REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES versus CARMEN VICTORIA BELMONTE G.R. No. 197028 Octobe 9! 201" MEN#O$A! %.

& FACTS& On October 24, 2002, Belmonte filed before the RTC her Application for Registration and Confirmation of Titles of two 2! lots located in Baranga" #agono" and Baranga" Bambang, Taguig Cit", respectivel"$ %aniel &ictoria, 'r$, Belmonte(s attorne")in)fact and "ounger sibling, alleged that Belmonte inherited the sub*ect properties from their parents, as evidenced b" an e+tra*udicial settlement of estate$ #e presented a photocop" of the said document claiming that the original cop" got lost$ Belmonte narrated that her parents had been in possession of the said lots since the 'apanese occupation in ,-4.$ /he attached ta+ declarations, technical descriptions, geodetic engineer0s certificates, and conversion plans in support of her application$ The O/1 opposed the application arguing that Belmonte failed to compl" with the *urisdictional re2uirements of 3residential %ecree (P.D.) 4o$ ,52-$ RTC granted Belmonte(s application for registration of land title holding that she was able to successfull" establish her ownership over the lots in 2uestion and that the land sought to be registered was the same land described in her application for registration$ CA affirmed the RTC decision e+plaining that although Belmonte was not able to present the original tracing cloth plan, she sufficientl" established the identit" of the sub*ect properties through the certified blueprint copies of the conversion plan$ The CA further stated that Belmonte successfull" established the possession and occupation of her predecessors)in)interest since ,-4.$ The O/1 moved for a reconsideration but the motion was denied b" the CA$ #ence, this petition$ ISSUE& 6hether Belmonte has successfull" proven possession and occupation since 'une ,2, ,-45 RULING& The triple re2uirements of alienabilit" and possession and occupation since 'une ,2, ,-45 or earlier under /ection ,4 ,! in relation to /ection 47 b! of Commonwealth Act ,4,, as amended b" /ection 4 of 3$%$ 4o$ ,08., are indispensable prere2uisites to a favorable registration of title to the propert"$ 9ach element must necessaril" be proven b" no less than clear, positive and convincing evidence: otherwise, the application for registration should be denied$ Belmonte, failed to convince the Court that she has met the indispensable re2uirements of possession since 'une ,2, ,-45 or earlier to merit the registration of the title in her name$ 3ossession and occupation alone, for .0 "ears or more, does not suffice$ The earliest ta+ declaration that Belmonte showed for one of the lots was dated 19'9, falling short of the time re2uirement of possession since ,-45 or earlier$ The Court cannot give an" probative value to the ,-4- ta+ declaration because the propert" was declared in the name of a certain ;rancisca Osorio$ Belmonte failed to establish the connection between ;rancisca Osorio and her father and predecessor)in)interest, %aniel &ictoria$ As to the other lot, records show that Belmonte(s predecessor)in)interest started declaring the propert" for ta+ purposes onl" in 19(($ Belmonte(s irregular and erratic declaration and pa"ment of real propert" ta+es belie her claim of open and continuous possession of the said lots$ Also, general, and often vague, statements as to how

Belmonte, through her supposed tenant, possessed the land in 2uestion, are mere verbal assertions that do not satisf" possession and occupation as re2uired b" law$ 9videntl", Belmonte0s witnesses were not able to give a concrete, consistent and credible picture of how she e+ercised dominion or e+ercised control over the sub*ect properties$ The Court is constrained to den" Belmonte0s application for registration of title$

