Oblicon Guide For Dummies

OBLIGATIONS and CONTRACTS ATTY. SIEGFRED B MISON 2nd Semester, 2012-2013 COURSE OUTLINE: (RELEVANT CASES AND READINGS) General Provisions: (Articles 1156 – 1162, 31 – 34, 2014 2015, 2142 – 2175, 2176, 2202 - 2230 of the New Civil Code, and Articles 100 - 113 of the Revised Penal Code.) 1. Concept, Requisites, and Classification: (Leung Ben vs. O’Brien, 8 Phil 102; Bautista vs. F.O. Borromeo, Inc., 30 SCRA 119; Dela Cruz vs. Northern Theatrical, 50 O.G. 4225, Sept 1954) 2. Examples and Distinctions of Sources of Obligations: (Pichel vs. Alonzo, 111 SCRA 341; Licudan vs. Court of Appeals, Jan 24, 1991; Barredo vs. Garcia, 73 Phil 607; Gutierrez vs. Gutierrez, 56 Phil 177) Nature and Effect of Obligations: (Articles 1163-1178 and Article 440 of the New Civil Code) 1. Diligence: (Bishop of Jaro, 26 P 144) a. Ordinary v. Extraordinary b. Diligence of a Good Father of the Family 2. Delivery: (Sampaguita Pictures v. Jalwindor Manufacturers, 93 S 420) a. Real right vs. Personal Right 3. Obligations to Give: a. Generic v. Specific b. Accessions v. Accessories 4. Obligations to Do: 5. Compliance with Obligations:

6. Breach of Obligation; Fraud, Negligence, Delay, and in Contravention; Culpa Criminal vs. Culpa Contractual vs. Culpa Aquiliana. (Picart vs. Smith, 37 P 809; Cangco vs. Manila Railroad, 38 P 763; Rakes vs. Atlantic Gulf, 7 P 359; Spouses Guanio vs. Makati Shangrila Hotel, February 7, 2011) 7. Fortuitous Event, Essential Conditions, Exceptions: (Nakpil vs. CA, 144 SCRA 596; Sia vs. CA, 222 SCRA 24; RP vs. Luzon Stevedoring, 21 SCRA 279; NPC vs. Philipp Brothers, 369 S 629) 8. Usury: (Medel vs. CA, 299 S 481) 9. Remedies for Breach of Obligations (Extra-judicial and Judicial; Principal and Subsidiary) Pure and Conditional Obligations: (Articles 1179 – 1192) 1. Pure Obligations: (HSBC vs. Spouses Broqueza, November 17, 2010) 2. Kinds and Effects of Conditions, Suspensive vs. Resolutory: (Santiago vs. Millar, 68 P 39; Patente vs. Omega, 93 P 218; Gaite vs. Fonacier, 2 SCRA 831; Coronel vs. Court of Appeals, Oct 7 1996; Javier vs. Court of Appeals, 183 S 171, Heirs of Atienza vs. Espidol, August 11, 2010) 3. Effects of Potestative, Casual or Mixed Conditions: (Parks vs. Province of Tarlac, 49 P 142; Osmena vs. Rama, 14 P 99; Trillana vs. Quezon Colleges, 93 P 383; Hermosa vs. Longara, 93 P 971; Smith Bell vs Matti, 44 P 875; Lao Lim vs. Court of Appeals, 191 S 150; Catungal vs. Rodriguez, March 23, 2011) 4. Effects of Possible or Impossible Conditions: (Luneta Motor vs. Abad, 67 P 32) 5. Constructive Fulfillment of Condition: (PLDT vs Jeturian, 97 P 981; Valencia vs. RFC, 103 P 444; Labayan vs. Talisay, 52 P 440)

