negligence is responsible for the harm
caused.

4. ABS-CBN vs. C A

Facts:
A contract between ABS-CBN and Viva was inked in 1990, granting ABS-CBN the sole right to
air select Viva films. Viva provided a list of three film packages (36 titles) to ABS-CBN through
defendant Del Rosario for ABS-CBN's vice president Charo Santos-Concio to choose from
when exercising its right of first refusal under the contract. The list was rejected by ABS-CBN,
who informed Mrs. Concio that they could only purchase ten titles from it. None of the works
Mrs. Concio named are associated with the current case, with the exception of the film "Maging
Sino Ka Man."

Del Rosario, the defendant, visited ABS-Ms on February 27, 1992. The 14 movie titles in
question were among 52 original film titles provided by CBN's Concio, along with a list of 104
previously broadcast reruns from which ABS-CBN could select an additional 52 film titles, for a
total of 156 film titles. He made the offer to sell ABS-CBN the airing rights to this collection of 52
new episodes and 52 old episodes.

Eugenio Lopez III, the general manager of ABS-CBN, and the defendant Del Rosario discussed
the VIVA package proposal on April 2, 1992. According to Mr. Lopez, he and Mr. Del Rosario
allegedly agreed to give ABS-CBN exclusive film rights to fourteen (14) projects in exchange for
a total of P36 million. He claimed to have given Mr. Del Rosario a "napkin" on which he had
noted the cost and the amount of films. Del Rosario, on the other hand, denied that he had
agreed to an agreement with Lopez over the 14 Viva movies. He stated that what he and Lopez
discussed during the lunch meeting was Viva's offer of 104 films (52 originals and 52 reruns) for
a total of P60 million. He also denied that Lopez had written anything on a napkin.

After ABS-CBN rejected Viva's offer to sell the 104 films, Del Rosario and Mr. Graciano Gozon,
Senior Vice-President for Finance at RBS, discussed the terms and conditions of the deal. The
following day, Ms. Concio forwarded Del Rosario a draft contract that included a counter-offer
from ABS-CBN to VIVA's offer, along with 1992 Viva Films' right of first refusal. However, the
concept was rejected by the VIVA Board of Directors, and Ms. Concio was informed of this.

In exchange for P60 million, defendant Del Rosario and Viva's President Teresita Cruz signed a
letter of agreement on April 29, 1992, granting RBS the exclusive right to air 104 Viva-produced
or purchased films, including the 14 in question. This came after ABS-CBN rejected them and
after numerous discussions and meetings.

On May 27, 1992, ABS-CBN submitted a complaint to the RTC for specific performance,
requesting Republic Broadcasting System (now GMA Network Inc.) be subject to a preliminary
injunction and/or a temporary restraining order. On May 28, 1992, the RTC issued a temporary
restraining order. RBS was found to be correct and ABS-CBN was found to be mistaken by the
RTC. The court upheld the same verdict. Thus, we decided to do this.

Issue:
Whether or not ABS-CBN and VIVA have a fully signed contract

Stand:
No, because, in accordance with article 1305, a contract is an arrangement between two parties
in which each commits to provide a good or service for the other. And in accordance with article
1318, a contract cannot be formed unless the following conditions are satisfied: (1) Consent of
the contracting parties; (2) Object specific that constitutes the contract's subject matter; and (3)
Cause of the obligation that is established. In this instance, the offer's price and conditions were
not agreed upon.

5. Laudico vs. Rodriguez

Facts:
On February 5, 1919, the plaintiff, Mamerto Laudico, received a letter from the defendant,
Vicente Arias, who along with his co-defendants owned the buildings Nos. 205 to 221 on
Carriedo Street, giving him the option to lease the structure to a third party and transmitting to
him for that purpose a tentative contract in writing outlining the terms on which the proposed
lease should be made.

