ANG YU ASUNCION, ET AL. VS. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. NO. 109125

FACTS:
Ang Yu Asuncion, Arthur Go, and Keh Tiong, the plaintiffs, rented commercial spaces that are owned by Bobby Cu Unjieng,
Rose Cu Unjieng, and Jose Tan, the defendants. The defendants offered to sell the property and prioritize the plaintiffs in
acquiring it. Until negotiations took place, Bobby offered a price of 6 million PHP, but the plaintiff asked for a reduction to just
P5 million. They asked the defendant if what they were discussing could be put in writing, and the defendant agreed with the
plaintiff's suggestion to document their conversation. The plaintiff replied, asking to specify their terms and conditions.
The only issue is that the plaintiffs have not received a reply or response from the defendant. They just heard that the defendants
were supposedly going to sell the property, so the plaintiffs were compelled to file a complaint to force the defendants to sell the
property exclusively to them since they had already negotiated a deal. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint to compel
the defendant to sell the plaintiffs' property because they did not discuss the terms and conditions; the defendants did not reply,
so there was no contract for a deed of sale.
On November 15, 1990, the defendants executed a deed of sale to transfer the property to Buen Reality Corporation. The
defendants sold the property to someone else, and the court issued that if this property is sold for P11 million or below, the
actual owner will be prioritized, and that amount will be sold for the plaintiffs. The thing is, the defendants sold the property for
P15 million, and Buen Reality was the one who bought that property.

ISSUES:
Can Buen Reality be found by the writ of execution under the notice of his Lis pendens?

RULING:
No. An obligation is a juridical necessity to give, to do, and not to do (Article 1156, Civil Code). The Supreme Court ruled that
the right of first refusal does not create a binding contract and cannot be enforced through a writ of execution.
DELA RAMA VS. MEDIOLA
G.R. NO. 135394
APRIL 3, 2003

FACTS:
Jose V. Dela Rama, the petitioner, sold a portion of his land to the government for the use of construction of the EDSA
Extension Project. His concern is he wanted to reconveyance the unused portion of land after the project was done by the
government.
On June 17, 1988, the petitioner signed an agreement in which is called “Contract to Sell” whereby he promised to sell the
portion of his land to the respondent (Titan Construction Corporation), afterward the respondent filed a complaint about the
ejection of their contract for the reason of the failure of the petitioner to comply his obligation regarding on their contract. On
May 19, 1989, RTC of Pasay City undertook a court hiring for the settlement of both parties. Under the court judgment, the
petitioner is required to execute a deed of absolute sale of the subject property in favor of the respondent.
Meanwhile, Jose V. Dela Rama, the petitioner, requested the reconveyance of the unused portion of land from the project that
was made by the government. In supporting the request of the petitioner, the office of the Philippines performed the responding
deed of Reconveyance of the unused portion of the land of over 303 square meters.
On January 3, 1997, the respondent filed a petition for the voiding of the deed of reconveyance of the petitioner by the reason of
the petitioner's violation of rights of preemption. On March 5, 1997, the trial court dismissed the respondent's petition for the
lack of merit. In that matter, the respondent inducted a petition for writ before this court on March 24, 1997, the Court of
Appeals. On July 18, 1997, the respondent filed a motion to withdraw the petition, in its Resolution dated December 10, 1997,
granted. Thus, the case was dismissed with finality.
Meanwhile, the petitioner’s motion to dismiss the direct contempt based on forum shopping was dismissed by the RTC of Pasay
City.

