B.P.

22
For a person to be held liable under BP22, the following elements must be present:
1. Making, drawing, or issuing a check for value.
2. Knowledge of insufficiency of funds or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check
upon its presentment.
3. Subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit, or
dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop
payment.

DEBT COLLECTION
In a world increasingly interconnected by technology, the challenge of debt collection has adapted to new platforms,
including social media and messaging apps. While technology can facilitate smoother transactions and
communications, it can also be used by debtors to evade their obligations. It's essential to understand the legal
avenues available for effective debt collection in the Philippines.
The legal framework for debt collection primarily emanates from the Civil Code of the Philippines, specifically on
obligations and contracts. If an individual or entity owes you money and is evading contact, the first step often
involves sending a formal demand letter. This letter serves as an official notice for the debtor to settle their
obligation within a specified period.
If the debtor remains unresponsive or avoids paying the debt, you may proceed to file a civil case for collection of
sum of money. This involves lodging a complaint with the appropriate court, supported by documentary evidence
like promissory notes, loan agreements, or any proof of indebtedness. Filing a case provides a legal pathway for
compelling the debtor to pay and may even result in the attachment of their assets as security for the debt.

RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE
"The elements of reckless imprudence are: (1) that the offender does or fails to do an act; (2) that the doing or the
failure to do that act is voluntary; (3) that it be without malice; (4) that material damage results from the reckless
imprudence; and (5) that there is inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the offender, taking into
consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition, and other circumstances
regarding persons, time, and place."[47]

GRAVE COERCION
The elements of grave coercion under Article 286 of the Revised Penal Code are as follows: 1) that a person is
prevented by another from doing something not prohibited by law, or compelled to do something against his will,
be it right or wrong; 2) that the prevention or compulsion is effected by violence, threats or intimidation; and 3) that
the person who restrains the will and liberty of another has no right to do so, or in other words, that the restraint is
not made under authority of law or in the exercise of any lawful right.[9]

UNLAWFUL DETAINER
A complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action for unlawful detainer if it recites the following: (1) the defendant's
initial possession of the property was lawful, either by contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff; (2) eventually,
such possession became illegal upon the plaintiffs notice to the defendant of the termination of the latter's right of
possession; (3) thereafter, the defendant remained in possession and deprived the plaintiff of the enjoyment of the
property; and (4) the plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment within one (1) year from the last demand to
vacate the property.[10]
ACCION PUBLICIANA
An accion publiciana is an ordinary civil proceeding to recover the right of possession and determine the better
right of possession of realty independently of title when the dispossession has lasted for more than one year and
the plenary action of forcible entry or illegal detainer is no longer available.64

HOMICIDE
Elements of the offense:
1) A person was killed;
2) The accused killed him without any justifying circumstance;
3) The accused had the intention to kill, which is presumed; and,
4) The killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of murder, or by that of parricide or infanticide.
(Wacoy v. People, G.R. No. 213792, 22 June 2015)

ESTAFA
Elements of Estafa
To establish a case of estafa in the Philippines, several essential elements must be present:
1. Deceit or Fraudulent Act: Estafa cases involve deceit or fraudulent acts committed by the accused. These acts
can include misrepresentation, false pretenses, or fraudulent transactions.
2. Damage or Deprivation: The deceit or fraudulent act must result in financial or property loss or the deprivation
of another person's rights. This element establishes the harm or injury caused by the accused's actions.
3. Intent to Defraud: The accused must have the intent to defraud or deceive the victim. This means that they must
have knowingly and willfully engaged in deceptive actions with the intention of causing harm or loss to another
party.
4. Reliance on Deceit: The victim must have relied on the deceitful or fraudulent representations made by the
accused. The victim's reliance on these representations is a crucial element in estafa cases.
5. Dishonesty or Fraudulence: The accused's actions must involve dishonesty, fraudulence, or an intention to
deceive. Honest mistakes or errors typically do not qualify as estafa.

