Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 54 views

    DBP v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Ciara De Leon
    This case involves a dispute over a 44-hectare fishpond between Lydia Cuba and DBP. Cuba obtained loans from DBP using the fishpond lease as collateral but failed to pay them back. DBP then took over the lease without foreclosure proceedings. The court ruled that while Cuba is not entitled to actual damages since she did not prove her losses, she is entitled to moral damages of P50,000 and exemplary damages of P25,000 from DBP for appropriating the leasehold rights contrary to law. The case was remanded to determine the income from the fishpond and each party's financial obligations.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    DBP v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Ciara De Leon
    54 views2 pages
    This case involves a dispute over a 44-hectare fishpond between Lydia Cuba and DBP. Cuba obtained loans from DBP using the fishpond lease as collateral but failed to pay them back. DBP then took over the lease without foreclosure proceedings. The court ruled that while Cuba is not entitled to actual damages since she did not prove her losses, she is entitled to moral damages of P50,000 and exemplary damages of P25,000 from DBP for appropriating the leasehold rights contrary to law. The case was remanded to determine the income from the fishpond and each party's financial obligations.

    Original Title

    123. DBP v. CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute over a 44-hectare fishpond between Lydia Cuba and DBP. Cuba obtained loans from DBP using the fishpond lease as collateral but failed to pay them back. DBP then took over the lease without foreclosure proceedings. The court ruled that while Cuba is not entitled to actual damages since she did not prove her losses, she is entitled to moral damages of P50,000 and exemplary damages of P25,000 from DBP for appropriating the leasehold rights contrary to law. The case was remanded to determine the income from the fishpond and each party's financial obligations.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    54 views2 pages

    DBP v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Ciara De Leon
    This case involves a dispute over a 44-hectare fishpond between Lydia Cuba and DBP. Cuba obtained loans from DBP using the fishpond lease as collateral but failed to pay them back. DBP then took over the lease without foreclosure proceedings. The court ruled that while Cuba is not entitled to actual damages since she did not prove her losses, she is entitled to moral damages of P50,000 and exemplary damages of P25,000 from DBP for appropriating the leasehold rights contrary to law. The case was remanded to determine the income from the fishpond and each party's financial obligations.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    DBP v.

    COURT OF APPEALS & LYDIA CUBA


    GR No. 118342, January 5, 1998

    FACTS:

    This case consists of two consolidated cases regarding a 44 hectare fishpond in Pangasinan.
    Lydia Cuba, herein private respondent is a grantee of a Fishpond Lease Agreement from the
    government. She obtained loans from DBP through Deeds of Assignment of her Leasehold
    Rights. However, she failed to pay her loan. Without foreclosure proceedings, whether
    judicial or extra-judicial, DBP appropriated the Leasehold Rights of Cuba over the fishpond.
    DBP, in turn, executed a Deed of Conditional Sale of the Leasehold Rights in favor of Cuba.
    But, then again Cuba failed to pay the amortizations. Subsequently, DBP sent a Notice of
    Rescission then took possession of the Leasehold Rights over said fishpond. A Deed of
    Conditional Sale in favor of Agripina Caperal was executed to award the lease agreement.
    Cuba filed a case against the DBP and Caperal. She was asking for recovery of damages and
    the annulment of the sale. RTC ruled in favor of Cuba. CA reversed the decision.

    ISSUES:

    1. Whether or not Cuba is entitled to actual or compensatory damages.


    2. Whether or not Cub is entitled to moral damages and exemplary damages.

    RULING:

    1. NO.

    Actual or compensatory damages cannot be presumed, but must be proved with reasonable
    degree of certainty. A court cannot rely on speculations, conjectures, or guesswork as to the
    fact and amount of damages, but must depend upon competent proof that they have been
    suffered by the injured party and on the best obtainable evidence of the actual amount
    thereof. It must point out specific facts which could afford a basis for measuring whatever
    compensatory or actual damages are borne. The alleged loss of personal belongings and
    equipment was not proved by clear evidence. Other than the testimony of CUBA and her
    caretaker, there was no proof as to the existence of those items before DBP took over the
    fishpond in question. As pointed out by DBP, there was not "inventory of the alleged lost
    items before the loss which is normal in a project which sometimes, if not most often, is left
    to the care of other persons." Neither was a single receipt or record of acquisition
    presented.

    2. YES.

    DBP's act of appropriating CUBA's leasehold rights was contrary to law and public policy,
    as well as its false representation to the then Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources
    that it had "foreclosed the mortgage," an award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000
    is in order conformably with Article 2219(10), in relation to Article 21, of the Civil Code.
    Exemplary or corrective damages in the amount of P25,000 should likewise be awarded by
    way of example or correction for the public good. There being an award of exemplary
    damages, attorney's fees are also recoverable.

    Dispositive Portion:

    WHEREFORE, the 25 May 1994 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 26535 is
    hereby REVERSED, except as to the award of P50,000 as moral damages, which is hereby
    sustained. The 31 January 1990 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pangasinan, Branch
    54, in Civil Case No. A-1574 is MODIFIED setting aside the finding that condition no. 12 of
    the deed of assignment constituted pactum commissorium and the award of actual
    damages; and by reducing the amounts of moral damages from P100,000 to P50,000; the
    exemplary damages, from P50,000 to P25,000; and the attorney's fees, from P100,000 to
    P20,000. The Development Bank of the Philippines is hereby ordered to render an
    accounting of the income derived from the operation of the fishpond in question.

    Let this case be REMANDED to the trial court for the reception of the income statement of
    DBP, as well as the statement of the account of Lydia P. Cuba, and for the determination of
    each party's financial obligation to one another.

    Prepared by: DE LEON, Ciara A.


    Checked by:

    You might also like