Lawyerly

GR No. 165025

2011-08-31

FEDMAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. FEDERICO AGCAOILI

BERSAMIN, J.

If the amount of docket fees paid is insufficient in relation to the amounts being sought, the clerk of court or his duly authorized deputy has the responsibility of making a deficiency assessment, and the plaintiff will be required to pay the deficiency.[25] The non-specification of the amounts of damages does not immediately divest the trial court of its jurisdiction over the case, provided there is no bad faith or intent to defraud the Government on the part of the plaintiff.[26]

GR No. 165025

2011-08-31

FEDMAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. FEDERICO AGCAOILI

BERSAMIN, J.

In Rivera v. Del Rosario,[29] the Court, resolving the issue of the failure to pay the correct amount of docket fees due to the inadequate assessment by the clerk of court, ruled that jurisdiction over the complaint was still validly acquired upon the full payment of the docket fees assessed by the Clerk of Court. Relying on Sun Insurance Office, Ltd., (SIOL) v. Asuncion,[30] the Court opined that the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading and the payment of the prescribed docket fees vested a trial court with jurisdiction over the claim, and although the docket fees paid were insufficient in relation to the amount of the claim, the clerk of court or his duly authorized deputy retained the responsibility of making a deficiency assessment, and the party filing the action could be required to pay the deficiency, without jurisdiction being automatically lost.

GR No. 153690

2011-02-15

DAVID LU v. PATERNO LU YM

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Here it is beyond dispute that respondents paid the full amount of docket fees as assessed by the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 17, where they filed the complaint. If petitioners believed that the assessment was incorrect, they should have questioned it before the trial court. Instead, petitioners belatedly question the alleged underpayment of docket fees through this petition, attempting to support their position with the opinion and certification of the Clerk of Court of another judicial region. Needless to state, such certification has no bearing on the instant case.[27] (italics in the original; emphasis and underscoring in the original)

GR No. 153690

2011-02-15

DAVID LU v. PATERNO LU YM

CARPIO MORALES, J.

The law allows a determination at first impression that a doctrine or principle laid down by the court en banc or in division may be modified or reversed in a case which would warrant a referral to the Court En Banc. The use of the word "may" instead of "shall" connotes probability, not certainty, of modification or reversal of a doctrine, as may be deemed by the Court. Ultimately, it is the entire Court which shall decide on the acceptance of the referral and, if so, "to reconcile any seeming conflict, to reverse or modify an earlier decision, and to declare the Court's doctrine."[18]

GR No. 186094

2010-08-23

PACIENCIA A. DALEON v. MA. CATALINA P. TAN

ABAD, J.

The CA held in substance that in a contract to sell where the seller retains ownership until the buyer pays the price in full, such full payment is a positive suspensive condition. In this situation, the buyer's failure to pay the full price does not constitute a contractual breach, but merely an event that prevents the seller from relinquishing ownership and delivering the title. Thus, said the CA, rescission is not available in such case; the buyer's failure to complete payment merely prevented the obligation of the seller to convey title.[11]

GR No. 175466

2009-12-23

BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST OF FAR EAST BANK v. SMP

NACHURA, J.

A distinction between a contract to sell and a contract of sale is helpful in order to determine the true intention of the parties. In a contract of sale, the title to the property passes to the vendee upon the delivery of the thing sold; while in a contract to sell, ownership is, by agreement, reserved for the vendor and is not to pass to the vendee until full payment of the purchase price.[9] In a contract of sale, non-payment of the price is a negative resolutory condition. In a contract to sell, full payment is a positive suspensive condition. In a contract of sale, the vendor loses and cannot recover ownership of the thing sold until and unless the contract of sale is itself resolved and set aside. In a contract to sell, the title remains with the vendor if the vendee does not comply with the condition precedent of making payment at the time specified in the contract.[10] In a contract to sell, the payment of the purchase price is a positive suspensive condition, the failure of which is not a breach, casual or serious, but a situation which prevents the obligation of the vendor to convey title from acquiring an obligatory force.[11]

GR No. 157374

2009-08-27

HEIRS OF CAYETANO PANGAN v. SPS. ROGELIO PERRERAS AND PRISCILLA PERRERAS

BRION, J.