6. Rules in Cases of Improvement, Deterioration, or Loss: 7. Power to Rescind in Reciprocal Obligations: (Ang vs. Court of Appeals, 170 S 286; Heirs of Gaite vs. The Plaza Inc, January 26, 2011;Lalicon vs. NHA, July 13, 2011, Spouses Fernando vs. Continental Airlines, January 16, 2012; F.F. Cruz vs. HR Construction, March 14, 2012) a. Rescission vs. Resolution: b. Restrictions on the Power: (Tan vs. Court of Appeals, 175 S 656) c. Necessity of Judicial Approval: (Heirs of JBL Reyes vs. CA, 338 S 282) d. Effects of Slight Breaches: (Song Fo vs. Hawaiian Phil, 47 P 821; Filoil vs. Mendoza, 150 S 632) Obligations with a Period: (Articles 1193 – 1198) 1. Classification, In diem vs. Ex die, Legal, Conventional, Judicial, (PNB vs. Lopez Vito, 52 P 41; Victorias Planters vs. Victorias Milling, 97 P 318) 2. Benefit of the Period: (Ponce de Leon vs. Syjuco, 90 P 311) 3. When Courts May Fix a Period: (Barretto vs. City of Manila, 7 P 416; People’s Bank vs. Odom, 64 P 126; Gonzales vs. Jose, 66 P 369; Eleizegui vs. Manila Lawn Tennis Club, 2 P 309; Araneta vs. Phil Sugar, 20 SCRA 330) 4. Loss of Benefit of the Period: (Gaite vs. Fonacier, 2 SCRA 831; Abesamis vs. Woodcraft, 166 SCRA 577; Song Fo vs. Oria, 33 P 3) Alternative and Facultative Obligations: (Articles 1199 – 1206) 1. Concept and Features, Limitations of the Right of Choice: (Reyes vs. Martinez, 55 P 492)

2. Purpose of Choice: (Ong Guan Chan vs. Century Insurance, 46 P 592) 3. Difference between Alternative and Facultative Obligations: Joint and Solidary Obligations: (Articles 1207 – 1222, 18221823; 2088, 2137, 2226 of the New Civil Code, Articles 94 and 121 of the Family Code) 1. Comparative Jurisprudence: (Jaucian vs. Querol, 38 P 707; Borromeo vs. Court of Appeals, 47 S 65; PNB vs. Sta Maria, 29 S 303; Ronquillo vs. Court of Appeals, 132 S 274, Marsman vs. Philippine Geoanalytics, June 29,2010) 2. Joint Divisible Obligations: (Agoncillo vs. Javier, 38 P 424) 3. Indivisibility vs. Solidarity, Passive vs. Active Solidarity: 4. Consequences of Solidarity: (Inchausti vs. Yulo, 34 P 978; Quiombing vs. Court of Appeals, 189 S 325; Imperial Insurance vs. David, 133 S 317) Divisible and Indivisible Obligations: (Articles 1223 – 1225) 1. Indivisibility of Obligation vs. Indivisible Thing: 2. Test of Indivisibility: Obligations with a Penal Clause: (Articles 1226 – 1230) 1. Concept and Purpose of Penal Clause: (Manila Racing Club vs. Manila Jockey Club, 69 P 55; SSS vs. Moonwalk, 221 S 119; Caridad Estate vs. Santero, 71 P 114) 2. Exception to the Purpose of Penal Clause: (Bachrach vs. Espiritu, 52 P 346; Cabarroguis vs. Vicente, 107 P 340)

