Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

TROPICAL HOMES v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 173038 2011-09-14	ELENA JANE DUARTE v. MIGUEL SAMUEL A.E. DURAN DEL CASTILLO, J.
Finally, although not raised as an issue, we find it necessary to modify the legal interest rate imposed on the principal amount claimed. Since the claim involves an obligation arising from a contract of sale and not a loan or forbearance of money, the interest rate should be six percent (6%) per annum of the amount claimed from July 29, 2002.[70] The interest rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum, however, shall apply from the finality of judgment until the total amount awarded is fully paid.[71]
	GR No. 181560 2010-11-15	VITARICH CORPORATION v. CHONA LOSIN MENDOZA, J.
Inasmuch as the case at bar involves an obligation not arising from a loan or forbearance of money, but consists in the payment of a sum of money, the legal rate of interest is 6% per annum of the amount demanded.[38] Interest shall continue to run from February 12, 1997, the date when Vitarich demanded payment of the sum amounting to P921,083.10 from Losin (and not from the time of the filing of the Complaint) until finality of the Decision (not until fully paid). The rate of interest shall increase to 12% per annum only from such finality until its satisfaction, the interim period being deemed to be equivalent to a forbearance of credit.[39]
	GR NO. 140182 2005-04-12	TANAY RECREATION CENTER v. CATALINA MATIENZO FAUSTO+ AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Such award of damages shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum, which shall be computed from the time of the filing of the Complaint on August 22, 1991, until the finality of this decision. After the present decision becomes final and executory, the rate of interest shall increase to twelve percent (12%) per annum from such finality until its satisfaction, this interim period being deemed to be equivalent to a forbearance of credit.[52] This is in accord with the guidelines laid down by the Court in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals,[53] regarding the manner of computing legal interest, viz.:II. With regard particularly to an award of interest in the concept of actual and compensatory damages, the rate of interest, as well as the accrual thereof, is imposed, as follows:
	GR No. 144413 2004-07-30	REPUBLIC GLASS CORPORATION v. LAWRENCE C. QUA CARPIO, J.
Novation extinguishes an obligation by (1) changing its object or principal conditions; (2) substituting the person of the debtor; and (3) subrogating a third person in the rights of the creditor. Article 1292 of the Civil Code clearly provides that in order that an obligation may be extinguished by another which substitutes the same, it should be declared in unequivocal terms, or that the old and new obligations be on every point incompatible with each other.[41] Novation may either be extinctive or modificatory. Novation is extinctive when an old obligation is terminated by the creation of a new obligation that takes the place of the former. Novation is merely modificatory when the old obligation subsists to the extent it remains compatible with the amendatory agreement.[42]
	GR No. 147950 2003-12-11	CALIFORNIA BUS LINES v. STATE INVESTMENT HOUSE QUISUMBING, J.
DMC and SILVERIO undertake to recall or withdraw its previous request to Notary Public Alberto G. Doller and to instruct him not to proceed with the public auction sale of the shares of stock of CBL subject-matter of the Deed of Pledge of Shares. LLAMAS, on the other hand, undertakes to move for the immediate dismissal of Civil Case No. 9460-P entitled "Dionisio O. Llamas vs. Alberto G. Doller, et al.", Court of First Instance of Pasay, Branch XXIX.[60] It is clear from the foregoing that the restructuring agreement, instead of containing provisions "absolutely incompatible" with the obligations of the judgment, expressly ratifies such obligations in paragraph 8 and contains provisions for satisfying them. There was no change in the object of the prior obligations. The restructuring agreement merely provided for a new schedule of payments and additional security in paragraph 6 (c) giving Delta authority to take over the management and operations of CBLI in case CBLI fails to pay installments equivalent to 60 days. Where the parties to the new obligation expressly recognize the continuing existence and validity of the old one, there can be no novation.[61] Moreover, this Court has ruled that an agreement subsequently executed between a seller and a buyer that provided for a different schedule and manner of payment, to restructure the mode of payments by the buyer so that it could settle its outstanding obligation in spite of its delinquency in payment, is not tantamount to novation. [62]