Even assuming that the agreement amounted to a perfected contract, the petitioners-heirs posed the question of the agreement's proper characterization - whether it is a contract of sale or a contract to sell. The petitioners-heirs posit that the agreement involves a contract to sell, and the respondents' belated payment of part of the purchase price, i.e., one day after the June 14, 1989 due date, amounted to the non-fulfillment of a positive suspensive condition that prevented the contract from acquiring obligatory force. In support of this contention, the petitioners-heirs cite the Court's ruling in the case of Adelfa Rivera, et al. v. Fidela del Rosario, et al.: [7]

GR No. 153690

2009-08-04

DAVID LU v. PATERNO LU YM

NACHURA, J.

Fraud is a "generic term embracing all multifarious means which human ingenuity can devise and which are resorted to by one individual to secure an advantage over another by false suggestions or by suppression of truth, and includes all surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling and any unfair way by which another is cheated."[11] Since fraud is a state of mind, its presence can only be determined by examining the attendant circumstances.[12]

GR No. 174975

2009-01-20

LUISA KHO MONTAÑER v. SHARI'A DISTRICT COURT

PUNO, C.J.

Filing the appropriate initiatory pleading and the payment of the prescribed docket fees vest a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter.[40] If the party filing the case paid less than the correct amount for the docket fees because that was the amount assessed by the clerk of court, the responsibility of making a deficiency assessment lies with the same clerk of court.[41] In such a case, the lower court concerned will not automatically lose jurisdiction, because of a party's reliance on the clerk of court's insufficient assessment of the docket fees.[42] As "every citizen has the right to assume and trust that a public officer charged by law with certain duties knows his duties and performs them in accordance with law," the party filing the case cannot be penalized with the clerk of court's insufficient assessment.[43] However, the party concerned will be required to pay the deficiency.[44]

ADM MATTER NO. RTJ-04-1848

2005-10-25

PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT v. ROMULO A. LOPEZ

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Moreover, as observed by the Investigating Justice, "it is too late in the day to invoke lack of jurisdiction because the civil case decided by the respondent which was elevated on appeal to the CA has become final and executory when complainant voluntarily entered into a compromise agreement in the CA."[25] Thus, the issues raised in the petition for certiorari were not actually resolved. Thus, it becomes necessary for the Court to determine in the present administrative case whether or not respondent is guilty of gross ignorance of the law.

GR NO. 158227

2005-10-19

KEPPEL BANK PHILIPPINES v. PHILIP ADAO

QUISUMBING, J.

Nonetheless, in this case, the contract to sell does not by itself give respondent the right to possess the property. Unlike in a contract of sale, here in a contract to sell, there is yet no actual sale nor any transfer of title, until and unless, full payment is made. The payment of the purchase price is a positive suspensive condition, the failure of which is not a breach, casual or serious, but a situation that prevents the obligation of the vendor to convey title from acquiring an obligatory force.[17] Respondent must have fully paid the price to acquire title over the property and the right to retain possession thereof. In cases of non-payment, the unpaid seller can avail of the remedy of ejectment since he retains ownership of the property.

GR NO. 132561

2005-06-30

PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK v. CA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In the relatively recent case of Rivera v. Del Rosario,[26] this Court cited Section 1, Rule II, 2002 DARAB Rules of Procedure and reiterated that: The DARAB has exclusive original jurisdiction over cases involving the rights and obligations of persons engaged in the management, cultivation and use of all agricultural lands covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.

GR NO. 157480

2005-05-06

PRYCE CORPORATION v. PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT

PANGANIBAN, J.