3. Reduction of Penalty: (Jison vs. Court of Appeals, 164 S 339; Umali vs. Miclat, 105 P 1007) 4. Proof of Actual Damages: (Lambert vs. Fox, 26 P 558) Payment or Performance: (Articles 1232 – 1261, Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.A. 529 Uniform Currency Act, Insolvency Law) 1. Substantial Performance in Good Faith: (Angeles vs. Calasanz, 135 S 323; Pagsibigan vs. Court of Appeals, 221 S 202; JM Tuason vs. Javier, 31 S 829) 2. Completeness by Estoppel: (Esguerra vs. Villanueva, 21 S 1314) 3. Effect of Payment by and to Third Persons: (Tanguilig vs. Court of Appeals, Jan 2, 1997; PNB vs. Court of Appeals, 256 S 44) 4. Dation in Payment: (Caltex vs. IAC, 215 S 580; Luzon Development Bank vs. Enriquez, January 12, 2011; Tan Shuy vs. Spouses Maulawin, February 8, 2012) 5. Effects of Partial Payment: (Nasser vs. Cuevas, 188 S 812) 6. Currency of Payment: (Fortunado vs. Court of Appeals, April 25, 1991; Tibajia vs. Court of Appeals, Jun 4, 1993; General Insurance vs. Union Insurance, 179 S 530) 7. Extraordinary Inflation or deflation of currency: (Velasco vs. Meralco, 42 S 556; Filipino Pipe Foundry vs. NAWASA, 161 S 32; Gonzalo Maluel Co. vs. Central Bank, 38 S 533) 8. Application of Payments: (Magdalena Estates vs. Rodriguez, 18 S 967; Baltazar Vs. Lingayen Gulf Inc., 14 S 522) 9. Cesion: (Lopez vs. Court of Appeals, 114 S 671)

10. Tender of Payment and Consignation (Adelfa Properties vs. Court of Appeals, 240 S 565; Soco vs. Militante, 123 S 160; Ponce De Leon vs. Syjuco, 90 P 311; Federation of United NAMARCO Distributors vs. National Marketing, 4 S 867; PNCC vs. Court of Appeals, May 5, 1997; Naga Telephone vs. Court of Appeals, 73 S 637) Loss of the Thing Due: (Articles 1262 – 1269; Yu Tek Co. vs. Gonzales, 29 P 384; Labayen vs. Talisay-Silay Milling, 52 P 440) Condonation or Remission: (Articles 1270 – 1274 and 748 – 752; Soria vs. COA, February 8, 2011) Confusion: (Articles 1275 – 1277; Sochayeseng vs. Trujillo, 31 P 153; Yek Ton Lin vs. Court of Appeals, 46 S 473; Chittick vs. Court of Appeals, 166 S 219) Compensation: (Articles 1278 – 1290, Rule 6 of the Rules of Civil Procedure) 1. Concept and Distinctions with Other Means of Extinguishing an Obligation: (Insular Investment vs. Capital One, April 25, 2012) 2. Requisites: (Garcia vs. Lim Chiu Sing, 59 P 562; Domingo vs. Carlitos, 8 S 443; Soriano vs. Compania General, 18 S 999; Republic vs. Mambulao, 4 S 622; Gullas vs. PNB, 62 P 519; Ong vs. Court of Appeals, 177 S 402; Perez vs. Court of Appeals, 127 S 636; Mialhe vs. Manalili, 6 S 453; Dalton vs. FGR Realty, January 19, 2011) 3. Other Kinds of Compensation: (Pioneer Insurance vs. Court of Appeals, 180 S 156; Sesbreno vs. Court of Appeals, 222 S 466)