Later, Mr. Laudico identified Mr. Fred M. Harden, his co-plaintiff, as the entity seeking to lease
the structure. No firm agreement was reached during these negotiations, which were conducted
verbally during conversations with Mr. Vicente Arias and through email.

On March 6, 1919, Mr. Laudico informed Mr. Arias through letter that all of his suggestions had
been approved after being updated and supplemented. It is acknowledged that Mr. Arias
received this letter by special delivery at 2:53 p.m. at that time. The offer to lease the building
had been withdrawn by Mr. Arias in a letter to the plaintiff, Mr. Laudico, on the same day at
11:25 in the morning.

Issue:
Was a contract of lease perfected?

Stand:
No, a letter acceptance is ineffective until it comes to the offerer's notice, according to Article
1262, paragraph 2, of the Civil Code. The contract's fundamental element—a meeting of the
minds through offer and acceptance—was not met in this instance.

6. Constantino vs. C A

Facts:
Josefa Torres left a piece of land in Balagtas, Bulacan, after she passed away intestate. The
petitioner Nelia A. Constantino and the heirs of Josefa Torres entered into a sale agreement for
a plot of land with a total land area of 250 square meters at some point in 1984. The petitioners'
mother and sister are residing on the lot, which is jointly held by the Torres heirs.

The property was later surveyed, split, and then covered by TCT Nos without the involvement of
any of the Torres heirs. T-292265 and T-292266.

Private respondents demanded the deed of settlement and conveyance be turned over to them
in a letter that was issued to the petitioner on June 2nd, 1986. Respondents filed an action for
the annulment of the deed and cancellation of the certificates of title with the Regional Trial
Court of Bulacan on June 25, 1986. They also requested reimbursement for damages, legal
costs, and attorney fees.

Issue:
Whether or not the CA erred in ignoring the pre-trial conference agreements and admissions
that served as the foundation for the application of the theory of paridelicto?

Stand:
The respondents actually admitted during the pre-trial conference that the land belongs to Pedro
Sr., but the CA genuinely refuted such claims.

7. KH & Hong Cheng vs. C A

Facts:
Khe Hong Cheng, the petitioner, owns the Butuan Shipping Lines vessel M/V PRINCE ERIC,
which transported 3,400 sacks of copra from Masbate to Dipolog City in Zamboanga del Norte.
A maritime insurance coverage from American Home Insurance Company covered the package.

However, the M/V PRINCE ERIC sank, and as a result of the loss, the consignee received
payment from the insurer, American Home, in the sum of P354,000.00 (the value of the copra).

In order to collect the money paid to the consignee due to a breach of the carriage contract,
American Home filed Civil Case No. 13357. Khe Hong Cheng, the petitioner, executed deeds of
contribution for his children; nonetheless, the trial court found Cheng in contempt of court four
years after the donations were made.

a warrant of execution that has not been served. No property belonging to the petitioner Khe
Hong Cheng could be discovered to levy or garnish, notwithstanding the issuance of an alias
order of execution. for the fulfillment of the trial court's judgment. It was found that the subject
properties had been transferred to the petitioner Khe Hong Cheng's children.

Respondent Philam filed a case alleging fraud among other things in opposition to petitioner
Khe Hong Cheng's execution in favor of his children and for the nullification of their titles.

On the grounds that the action had already prescribed, the petitioners requested to have it
dismissed. They asserted that the action was already precluded by prescription because the
registration of the deeds of donation on December 27, 1989, which constituted constructive
notice, was filed more than four (4) years after such registration, on February 25, 1997, when
the complaint a quo was filed.

Issue:
Whether or not Philam’s action for rescission of the subject deeds of donation has already
prescribed?

Stand:
No, because Article 1389 of the Civil Code merely states, "The action to claim rescission must
be commenced within four years." In this instance, however, since respondent Philam filed its
complaint for accion pauliana against Cheng on February 25, 1997, barely a month after
learning that Cheng lacked the means to pay the judgment award against him, it is evident that
its action for the revocation of the subject deeds had not yet prescribed.

