The Civil Code says that improvements, "whether for utility or adornment, made on the separate property of the spouses through advancements from the partnership or through the industry of either the husband or the wife, belong to the conjugal partnership," and buildings "constructed, at the expense of the partnership, during the marriage on land belonging to one of the spouses, also pertain to the partnership, but the value of the land shall be reimbursed to the spouse who owns the same."  Proof, therefore, is needful of the time of the making or construction of the improvements and the source of the funds used therefor, in order to determine the character of the improvements as belonging to the conjugal partnership or to one spouse separately. 

Probation is a just privilege the grant of which is discretionary upon the court. Before granting probation, the court must consider the potentiality of the offender to reform, together with the demands of justice and public interest, along with other relevant circumstances.(Bernardo v. Balagot, 215 SCRA 526.) The courts are not to limit the basis of their decision to the report or recommendation of the probation officer, which is at best only persuasive.

Where considerations of visibility are favorable and the witness does not appear to be biased against the accused, his or her assertions as to the identity of the malefactor should be normally accepted. This is more so when the witness is the victim or his near relative because these witnesses usually strive to remember the faces of the assailants  Moreover, the trial court gave credence to the prosecution's identification of the appellants as the culprits. Subject to exceptions which do not obtain in these cases, the trial court is in a better position to decide this question, having seen and heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.

It must be stressed, however, that the mere issuance of the certificate of land transfer does not vest in the farmer/grantee ownership of the land described therein. At most, the certificate merely evidences the government's recognition of the grantee as the party qualified to avail of the statutory mechanisms for the acquisition of ownership of the land titled by him as provided under Presidential Decree No. 27. Neither is this recognition permanent nor irrevocable. Thus, failure on the part of the farmer/grantee to comply with his obligation to pay his lease rentals or amortization payments when they fall due for a period of two (2) years to the landowner or agricultural lessor is a ground for forfeiture of his certificate of land transfer [Section 2, P.D. No. 816; Pagtalunan v. Tamayo, G.R. No. 54281, March 9, 1990].

Notwithstanding the passage of the New Civil Code, Article 587 of the Code of Commerce is still good law. The reason lies in the peculiar nature of maritime law is which is "exclusively real and hypothecary that operates to limit such liability to the value of the vessel, or to the insurance thereon, if any. As correctly stated by the appellate court, "this rule is found necessary to offset against the innumerable hazards and perils of a sea voyage and to encourage shipbuilding and marine commerce. Contrary to the petitioners' supposition, the limited liability doctrine applies not only to the goods but also in all cases like death or injury to passengers wherein the shipowner or agent may properly be held liable for the negligent or illicit acts of the captain. It must be stressed at this point that Article 587 speaks only of situations where the fault or negligence is committed solely by the captain. In cases where the shipowner is likewise to be blamed, Article 587 does not apply. Such a situation will be covered by the provisions of the New Civil Code on Common Carriers.