Posted in Civil Law case digests

2015 Civil Law Bar Q&A

I.

Alden and Stela were both former Filipino citizens. They were married in the Philippines but they later migrated to the United States where they were naturalized as American citizens. In their union they were able to accumulate several real properties both in the US and in the Philippines. Unfortunately, they were not blessed with children. In the US, they executed a joint will instituting as their common heirs to divide their combined estate in equal shares, the five siblingsand of Alden the seven siblings of Stela. Alden passed away in 2013 and a year later, Stela also died. The siblings of Alden who were all citizens of the US instituted probate proceedings in a US court impleading the siblings of Stela who were all in the Philippines.

Continue reading “2015 Civil Law Bar Q&A”

Posted in Civil Law case digests

1993- 2006 Civil Law Q&A (Family Code)

Emancipation (1993)

Julio and Lea, both 18 years old, were sweethearts. At a party at the house of a mutual friend. Lea met Jake, also 18 years old, who showed interest in her. Lea seemed to entertain Jake because she danced with him many times. In a fit of jealousy, Julio shot Jake with his father’s 38 caliber revolver which, before going to the party he was able to get from the unlocked drawer inside his father’s bedroom. Jake died as a result of the lone gunshot wound he sustained. His parents sued Julio’s parents for damages arising from quasi-delict. At the time of the incident, Julio was 18 years old living with his parents. Julio’s parents moved to dismiss the complaint against them claiming that since Julio was already of majority age, they were no longer liable for his acts.

Continue reading “1993- 2006 Civil Law Q&A (Family Code)”

Posted in Mercantile Law case digests

Elidad C. Kho vs. Court of Appeals GR No. 115758 (March 19, 2002)

FACTS:

 Petitioner‘s allegations are that they are doing business under the name and style of KEC Cosmetics Laboratory, registered owner of Chin Chun Su and oval facial cream container/case, and alleges that she also has patent rights on Chin Chun Su and Device and Chin Chun Su Medicated Cream after purchasing the same from Quintin Cheng, the registered owner thereof in the supplemental register of the Philippine Patent Office and that Summerville advertised and sold petitioner’s cream products under the brand name Chin Chun Su, in similar containers that petitioner uses, thereby misleading the public, and resulting in the decline in the petitioner’s business sales and income; and, that the respondents should be enjoined from allegedly infringing on the copyrights and patents of the petitioner.
Continue reading “Elidad C. Kho vs. Court of Appeals GR No. 115758 (March 19, 2002)”

Posted in Mercantile Law case digests

PEARL & DEAN (PHIL.), INC. vs SHOEMART, INC GR No. 148222 (August 15,2003)

FACTS:

          Pearl and Dean is a corporation engaged in the manufacture of advertising display units referred to as light boxes and these light boxes were marketed under the trademark Poster Ads. Pearl and Dean entered into a contract with Shoemart, Inc. for the lease and installation of the light boxes in SM North Edsa. However, due to construction constraints, Shoemart, Inc offered as an alternative SM Makati and SM Cubao.

          After Pearl and Dean’s contract was rescinded, exact copies of its light boxes were installed in various SM malls, fabricated by Metro Industrial Services and later by EYD Rainbow Advertising Corporation. Pearl and Dean sent a letter to Shoemart and its sister company, North Edsa Marketing to cease using the light boxes and to remove them from the malls, and demanded the discontinued used of the trademark “Poster Ads”.

          Unsatisfied with the compliance of its demands, Pearl and Dean sued Shoemart which was ruled by the trial court in their favor. On appeal, however, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision. Continue reading “PEARL & DEAN (PHIL.), INC. vs SHOEMART, INC GR No. 148222 (August 15,2003)”

Posted in Mercantile Law case digests

NIELSON & CO. INC. VS. LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING CO. (GR. No. L-21601; December 28, 1968)

FACTS:

            On January 30, 1937, the parties have entered into an operating agreement wherein Nielson & Co. would operate and manage the mining properties owned by Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co. for a period of five years. Before the lapse of the five year period, the parties have renewed the contract for another five years with modifications made by Lepanto on the management fee.

On its modified contract Nielson will receive (1) 10% of the dividends declared and paid, when and as paid during the period of the contract and at the end of each year, (2) 10% of any depletion reserve that may set up, and (3) 10% of any amount expended during the year out of surplus earnings for capital account. Continue reading “NIELSON & CO. INC. VS. LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING CO. (GR. No. L-21601; December 28, 1968)”

Posted in Mercantile Law case digests

Sasot vs. People GR No. 143193 (June 29,2005)

FACTS:

          The National Bureau of Investigation conducted an investigation pursuant to a complaint filed by the NBA Properties, Inc. against petitioners for possible violation of Article 189 of the Revised Penal Code on unfair competition. Based on the report from the NBI, they have conducted two investigations due to the petitioners’ alleged participation in the manufacture, printing, sale and distribution of counterfeit “NBA” garment products, which led to the search and seizure of several items from petitioner’s establishment.  Continue reading “Sasot vs. People GR No. 143193 (June 29,2005)”

Posted in Civil Law case digests

Lam Swee Sang vs. The Commonwealth of the Philippines GR No. 47623 September 16, 1947

FACTS:

                On October 15, 1947, the court ordered for the dismissal of the application for naturalization of the application Lam Swee Sang. The court ruled the applicant for naturalization was a Filipino citizen since although his father was Chinese, his mother FIlipno, he was born in Sulu, Philippines.  The Solicitor General on October 21, 1947, filed a motion for reconsideration contending that petitioner is not a Filipino citizen for the reason that the laws in force at the time of the birth of the petitioner, even if his parents were legally married (but no mention of it in the petition), the principle of jus soli could not be assailed. Continue reading “Lam Swee Sang vs. The Commonwealth of the Philippines GR No. 47623 September 16, 1947”