CONRADO NUÑEZ, JR. VS. SPOUSES OSCAR AND NORMA NUNEZ

CONRADO NUÑEZ, JR. VS. SPOUSES OSCAR AND NORMA NUNEZ 

G.R. No. 267108 

February 05, 2025  

 

FACTS: 

Spouses Nuñez, Conrado and Maria had six children. According to the petitioners, Maria and her family occupied a parcel of land, the Corregidor Property since the early 1960’s. In 1988, to develop the property, Oscar, one of the children was tasked to process a loan with the ADB to fund the development. The Corregidor Property was used as a collateral for the loan. Maria died in 1988 and after full payment of the loan, the petitioners discovered that Maria’s title and tax declaration were already cancelled, and a title of ownership was issued in the name of Oscar.  

REX G. RICO VS. UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES

 

REX G. RICO VS. UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 210928, February 14, 2022

 

FACTS:

Union Bank issued Rico a Union Bank Visa credit card. Rico filed a complaint for damages before the RTC claiming that he suffered embarrassment, social humiliation, mental anguish, serious anxieties, besmirched reputation, and wounded feelings when his card was dishonored at Gourdo's Restaurant. Union Bank asserted that when Rico used his credit card at Gourdo's Restaurant, it was dishonored because his account was already in "past due" status for failure to pay the minimum amount due. Union Bank averred that it should not be held liable for damages since it was Rico who failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the credit card. The RTC ruled in favor of Rico. The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC with modification as to the amount of damages.

LORENZO WILLY VS. REMEDIOS F. JULIAN

 

LORENZO WILLY VS. REMEDIOS F. JULIAN

G.R. No. 207051. December 01, 2021

 

FACTS:

Modesto owned an unregistered land. Modesto executed a written agreement conveying portions of the subject property to three individuals namely Jularbal, Catbagen and Dongpaen. Later, on various dates, a series of sale transactions occurred among Modesto, Dongpaen, and Ricardo for the sale of Lots 1 and 2 to Ricardo. Pursuant to an arrangement with Modesto and his son, Lorenzo, who offered to cultivate Ricardo's portion of the subject property, Ricardo saw no need to occupy Lots 1 and 2, and simply allowed Lorenzo's possession thereof.  Later, upon learning that petitioners had attempted to sell even his portion of the subject property, Ricardo began resorting to administrative remedies. Consequently, Ricardo filed a Civil Case complaint for Partition of Property and Damages. The MCTC ruled in favor of Ricardo. The RTC reversed the MCTC decision. The CA affirmed the MCTC ruling.

DANILO A. DAVID VS. BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS

 

DANILO A. DAVID VS. BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS

 G.R. No. 251157, September 29, 2021

 

FACTS:

     BPI issued petitioner David a pre-approved credit card. The terms and conditions provide that the cardholder agrees to pay all charges incurred within twenty calendar days from the assigned cut-off date without need for demand. Any unpaid amount thereafter is subject to monthly 3.25% interest and 6% penalty charge. He started delaying in his payments. Demands for payment were unheeded thus the bank sued petitioner and his wife for sum of money. Petitioner denied that he had agreed to the terms and conditions, specifically the payment of interest and penalty charges. The MeTC ruled that petitioner was liable for interest and penalty charges. The RTC affirmed the MeTC decision. The CA computed anew petitioner’s obligation.

HEIRS OF JOSE DE LARA, SR. VS. RURAL BANK OF JAEN

 HEIRS OF HERMINIO MARQUEZ represented by ALMA MARQUEZ vs. HEIRS OF EPIFANIA HERNANDEZ         

G.R. No. 236826. March 23, 2022

FACTS:

Jose, a farmer-beneficiary under P.D. 27 obtained a loan from respondent bank secured by a mortgage over the subject land. He failed to pay his obligation hence the mortgage was foreclosed. Respondent bank acquired the land through a public auction and the sale was registered with the Register of Deeds. A year passed but Jose nor his heirs redeemed the land thus respondent bank executed an Affidavit of Consolidation of ownership. Respondent filed a petition for cancellation of the TCT of the land before the PARAD which granted the petition. On appeal to the DARAB, the ruling was reversed. The CA reinstated the PARAD decision.

HEIRS OF HERMINIO MARQUEZ represented by ALMA MARQUEZ vs. HEIRS OF EPIFANIA HERNANDEZ

 HEIRS OF HERMINIO MARQUEZ represented by ALMA MARQUEZ vs. HEIRS OF EPIFANIA HERNANDEZ         

G.R. No. 236826. March 23, 2022

FACTS:

Herminio sold to Epifania a parcel of land. Epifania undertook to pay the total price within the year. If Epifania failed to comply with the terms, the sale agreement would be considered or treated as a lease contract. Epifania made an initial payment of P 2,000.00. Respondents later received from Alma Marquez demand letters to vacate the premises of the subject property. It appears that Marquez and Herminio executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Waiver of Rights whereby Herminio waived all his rights, interest and participation over the property wherein sold property to Epifania was located in favor of Marquez. Herminio allegedly refused to execute a deed of absolute sale over the subject property in favor of Epifania. Thus, respondents' complaint for specific performance against Herminio. Marquez was later impleaded. Petitioners alleged that Epifania reneged on her obligation to complete payment of the purchase price hence their initial agreement became one of lease, and not a contract of sale. The RTC ruled in favor of petitioners and was upheld by the CA.

DANILO A. DAVID VS. BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS

 

FACTS:

          BPI issued petitioner David a pre-approved credit card. The terms and conditions provide that the cardholder agrees to pay all charges incurred within twenty calendar days from the assigned cut-off date without need for demand. Any unpaid amount thereafter is subject to monthly 3.25% interest and 6% penalty charge. He started delaying in his payments. Demands for payment were unheeded thus the bank sued petitioner and his wife for sum of money. Petitioner denied that he had agreed to the terms and conditions, specifically the payment of interest and penalty charges. The MeTC ruled that petitioner was liable for interest and penalty charges. The RTC affirmed the MeTC decision. The CA computed anew petitioner’s obligation.

BENDECIO AND MASCARIÑAS vs. BAUTISTA

 

BENDECIO AND MASCARIÑAS vs. BAUTISTA

G.R. No. 242087. December 07, 2021

FACTS:

Bautista alleged that she lent Bendencio a loan totaling P 1,100,000 payable in May 2013 with monthly interest at 8%. Bendecio informed her that Mascariñas would be paying the loans by depositing a manager's check in her account. But the same never materialized. Instead, Mascariñas executed a promissory note in her favor promising to pay her the total amount of the loan with the same interest rate. Still, neither Bendecio nor Mascariñas paid despite her oral demands and the demand letter she sent to them. This led her to file a complaint before the RTC which ruled in her favor. The CA affirmed the RTC ruling.