Here are selected April 2009 decisions of the Supreme Court on civil law and related laws:
Accretion. Article 457 of the Civil Code requires the concurrence of the following requisites for accretion: (1) that the deposition of soil or sediment be gradual and imperceptible; (2) that it be the result of the action of the waters of the river; and (3) that the land where accretion takes place is adjacent to the banks of rivers. Thus, it is not enough to be a riparian owner in order to enjoy the benefits of accretion. One who claims the right of accretion must show by preponderant evidence that he has met all the conditions provided by law. New Regent Sources, Inc. vs. Teofilo Victor Tanjuatco, Jr. and Vicente Cuevas, G.R. No. 168800, April 16, 2009.
Compensation; requisites. Under Article 1279 (1), it is necessary for compensation that the obligors “be bound principally, and that he be at the same time a principal creditor of the other.” There is, concededly, no mutual creditor-debtor relation between APT and UPSUMCO. However, we recognize the concept of conventional compensation, defined as occurring “when the parties agree to compensate their mutual obligations even if some requisite is lacking, such as that provided in Article 1282.” It is intended to eliminate or overcome obstacles which prevent ipso jure extinguishment of their obligations.
Legal compensation takes place by operation of law when all the requisites are present, as opposed to conventional compensation which takes place when the parties agree to compensate their mutual obligations even in the absence of some requisites. The only requisites of conventional compensation are (1) that each of the parties can dispose of the credit he seeks to compensate, and (2) that they agree to the mutual extinguishment of their credits. United Planters Sugar Milling Co., Inc. (UPSUMCO) vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 126890, April 2, 2009.
Compromise agreement; binding effect. A compromise agreement, as a contract, is binding only upon the parties to the compromise, and not upon non-parties. This is the doctrine of relativity of contracts. Consistent with this principle, a judgment based entirely on a compromise agreement is binding only on the parties to the compromise the court approved, and not upon the parties who did not take part in the compromise agreement and in the proceedings leading to its submission and approval by the court. Otherwise stated, a court judgment made solely on the basis of a compromise agreement binds only the parties to the compromise, and cannot bind a party litigant who did not take part in the compromise agreement. Philippine National Bank Vs. Marcelino Banatao, et al. and Marciano Carag, et al., G.R. No. 149221, April 7, 2009.