Scribd
Upload
134 views1 page

Facts:: Case Title: Nunez v. Moises-Palma GR No. 224466

The document contains summaries of two court cases: 1) Nunez v. Moises- Palma - The court ruled that petitioners were entitled to recission of a deed of adjudication and sale regarding a property. This was because the promissory note from the sale, which was the consideration, went unpaid, triggering a negative resolutory condition. 2) FedEx v. Antonio - The court ruled that FedEx was not exempt from liability for losing checks it transported. While its contract prohibited transporting money, checks are considered negotiable instruments rather than money, so the prohibition did not apply. FedEx also failed to deliver the package to the correct recipient.

Uploaded by

Jesica Dy Ico
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
134 views1 page

Facts:: Case Title: Nunez v. Moises-Palma GR No. 224466

The document contains summaries of two court cases: 1) Nunez v. Moises- Palma - The court ruled that petitioners were entitled to recission of a deed of adjudication and sale regarding a property. This was because the promissory note from the sale, which was the consideration, went unpaid, triggering a negative resolutory condition. 2) FedEx v. Antonio - The court ruled that FedEx was not exempt from liability for losing checks it transported. While its contract prohibited transporting money, checks are considered negotiable instruments rather than money, so the prohibition did not apply. FedEx also failed to deliver the package to the correct recipient.

Uploaded by

Jesica Dy Ico
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Case Title: Nunez v.

Moises- Palma
GR no. 224466

Facts:
Petitioners’ father Vicentico borrowed 30,000 from Rosita and mortgaged his land as security.
The funds came from Rosita’s daughter Norma. The mortgaged was later released.
Upon Vicentico’s death, the lot was transmitted to his heirs who executed a deed of adjudication
and sale in favor of Norma. Norma executed a promissory note in favor of the petitioners. Norma
immediately possessed the property and transferred the title in her name.
When Norma did not pay the promissory note, the petitioners sought to nullify the deed of
adjudication and recover the property.

Issue:
Whether the petitioners are entitled to recission.

Ruling:
Yes. The non-payment of the promissory note which is a consideration for the contract of sale is a
negative resolutory condition which extinguished the obligation. In a reciprocal obligation as in a contract
of sale, upon the delivery of the seller of the land, the buyer is obliged to pay. In case of non-payment, the
remedy of the seller is either to compel specific performance or to seek recission. Recission is implied in
this case because the petitioners sought to reconvey the property.
There was also no dacion en pago here. The allegation that the mortgage was released as
payment of the loan obtained by Vicentico was negated by the issuance of promissory note by Norma in
favor of the petitioners. Clearly, the obligation was modified into a contract of sale.

Case Title: FedEx v. Antonio

Facts:
Eliza owns a condo in the US and while in the Philippines, the charges on the unit as well as
taxes became due. She sent several checks to Sison who was based in the US for the latter to pay. The
checks were sent thru FedEx. Sison however did not receive the checks which resulted in the foreclosure
of the condo.
Upon learning that the checks were sent, Sison inquired from FedEx. She was informed that the
package was delivered to her neighbor.
Eliza filed a complaint for damages against FedEx. FedEx contend that it was absolved of liability
since Eliza shipped prohibited items (transportation of money/negotiable instrument equivalent to cash)
and misdeclared the package as documents violating its conditions under the Air waybill.

Issue:
Whether the respondent violated the terms of the Air Waybill by shipping checks so as to exempt
FedEx from liability.

Ruling:
No. The condition states: tems Not Acceptable for Transportation. We do not accept
transportation of money (including but not limited to coins or negotiable instruments equivalent to cash
such as endorsed stocks and bonds). The prohibition has a singular object: money. What follows the
phrase "transportation of money" is a phrase enclosed in parentheses, and commencing with the words
"including but not limited to." The additional phrase, enclosed as it is in parentheses, is not the object of
the prohibition, but merely a postscript to the word "money."
It is settled in jurisprudence that checks, being only negotiable instruments, are only substitutes
for money and are not legal tender; more so when the check has a named payee as in this case, and is
not payable to bearer. 
The contract between petitioner and respondents is a contract of adhesion; it was prepared
solely by petitioner for respondents to conform to. Although not automatically void, any ambiguity in a
contract of adhesion is construed strictly against the party that prepared it. Accordingly, the prohibition
against transporting money must be restrictively construed against petitioner and liberally for
respondents.
FedEx here is liable as common carrier for failure to exercise extra ordinary diligence when it sent
the package to another person who is not the intended recipient and worse, not properly identified.

You might also like