This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2012-10-11 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Nevertheless, petitioner does not err in seeking the return of the down payment as a consequence of the sale having been declared void. The rule is settled that the declaration of nullity of a contract which is void ab initio operates to restore things to the state and condition in which they were found before the execution thereof.[17] Petitioner is correct in its argument that allowing respondents to keep the amount received from petitioner is tantamount to judicial acquiescence to unjust enrichment. Unjust enrichment exists "when a person unjustly retains a benefit to the loss of another, or when a person retains money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience."[18] There is unjust enrichment under Article 22 of the Civil Code when (1) a person is unjustly benefited, and (2) such benefit is derived at the expense of or with damages to another.[19] Thus, the sale which created the obligation of petitioner to pay the agreed amount having been declared void, respondents have the duty to return the down payment as they no longer have the right to keep it. The principle of unjust enrichment essentially contemplates payment when there is no duty to pay, and the person who receives the payment has no right to receive it.[20] As found by the CA and undisputed by the parties, the amount of the down payment made is P14,000,000.00 which shall also be the amount to be returned by respondents. | |||||
|
2007-11-13 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| Actual damages are such compensation or damages for an injury and will put the injured party in the position in which he was before he was injured. They are those damages which the injured party is entitled to recover, for the wrong done and injuries received when none was intended. They indicate such losses as are actually sustained and susceptible of measurement, and as used in this sense, the phrase, "determinate pecuniary loss" has been suggested as a more appropriate designation. They include all kinds of damages except exemplary or primitive damages. Compensatory damages are awarded as an equivalent for the injury done. It is synonymous with actual damages. Thus, as correctly argued by the CIAC, actual damages must be duly proven and so proved with a reasonable degree of certainty.[26] | |||||
|
2007-08-31 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In order that damages may be recovered, the best evidence obtainable by the injured party must be presented. Actual or compensatory damages cannot be presumed, but must be duly proved, and so proved with reasonable degree of certainty. A court cannot rely on speculation, conjecture or guesswork as to the fact and amount of damages, but must depend upon competent proof that they have been suffered and on evidence of the actual amount thereof. If the proof is flimsy and unsubstantial, no damages will be awarded.[38] | |||||
|
2006-02-09 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| [11] Development Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 319 Phil. 447 (1995). | |||||