Novation: (Articles 1291 – 1304) 1. Concept: (Ajax Marketing vs. Court of Appeals, 248 S 222; Magdalena Estates vs. Rodriguez, 18 S 967; Cochingyan vs. R & B Surety, 151 S 339; Guerrero vs. Court of Appeals, 29 S 791, Banate vs. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank, July 13, 2010; Hernandez-Nieverra vs. Hernandez, February 14, 2011) 2. Kinds: Objective, Subjective, or Mixed: (Padilla vs. Levy Hermanos, 69 P 681; Ramos vs. Gibbon, 67 P 371) 3. Requisites: (Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, 191 S 493; Heirs of Servando Franco vs. Spouses Gonzales) 4. Delegacion vs. Expromision (Gaw vs. IAC, 220 S 405; Asia Bank vs. Elser, 54 P 994) 5. Legal Subrogation: (Chemphil vs. Court of Appeals, 251 S 257) General Provisions: (Articles 1305 to 1317) 1. Meeting of minds: (Jardine Davies vs. CA, 333 SCRA 684) 2. Freedom To Stipulate: (Azcuna, Jr. vs. CA, 255 S 215; Manila Bay Club vs. CA, 245 S 715; De Leon vs. CA, 186 S 345; Batarra vs. Marcos, 7 P 156; Cui vs. Arellano University, 2 S 205; Ferrazzini vs. GSell, 34 P 697; Omico Mining and Industrial Corp vs. Vallejos, 63 S 301) 3. Innominate contracts: (Perez vs. Pomar, 2 P 682; Asian Construction vs. Cathay Pacific Steel, June 29, 2010) 4. Mutuality of Contracts: (UCPB vs. Beluso, 530 S 567; Joaquin vs. Mitsumine, 34 P 858; Garcia vs. Legarda, 21 S 555) 5. Relativity of Contracts: (Integrated Packing vs. CA, 333 S 170; DKC Holdings vs. CA, 329 S 666)

6. Stipulation Pour Autrui: (Marmont Hotel vs. CA, 168 S 373; Coquia vs. Fieldmen’s Insurance, 26 S 178; Mandarin Villa vs. CA, 257 S 538; Everett Steamship vs. CA, 297 S 496; Kauffman vs. PNB, 42 P 182; Associated Bank vs. CA, 291 S 513) 7. Contractual Interference: (Gilchrist vs. Cuddy 29 Phil 542, So Ping Bun vs. CA 314 S 751; Lagon vs. CA, 453 S 616) 8. Perfected by mere consent: (Luxuria Homes vs. CA, 302 S 315) 9. Real contracts: (Kinds; Difference with Ordinary Contracts) 10. Unenforceable contracts: (Rallos vs. Felix Go Chan, 81 S 251; United Namarco Distributors vs. NAMARCO, 114 P 802) Essential Requisites: (Articles 1318 to 1355; Clarin vs. Rulona, 127 S 512) Consent 1. Offer: (Korean Air vs. Yuson, June 26, 2010; Rosenstock vs. Burke, 46 P 217) 2. Acceptance: (1) Absolute vs. Qualified: (Batañgan v. Cojuangco, 78 P 481; Zayco vs. Serra 44 P 326) (2) In person; via agent; by letter or telegram: (Laudico vs. Arias, 43 P 270) (3) Express or implied: (4) Effects of death, civil interdiction, insanity, or insolvency of either party before acceptance: (Art 4041, RPC) 3. Option Contract: (Sanchez vs. Rigos, 45 S 368; Art 1482, NCC)

4. Business advertisements: (1) Mere invitations to make an offer: (2) Advertisements for bidders: 5. Incapacitated persons to give consent to a contract: (Art 1491, NCC; Art 87, FC; Art 37-38, NCC) (1) Minors; exceptions: (Bambalan vs. Maramba, 51 P 417, Mercado, et al. vs. Espiritu, 37 P 215; Braganza vs. de Ville Abrille, 105 P 456) (2) Insane persons and deaf-mutes who do not know how to write: (3) Drunk or under hypnotic spell: 6. Vice of Consent: (Hernandez vs. Hernandez, March 9, 2011) (1) Mistake: (Gomez vs. Linton, 45 P 653; Atilano vs. Atilano, 28 P 231; Teran vs. Villanueva, 56 P 677) a. Illiterates: (Tan vs Mandap 429 S 712; Dela Cruz vs. Dela Cruz 419 S 648) b. Adhesion: (Calilap-Asmeron vs. DBP, November 23, 2011) (2) Violence: (3) Intimidation: (4) Undue influence: (Martinez vs. HSBC, 15 P 252, Bañez vs. CA, 59 S 15; Vales vs. Villa, 35 P 769) (5) Fraud: (Strong vs. Gutierrez, 6 P 680; Woodhouse vs. Halili 93 P 526; Cacho vs. Bonifacio 476 S 869; Araneta vs. De Paterno 91 P 786; Tuason vs. Marquez, 45 P 381; Songco vs. Sellner, 37 P 254; Azarraga vs. Gay 52 P 599) 7. Usual exaggerations in trade: 8. Mere expression of an opinion: (Songco vs. Sellner, 37 P 254) 9. Misrepresentation: (1) By a third person: (Hill vs. Veloso, 31 P 160) (2) In good faith: (Asiasin vs. Jalandoni, 45 P 296)

10. Simulation of a contract: (1) Absolute vs. relative: (Rodriguez vs. Rodriguez, 127 P 294; Gonzales vs. Trinidad, 67 P 682; Borromero vs. Borromeo, 98 P 432; Bravo Guerrero vs. Bravo, 465 S 244) Object of Contracts 1. Commerce of Men: (Blas vs. Santos, 1 S 899; Uson vs. Del Rosario, 92 P 530) 2. Impossible Things or Services: (Castro vs. Longa, 89 P 581) Cause 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Presumption: (Raet vs. CA, 295 S 677; PBC vs. Lui She, 21 S 52; Saquid vs. Security Finance Inc., 477 S 256) Kinds: Cause vs. Motive: (Liguez vs. CA, 102 P 577; Gonzales vs. Trinidad, 67 P 682) Legality: (Velez vs. Ramas, 40 P 787, Liam Law vs. Olympic Sawmill, 129 S 449) Lesion: (Art 1381, NCC)

Form 1. Forms a. No Form: (Tan vs. Lum, 296 S 455; San Lorenzo Dev’t Corp. vs. CA, 449 S 99) b. Exception: (Art 748, 749, 1581, 1874, 2134, 1956, 1773, 1403(2)) c. Prescriptibility: (Vda de Espiritu vs. CFI of Canta, 47 S 354) 2. Form for Convenience: (Shaffer vs. Palma, 131 P 22; Hawaiian Phil. Co. vs. Hernaez, 45 P 746; Dauden vs. delos Angeles, 137 P 900)

Reformation of Instruments (Articles 1359 to 1369) 1. Basis: (San Miguel Brewery vs. Law Union and Rock, 40 P 674) 2. Definition: (Sarming vs. Dy, 383 S 131) 3. Requisites: (Dizon vs. Gaborro, 83 S 688, City of Cabanatuan vs. Lazaro, 39 S 653; Emilio vs. Rapal, March 30, 2010) 4. When Available: (Jayme vs. Alampay, 62 S 131; Ong Chua vs. Carr, 53 P 975) Interpretation of Contracts (Articles 1370 to 1379) Rule 130, Sec. 9, 10, 12, 14 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure General Rule: (Heirs of Amparo del Rosario vs. Santos, 108 S 43; Labasan vs. Lacuesta, 86 S 16; Prisma Construction vs. Pantaleon, March 9, 2010; Martin vs. DBS Bank, June 16, 2010) 1. Intention of the Parties: (Ramos vs. Heirs of Ramos Sr., 381 S 594; Carceller vs. CA, 302 S 719; Almeda vs. Bathala Marketing, 542 S 470) 2. Interpretation as a Whole: (Bundalian vs. CA, 129 S 645) 3. Custom or Usage: (Art. 12 NCC, Sec. 2-3, Rule 129 New Rules of Evidence; Sec. 10-19, Rules of Court; Andreas vs. BPI, 47 P 795) 4. Obscure words: (Ildefonso vs. Sibal, 106 P 287; Ong Yong vs. Tiu, 375 S 614; Gov’t of the Phil vs. Derham Bros, 36 P 960) Rescissible Contracts (Articles 1380 to 1389) 1. Rescission vs. Resolution: (Article 1191 and 1592) 2. Requisites: (Cannu vs. CA, 459 S 80) 3. Fraud of Creditors: (CBC vs. CA, 327 S 378; Oria vs. McMicking 21 P 243) 4. Accion Pauliana: (Article 1177) 5. Alienation of Things under Litigation: (Contreras vs. CBC, 76 P 709; Rule 13, Section 14 RRC)

6. 7. 8. 9.