ANNULMENT OF CERTIFICATE OF TITLE

The Court of Appeals stated that based on existing jurisprudence, a certificate of title may be annulled or cancelled
by the court under the following grounds: (1) when the title is void because (a) it was procured through fraud, (b)
it was issued for a land already covered by a prior Torrens title, (c) it covers land reserved for military, naval or civil
public purposes, and (d) it covers a land which has not been brought under the registration proceeding; (2) when
the title is replaced by one issued under a cadastral proceeding; and (3) when the condition for its issuance has
been violated by the registered owner.15
REISSUANCE OF NEW OWNER’S DUPLICATE COPY OF TITLE
4 Steps in Replacing Lost Duplicate Certificate of Title

Step 1: Execute Sworn Statement

Once you realize that your owner’s duplicate title is lost and could not be retrieved despite diligent search, you
must execute a sworn statement establishing the fact of such loss.
Step 2: Notify Registry of Deeds
Now armed with a Sworn Statement, you must notify the Registry of Deeds where the property is located of the
loss of the duplicate certificate of tile by causing the registration or annotation of the Sworn Statement on the
original title.
Step 3: Request a Certified True Copy of the Title
After you have caused the registration or annotation of the sworn statement on the title, you should request a
certified true copy of the title with the same Registry of Deeds. The certified true copy to be issued by the Registry
of Deeds shall contain an annotation of the Sworn Statement you earlier registered with that office.
Tip: The certified true copy of the title establishes the fact that the original title is existing and on file. That a title is
existing and on file means that you may proceed with a petition for issuance of a new duplicate certificate of title
or owner’s duplicate. Otherwise, you should file a petition for reconstitution of the lost original title instead.

Step 4: File a Petition for Issuance of New Owner’s Duplicate

Next, you should file a petition for issuance of a new owner’s duplicate certificate of title with the Regional Trial
Court having jurisdiction over the property.
Once the petition is submitted, the court will initiate a process that includes issuing notices and conducting hearings.
This is done to ensure that all parties with an interest in the property are informed and have the opportunity to file
an opposition to the petition, if any.
If, after the court's evaluation, it is determined that the issuance of a new owner’s duplicate is warranted, the court
will grant the petition ordering the issuance of a new duplicate certificate of title.

NULLITY OF MARRIAGE (Art. 36, Family Code)

ARTICLE 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such
incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.

DAMAGES (OFF-LOAD)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 119641)v0.1-beta
Facts:
 The case involves a dispute between Philippine Airlines (PAL) and Dr. Josefino Miranda and Luisa Miranda.
 The Mirandas had booked a flight with PAL from San Francisco to Manila, with connecting flights to Cebu
and Surigao City.
 Upon arrival in Manila, they were informed that their baggage had been off-loaded in Honolulu due to
weight limitations.
 As a result, they missed their connecting flights and experienced inconvenience and humiliation.
  The Mirandas filed a lawsuit against PAL, seeking damages for the breach of contract and the airline's bad
faith.
 The trial court ruled in favor of the Mirandas and awarded them moral damages, exemplary damages,
attorney's fees, and costs.
 PAL appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, but the appellate court affirmed the trial court's ruling.
Issue:
 Whether PAL acted in bad faith and breached its contract with the Mirandas.
 Whether the damages awarded by the lower courts were excessive.
Ruling:
 The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' findings of bad faith on the part of PAL and affirmed the award
of damages.
Ratio:
 A contract of air carriage generates a relation attended with a public duty, and any discourteous conduct
on the part of the carrier's employees towards a passenger gives rise to an action for damages.
 Moral damages are recoverable in cases of breach of a contract of carriage where the carrier is guilty of
fraud or bad faith.
 PAL's inattention to and lack of care for the interests of the Mirandas amounted to bad faith, justifying the
award of moral damages.
 The Warsaw Convention, which governs international air carriage, does not operate as an exclusive
enumeration of instances for declaring a carrier liable for breach of contract or as an absolute limit of
liability.
 The provisions of the convention did not preclude the Mirandas from seeking damages for PAL's breach
of contract and bad faith.
 PAL's off-loading of the Mirandas' baggage without proper justification exhibited bad faith and
discriminatory conduct, justifying the award of damages.
Conclusion:
 The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding PAL liable for damages due to
its off-loading of the Mirandas' baggage without proper justification.
 PAL's actions exhibited bad faith and discriminatory conduct, justifying the award of damages.

ILLEGAL DISMISSAL
To determine if your dismissal was illegal, these key elements are considered:
 Just Cause: The Labor Code lists specific just causes (e.g., serious misconduct, willful
disobedience, gross and habitual neglect of duties, fraud against the employer) for which an employee
can be terminated. If your dismissal doesn't fit any of the specified reasons, it could be deemed illegal.
 Due Process: Even with a just cause, employers are still required to observe due process. This
typically involves a two-notice rule: a written notice specifying the ground for termination and giving the
employee a chance to explain, followed by another notice indicating the decision to terminate.
If your employer failed in proving just cause or observing due process, your case for illegal dismissal would be
strong.