VIGILANCIA DE LA SALUD DE LOS TRABAJADORES EN EL CONTEXTO DEL SISTEMA DE

FACTS:

Petitioner Khe Hong Cheng, alias Felix Khe, is the owner of Butuan Shipping Lines to which the Philippine Agricultural Trading Corporation used its vessel M/V Prince Eric

Corporation to ship 3,400 bags of Copra at Masbate for delivery to Dipolog. Such shipping of 3, 400 bags was covered by a marine insurance policy issued by American Home Insurance

Company (eventually Philam). However, said vessel sank somewhere between Negros Island and Northern Mindanao which resulted to the total loss of the shipment. Insurer Philam paid the amount of P 354, 000.00, which is the value of the copra, to Philippine Agricultural Trading Corporation. American Home was thereby subrogated unto the rights of the consignee and filed a case to recover money paid to the latter, based on breach of common carriage.

While the case was pending, Khe Hong Cheng executed deeds of donations of parcels of land in favor of his children. As a consequence of a favorable judgment for American Home, a writ of execution to garnish Khe Hong Cheng‘s property was issued but the sheriff failed to implement the same for Cheng‘s property were already transferred to his children. Consequently, American home filed a case for the rescission of the deeds of donation executed by petitioner in favor of children for such were made in fraud of his creditors. Petitioner answered saying that the action should be dismissed for it already prescribed. Petitioner posited that the registration of the donation was on December 27, 1989 and such constituted constructive notice. And since the complaint was filed only in 1997, more than four years after registration, the action is thereby barred by prescription.

ISSUE:

whether or not accion pauliana/ rescission of the deed of donation is proper.

HELD:

For an accion pauliana to accrue, the following requisites must concur: (1) the plaintiff asking for rescission has a credit prior to the alienation, although demandable late; (2) that the debtor has made a subsequent contract conveying a patrimonial benefit to a third person; (3) that the creditor has no other Legal remedy to satisfy his claim; but would benefit by rescission of the conveyance to the third person; (4) that the act being impugned is fraudulent; and (5) that the third person who received the property conveyed, if by onerous title, has been an accomplice in the fraud. All the above enumerated elements are present in the case at bar.

Finally, an accion pauliana presupposes the following: 1) a judgment; 2) the issuance by the trial court of a writ of execution for the satisfaction of the judgment; and 3) the failure of the sheriff to enforce and satisfy the judgment of the court. In the case at bar, American exhausted all the properties of the debtor in futility. The date of the trial court‘s decision is immaterial. What is important is that the credit of the plaintiff antedates that of the fraudulent alienation by the debtor of his property. After all, the decision of the trial court against the debtor retroacts to the time when the debtor became indebted to the creditor.

Page 139 of 745 PHILIPPINE REALTY and HOLDING CORP. v. LEY CONST. and DEV. CORP.

G. R. No. 165548, June 13, 2011 FACTS:

Sometime between April 1988 and October 1989, the two corporations entered into four major construction projects, as evidenced by four duly notarized "construction agreements." These were the four construction projects the parties entered into involving a Project 1, Project 2, Project 3 (all of which involve the Alexandra buildings) and a Tektite Building. LCDC

committed itself to the construction of the buildings needed by PRHC, which in turn committed itself to pay the contract price agreed upon. Both parties agreed to enter into another agreement. Abcede asked LCDC to advance the amount necessary to complete construction. Its president acceded, on the absolute condition that it be allowed to escalate the contract price. Abcede replied that he would take this matter up with the board of directors of PRHC.The board of directors turned down the request for an escalation agreement. However, On 9 August 1991 Abcede sent a formal letter to LCDC, asking for its conformity, to the effect that should it infuse P36 million into the project, a contract price escalation for the same amount would be granted in its favor by PRHC.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there is a fortuitous event in the case at bar. RULING:

YES.

Under Article 1174 of the Civil Code, to exempt the obligor from liability for a breach of an obligation due to an "act of God" or force majeure, the following must concur:

(a) the cause of the breach of the obligation must be independent of the will of the debtor; (b) the event must be either unforseeable or unavoidable; (c) the event must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner; and (d) the debtor must be free from any participation in, or aggravation of the injury to the creditor.63

The shortage in supplies and cement may be characterized as force majeure.64 In the present case, hardware stores did not have enough cement available in their supplies or stocks at the time of the construction in the 1990s. Likewise, typhoons, power failures and interruptions of water supply all clearly fall under force majeure. Since LCDC could not possibly continue constructing the building under the circumstances prevailing, it cannot be held liable for any delay that resulted from the causes aforementioned.

Page 140 of 745 MEGAWORLD GLOBUS ASIA, INC. v .MILA S. TANSECO

G.R. No. 181206 October 9, 2009