Jimenez v. City Of Manila gr no.

71049 may 29 1987

FACTS:
The evidence of the Jimenez shows that together with his neighbors, they went to the market to
buy "bagoong" at the time when the public market was flooded with ankle deep rainwater. After
purchasing he turned around to return home but stepped on an uncovered open-ing which could
not be seen because of the dirty rainwater, causing a dirty and rusty four-inch nail, stuck inside
the uncovered opening, to pierce the left leg of plaintiff-peti-tioner penetrating to a depth of about
one and a half inches. After administering first aid treatment, his companions helped him hobble
home. He felt ill and developed fever. Despite the medicine administered to him, his left leg
swelled with great pain. He was then rushed to the Veterans Memorial Hospital where he had to
be confined for twenty (20) days due to high fever and severe pain.

Petitioner sued for damages the City of Manila and the Asiatic Integrated Corporation
under whose administra-tion the Sta. Ana Public Market had been placed by virtue of a
Management and Operating Contract.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Intermediate Appellate Court erred in not ruling that respondent City of Manila
should be jointly and severally liable with Asiatic Integrated Corporation for the injuries petitioner
suffered.

RULING:
The petition is impressed with merit.

Under Article 2189 of the Civil Code, it is not necessary for the liability therein established to
attach, that the defective public works belong to the province, city or municipality from which
responsibility is exacted. What said article requires is that the province, city or municipality
has either "control or supervision" over the public build-ing in question.

In the case at bar, there is no question that the Sta. Ana Public Market, despite the Management
and Operating Contract between respondent City and Asiatic Integrated Corporation remained
under the control of the former.

It appears evident that the City of Manila is likewise liable for damages under Article 2189 of the
Civil Code, respondent City having retained control and supervision over the Sta. Ana Public
Market and as tort--feasor under Article 2176 of the Civil Code on quasi--delicts.

Petitioner had the right to assume that there were no openings in the middle of the passageways
and if any, that they were adequately covered. Had the opening been covered, petitioner could
not have fallen into it. Thus the negligence of the City of Manila is the proximate cause of the
injury suffered, the City is therefore liable for the injury suf-fered by the petitioner.

Respondent City of Manila and Asiatic Integrated Corporation being joint tort-feasors, are
solidarily liable under Article 2194 of the Civil Code
Papa vs Valencia G.R. 105188
Facts:
Myron Papa is the administrator of the estate of Angela Butte. In 1973, he sold a portion of said
estate to Felix Peñarroyo through A.U. Valencia and Co., Inc. Peñarroyo gave Papa P5,000.00
plus a check worth P40,000.00. However, Papa was not able to deliver the certificate of title to
Peñarroyo. A litigation ensued and ten years after, Papa argued that the sale between him and
Peñarroyo was never consummated because he did not encash the P40,000.00 check and that
the P5,000.00 cash was merely earnest money.
ISSUE: Whether or not Papa is correct.
HELD: No. After more than ten (10) years from the payment in part by cash and in part by check,
the presumption is that the check had been encashed. Granting that Papa had never encashed
the check, his failure to do so for more than ten (10) years undoubtedly resulted in the impairment
of the check through his unreasonable and unexplained delay. While it is true that the delivery of
a check produces the effect of payment only when it is cashed, pursuant to Article 1249 of the
Civil Code, the rule is otherwise if the debtor (Peñarroyo) is prejudiced by the creditor’s (Papa’s)
unreasonable delay in presentment. The acceptance of a check implies an undertaking of due
diligence in presenting it for payment, and if he from whom it is received sustains loss by want of
such diligence, it will be held to operate as actual payment of the debt or obligation for which it
was given.
PENTACAPITAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION vs. MAHINAY

Facts: In its complaint for sum of money, petitioner prayed that respondent be ordered to pay his
obligation amounting to P1,936,800.00 plus interest and penalty charges, and attorneys fees.
This obligation was evidenced by two promissory notes executed by respondent. Respondent,
however, denied liability on the ground that the promissory notes lacked consideration, as he did
not receive the proceeds of the loan.

Issue: Is respondent’s contention correct?

Ruling: NO. We cannot sustain his contention.

Under Article 1354 of the Civil Code, it is presumed that consideration exists and is lawful unless
the debtor proves the contrary. A presumption may operate against an adversary who has not
introduced proof to rebut it. The effect of a legal presumption upon a burden of proof is to create
the necessity of presenting evidence to meet the legal presumption or the prima facie case
created thereby, and which, if no proof to the contrary is presented and offered, will prevail. The
burden of proof remains where it is, but by the presumption, the one who has that burden is
relieved for the time being from introducing evidence in support of the averment, because the
presumption stands in the place of evidence unless rebutted.

In the present case, as proof of his claim of lack of consideration, respondent denied under oath
that he owed petitioner a single centavo. He added that he did not apply for a loan and that when
he signed the promissory notes, they were all blank forms and all the blank spaces were to be
filled up only if the sale transaction over the subject properties would not push through because of
a possible adverse decision in the civil cases involving them (the properties). He thus posits that
since the sale pushed through, the promissory notes did not become effective.

Contrary to the conclusions of the RTC and the CA, we find such proof insufficient to overcome
the presumption of consideration. The presumption that a contract has sufficient consideration
cannot be overthrown by the bare, uncorroborated and self-serving assertion of respondent that it
has no consideration. The alleged lack of consideration must be shown by preponderance of
evidence.

Thus, the promissory notes should be accepted as they appear on their face.