Others: (Articles 1098, 1189, 1526, 1534, 1539, 1542, 1556, 1560, 1567, 1659; Rosencor Dev’t Corp. vs. Inquing, 354 S 119) Subsidiary Action: (Suria vs. IAC, 151 S 661; Regalado vs. Luchsinger, Regalado vs. Luchsinger, 5 P 625; Goquiolay vs. Sycip, 9 S 663) Restriction: (Goldenrod vs. CA, 299 S 141) Presumption of Fraud: (Cabaliw vs. Sadorra, 64 S 310; Alpuerto vs. Perez Pastor, 38 P 785; Ayles vs. Reyes, 18 P 243; Lee vs Bangkok Bank, Feb 9, 2011)

Voidable Contracts (Articles 1390 to 1402) 1. Incapacity and Vice of Consent 2. Ratification: (Uy Soo Lim vs. Tan Unchuan, 38 P 552; De Luna vs Linatoc, 74 P 15; Rosales vs. Reyes, 25 P 495) 3. Prescription 4. Restitution: (Philippine Trust Co. vs. Roldan, 99 P 393) Unenforceable Contracts (Articles 1403 to 1408) 1. Different Kinds: (a) No authority: (Bumanlag vs. Alzate, 144 S 480; Rallos vs Felix Go Chan, 81 S 259) (b) Statute of Frauds: (Almirol vs. Monserrat, 48 P 67; Hernandez vs. Andal, 78 P 196; Robles vs. Lizarraga, 42 P 584; Reiss vs. Memije, 15 P 350; Syquia vs. CA, 151 S 507) (c) Both parties incapacitated 2. Ratification: (Averia vs. Averia, 436 S 459; Abrenica vs. Gonda, 34 P 739) 3. Attack by Third Persons: (Ayson vs. CA, 97 P 965)

Void and Inexistent Contracts 1. Kinds: (Ariaga vda. de Gurrea vs. Suplico, 488 S 332; Tongoy vs. CA, 123 S 99; Rongavilla vs. CA, 294 S 289; Calimlim – Canullas vs. Fortun 129 S 675; Mapalo vs. Mapalo, 123 P 979; Manzano vs. Garcia, Nov. 28, 2011) 2. Imprescriptibility: (Ras vs. Sua, 134 P 131; Angeles vs. CA, 102 P 1006; Terre vs. Terre, 211 S 7; Atienza vs. Brillantes, 243 S 32; MWSS vs. CA, 297 S 287) 3. In pari delicto: (Batarra vs. Marcos, 7 P 156; Santos vs. Roman Catholic Church, 94 P 405) (a) Exceptions: (Articles 1413 – 1419) Natural Obligations (Articles 1423 to 1430) Estoppel (Articles 1431 to 1439) 1. Origin: (Pio Baretto Realty vs. CA, 360 S 127) 2. Elements: (Kalalo vs. Luz, 34 S 337; Cristobal vs. Gomez, 50 P 810; Marques vs. TEBTC, Jan 10, 2011; Fat Kee Computer vs. Online Networks, Feb 2, 2011) 3. Promissory Estoppel: (Terminal Services vs. PPA, 378 S 82) 4. Estoppel vs. Laches: ( Francel Realty vs. Sycip, 469 S 431; Metromedia Times vs. Pastoria, 465 S 335) 5. By Silence: ( Magtira vs. CA, 96 S 680; De Ynchausti vs. MERALCO, 36 P 908) 6. Inapplicability: (Rep vs. Go Bon Lee, 111 P 805; Republic vs. CA, 354 S 148; Republic vs. “G” Holdings, 475 S 608; Favis vs. Municipality of Subangan, 136 P 366; Eugenio vs. Perdido, 97 P 41; Cristobal vs. Gomez, 50 P 810)