Relevantly, it has been pointed out that resolution was originally used in Article 1124 of the old Civil Code, and that the term became the basis for rescission under Article 1191 (and, conformably, also Article 1659).[19]

GR NO. 139254

2005-03-18

SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Section 1. Primary, Original and Appellate Jurisdiction. The Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board shall have primary jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes, cases, controversies, and matters or incidents involving the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program under Republic Act No. 6657, Executive Orders Nos. 229, 228 and 129-A, Republic Act No. 3844 as amended by Republic Act No. 6389, Presidential Decree No. 27 and other agrarian laws and their implementing rules and regulations. In the relatively recent case of Rivera v. Del Rosario,[21] this Court cited Section 1, Rule II, 2002 DARAB Rules of Procedure and reiterated that: The DARAB has exclusive original jurisdiction over cases involving the rights and obligations of persons engaged in the management, cultivation and use of all agricultural lands covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. Again in David v. Rivera,[22] this Court pointed out that the jurisdiction over agrarian reform matters is now expressly vested in the DAR through the DARAB. Indeed, Section 50 of R.A. 6657 confers on the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) quasi-judicial powers to adjudicate agrarian reform matters. In the process of reorganizing the DAR, Executive Order No. 129-A created the DARAB to assume the powers and functions with respect to the adjudication of agrarian reform cases. Section 1, Rule II of the DARAB Rules of Procedure enumerates the cases falling within the primary and exclusive jurisdiction of the DARAB. In an earlier ruling rendered in the case of Vda. de Tangub v. Court of Appeals,[23] reiterated in Morta, Sr. v. Occidental[24] and Heirs of the late Herman Rey Santos v. Court of Appeals,[25] this Court decreed: Section 1 of Executive Order No. 229 sets out the scope of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP); it states that the program

GR NO. 161730

2005-01-28

JAPAN AIRLINES v. MICHAEL ASUNCION

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Moral damages may be recovered in cases where one willfully causes injury to property, or in cases of breach of contract where the other party acts fraudulently or in bad faith. Exemplary damages are imposed by way of example or correction for the public good, when the party to a contract acts in wanton, fraudulent, oppressive or malevolent manner. Attorney's fees are allowed when exemplary damages are awarded and when the party to a suit is compelled to incur expenses to protect his interest.[17] There being no breach of contract nor proof that JAL acted in wanton, fraudulent or malevolent manner, there is no basis for the award of any form of damages.

