Case

Ang Yu Asuncion v. CA
Sagrada Orden v. NACOCO
Perla Compania de Seguro v.
CA
Leung v. OBrien

Pelayo v. Lauron

This is about

Defendant filed an action to

recover P15,000 owed by
plaintiff
from
losing
in
gambling, and a writ of
attachment
was
issued
against plaintiffs property
because of the fear of
defendant that plaintiff was
about to leave the country
with intent to defraud his
creditors. Plaintiff contends
that the statutory action to
recover money lost at gaming
is no such an action as is
contemplated in the provision
under which the attachment
was issued requires that there
should be a cause of action
arising upon contract, express
or implied.
Plaintiff was a physician that
was called to the house of the
defendants to attend to the
medical
needs
of
their
daughter-in-law.
Plaintiff
alleged
that
defendants
should pay P500 for his
services. Defendants counter
that their daughter-in-law died
in consequence of childbirth
and
that
she
lived

Resolution

Rationale (legal
interpretation)

basis

It is the husband who should

pay for the wifes medical
expenses,
and
not
her
parents-in-law.

Obligations arising from law

are never presumed. Those
expressly determined in the
code or in the special laws,
etc., are the only demandable
ones (Art. 1158). Obligations
arising from contracts have
legal
force
between
the
contracting parties and must
be fulfilled in accordance with
their stipulations (Art. 1159).

independently
with
her
husband and was only at their
house by accident and due to
fortuitous
circumstances,
hence
they
should
be
absolved with costs against
the plaintiff.
Barredo v. Garcia and Almario
Elcano v. Hill
Baksh v. CA
Chavez v. Gonzalez
Namarco
v.
Federated
Distributors
Arrieta v. NARIC
Republic v. Luzon Stevedoring
Lasam v. Smith
Galar v. Isasi
Gaite v. Fonacier
Songcuan v. IAC
Osmena v. Rama
Smith Bell and Co. v. Sotelo
Matti
UP v. De Los Angeles
Angeles v. Calasanz
Earth Minerals v. Macaraig
Araneta v. Phil. Sugar
Quizania v. Redugerio
Ynchausti v. Yulo
Kalalo v. Luz
Gutierrez v. Gutierrez
Zulueta v. Mariano
Pay v. Palanca
UFC v. Francisco
Songcuan v. IAC
Eleizegui v. Manila Lawn
Tennis Club
Ong Guan Can v. Century
Insurance
Magdalena Estate v. Myrick

Under the NCC, spouses are

mutually obliged to support
each other and no contract
was made between the wife
and her parents-in-law.

Adamos case
Legarda case
Tuason case
Lambert v. Fox
GSIS v. CA
New Pacific v. Seneris
Occena v. Jabson
Sycip v. CA
Can Tion v. CA
Fua Cam Lu v. Yap
Millar v. CA
Sandico v. Piguing
NPC v. Dayrit
Rodriguez v. Reyes