SAN FERNAN#O REGALA TRA#ING! INC. )*. CARGILL PHILIPPINES! INC. G.R. No. 178008+G.R. No. 1780'2 Octobe 9! 201" ABA#! %.& F,ct*< Cargill 3hilippines, =nc$ and /an ;ernando Regala Trading, =nc$ were cane molasses traders that did business with each other for some time$ /an ;ernando claimed that Cargill reneged on its contractual obligations to deliver certain 2uantities of molasses$ Cargill denied this, insisting that /an ;ernando actuall" refused to accept the deliver" of the goods$ Cargill(s filed a complaint for sum of mone" and damages against /an ;ernando before the Regional Trial Court RTC! of >a?ati Cit"$ Cargill alleged that on 'ul" ,5, ,--@ it entered into Contract 502@ covering its sale to /an ;ernando of 4,000 metric tons mt! of molasses at the price of 3.,-50$00 per mt$ Cargill agreed to deliver the molasses within the months of AApril to >a" ,--8B at the wharf of Cnion A*inomoto, =nc$ A*inomoto! along the 3asig River, >etro >anila$ This was a ris?)ta?ing forward sale in that its e+ecution was to ta?e place about ,0 months later when the parties did not "et ?now what the trading price of molasses would be$ /hortl" after, Cargill also entered into Contract 5048 covering another sale to /an ;ernando of 5,000 mt of molasses at 32,850$00 per mt$ The deliver" period under this contract was within AOctober)4ovember) %ecember ,--@,B sooner than the deliver" period under Contract 502@$ Apparentl", /an ;ernando had a deal with A*inomoto for the suppl" of these molasses$ Cargill further alleged that it offered to deliver the 4,000 mt of molasses as re2uired b" Contract 502@ within the months of April and >a" ,--8 but /an ;ernando accepted onl" -5, mt, refusing to accept the rest$ On April 2, ,--8 %olman &, the barge carr"ing Cargill(s ,,,84 mt of molasses, arrived at the A*inomoto wharf but /an ;ernando refused to accept the same$ The barge sta"ed at the wharf for 8, da"s, waiting for /an ;ernando(s unloading order$ Because of the dela", the owner of the barge slapped Cargill with demurrage amounting to 3-20,000$00$ Cargill also suffered 3.,470,000$00 in damages b" wa" of unrealiDed profits because it had to sell the cargo to another bu"er at a loss$ Cargill further alleged that it earlier sought to deliver the molasses covered b" Contract 5048 at the A*inomoto wharf in the months of October, 4ovember, and %ecember ,--@, but /an ;ernando failed or refused for un*ustified reasons to accept the deliver"$ Conse2uentl", Cargill suffered damages b" wa" of unrealiDed profits of 3.@0,000$00 from this contract$ Apart from as?ing the RTC for awards of unrealiDed profits, Cargill also as?ed for a return of the demurrage it paid, attorne"(s fees, and cost of litigation$ =n its Answer with counterclaim, /an ;ernando pointed out that, e+cept for the -5, mt of molasses that Cargill delivered in >arch ,--8, the latter made no further deliveries for Contract 502@$ As for Contract 5048, /an ;ernando maintained that Cargill delivered no amount of molasses in connection with the same$ On both contract, Cargill admitted its inabilit" to deliver the goods and proposed to move deliver" periods, one which /an ;ernando re*ected because it had alread" contracted to sell the sub*ect molasses to A*inomoto and was alread" e+pecting profits from them$ RTC dismissed Cargill(s complaint for lac? of merit and granted /an ;ernando(s counterclaims$ =t was incomprehensible, said the RTC, for /an ;ernando to refuse Cargill(s deliveries, considering that A*inomoto had alread" agreed to bu" the molasses from it$

Cargill(s failure to ma?e the re2uired deliveries resulted in /an ;ernando(s default on its obligations to A*inomoto, prompting the latter to cancel its orders$ The RTC awarded /an ;ernando its claims for unrealiDed profits, moral damages, e+emplar" damages, attorne"(s fees and cost of litigation$ The Court of Appeals CA! ruled on appeal that Cargill was not entirel" in breach of Contract 502@ but was guilt" of breach of Contract 5048$ since /an ;ernando un*ustifiabl" refused to accept the April 2, ,--8 deliver", it should reimburse Cargill the demurrage that it paid the owner of the barge$ Cargill was made liable to /an ;ernando for unrealiDed profits that it would have made if it had sold them to A*inomoto$ CA deleted the award of moral and e+emplar" damages in favor of /an ;ernando for its failure to sufficientl" establish Cargill(s bad faith in compl"ing with its obligations$ The CA also deleted the awards of attorne"(s fees and cost of litigation$ Cargill and /an ;ernando both appealed to the /upreme Court$ I**-e*& ,$ 6hether or not Cargill was guilt" of breach of obligation covered b" Contract 502@: 2$ 6hether or not Cargill was guilt" of breach of obligation covered b" Contract 5048: and .$ 6hether or not moral, e+emplar" damages, attorne"(s fees, and cost of suit in favor of /an ;ernando shall be awarded$ R-./01*& ,$ Cargill committed no breach of Contract 502@ because it had earlier delivered -5, mt and sent the barge containing the remaining goods at the A*inomoto0s wharf$ =t was actuall" /an ;ernando that refused to accept this deliver"$ however, since Cargill failed to deliver the balance of ,,785 mt of molasses under Contract 502@, it must pa" /an ;ernando the latter(s unrealiDed profits had it been able to sell that ,,785 mt of molasses to A*inomoto$ an"thing less than that 2uantit" constitutes breach of the agreement$ 2$ 6hen Cargill wrote /an ;ernando on >a" ,4, ,--8 proposing to move the deliver" dates of this contract to >a", 'une, and 'ul", ,--8, it was alread" in default$ Cargill(s failure to deliver the 5,000 mt of molasses on AOctober)4ovember)%ecember ,--@B ma?es it liable to /an ;ernando for 3,,,000,000$00 in unrealiDed profits$ Cargill of course points out that /an ;ernando never wrote a demand letter respecting its failure to ma?e an" deliver" under that contract$ #owever, demand was not necessar" since Cargill(s obligation under the contract specified the date and place of deliver"$ .$ CA(s deletion of the RTC(s award of moral damages to /an ;ernando is proper$ >oral damages are not awarded to a corporation unless it en*o"ed good reputation that the offender debased and besmirched b" his actuations$ /an ;ernando failed to prove b" sufficient evidence that it fell within this e+ception$ Besides, moral damages are, as a rule, also not recoverable in culpa contractual e+cept when bad faith had been proved$ /an ;ernando failed to show that Cargill was motivated b" bad faith or ill will when it failed to deliver the molasses as agreed$ CA correctl" deleted the award of e+emplar" damages to /an ;ernando$ =n breach of contract, the court ma" onl" award e+emplar" damages if the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, rec?less, oppressive, or malevolent manner$ The evidence has not sufficientl" established that Cargill(s failure to deliver the molasses on time was attended b" such wic?edness$ CA correctl" deleted the award of attorne"(s fees and cost of litigation to /an ;ernando$ Attorne"(s fees and e+penses of litigation under Article 2207 of the Civil Code are proper onl" when e+emplar" damages are awarded$ Both parties actuall" committed shortcomings in compl"ing with their