	GR No. 165025 2011-08-31	FEDMAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. FEDERICO AGCAOILI BERSAMIN, J.
If the amount of docket fees paid is insufficient in relation to the amounts being sought, the clerk of court or his duly authorized deputy has the responsibility of making a deficiency assessment, and the plaintiff will be required to pay the deficiency.[25] The non-specification of the amounts of damages does not immediately divest the trial court of its jurisdiction over the case, provided there is no bad faith or intent to defraud the Government on the part of the plaintiff.[26]
	GR No. 165025 2011-08-31	FEDMAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. FEDERICO AGCAOILI BERSAMIN, J.
In Rivera v. Del Rosario,[29] the Court, resolving the issue of the failure to pay the correct amount of docket fees due to the inadequate assessment by the clerk of court, ruled that jurisdiction over the complaint was still validly acquired upon the full payment of the docket fees assessed by the Clerk of Court. Relying on Sun Insurance Office, Ltd., (SIOL) v. Asuncion,[30] the Court opined that the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading and the payment of the prescribed docket fees vested a trial court with jurisdiction over the claim, and although the docket fees paid were insufficient in relation to the amount of the claim, the clerk of court or his duly authorized deputy retained the responsibility of making a deficiency assessment, and the party filing the action could be required to pay the deficiency, without jurisdiction being automatically lost.
	GR No. 153690 2011-02-15	DAVID LU v. PATERNO LU YM CARPIO MORALES, J.
Here it is beyond dispute that respondents paid the full amount of docket fees as assessed by the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 17, where they filed the complaint. If petitioners believed that the assessment was incorrect, they should have questioned it before the trial court. Instead, petitioners belatedly question the alleged underpayment of docket fees through this petition, attempting to support their position with the opinion and certification of the Clerk of Court of another judicial region. Needless to state, such certification has no bearing on the instant case.[27] (italics in the original; emphasis and underscoring in the original)
	GR No. 153690 2011-02-15	DAVID LU v. PATERNO LU YM CARPIO MORALES, J.
The law allows a determination at first impression that a doctrine or principle laid down by the court en banc or in division may be modified or reversed in a case which would warrant a referral to the Court En Banc. The use of the word "may" instead of "shall" connotes probability, not certainty, of modification or reversal of a doctrine, as may be deemed by the Court. Ultimately, it is the entire Court which shall decide on the acceptance of the referral and, if so, "to reconcile any seeming conflict, to reverse or modify an earlier decision, and to declare the Court's doctrine."[18]
	GR No. 186094 2010-08-23	PACIENCIA A. DALEON v. MA. CATALINA P. TAN ABAD, J.
The CA held in substance that in a contract to sell where the seller retains ownership until the buyer pays the price in full, such full payment is a positive suspensive condition. In this situation, the buyer's failure to pay the full price does not constitute a contractual breach, but merely an event that prevents the seller from relinquishing ownership and delivering the title. Thus, said the CA, rescission is not available in such case; the buyer's failure to complete payment merely prevented the obligation of the seller to convey title.[11]
	GR No. 175466 2009-12-23	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST OF FAR EAST BANK v. SMP NACHURA, J.
A distinction between a contract to sell and a contract of sale is helpful in order to determine the true intention of the parties. In a contract of sale, the title to the property passes to the vendee upon the delivery of the thing sold; while in a contract to sell, ownership is, by agreement, reserved for the vendor and is not to pass to the vendee until full payment of the purchase price.[9] In a contract of sale, non-payment of the price is a negative resolutory condition. In a contract to sell, full payment is a positive suspensive condition. In a contract of sale, the vendor loses and cannot recover ownership of the thing sold until and unless the contract of sale is itself resolved and set aside. In a contract to sell, the title remains with the vendor if the vendee does not comply with the condition precedent of making payment at the time specified in the contract.[10] In a contract to sell, the payment of the purchase price is a positive suspensive condition, the failure of which is not a breach, casual or serious, but a situation which prevents the obligation of the vendor to convey title from acquiring an obligatory force.[11]
	GR No. 157374 2009-08-27	HEIRS OF CAYETANO PANGAN v. SPS. ROGELIO PERRERAS AND PRISCILLA PERRERAS BRION, J.
Even assuming that the agreement amounted to a perfected contract, the petitioners-heirs posed the question of the agreement's proper characterization - whether it is a contract of sale or a contract to sell. The petitioners-heirs posit that the agreement involves a contract to sell, and the respondents' belated payment of part of the purchase price, i.e., one day after the June 14, 1989 due date, amounted to the non-fulfillment of a positive suspensive condition that prevented the contract from acquiring obligatory force. In support of this contention, the petitioners-heirs cite the Court's ruling in the case of Adelfa Rivera, et al. v. Fidela del Rosario, et al.: [7]
	GR No. 153690 2009-08-04	DAVID LU v. PATERNO LU YM NACHURA, J.
Fraud is a "generic term embracing all multifarious means which human ingenuity can devise and which are resorted to by one individual to secure an advantage over another by false suggestions or by suppression of truth, and includes all surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling and any unfair way by which another is cheated."[11] Since fraud is a state of mind, its presence can only be determined by examining the attendant circumstances.[12]
