Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. LORENZO V. LAGANDAON AND CECILIA T. LAGANDAON AND OVERSEAS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR NO. 142408 2005-09-30	SPS. RICARDO ALMENDRALA AND ROSARIO DOROJA v. SPS. WING ON NGO AND LILY T. NGO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As to the contention of the Ngo spouses that the CA erred in refusing to grant their claim for damages and attorney's fees, suffice it to say that the Court has held in a litany of cases[44] that parties who have not appealed cannot obtain from the appellate court any affirmative reliefs other than those granted, if any, in the decision of the lower tribunal. The appellees can advance only such arguments as may be necessary to defeat the appellants' claims or to uphold the appealed decision. They cannot ask for a modification of the judgment in their favor in order to obtain other positive reliefs.
	GR NO. 125585 2005-06-08	HEIRS OF EDUARDO MANLAPAT v. CA TINGA, J.
Registration is not a requirement for validity of the contract as between the parties, for the effect of registration serves chiefly to bind third persons.[36] The principal purpose of registration is merely to notify other persons not parties to a contract that a transaction involving the property had been entered into. Where the party has knowledge of a prior existing interest which is unregistered at the time he acquired a right to the same land, his knowledge of that prior unregistered interest has the effect of registration as to him.[37]
	GR No. 148775 2004-01-13	SHOPPER’S PARADISE REALTY v. EFREN P. ROQUE VITUG, J.
A person dealing with registered land may thus safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title issued therefore, and he is not required to go beyond the certificate to determine the condition of the property[7] but, where such party has knowledge of a prior existing interest which is unregistered at the time he acquired a right thereto, his knowledge of that prior unregistered interest would have the effect of registration as regards to him.[8]
	GR No. 150179 2003-04-30	HEIRS OF WILLIAM SEVILLA v. LEOPOLDO SEVILLA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Petitioners, however, insist that respondent Leopoldo Sevilla employed fraud and undue influence on the person of the donor. This argument involves appreciation of the evidence.[25] The settled rule is that factual findings of the trial court, if affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are entitled to great respect.[26] There are exceptional circumstances when findings of fact of lower courts may be set aside[27] but none is present in the case at bar. Indeed, neither fraud nor undue influence can be inferred from the following circumstance alleged by the petitioners, to wit