100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 38 - 39 out of 51 pages.
which is forfeited in favor of Winifred. Clearly, what is forfeited in favor of Winifred isnot Alfredo’s share in the conjugal partnership property but merely in the net profits ofthe conjugal partnership property.With regard to IDRI, we agree with the Court of Appeals in holding that IDRIis not a buyer in good faith. As found by the RTC Malabon and the Court of Appeals,IDRI had actual knowledge of facts and circumstances which should impel areasonably cautious person to make further inquiries about the vendor’s title to theproperty.Exercise of ProfessionGo v CAFacts: The Ong spouses contracted the services of Alex and Nancy Go to providevideo coverage of their (Ong spouses) wedding. Three times thereafter, the Ongstried to claim the video tape of their wedding, which they planned to show to theirrelatives in the United States where they were to spend their honeymoon, and thricethey failed because the tape was apparently not yet processed. The parties thenagreed that the tape would be ready upon the return of the Ong spouses.When the Ongs came home from their honeymoon, however, they found outthat the tape had been erased and therefore, could no longer be delivered. They suedthe Go spouses for damages. The lower court and CA ruled in favor of the Ongs.The SC ruled in favor of the Ongs and held that the Gos are solidarily liable.However, Alex Go contended that his wife, Nancy Go should be the only one liable aswhen his wife entered into the contract with the Ongs, she was acting alone for hersole interest.Issue: Are the Go spouses solidarily liable to the Ong spouses?Decision: No, only Nancy is liable.Under Article 73 of the Family Code, the wife may exercise any profession,occupation or engage in business without the consent of the husband. In this case, it was only Nancy Go who entered into the contract with theOngs. Thus, she is solely liable for the damages awarded, pursuant to the principlethat contracts produce effect only as between the parties who execute themCPG: Exclusive Properties70. Sarmiento vs. IAC (153 SCRA 104)Facts:2 cases. First was an action for support filed by Norma Sarmiento againstCesar Sarmiento. Court granted, awarding P500/month support in favor of Norma.Second case was an action filed by Norma asking for a declaration from the court thatthe retirement benefits of Cesar from PNB is part of the conjugal property, 50% ofwhich should be given to her. Cesar failed to appear during the pre-trial. Eventually,the court ruled in favor of Norma and ordered PNB to refrain from releasing to Cesarall his retirement benefits and to deliver ½ thereof to Norma.Issue:Is Norma entitled to ½ of the retirement benefits of Cesar?Held:No! The order of the lower court violated Section 26 of CA186 (GSISCharter) which prohibits the attachment, garnishment or freezing of any benefitgranted by the Act. The order was in effect, a freeze order.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 51 pages?
Law, Supreme Court of the United States, Appellate court, DEAN DEL CASTILLO