	GR No. 174975 2009-01-20	LUISA KHO MONTAÑER v. SHARI'A DISTRICT COURT PUNO, C.J.
Filing the appropriate initiatory pleading and the payment of the prescribed docket fees vest a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter.[40] If the party filing the case paid less than the correct amount for the docket fees because that was the amount assessed by the clerk of court, the responsibility of making a deficiency assessment lies with the same clerk of court.[41] In such a case, the lower court concerned will not automatically lose jurisdiction, because of a party's reliance on the clerk of court's insufficient assessment of the docket fees.[42] As "every citizen has the right to assume and trust that a public officer charged by law with certain duties knows his duties and performs them in accordance with law," the party filing the case cannot be penalized with the clerk of court's insufficient assessment.[43] However, the party concerned will be required to pay the deficiency.[44]
	ADM MATTER NO. RTJ-04-1848 2005-10-25	PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT v. ROMULO A. LOPEZ AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Moreover, as observed by the Investigating Justice, "it is too late in the day to invoke lack of jurisdiction because the civil case decided by the respondent which was elevated on appeal to the CA has become final and executory when complainant voluntarily entered into a compromise agreement in the CA."[25] Thus, the issues raised in the petition for certiorari were not actually resolved. Thus, it becomes necessary for the Court to determine in the present administrative case whether or not respondent is guilty of gross ignorance of the law.
	GR NO. 158227 2005-10-19	KEPPEL BANK PHILIPPINES v. PHILIP ADAO QUISUMBING, J.
Nonetheless, in this case, the contract to sell does not by itself give respondent the right to possess the property. Unlike in a contract of sale, here in a contract to sell, there is yet no actual sale nor any transfer of title, until and unless, full payment is made. The payment of the purchase price is a positive suspensive condition, the failure of which is not a breach, casual or serious, but a situation that prevents the obligation of the vendor to convey title from acquiring an obligatory force.[17] Respondent must have fully paid the price to acquire title over the property and the right to retain possession thereof. In cases of non-payment, the unpaid seller can avail of the remedy of ejectment since he retains ownership of the property.
	GR NO. 132561 2005-06-30	PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In the relatively recent case of Rivera v. Del Rosario,[26] this Court cited Section 1, Rule II, 2002 DARAB Rules of Procedure and reiterated that: The DARAB has exclusive original jurisdiction over cases involving the rights and obligations of persons engaged in the management, cultivation and use of all agricultural lands covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.
	GR NO. 157480 2005-05-06	PRYCE CORPORATION v. PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT PANGANIBAN, J.
Relevantly, it has been pointed out that resolution was originally used in Article 1124 of the old Civil Code, and that the term became the basis for rescission under Article 1191 (and, conformably, also Article 1659).[19]
	GR NO. 139254 2005-03-18	SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Section 1. Primary, Original and Appellate Jurisdiction. The Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board shall have primary jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes, cases, controversies, and matters or incidents involving the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program under Republic Act No. 6657, Executive Orders Nos. 229, 228 and 129-A, Republic Act No. 3844 as amended by Republic Act No. 6389, Presidential Decree No. 27 and other agrarian laws and their implementing rules and regulations. In the relatively recent case of Rivera v. Del Rosario,[21] this Court cited Section 1, Rule II, 2002 DARAB Rules of Procedure and reiterated that: The DARAB has exclusive original jurisdiction over cases involving the rights and obligations of persons engaged in the management, cultivation and use of all agricultural lands covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. Again in David v. Rivera,[22] this Court pointed out that the jurisdiction over agrarian reform matters is now expressly vested in the DAR through the DARAB. Indeed, Section 50 of R.A. 6657 confers on the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) quasi-judicial powers to adjudicate agrarian reform matters. In the process of reorganizing the DAR, Executive Order No. 129-A created the DARAB to assume the powers and functions with respect to the adjudication of agrarian reform cases. Section 1, Rule II of the DARAB Rules of Procedure enumerates the cases falling within the primary and exclusive jurisdiction of the DARAB. In an earlier ruling rendered in the case of Vda. de Tangub v. Court of Appeals,[23] reiterated in Morta, Sr. v. Occidental[24] and Heirs of the late Herman Rey Santos v. Court of Appeals,[25] this Court decreed: Section 1 of Executive Order No. 229 sets out the scope of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP); it states that the program
	GR NO. 161730 2005-01-28	JAPAN AIRLINES v. MICHAEL ASUNCION YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Moral damages may be recovered in cases where one willfully causes injury to property, or in cases of breach of contract where the other party acts fraudulently or in bad faith. Exemplary damages are imposed by way of example or correction for the public good, when the party to a contract acts in wanton, fraudulent, oppressive or malevolent manner. Attorney's fees are allowed when exemplary damages are awarded and when the party to a suit is compelled to incur expenses to protect his interest.[17] There being no breach of contract nor proof that JAL acted in wanton, fraudulent or malevolent manner, there is no basis for the award of any form of damages.

ADELFA S. RIVERA v. DEL ROSARIO