#lawcase

If two parties agree upon the mortgage or pledge of real or personal property, but the instrument states that the property is sold absolutely or with a right of repurchase, reformation of the instrument is proper

exists, or a writing exists, but the parties do not intend it to express their

final  agreemeReformation is thus not available where no writing exists, or a writing exists, but the parties do not intend it to express their final agreement

Reformation is  that  remedy  by  means  of  which  a  written instrument is amended or rectified so as to express or conform to the real agreement or intention of the parties when by reason of mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct, or accident, the instrument fails to express such agreement or intention.

Reformation is  that  remedy  by  means  of  which  a  written

instrument is amended or rectified so as to express or conform to the

real agreement or intention of the parties when by reason of mistake,

fraud, inequitable conduct, or accident, the instrument fails to express

such agreement or intention.

FLORENCIA VELASQUES VS. JUSTO TEODORO (G.R. No. L-18666 February 17, 1923) Romualdez, J

In this case the heirs of Velasquez seek to recover title to, and possession of certain land.

There are 7 lands in total and the heirs of Velasquez said that they have in their possession 6 parcel of land owned by their parents as a conjugal property and 1 that is in possession of Justo Teodoro.

But Justo claimed that he bought the land from the heirs of a certain Leodegaria Valdes which also purched the land from Ramon Velasquez and by the terms of the document, the contract is one of sale

HOWEVER, in one of the clauses in the document, it appears that Velasquez did NOT reserve the right to repurchase the property, but bound himself to return the principal interest. Now, the contract is considered as a mortgage.

ISSUE: Whether the transfers of the subject lands are valid

- Here, it is assumed that the party was prepared to assume the risk. This is especially true for agreements that are obviously aleatory in nature.

-to invalidate a contract, there must be 1) real error which is inevitable and 2) unknown facts

CASE:

DOMINGO REALTY, INC. vs. COURT OF APPEALS

(G.R. NO. 126236 : January 26, 2007;LEONARDO QUISUMBING)

If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to be observed in the performance, that which is expected of a good father of a family shall be required.

GOOD FAITH -  if the either of the parties act in good faith, he shall be liable only for natural and probable consequences

BAD FAITH – if the obligor shows bad faith he will be held responsible for all damages which may be reasonably attributed to the non performance of the obligation. Any renunciation is null and void.

Far East Bank and Trust Co. v. Estrella O. Querimit

Facts: Respondents filed a complaint against petitioner bank and certain officials of the latter, alleging that the they refused to allow her to withdraw her time deposit evidenced by four certificates of deposit in the total amount of $60,000. The trial court ordered petitioner-bank and its officials to allow respondent to withdraw her time deposit plus accrued interests. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the decision of the trial court with the modification that petitioner-bank was solely liable because the latter has a personality separate from its officers and stockholders. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the CA.

FACTS:

Cynthia Galapon, a Filipina, and No Shik Park, a Korean, got married in Manila on February 2012.

After 5 months of living together, they decided on mutual agreement to end their marriage with a divorce in South Korea.

Cynthia filed for recognition of foreign divorce decree in the Philippines which the Regional Trial Court (RTC) approved, thus the case was set for hearing.

Abegail Galapon, sister of Cynthia, testified in court and affirmed her Judicial Affidavit.

However, it was made obvious that Abigail has firsthand knowledge of the events detailed in the petition. She asserted that Park wanted to wed his ex-girlfriend and that Cynthia was coerced into approving the divorce by Park after he threatened to kill her.

The RTC granted the petition which was however opposed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). The Court of Appeals (CA) granted the opposition on the grounds that the venue was improper and that the petition could not be given due course as it was not the foreign spouse who obtained such decree.

ISSUE:

Whether the Court of appeals erred in denying the recognition of the divorce decree obtained by Cynthia and her foreign spouse

HELD: