Review in Case Digest

Aguila jr. Vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
127347, November 25, 1999

FACT
This is a disagreement about a document called a deed of sale. Felicidad S. Vda. de Abrogar is arguing with Alfredo N.
Aguila, Jr. Aguila manages a company called A.C. Aguila & Sons, Co., which lends money. Abrogar and her late husband
owned a house and land in Marikina, Metro Manila. They made an agreement where Aguila & Sons could buy the
property back within 90 days. On the same day, they signed a document selling the property to Aguila & Sons for less
money. Abrogar didn't buy the property back within 90 days, so the old ownership document was canceled, and a new one
was given to Aguila & Sons. Abrogar says the signature of her husband on the document was faked because he had
already died before the document was signed.
ISSUES
1. Is Aguila the main person involved in the case?
2. Can a previous eviction case affect Abrogar's complaint about the deed being wrong?
 The previous eviction case refers to a legal action where Aguila & Sons, through their lawyer, sent a letter to
Abrogar, demanding that she vacate the property within 15 days and surrender it to Aguila & Sons. If she didn't
comply, Aguila & Sons threatened to take legal action against her. This eviction case was initiated based on the
ownership claimed by Aguila & Sons after the deed of sale was executed and Abrogar failed to repurchase the
property within the specified time frame.
3. Was the agreement more like selling with a right to buy back or was it a loan using the property as security?
RULING
1. The partnership itself, not its individual managers or officers, should be taken to court if there's a legal issue about its
property.
2. The court didn't handle Aguila's argument about who the main person involved in the case should be.
3. The Court of Appeals said the agreement looked more like a loan with the property as security, not a straightforward
sale. As a result, they declared the deed of absolute sale is invalid.
Lim vs. Philippine Fishing Gear Industries, G.R. No. 136448, November 3, 1999
FACT
Antonio Chua and Peter Yao, who said they were from Ocean Quest Fishing Corporation, made a deal with Philippine
Fishing Gear Industries, Inc. (PFII) to buy fishing nets. They said Lim Tong Lim was their partner, but Lim didn't sign the
deal. PFII sued Chua, Yao, and Lim for not paying, saying Ocean Quest Fishing Corporation wasn't real. Chua said he was
responsible and gave back some nets. Yao didn't show up for hearings, and Lim disagreed with the nets being taken. PFII
got the nets after an auction and got PHP 900,000.
ISSUES
1. Whether the Compromise Agreement suggested a partnership among Lim, Chua, and Yao:
- The court needed to determine if the agreement indicated that Lim, Chua, and Yao were partners in the business
venture.
2. Whether Lim should be responsible for the nets' debts:
- The court needed to decide if Lim was legally responsible for paying the debts related to the fishing nets, even though
he didn't sign the contract.
3. Whether the Preliminary Attachment of the nets was valid:
- The court needed to determine if the initial legal action to attach the nets as security for the debt was done correctly
and legally.
RULING
1. Petition Denied: The court did not grant the request made in the petition. In this case, Lim Tong Lim appealed to the
court, asking for a different decision, but the court rejected his appeal.
2. Assailed Decision Affirmed: The decision that Lim Tong Lim was contesting (the decision made by the lower court or
Court of Appeals) has been upheld. This means the original decision remains unchanged, and Lim's appeal to change it
was unsuccessful.
3. Costs Against Petitioner: Lim Tong Lim, the petitioner who brought the appeal, is required to pay the legal costs
associated with the petition. This typically includes court fees, filing fees, and other expenses related to the legal process.
It's a common practice that the losing party bears the costs of the legal proceedings.
In summary, the court rejected Lim Tong Lim's appeal, upheld the previous decision, and ordered Lim to cover the costs
associated with the appeal.
Agad vs. Severino Mabato, G.R. No. L-24193, June 28, 1968
FACT
Mauricio Agad filed a complaint against Severino Mabato and Mabato & Agad Company, saying they were partners in a
fishpond business based on a document from August 29, 1952. Agad claimed he put in P1,000 and wanted his share of
profits from 1957 to 1963. Mabato said there was no partnership because Agad didn't pay, and there was no list of what
was in the fishpond, which he said made the contract invalid under Article 1773 of the Civil Code.
ISSUES
1. Applicability of Article 1773 of the Civil Code:
- The main question is whether Article 1773 of the Civil Code, which deals with certain requirements for partnership
contracts, applies to the partnership contract in this case.
2. Contributions to the Partnership:
- The second issue is whether any immovable property or real rights were given to the partnership. This is important
because Article 1773 of the Civil Code may only apply if immovable property or real rights were contributed.
RULING
The Supreme Court said a specific law (Article 1773 of the Civil Code) doesn't apply in this case. Even though they were
in a partnership about a fishpond, nobody gave any land or rights to the partnership. So, not having a list of what's in the
fishpond doesn't mean the contract is bad. They need to go back to the lower court for more steps.

Review in Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Review in Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Review in Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aguila jr. Vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.

127347, November 25, 1999

You might also like