contractual obligations$ ;or these, the" must bear their own e+penses of litigation$

VIRGILIO G. CAGATAO )e *-* GUILLERMO ALMONTE! ARTHUR AGUILAR! SPS. ERNESTO FERNAN#E$ AN# A VELINA FERNAN#E$! MARVIN %OHN FERNAN#E$! MARSON FERNAN#E$ AN# MAR%UN FERNAN#E$ G.R. No. 17'00' Octobe 9! 201" MEN#O$A! %. FACTS& A homestead patent over the propert" sub*ect of this controvers" was issued in favor of 'uan 1atchalian$ Cagatao claimed that 1atchalian sold the lot to %elfin >anDulin in e+change for one carabao, as embodied in a barter agreement, which was unfortunatel" destro"ed or lost during the /econd 6orld 6ar$ >anDulin allegedl" e+ecuted a private written document in the =locano dialect, transferring ownership over the propert" to his son)in)law, Cagatao$ The latter then occupied and cultivated the land until the ;ernandeD /iblings attempted to ta?e possession of the lot, thereb" prompting him to file the sub*ect complaint before the RTC$ Respondents contended that the /pouses ;ernandeD purchased the propert" from Almonte and Aguilar who had in their possession a ta+ declaration covering the said land$ To protect their interest, on 'anuar" ,8, ,--@, /pouses ;ernandeD once again bought the same propert" for 3220,000$00 from 9mmaculada Carlos, believed to be the owner of the lot b" virtue of TCT 4o$ T),2,5-)A, a reconstituted title in her name$ The former, in turn, e+ecuted a deed of sale in favor of their children resulting in the issuance of TCT 4o$ T)24-4.8 in their names$ Cagatao 2uestioned the sale to /pouses ;ernandeD b" Carlos because, at that time, >anDulin was alread" the owner of the sub*ect propert"$ #e also pointed out that it was highl" irregular that /pouses ;ernandeD would bu" the same propert" from two different vendors on two different occasions$ Cagatao insisted that TCT in the name of the ;ernandeD /iblings was a nullit" because the sale from the /pouses ;ernandeD was simulated, as testified to b" Avelina ;ernandeD who confirmed that she and her husband did not sign the deed of sale purporting to have transferred ownership of the propert" to the ;ernandeD /iblings$ The respondents claimed that Cagatao was unable to present proof of title or an" public document embod"ing the sale of the propert" from 1atchalian to >anDulin and from the latter to Cagatao$ The" also argued that even if a homestead patent was indeed issued to 1atchalian, the same became void when he did not occup" the land himself$ RTC ruled that Cagatao(s evidence was insufficient to prove his ownership over the land in 2uestion because >anDulin never ac2uired a lawful title to the propert" from his predecessor, 1atchalian$ The RTC ruled that Cagatao(s claim of possession could not prevail over the claim of ownership b" /pouses ;ernandeD as evidenced b" a certificate of title$ =t, however, nullified the transfer from /pouses ;ernandeD to ;ernandeD /iblings because Avelina herself admitted that she and her husband never signed the deed of sale, which transferred ownership to their children$ RTC sustained the validit" of TCT 4o$ T),2,5-)A in the name of Carlos, theoriDing that someone must have applied for an original certificate of title from which the said title was derived$ Cagatao elevated the case to the CA$ CA deemed as speculative and without legal basis the trial court(s conclusion that 1atchalian might have abandoned his homestead patent, leaving it open for another person to appl" for a patent and secure an original certificate of title from which TCT 4o$ T),2,5-)A in the name of Carlos originated$ =n other words, the ownership of the land remained with 1atchalian b" virtue of the homestead patent in his name, and neither the

