"I chose to go to law school because I thought that someday, somehow I'd make a difference." -A.

October 8, 2016

Soriano vs. Sternberg

By With No comments:
  • Oscar Sternberg owns a parcel of land with a two storey-house which was built in 1905.
  • The said house has windows overlooking the adjacent lot belonging to Soriano.
  • The windows were built on the wall of the house which   has a 1.36 m. distance from the dividing line between the two lots.
  • Thereafter, Soriano filed an action to compel Sternberg to close the windows because it is less than 2 meters from the division line between the two lots and hence, a violation of Article 582 (now Article 670) of the Civil Code.
  • The law provides that "No windows or balconies or other similar projections which directly overlook the adjoining property may be opened or built without leaving a distance of not less than 2 meters between the wall in which they are built and such adjoining property.
  • Stenberg argues that the action of Soriano has already prescribed.
  • It must be noted that there is no annotation in the Torrens title of the parties involved. (No easement of view in the title of Soriano and no right to easement on the title of Sternberg.)
  • Here, there is no question of easement. 

Read More

October 6, 2016

Zulueta vs. Pan American

By With No comments:
  • Zulueta and his family were passengers of Pan American World Airways travelling from Honolulu to Manila.
  • In one stopover, they were advised that they could disembark for about 30 minutes. 
  • However, Zulueta almost missed the flight because he came late (due to the defective announcing system).
  • He was asked to open his bags but the employees of the airlines found nothing. Later on, he was asked to go out of the plane.
  • He was left at Wake Island and was able to return to the Philippines 2 days after.
  • He filed an action for damages. 

Read More

October 4, 2016

Santos vs. Rigos

By With No comments:
  • In 1961, Rigos and Sanchez executed a document titled ‘Option to Purchase’ whereby Rigos bound herself to sell a parcel of land to Sanchez for 1.5k pesos within two years from the execution of the contract. This option contract had no distinct consideration.
  • Sanchez made several tenders of the purchase price to Rigos, but Rigos ignored them. Sanchez consigned the payment in court  less than 2 months before the expiration of the period to exercise his right.
  • In other words, Sanchez accepted the optino before Rigos could withdraw the offer.
    • The RTC ruled in favor of Sanchez, ordering Rigos to accept the payment of the price. 
    • On appeal, Rigos claims that she could validly withdraw the option given to Sanchez, even if Sanchez has opted to exercise his right,  since the contract was not supported by a separate and distinct consideration (ruling in Southwestern Sugar v Altantic Gulf).

Read More

October 2, 2016

Anti-Discrimination Ordinance of Davao City

By With No comments:

SECTION I. TITLE. This ordinance shall be known as "Anti-Discrimination Ordinance of Davao City;"


x x x

For the complete text of this ordinance, click here.

ENACTED, December 12, 2012, by a unanimous vote of all the Members of the Sanggunian present. 


  • Signed by: City Mayor Sara Z. Duterte
  • 16th City Council, 48th Regular Session

Read More

October 1, 2016

Villamor vs. CA

By With No comments:
  • In 1971, the Reyeses sold a portion of their lot in Caloocan City to the sps Villamor. 
  • Later that year, they executed a Deed of Option wherein they stated that they have offered the remaining portion of the lot for sale, and that the Villamor spouses agreed to buy the same. 
  • The option to buy and sell was to be exercised ‘whenever the need of such sale arises, either on our part or on the part of the spouses (Julio) Villamor and Marina V. Villamor, at the same price of P70.00 per square meter.’
  • The Deed also mentioned that the cause or the impelling reason on the part of Reyes executing the deed of option as appearing in the deed itself is the Villamor's having agreed to buy the 300 square meter portion of private respondents' land at P70.00 per square meter "which was greatly higher than the actual reasonable prevailing price." 
  • In 1984, the Villamors offered to repurchase the portion of the lot they sold to the Villamor spouses in 1971. 
  • However, the Vilamor spouses decided they would rather buy the remaining portion and wanted to exercise their option as provided for in the Deed of Option. In 1984, they filed a case for specific performance against the Reyeses.
  • The RTC ruled in favor of the Villamors and ordered the Reyeses to sell the remaining portion.
  • The CA reversed, declaring the option contract to be void as it lacked a valid and distinct consideration.

Read More
The Law Chic Bar Exam FREE Downloads Notes Materials
Copyright © 2014 kite | All Rights Reserved. Design By Templateclue - Published By Gooyaabi Templates