Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 189420 2014-03-26	RAUL V. ARAMBULO v. GENARO NOLASCO PEREZ, J.
Nearer to the dispute at hand are the pronouncements in the 1944 case of Lopez v. Vda. De Cuaycong.[17] Citing Manresa on Article 399 which is the present Article 493 of the Civil Code, the Court said: x x x Article 399 shows the essential integrity of the right of each co-owner in the mental portion which belongs to him in the ownership or community.
	GR No. 152168 2004-12-10	HEIRS OF LATE SPS. AURELIO AND ESPERANZA BALITE v. RODRIGO N. LIM PANGANIBAN, J.
Petitioners cannot be permitted to unmake the Contract voluntarily entered into by their predecessor, even if the stated consideration was included therein for an unlawful purpose. "The binding force of a contract must be recognized as far as it is legally possible to do so."[13] However, as properly held by the appellate court, the government has the right to collect the proper taxes based on the correct purchase price.