alleged transfer to >anDulin nor the theor" of abandonment of the RTC could divest him of said title$ CA held that the two sales could not overlap, it invalidated the 'anuar" ,8, ,--@ deed of sale between Carlos and /pouses ;ernandeD$ CA declared that Cagatao(s claim of ownership could not be recogniDed, it nevertheless ruled that his possession could not be disturbed because onl" the true owner could challenge him for possession of the sub*ect propert"$ Respondents moved for a reconsideration of the CA$ CA ruled that the deed of sale between Carlos and /pouses ;ernandeD could not be declared null and void, especiall" because Carlos was not impleaded as a part" in the case$ =n addition, Cagatao(s possession of the sub*ect propert" should be respected$ An" part", including the respondents, who would li?e to assert their claim of ownership or a better right over the lot should assert their right in an appropriate action in court against him$ Cagatao moved for reconsideration but the motion was denied b" the CA$ #ence, this petition$ ISSUE+S& 6hether or not the reconstituted TCT in the name of 9mmaculada Carlos is void$ RULING&Cagatao(s entire petition revolves around the assertion that the reconstituted TCT 4o$ ,2,5-)A in the name of Carlos was a fa?e and should have been declared void$ CA correctl" ruled that the transfer from 1atchalian to >anDulin was invalid, the e+istence of a valid Torrens title in the name of Carlos, which has remained unchallenged before the proper courts, has made irrelevant the issue of whether 1atchalian and his successors)in)interest should have retained ownership over the propert"$ This is pursuant to the principle that a Torrens title is irrevocable and its validit" can onl" be challenged in a direct proceeding$ The purpose of adopting a Torrens /"stem in our *urisdiction is to guarantee the integrit" of land titles and to protect their indefeasibilit" once the claim of ownership is established and recogniDed$ The Court has repeatedl" ruled that a person dealing with a registered land has the right to rel" on the face of the Torrens title and need not in2uire further, unless the part" concerned has actual ?nowledge of facts and circumstances that would impel a reasonabl" cautious man to ma?e such an in2uir"$ There has been no showing that /pouses ;ernandeD were aware of an" irregularit" in Carlos( title that would ma?e them suspicious and cause them to doubt the legitimac" of Carlos( claim of ownership, especiall" because there were no encumbrances annotated on Carlos( title$ The current possessor, shall remain to be so until such time that his possession is successfull" contested b" a person with a better right$

%AIME P. A#RIANO ,02 LEGASPI TO3ERS "00! INC. versus AEB9RTO EA/AEA and EOCR%9/ EA/AEA G.R. No. 1978'2 Octobe 9! 201" MEN#O$A! %.& FACTS& petitioner entered into a securit" service contract with respondents for a period of one "ear ending on /eptember 25, ,--.$ respondents received a letter signed b" petitioner 'aime 3$ Adriano (Adriano) reminding them of their non)compliance with the securit" services agreement, among which were the failure to assign securit" guards with the re2uired height and educational attainment, and the failure to provide the agreed service vehicle$ Respondents relieved and replaced the un2ualified personnel with Adriano(s recommendees$ respondents received another letter reiterating the same instances of non)compliance$ The" tal?ed to Adriano who replied with an invitation to hold a meeting$ Respondents agreed$ Adriano mentioned that the differences could onl" be settled b" cooperating with each other$ #e re2uested from respondents pa"ment to petitioner 9mmanuel /antos, to Captain 3ereD, and to himself$ acting as the bridge in resolving the issues$ a series of correspondence between the parties too? place, with the petitioners constantl" reiterating respondents( alleged violations of the service contract$ =n the last letter, the" added another grievance F non) pa"ment of the minimum wage$ Respondents sought audience before the ET.00 Board but to no avail$ The Board terminated the contract as voted upon in a meeting$ Respondents filed a complaint for damages alleging that ET.00 and Adriano illegall" terminated their services$ RTC ruled in favor of respondents that the agreement could onl" be terminated for a valid cause: that respondents neither committed an" violation nor failed to give securit" services to ET.00: that respondents were not given their right to be heard under the fundamental principle of due process of law: and that respondents were entitled to all the benefits and considerations due them$ CA categoriDed as baseless and flims" all the allegations thrown against respondents$ 3etitioners filed their motion for reconsideration but it was denied b" the CA$ #ence, this petition ISSUES& ,$6hether the CA erred in holding the petitioners liable for illegal pre)termination of contract 2$ 6hether the CA erred in awarding temperate damages, moral damages, e+emplar" damages, and attorne"(s fees to respondents$ RULING& 1. Re*4o02e0t* 2/2 0ot )/o.,te t5e co0t ,ct. respondents cannot be faulted for the absorption of personnel who failed to meet the minimum 2ualifications of at least 2nd "ear of college and 5(@B in height$ it is ridiculous and unfair to allow the petitioners to use this ground in terminating respondents( services when, in truth, the" were active participants in the selection and hiring process$ The CA was correct in ruling that the petitioners( complaints as to the non)provision of service vehicle and non)pa"ment were groundless and flims"$ 9vidence on record does not support the position that the minimum wage of the securit" guards were not being paid$ 4o