ISSUES:
Whether the specific performance case (Civil Case No. 97-0734) is barred by the petition for declaratory relief case (Civil Case
No. 96-1725 and CA-G.R. SP No. 44094) on the ground of res judicata.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court granted the petition, ruling that the elements of res judicata were present and that the specific
performance case must be dismissed.
BACHRACH CORPORATION VS. PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY
G.R. No. 159915
MARCH 12, 2009

FACTS:
In the case of Bachrach Corporations v. CA, the Philippines Ports Authority (PPA) issued a meeting to increase the rental rates
of Bachrach Corporation by a substantial 1,500%.
The only problem is that Bachrach refused to pay these increased rates. As a result, PPA initiated illegal detainer proceedings
against Bachrach for non-payment of rent. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) ordered the removal of the Bachrach
Corporation, which was later affirmed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
The Bachrach appealed to the Court of Appeals, gradually the issues related to res judicata, forum shopping, and the writ of
preliminary injunction are growing. Overall, the Court of Appeals nullified the Regional Trial Court orders and dismissed the
case against Bachrach.

ISSUES:
Did the Court of Appeals err in ordering the dismissal of Civil Case No. 95-73399, thereby ruling on the merits of the case?

RULING:
Yes. The Court of Appeals erred in ordering the dismissal of Civil Case No. 95-73399.
PEOPLE VS. CATUBIG Y HORIO
G.R. NO. 137842
AUGUST 23, 2001

FACTS:

The accused, Danilo Catubig y Horio, was charged with raping his 13-year-old daughter, Dannilyn Catubig y Lazaro. The
lawsuit was brought before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 78, in Malolos, Bulacan, on January 29, 1998. On November 27,
1997, an event occurred at San Jose del Monte, Bulacan. When her father came and transferred her younger siblings to their
aunt's house while she was watching TV, Dannilyn was forced to remove her shorts and underwear and walk into a room where
Danilo sexually attacked her. Dannilyn's aunt was concerned about Danilo's behavior and informed Dannilyn's mother, resulting
in the rape being exposed. Sexual activity was verified by a medical check. Danilo denied the charge, stating it was the product
of animosity after a fight with his wife and children. The trial court convicted Danilo guilty of rape on December 11, 1998, and
sentenced him to death. Also, Dannilyn was awarded P50,000.00 as moral damages. The Supreme Court was asked to consider
the matter automatically.

ISSUES:
Did the lower court err in finding the accused guilty of rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by
Republic Act 7659?

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Danilo Catubig for the crime of rape but modified the penalty from death to
reclusion Perpetua.
MAKATI STOCK EXCHANGE, INC., MA. VIVIAN YUCHENGC, ET AL. VS MIGUEL V. CAMPOS,
SUBSTITUTED BY JULIA ORTIGAS VDA. DE CAMPOS
G.R. NO. 138814
APRIL 16, 2009

FACTS:
Miguel V. Campos filed a petition against the respondents Makati Stock Exchange, Inc. (MKSE), and its board of directors. The
petitioner allegedly deprived his right to participate in the allocation of the Initial Public Offerings (IPO).
On Feb 14, 1994, the SICD issued an Order in favor of the respondent for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order
against the MKSE board directors.
Meanwhile, on March 10, 1994, SICD issued another order in acceptance of the request of the respondent’s writ of preliminary
injunction, where the respondents can continuously enjoin the said hiring, while the MKSE Board Resolution implementation
faced a lot of questions they will be discussed during the hiring.
On March 11, 1994, the petitioners filed a petition for the dismissal of the respondent’s petition whereby they opposed that the
petition was questionable due to the cancellation of the license of MKSE, it also stated that the SICD had no jurisdiction over
the Petition and the petition omit to give a cause of action. Subsequently, on May 1994, The SICD dismissed the petitioner’s
motion for the dismissal of the Order, Afterwards, the petitioners filed another writ petition, docketed as SEC-EB No. 403.
On March 11, 1997, the Court of Appeals gave a decision to grant the petition for a writ that has been made by the respondents.
Therefore, the petition for the annulment is GRANTED. Another petition made by the petitioners about the Reconsideration of
the upcoming decision was denied by the Court of Appeals.
On May 17 the respondent died which is why the respondent's lawful wife became his substitution for this case.
In the end, the petition that has been filed by the espondent has been dismissed.

ISSUE:
Was the grant of IPO allocations to Campos a mere accommodation by the MKSE Board of Directors?

RULING:
No. It was a legally enforceable right.