Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MUNICIPAL MAYOR OF SAN PEDRO v. NICASIO YATCO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 180705 2012-11-27	EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO v. REPUBLIC VELASCO JR., J.
(3) Cause of the obligation which is established. (Emphasis supplied)[42] Art. 1409. The following contracts are inexistent and void from the beginning: x x x x
	GR No. 169752 2007-09-25	PHILIPPINE SOCIETY FOR PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS v. COA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
And since the underpinnings of the charter test had been introduced by the 1935 Constitution and not earlier, it follows that the test cannot apply to the petitioner, which was incorporated by virtue of Act No. 1285, enacted on January 19, 1905. Settled is the rule that laws in general have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided.[16] All statutes are to be construed as having only a prospective operation, unless the purpose and intention of the legislature to give them a retrospective effect is expressly declared or is necessarily implied from the language used. In case of doubt, the doubt must be resolved against the retrospective effect.[17]
	GR NO. 150355 2006-07-31	MANILA DOCTORS HOSPITAL v. SO UN CHUA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
This Court observes that the courts a quo awarded both respondents moral damages. But it is well-settled that in case of physical injuries, with some exceptions,[127] moral damages are recoverable only by the party injured and not by her spouse, next of kin, or relative who happened to sympathize with the injured party.[128] Hence, even if the courts a quo were correct in their basis for damages, they should have declined to award damages to respondent Ty.
	GR NO. 162580 2006-01-27	ELMAR O. PEREZ v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
When Tristan and Lily married on May 18, 1968, their marriage was governed by the provisions of the Civil Code[21] which took effect on August 30, 1950. In the case of Tenchavez v. Escano[22] we held:(1) That a foreign divorce between Filipino citizens, sought and decreed after the effectivity of the present Civil Code (Rep. Act No. 386), is not entitled to recognition as valid in this jurisdiction; and neither is the marriage contracted with another party by the divorced consort, subsequently to the foreign decree of divorce, entitled to validity in the country. (Emphasis added) Thus, petitioner's claim that she is the wife of Tristan even if their marriage was celebrated abroad lacks merit. Thus, petitioner never acquired the legal interest as a wife upon which her motion for intervention is based.