proof, such as documented complaints filed b" the affected emplo"ees showing non) compliance, was adduced during the trial$ =n fact, no untoward incident in the entire duration of the agreement was reported or proven on account of its distance$ ;or lac? of material evidence, the Court cannot bestow credence on the petitioners( position$ petitioners were the ones who committed the breach b" their abrupt and groundless termination of the agreement$ Although pre) termination was allowed under the contract, the petitioners could not *ust invo?e and e+ercise the same without a valid and legal ground$ petitioners are, thus, reminded that Gever" person must, in the e+ercise of his right and in the performance of his dut", act with *ustice, give ever"one his due, and observe honest" and good faith$G Respondents clearl" complied with their part of the obligation under the securit" services agreement but it appeared that whatever the" did, the petitioners were bent on ending it$ This e+ercise b" petitioners of their right to pre) terminate the contracted services without a *ust cause was nothing but a flagrant violation of the contract$ 2$ Cnder Article 2220 of the Civil Code, moral damages ma" be awarded in cases of breach of contract provided that there was fraud or bad faith$ The inappropriate dealings of Adriano to ac2uire financial gain at the e+pense of respondents, with the approval or ac2uiescence of the Board: the hiring of un2ualified personnel being used as a ground for termination despite the fact that such hiring was upon their recommendation: and the repeated allegations of non)compliance even if respondents had corrected alread" what were complained of, constituted un*ust and dishonest acts schemed b" the petitioners to provide an appearance of validit" to the termination$ These acts manifested petitioners( malicious and un*ust intent to do awa" with respondents( services$ As bad faith attended the termination of the service contract agreement, Court is convinced that the petitioners acted0 in bad faith and are, thus, liable for moral damages$

FRE#ERIC6 VENTURA! MARITES VENTURA7RO8AS! ,02 PHILIP VENTURA )e *-* HEIRS OF SPOUSES EUSTACIO T. EN#A9A ,02 TRINI#A# L. EN#A9A! 0,:e.; TITUS L. EN#A9A! ENRICO L. EN#A9A ,02 %OSEPHINE EN#A9A 7 BANTUG G.R. No. 19001( Octobe 2! 201" PERLAS7BERNABE! %.& FACTS& On 'une 2-, ,-7,, %olores &entura entered into a Contract to /ell with /ps$ 9nda"a for the purchase of two parcels of land covered b" Transfer Certificates of Title TCT! 4os$ .-2225 and .4..-2! /)@8-8 sub*ect properties!, situated in >arian Road ==, >arian 3ar?, 3araHa2ue Cit", >etro >anila$ The contract to sell provides that the purchase price of 3.48,8@0$00 shall be paid b" %olores in the following manner< a! downpa"ment of 3,0.,274$00 upon e+ecution of the contract: and b! the balance of 3244,48@$00 within a ,5)"ear period pa"ment period!, plus ,2I interest per annum p$a$! on the outstanding balance and ,2I interest p$a$ on arrearages$ =t further provides that all pa"ments made shall be applied in the following order< first, to the reimbursement of real estate ta+es and other charges: second, to the interest accrued to the date of pa"ment: third, to the amortiDation of the principal obligation: and fourth, to the pa"ment of an" other accessor" obligation subse2uentl" incurred b" the owner in favor of the bu"er$ =t li?ewise imposed upon %olores the obligation to pa" the real propert" ta+es over the sub*ect properties, or to reimburse /ps$ 9nda"a for an" ta+ pa"ments made b" them, plus ,I interest per month$ Cpon full pa"ment of the stipulated consideration, /ps$ 9nda"a undertoo? to e+ecute a final deed of sale and transfer ownership over the same in favor of %olores$ >eanwhile, %olores was placed in possession of the sub*ect properties and allowed to erect a building thereon$ Before the pa"ment period e+pired, %olores passed awa"$ %olores( children, ;rederic? &entura, >arites &entura)Ro+as, and 3hilip &entura, filed before the RTC a Complaint for specific performance, see?ing to compel /ps$ 9nda"a to e+ecute a deed of sale over the sub*ect properties$ The petitioners averred that due to the close friendship between their parents and /ps$ 9nda"a, the latter did not re2uire %olores to pa" the downpa"ment stated in the contract to sell and, instead, allowed her to pa" amounts as her means would permit$ The pa"ments were made in cash as well as in ?ind, and were recorded b" Trinidad in a passboo? given to %olores to evidence the receipt of said pa"ments$ /ps$ 9nda"a refused to e+ecute the corresponding deed of sale$ /ps$ 9nda"a countered that %olores did not pa" the stipulated downpa"ment and remitted onl" a total of 22 installments and that After %olores0 death, petitioners no longer remitted an" installment$ /ps$ 9nda"a pointed out that petitioners( complaint for specific performance must fail since the automatic cancellation clause under their contract rendered the same cancelled with %olores( failure to ma?e a downpa"ment and to faithfull" pa" the installments$ RTC ordered /ps$ 9nda"a to e+ecute a deed of absolute sale and to pa" petitioner0s attorne"0s fees and costs of suit$ %issatisfied, /ps$ 9nda"a elevated the matter to the CA$ CA reversed and set aside the RTC ruling$ CA observed that aside from the pa"ment of the purchase price and ,2I interest p$a$ on the outstanding balance, the contract to sell imposed upon petitioners the obligations to pa" ,2I interest p$a$ on the arrears and to reimburse /ps$ 9nda"a the amount of the pertinent real estate ta+es due on the sub*ect properties, which the former,

