This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-06-05 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Our perusal of the Kasunduan also shows that it contains a penal clause[64] which provides that a party who violates any of its provisions shall be liable to pay the aggrieved party a penalty fixed at P50,000.00, together with the attorney's fees and litigation expenses incurred by the latter should judicial resolution of the matter becomes necessary.[65] An accessory undertaking to assume greater liability on the part of the obligor in case of breach of an obligation, the foregoing stipulation is a penal clause which serves to strengthen the coercive force of the obligation and provides for liquidated damages for such breach.[66] "The obligor would then be bound to pay the stipulated indemnity without the necessity of proof of the existence and the measure of damages caused by the breach."[67] Articles 1226 and 1227 of the Civil Code state: Art. 1226. In obligations with a penal clause, the penalty shall substitute the indemnity for damages and the payment of interests in case of noncompliance, if there is no stipulation to the contrary. Nevertheless, damages shall be paid if the obligor refuses to pay the penalty or is guilty of fraud in the fulfillment of the obligation. | |||||
|
2009-12-04 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| In the exercise of its sound discretion, this Court, in Florentino v. Supervalue, Inc.,[67] tempered the penalty for the breaches committed by Florentino to 50% of the amount of the security deposits. The forfeiture of all the security deposits, in the sum of P192,000.00, was clearly a usurious and iniquitous penalty for the transgressions committed by petitioner therein. Supervalue, Inc. was, therefore, obligated to return 50% of P192,000.00 to the petitioner. | |||||
|
2009-06-22 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Contrary to respondents' position, Articles 448 and 546 of the Civil Code did not apply. Under these provisions, to be entitled to reimbursement for useful improvements introduced on the property, respondents must be considered builders in good faith. Articles 448 and 546, which allow full reimbursement of useful improvements and retention of the premises until reimbursement is made, apply only to a possessor in good faith or one who builds on land in the belief that he is the owner thereof. A builder in good faith is one who is unaware of any flaw in his title to the land at the time he builds on it.[22] | |||||
|
2008-11-28 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Correlatively, the courts in the reversion case overlooked the issue of whether Reyes, vis-à-vis his improvements, is a builder or planter in good faith. In the instant case, the issue assumes full significance, because Articles 448[25] and 546[26] of the Civil Code grant the builder or planter in good faith full reimbursement of useful improvements and retention of the premises until reimbursement is made. A builder or planter in good faith is one who builds or plants on land with the belief that he is the owner thereof, unaware of any flaw in his title to the land at the time he builds or plants on it. [27] | |||||