This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2016-01-11 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Citing Municipality of Hagonoy v. Evangelista,[60] the trial court ruled that the lease contract between the Municipality of Camiling and Diego Z. Lopez was void since it "was not approved by the provincial governor in violation of section 2196 of the Revised Administrative Code."[61] This court reversed the trial court's Decision and noted the incorrect interpretation in Municipality of Hagonoy of the term "nulos" under Article 4 of the then Civil Code: "Son nulos los actos ejecutados contra lo dispuesto en la ley, salvo los casos en que la naisma ley or dene su validez."[62] | |||||
|
2016-01-11 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| In Municipality of Camiling, this court explained that void acts declared in Article 4 of the Old Civil Code[63] refer to those made in violation of the law. Not all those acts are void from the beginning. Void acts may be "those that are ipso facto void and those which are merely voidable."[64] | |||||
|
2016-01-11 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Contracts that only subject a property owner's property rights to conditions or limitations but otherwise contain all the elements of a valid contract are merely voidable by the person in whose favor the conditions or limitations are made.[75] | |||||
|
2016-01-11 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| At most, therefore, the restrictions made the contract entered into by the parties voidable[76] by the person in whose favor they were made—in this case, by the National Housing Authority.[77] Petitioner has no actionable right or cause of action based on those restrictions.[78] | |||||