however, totall" disregarded as shown in their summar" of pa"ments$ %ue to the death of petitioner0s counsel, the" were unable to file a timel" motion for reconsideration and the *udgment became final and e+ecutor"$ Titus 9nda"a, heir of /ps$ 9nda"a, demanded petitioners to vacate the sub*ect properties, which the" refused$ petitioners filed the instant petition to the /upreme Court to set aside the CA0s %ecision $ ISSUE+S& 6hether or not respondents should e+ecute a deed of sale over the sub*ect properties in favor of petitioners$ RULING& A thorough review of the records reveals no sufficient reason to warrant the reversal of the CA(s %ecision dismissing petitioners0 complaint for specific performance, which sought to enforce the contract to sell and to compel respondents to e+ecute a deed of sale over the sub*ect properties$ respondents had no obligation to petitioners to e+ecute a deed of sale over the sub*ect properties$ =n a contract to sell, the fulfillment of the suspensive condition will not automaticall" transfer ownership to the bu"er although the propert" ma" have been previousl" delivered to him$ The prospective seller still has to conve" title to the prospective bu"er b" entering into a contract of absolute sale$ As aptl" pointed out b" the CA, aside from the pa"ment of the purchase price and interest on the outstanding balance, the contract to sell li?ewise imposed upon petitioners the obligation to pa" the real propert" ta+es over the sub*ect properties as well as interest on the arrears$ #owever, the summar" of pa"ments as well as the statement of account submitted b" petitioners clearl" show that onl" the pa"ments corresponding to the principal obligation and the interest on the outstanding balance were considered in arriving at the amount of 3-52,,52$00$ There is no *ustifiable reason for this omission$ 3etitioners indeed failed to compl" with all their obligations under the contract to sell and, as such, have no right to enforce the same$