8. Owa vs. Mcmicking

Facts:
In the month of August 1909, Gutierrez Hermanos filed a lawsuit at the Court of First Instance of
Manila against Oria Hermanos & Co. for the recovery of P147,204.28. This lawsuit is known as
No. 7289.

The same plaintiff filed a second lawsuit against the same defendant in March 1910 for the
purpose of recovering P12,318.57; this case was designated as No. 7719 in the relevant court.

The shareholders of Oria Hermanos & Co. terminated their business relationships on April 30,
1910, and the company went into liquidation.
One of Oria's partners, Tomas, made a deal with his son Manuel with the goal of selling and
transferring all of Oria's assets to Manuel, his heirs, and his assigns. The steamer was
purchased by Gutierrez Hermanos, which prompted Manuel to take action.

Sheriff asked Tomas, who served as liquidator, to pay the judgment. Since there was no more
money to pay the same, the sheriff announced the sale of the steamer at a public auction.

On September 17, 1910, the Court of First Instance ruled in favor of Gutierrez Hermanos in
case No. 7719.

Issue:
Whether or not the sale was fraudulent?

Stand:
Yes, the defendants were forced to use and levy upon the ship in the lawsuit since the record
demonstrates that there was no property with which the judgment in question could be paid. The
sale being fraudulent and void as to Gutierrez Hermanos was correctly determined by the lower
court.

9. Bragranza vs. Villa Abrille

Facts:
Rosario Braganza and her sons borrowed P70,000 in Japanese war bonds from De Villa Abrille.
They committed in writing to paying him P10,000 plus 2% annually in Philippine legal tender two
years after the war's end.

Braganza requested a review of the CA's ruling ordering them to pay Abrille P10,000 plus 2%
interest, pleading for consideration of her kids' underage status at the time they signed the
contract.

Abrille sued them for not paying because they hadn't.

Issue:
Is it possible to have the lawsuit dismissed on the grounds that more than 4 years have passed
after the petitioners' emancipation upon reaching majority?

Stand:
The four-year period set forth in Article 1301 of the Civil Code may not be applied where a
minor's status is asserted solely as a defense to an action without the minor requesting any
positive relief from the contract. They must still pay back the full amount of the profit they made
from the loan, though. According to Art. 1340, even if the written agreement is void due to their
ineligibility, they must make amends to the amount that they may have benefited from the
money received.

10. Rosencor Development Corp. vs Inquing

Facts:
Respondents Paterno Inquing, Irene Guillermo, Frederico Bantugan, Fernando Magbanua, and
Liza Tiangco claimed that they have leased a two-story residential condominium from Sps since
1971. Cresencia Tiangco as well as Faustino.When the Sps passed away, Eufrocina de Leon,
who was acting as their representative, was granted management of the leased property. Tianco
perished.

The respondents got a letter from Atty. in June 1990. Erlinda Aguila asked them to leave the
area because the building was about to be demolished, but they resisted.

The respondents then challenged de Leon's offer by offering to buy the property for half the
amount in October 1990 after receiving a letter from de Leon offering to sell them the property
for Php 2 million. De Leon did not respond to the counter-offer.

A few months later, the new owner was revealed to be Rene Joaquin, Vice-President of
Rosencor Development Corporation, who arrived at the site.

The sale took place in September 1990, a month earlier than deLeon's offer, as the respondents
later learned after receiving a copy of the Deed of Absolute Sale between Rosencor and
deLeon.

As a result, they brought a lawsuit to have the Deed of Absolute Sale between Leon and
Rosencor revoked.

Issue:
Whether or not the contract of sale is rescissible?

Stand:
No. The Civil Code states that where the contract's items are legitimately in the property of third
parties who did not act in bad faith, rescission is not permitted. Unless evidence is introduced to
the contrary, good faith is always assumed.