7. Exceptions: (Bachrach Motors vs. Unson, 50 P 981; Nilo vs. Romero, 111 P 540; Leca Realty vs. Republic, 503 S 563) Trusts (Rule 98 Parol Evidence Rule 130 Sec 9; Articles 1440 to 1457) 1. Concept: (Sotto vs. Teves, 86 S 154) 2. Express: (Ramos vs. Ramos, 61 S 284; Cuayacong vs. Cuayacong, 129 P 439; Lorenes vs. Posadas 64 P 353) 3. Implied: (Juan vs. Yap, Mar 30, 2011; Kiel vs. Estate of Sabert, 46 P 193; Thomson vs. CA, 298 S 280; Uy Aloc vs. Cho Jan Ling, 19 P 202; Muller vs. Muller, 500 S 65) 4. Prescription: (Amerol vs. Bagumbaran, 154 S 397; Marguey vs. CA, 300 S 655) Prescription (Article 1106-1155) General Provisions (Articles 1106 – 1116) 1. Acquisitive vs. Extinctive: (Morales vs. CFI, 97 S 872) 2. Prescription vs. Laches: (Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy, 32 S 29; Catholic Bishop vs. Court of Appeals, Nov 14, 1996; Insurance of Phil Islands vs. Sponses Gregorio, Feb 14, 2011) 3. Limitations and Extent of Prescription: (Vda. De Alberto vs. Court of Appeals, 173 S 436; Marcelino vs. Court of Appeals, 210 S 444; Republic vs. PNB, 13 S 42; Director of Forest Admin vs. Fernandez, 192 S 121; Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 131 S 532) 4. Waiver of Prescription: (DBP vs. Adil, 161 S 307) 5. Prescriptive Periods: (DBP vs. Ozarraga, September 20, 1965; Alvero vs. Reas, 35 S 210)

Prescription of Ownership: (Articles 1117 – 1138) 1. Ordinary vs. Extraordinary: (Godinez vs. Court of Appeals, 135 S 351; Heirs of Amarante vs. Court of Appeals, 185 S 585) 2. Concept of Possession: (Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 146 S 15; Ramos vs. Court of Appeals, 112 S 542; Coronado vs. Court of Appeals, 191 S 814; Corpus vs. Padilla, 5 S 814) 3. Prescription over registered properties: (Reyes vs. Court of Appeals, 258 S 651) 4. Good Faith: (Negrete vs. CFI of Marinduque, 48 S 113; Magtira vs. Court of Appeals, 96 S 680) 5. Just Title: (Doliendo vs. Biarnesa, 7 P 232; Solis vs. Court of Appeals, 176 S 678) 6. Prescription over illegally acquired movables: (Tan vs. Court of Appeals, 195 S 355) 7. Computation of Time: (South City Homes vs. Republic, 185 S 693) Prescription of Actions: (Articles 1139 to 1155, 649) 1. Good Faith vs. Bad Faith: (Dira vs. Tanega, 33 S 479) 2. Prescriptive Periods (Espanol vs. Philippine Veterans Administration, 137 S 314; Kramer Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, 178 S 518; Vda. De Borromeo vs. Pogoy, 126 S 217; Callanta vs. Carnation Phils., 145 S 268) 3. When Period Begins to Run: (Tolentino vs. Court of Appeals, 162 S 66; Provident vs. Court of Appeals, 222 S 125; Tan vs. Court of Appeals, 195 S 355)

4. Interruptions of Periods: (Ledesma vs. Court of Appeals, 224 S 175; Cabrera vs. Tinio, 8 S 542; Olympia International vs. Court of Appeals, 180 S 353; Ramos vs. Condez, 20 S 1146)