E#ILBERTO U. VENTURA! %R. )e *-* SPOUSES PAULINO ,02 EVANGELINE ABU#A G.R. No. 2029"2 Octobe 2"! 201" CARPIO! %.& FACTS& /ocorro Torres and 9steban Abletes were married on 'une -, ,-70$ Although /ocorro and 9steban never had common children, both of them had children from prior marriages< 9steban had a daughter named 9vangeline Abuda , and /ocorro had a son, who was the father of petitioner 9dilberto C$ &entura, 'r$ 9vidence shows that /ocorro had a prior subsisting marriage to Crispin Ro+as when she married 9steban$ /ocorro married Crispin on ,7 April ,-52$ This marriage was not annulled, and Crispin was alive at the time of /ocorro(s marriage to 9steban$ 9steban(s prior marriage, on the other hand, was dissolved b" virtue of his wife(s death in ,-@0$ According to 9dilberto, sometime in ,-@7, 9steban purchased a portion of a lot situated at &itas, Tondo, >anila$ The remaining portion was thereafter purchased b" 9vangeline on her father(s behalf$ The &itas propert" was covered b" TCT 4o$ ,4,872, dated ,, %ecember ,-70, issued to A9steban Abletes, of legal age, ;ilipino, married to /ocorro Torres$B 9dilberto claimed that starting ,-87, 9vangeline and 9steban operated small business establishments located at %elpan /treet, Tondo, >anila$ 9steban sold the &itas and %elpan properties to 9vangeline and her husband, 3aulino Abuda$ 9steban passed awa" on ,--8, while /ocorro on ,---$ =n 2000, Eeonora Cr2uila, the mother of 9dilberto, discovered the sale$ 9dilberto, represented b" Eeonora, filed a 3etition for Annulment of %eeds of /ale before the RTC)>anila$ 9dilberto alleged that the sale of the properties was fraudulent because 9steban(s signature on the deeds of sale was forged$ Respondents, on the other hand, argued that because of /ocorro(s prior marriage to Crispin, her subse2uent marriage to 9steban was null and void$ Thus, neither /ocorro nor her heirs can claim an" right or interest over the properties purchased b" 9steban and respondents$ RTC)>anila ruled that the marriage between /ocorro and 9steban was void from the beginning and that the &itas and %elpan properties are not con*ugal, and are governed b" Articles ,44 and 475 of the Civil Code$ Also, RTC)>anila concluded that /ocorro did not contribute an" funds for the ac2uisition of the properties$ #ence, she cannot be considered a co) owner, and her heirs cannot claim an" rights over the &itas and %elpan properties$ 9dilberto filed an appeal before the CA$ CA sustained the decision of the RTC)>anila$ CA found that 9dilberto failed to prove that /ocorro contributed to the purchase of the &itas and %elpan properties$ 9dilberto filed a >otion for Reconsideration, which was denied b" the CA$ #ence, this petition$ ISSUE< 6hether or not petitioner can claim an" right or interest over the properties purchased b" 9steban and respondents RULING< 4o$ CA0s decision is affirmed$ Appl"ing Article ,47 of the ;amil" Code, the &itas and %elpan properties can be considered common propert" if< ,! these were ac2uired during the cohabitation of 9steban and /ocorro: and 2! there is evidence that the properties were ac2uired

through the parties( actual *oint contribution of mone", propert", or industr"$ The TCT covering the &itas propert" shows that it is owned b" 9steban alone$ The phrase Amarried to /ocorro TorresB is merel" descriptive of his civil status, and does not show that /ocorro co)owned the propert"$ The evidence on record also shows that 9steban ac2uired ownership over the &itas propert" prior to his marriage to /ocorro, even if the certificate of title was issued after the celebration of the marriage$ Also, even if pa"ment of the purchase price of the %elpan propert" was made b" 9vangeline, such pa"ment was made on behalf of her father$ and the parties intended that the %elpan propert" would be owned b" and registered under the name of 9steban$ the Abuda spouses presented receipts evidencing pa"ments of the amortiDations for the %elpan propert" while 9dilberto failed to show an" evidence showing /ocorro0s alleged monetar" contributions$

CALIFORNIA CLOTHING! INC. ,02 MICHELLE S. 9BANE$ )e *-* SHIRLE9 G. <UINONES G.R. No. 17=822 OCTOBER 2"! 201" PERALTA! %.& FACTS< /hirle" 1$ JuiHones, a Reservation Tic?eting Agent of Cebu 3acific Air in Eapu Eapu Cit", went inside the 1uess C/A Bouti2ue at the second floor of Robinson(s %epartment /tore Robinson(s! in Cebu Cit"$ /he fitted four items and decided to purchase a *eans worth 32,0-7$00$ Respondent allegedl" paid to the cashier evidenced b" a receipt issued b" the store$ 6hen she went out of the store, a 1uess emplo"ee approached and informed her that she failed to pa" the item she got$ /he insisted that she paid and showed the emplo"ee the receipt issued in her favor$ /he then suggested that the" tal? about it at the Cebu 3acific Office to which the 1uess emplo"ees agreed$ 6hen she arrived at the Cebu 3acific Office, the 1uess emplo"ees allegedl" sub*ected her to humiliation in front of the clients of Cebu 3acific and repeatedl" demanded pa"ment for the *eans$ The" supposedl" even searched her wallet to chec? how much mone" she had, followed b" another argument$ Respondent, thereafter, went home$ On the same da", the 1uess emplo"ees allegedl" gave a letter to the %irector of Cebu 3acific Air narrating the incident, but the latter refused to receive it as it did not concern the office and the same too? place while respondent was off dut"$ #uman Resource %epartment #R%! of Robinson(s was furnished said letter and then conducted an investigation for purposes of canceling respondent(s Robinson(s credit card$ Respondent claimed that she was not given a cop" of said damaging letter$ respondent claimed to have suffered ph"sical an+iet", sleepless nights, mental anguish, fright, serious apprehension, besmirched reputation, moral shoc? and social humiliation$ /he thus filed the Complaint for %amages before the RTC against petitioners$ 3etitioners and the other defendants admitted the issuance of the receipt of pa"ment$ The" claimed, however, that instead of the cashier issuing the official receipt, it was the invoicer who did it manuall"$ The" e+plained that there was miscommunication between the emplo"ees at that time$ The" emphasiDed that the" were gentle and polite in tal?ing to respondent and it was the latter who was arrogant in answering their 2uestions$ As counterclaim, petitioners and the other defendants sought the pa"ment of moral and e+emplar" damages, plus attorne"(s fees and litigation e+penses$ RTC dismissed both complaint and counterclaim of the parties$ The trial court concluded that the petitioners and the other defendants believed in good faith that respondent failed to ma?e pa"ment$ The RTC li?ewise did not find it damaging for respondent when the confrontation too? place in front of Cebu 3acific clients, because it was respondent herself who put herself in that situation b" choosing the venue for discussion$ RTC found no evidence to prove bad faith on the part of the 1uess emplo"ees to warrant the award of damages$ On appeal, the CA reversed RTC0s decision$ CA found preponderance of evidence showing that the" acted in bad faith in sending the demand letter to respondent(s emplo"er$ =t found respondent(s possession of both the official receipt and the sub*ect blac? *eans as evidence of pa"ment$ Considering that 1uess alread" started its investigation on the incident, there was a taint of bad faith and malice when it dragged respondent(s emplo"er who was not priv" to the transaction$ This is especiall" true in this case since the purported letter contained not onl" a

