Hiltop Marketing Vendors Association vs.

Yaranon –

Intramuros Administration vs. Offshore Construction Development

Company –
Lessee’s continued possession by tolerance after the expiration of the lease
becomes unlawful upon demand to vacate by owner.

 Intramuros’ (Lessor) continuing tolerance on possession and use of real

properties and acceptance of rental payments from the lessee after the
expiration of the 5-year lease contract;
 Possession by tolerance—one who occupies the land of another at the
latter’s tolerance or permission without any contract is necessarily bound
by an implied promise that he will vacate upon demand;
 Akin to tenant whose lease expires but continues to occupy due to
owner’s tolerance—there is unlawful deprivation as of “date of demand to
vacate”;
 Remedy – Summary action for ejectment (unlawful detainer with MTC);
 Exception – SC in the interest of judicial economy and consistent of
summary nature of action resolved the issue of possession instead of
remanding it to MTC;
 Relationship between parties more than an ordinary lessor-lessee—
evolved into Concession Agreement where lessee undertook to develop
several properties of the lessor.

Poole-Blunden vs. Union Bank –

Buyer of condo unit can annul the Contract to Sell on the ground of causal fraud
by the seller as to the actual floor area.

 Wrongful advertisement by Union Bank (Seller) of the actual floor area of

a 70 square meters condominium unit acquired thru foreclosure with 95
square meters;
 Entitled the buyer to annul the voidable Contract to Sell on ground of
“causal fraud”—vitiation of consent as to the object of the sale;
 “As-is-where-is” clause in the contract cannot be invoked by seller: (a)
stipulation absolving the seller of liability for hidden defects only when he
has no knowledge of hidden defects—the bank knew or should have
known the proper reckoning of area under Condominium Act does not
include the common areas; (b) clause only pertains to readily perceptible
physical features of the object—cannot include matters requiring
specialized or technical competence (determine actual floor area);
 Art. 1561—seller is generally responsible for warranty against hidden
defects of the thing sold; failure of the bank to exercise utmost diligence in
investigating the unit offered as security before accepting it amounts to
grossly inexcusable negligence tantamount to bad faith.
Spouses Rosario vs. Alvar –
Reformation of the deeds of absolute sale into equitable mortgages by the CA in
its decision.

 Art. 1365—Reformation of instrument is the proper remedy, not complaint

for declaration of nullity, if contract of absolute sale (mortgage) is
simulated;
 Reformation - equitable remedy where a written instrument already
executed is allowed by law to be reformed or construed to express the real
intention of the parties;
 Rationale – unjust and inequitable to allow the enforcement of written
instrument that does not express the real intention of the parties;
 Art. 1602—Equitable mortgage as true intention—2 properties subject of
REM was sold by the owner-mortgagor to the daughter of the creditor-
mortgagee; and sold by the daughter for the same price to her mother;
 Filing of separate complaint for reformation no longer necessary
because—the CA in its decision already ruled that the Deeds of absolute
sale were actually mortgages based on true intention of parties.
 Note – otherwise, filing of complaint reformation is required before
foreclosure;
 Effect- creditor-mortgagee must foreclose the mortgages upon failure of
the mortgagor to pay the loan.

Solco vs. Megaworld Corporation –

Non-compliance with the strict and mandatory requirements under LGC of a valid
tax delinquency sale makes the sale null and void.

 Tax delinquency sale of parking lots in Makati condominium null and void
for non-compliance with the requirements under RA 7160—(a) No warrant
of levy served upon beneficial owner or possessor; acknowledgement
portion of warrant is blank; (b) warrant of levy issued on the same day of
auction sale; (c) no actual notice to the delinquent taxpayer even if there
was proper advertisement or publication;
 Presumption of regularity of the acts of public officials—not applicable to
the conduct of tax sale;
 Exception to the rule—no presumption exists in any administrative action
which resulted in depriving a citizen or taxpayer of his property;
 Buyer was not in good faith—purchaser of real property which is in
possession of another should at least make some inquiry beyond the face
of the title.