Case Studies For Subject LAW1A

Case Studies for Subject LAW1A
Partial Requirement for the Subject LAW1A
Submitted By: Abelita, John Rey D.

Submitted To: Ms. Karen Faye Valmoria
Case #1
Mataas na Lupa Tenants Association vs Carlos Dimayuga andJuliana Diego Vda, De
Gabriel L-32049
FACTS:
Petitioners filed a complaint for the exercise of preferential rights with the then
Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch IV alleging that the Contract of Sale executed by
Juliana Diez Vda. De Gabriel with Carlos Dimayuga is expressly prohibited by law as it is
mandated for the respondent to execute such sale to petitioners. Therefore said contract
should be declared null and void. The lower court ruled in favour of the respondents,
ordering the dismissal of the case on the ground that petitioners failed to state a cause of
action. Thus petitioners resorted to the petition of certiorari for the review of the said order
before the SC.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the contract of sale is null and void
2. Whether or not the petitioners may invoke their preferential rights as tenants
HELD/RULING:
1. Yes. The R.A. 1162 as amended by R.A. 2342 and 3516 set forth the following
conditions that of offering first the sale of the land to petitioners and the latter's
renunciation in a public instrument-were not met when the land was sold to
respondent Dimayuga. Evidently, said sale is illegal and therefore void.
The 1973 Constitution section 6, article II emphasizes the stewardship concept that
such private property is supposed to be held by the individual only as trustee for the people
in general, who are its real owners. As a mere steward, the individual must exercise his
right to the property not for his own exclusive and selfish benefit but for the good of the
entire community. P.D. 1157 Proclaiming Urban Land Reform in the Philippines and
providing for the Implementing Machinery thereof. superseded R.A. 1152, 2342, 3516.
2. Yes. This decree is firmly based on sec. 6 of art. II of the 1973 constitution
undoubtedly adopts and crystallizes the greater number of people criterion when it speaks
of tenants and residents in declared urban land reform zones or areas without mention of
the land area covered by such zones. The focus therefore, is on people who
would benefit and not on the size of the land involved. Under section 6 of
which also states that tenant-families have been vested the right of first refusal to purchase
of the land within a reasonable time and reasonable price subject to the rules
and regulations of the Ministry of Human Settlements. It is further supported by PD
1967 which evidently include Mataas na Lupa, the land in controversy within the Urban
Land Reform Zone.
Case #2
Obejera, et al. Iga 5y 76 Phi 580
FACTS
During the Japanese occupation, A and B sought refuge in the house of a certain Villena in
Batangas, Batangas. When the Japanese neared the place, A and B hid their valuables in
Villenas dugout. Later, the valuables were lost. A claimed that he had given his things to B
as a deposit, and that therefore B should be liable for the loss. B denied the existence of
such deposit. Decide the question of liability.
HELD
In the first place, it is hard to believe that B consented to safeguard the valuables at a time
when no one could be sure of his own life. In the second place, granting that B had assumed
the obligation to take care of the property, still considering the circumstances of the time
and place, the obligation to return the valuables was extinguished by the loss.
Case #3
Tibajia vs CA, G.R NO. 100290
FACTS
Tibajia spouses delivered to Sheriff the total money judgment in cashiers check and
cash.Private respondent, Eden Tan, refused to accept the payment made by the Tibajia
spouses and instead insisted that the garnished funds deposited with the cashier of the
Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Metro Manila be withdrawn to satisfy the judgment
obligation. Tibajias filed a motion to lift the writ of execution on the ground that the
judgment debt had already been paid. The motion was denied.
ISSUE
Whether or not payment by means of cashiers check is considered payment in legal tender.
RULING
NO. A check, whether a managers check or ordinary check, is not legal tender, and an offer
of a check in payment of a debt is not a valid tender of payment and may be refused receipt
by the obligee or creditor. A check is not legal tender and that a creditor may validly refuse
payment by check, whether it be a managers, cashiers or personal check. The Supreme
Court stressed that, We are not, by this decision, sanctioning the use of a check for the
payment of obligations over the objection of the creditor.

Case Studies For Subject LAW1A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Studies For Subject LAW1A

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Studies For Subject LAW1A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Studies for Subject LAW1A

Partial Requirement for the Subject LAW1A

Submitted By: Abelita, John Rey D.

1. Whether or not the contract of sale is null and void

You might also like