Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RODOLFO MORALES v. CA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 156448 2011-02-23	SPS. MOISES AND CLEMENCIA ANDRADA v. PILHINO SALES CORPORATION BERSAMIN, J.
But, as noted by the Court in Morales v. Court of Appeals,[15] the award of attorney's fees is the exception rather than the rule. The power of a court to award attorney's fees under Article 2208 of the Civil Code demands factual, legal, and equitable justification; its basis cannot be left to speculation and conjecture.[16] The general rule is that attorney's fees cannot be recovered as part of damages because of the policy that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate.[17]
	GR No. 178158 2009-12-04	STRATEGIC ALLIANCE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. RADSTOCK SECURITIES LIMITED CARPIO, J.
It is also wrong for Sison to insist that the compromise agreement would create a trust relationship between PNCC and Radstock. Trust is the legal relationship between one person having an equitable ownership in property and another person owning the legal title to such property, the equitable ownership of the former entitling him to the performance of certain duties and the exercise of certain powers by the latter.[110] By definition, trust relations between parties are either express or implied.[111] Express trusts are created by the direct and positive acts of the parties, by some writing or deed, or will, or by words evincing an intention to create a trust.[112]
	GR NO. 140798 2006-09-19	MARCELITO D. QUEVADA v. CA AZCUNA, J.
ARTICLE 1456. If property is acquired through mistake or fraud, the person obtaining it is, by force of law, considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the property comes. "While an implied trust may be proved orally (Civil Code of the Philippines, Art. 1457), the evidence must be trustworthy and received by the courts with extreme caution, because such kind of evidence may be easily fabricated x x x. It cannot be made to rest on vague and uncertain evidence or on loose, equivocal[,] or indefinite declarations x x x."[55] "[T]he burden of proving the existence of a trust is on the party asserting its existence, and such proof must be clear and satisfactorily show the existence of the trust and its elements."[56]
	GR NO. 149615 2006-08-29	IN RE: PETITION FOR SEPARATION OF PROPERTY ELENA BUENAVENTURA MULLER v. HELMUT MULLER YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The Court of Appeals erred in holding that an implied trust was created and resulted by operation of law in view of petitioner's marriage to respondent. Save for the exception provided in cases of hereditary succession, respondent's disqualification from owning lands in the Philippines is absolute. Not even an ownership in trust is allowed. Besides, where the purchase is made in violation of an existing statute and in evasion of its express provision, no trust can result in favor of the party who is guilty of the fraud.[13] To hold otherwise would allow circumvention of the constitutional prohibition.
	GR NO. 150712 2006-05-02	ESTRELLA PIGAO v. SAMUEL RABANILLO CORONA, J.
In Morales v. Court of Appeals,[27] we extensively discussed the concept of "trust:"
	GR NO. 125256 2006-05-02	JESUS DURAN v. CARPIO TINGA, J.
In Morales v. Court of Appeals,[8] we defined a trust and the categories of trust, viz:Trusts are either express or implied. Express trusts are created by the intention of the trustor or of the parties, while implied trusts come into being by operation of law, either through implication of an intention to create a trust as a matter of law or through the imposition of the trust irrespective of, and even contrary to, any such intention. In turn, implied trusts are either resulting or constructive trusts. Resulting trusts are based on the equitable doctrine that valuable consideration and not legal title determines the equitable title or interest and are presumed always to have been contemplated by the parties. They arise from the nature or circumstances of the consideration involved in a transaction whereby one person thereby becomes invested with legal title but is obligated in equity to hold his legal title for the benefit of another. On the other hand, constructive trusts are created by the construction of equity in order to satisfy the demands of justice and prevent unjust enrichment. They arise contrary to intention against one who, by fraud, duress or abuse of confidence, obtains or holds the legal right to property which he ought not, in equity and good conscience, to hold.[9] [Emphasis supplied]