narrative of the incident but accusations as to the alleged acts of respondent in tr"ing to evade pa"ment$ =t held that petitioners are guilt" of abuse of right entitling respondent to collect moral damages and attorne"(s fees$ 3etitioner was made liable for its failure to e+ercise e+traordinar" diligence in the hiring and selection of its emplo"ees: while KbaHeD(s liabilit" stemmed from her act of signing the demand letter sent to respondent(s emplo"er$ KbaHeD moved for the reconsideration, but the same was denied$ #ence, this petition for review$ ISSUEL/< ,$ 6hether or not CA erred in finding that the letter sent to the Cebu 3acific Office was made to sub*ect herein respondent to ridicule, humiliation and similar in*ur" 2$ 6hether or not CA erred in awarding moral damages and attorne"(s fees RULING< ,$ Respondent(s complaint against petitioners stemmed from the principle of abuse of rights provided for in the Civil Code on the chapter of human relations$ The issuance of the receipt notwithstanding, petitioners had the right to verif" from respondent whether she indeed made pa"ment if the" had reason to believe that she did not$ #owever, the e+ercise of such right is not without limitations$ An" abuse in the e+ercise of such right and in the performance of dut" causing damage or in*ur" to another is actionable under the Civil Code$ The elements of abuse of rights are as follows< ,! there is a legal right or dut": 2! which is e+ercised in bad faith: .! for the sole intent of pre*udicing or in*uring another$ Considering that respondent was in possession of the item purchased from the shop, together with the official receipt of pa"ment issued b" petitioners, the latter cannot insist that no such pa"ment was made on the basis of a mere speculation$ Their claim should have been proven b" substantial evidence in the proper forum$ =t is evident from the circumstances of the case that petitioners went overboard and tried to force respondent to pa" the amount the" were demanding$ =n the guise of as?ing for assistance, petitioners even sent a demand letter to respondent(s emplo"er not onl" informing it of the incident but also obviousl" imputing bad acts on the part of respondent$ These statements are outrightl" accusator"$ =t can be inferred from the foregoing that in sending the demand letter to respondent(s emplo"er, petitioners intended not onl" to as? for assistance in collecting the disputed amount but to tarnish respondent(s reputation in the e"es of her emplo"er$ To malign respondent without substantial evidence and despite the latter(s possession of enough evidence in her favor, is clearl" impermissible$ A person should not use his right un*ustl" or contrar" to honest" and good faith, otherwise, he opens himself to liabilit"$ =n this case, petitioners obviousl" abused their rights$ 2$ Respondent is entitled to an award of moral damages and attorne"0s fees$ >oral damages ma" be awarded whenever the defendant0s wrongful act or omission is the pro+imate cause of the plaintiffs ph"sical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious an+iet", besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shoc?, social humiliation and similar in*ur" in the cases specified or analogous to those provided in Article 22,- of the Civil Code$ >oral damages are not a bonanDa$ The" are given to ease the defendant0s grief and suffering$ The" should, thus, reasonabl" appro+imate the e+tent of hurt caused and the gravit" of the wrong done$G The" are awarded not to enrich the complainant but to enable the latter to obtain means, diversions, or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone$