This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2014-06-18 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| As a rule, the court's resolution in a given issue is embodied in the decision's dispositive part. The dispositive part is the controlling factor on the settlement of parties' rights, notwithstanding the confusing statement in the body of the decision or order. However, this rule only applies when the decision's dispositive part is definite, clear and unequivocal.[35] Where a doubt or uncertainty exists between the dispositive part and the body of the decision, the Court must harmonize the former with the latter in order to give effect to the decision's intention, purpose and substantive terms.[36] | |||||
|
2013-06-19 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Respondent's act of filing multiple motions, such as the first and earlier motion to dismiss and then the motion to dismiss at issue here, as well as several motions for postponement, lends credibility to the position taken by petitioner, which is shared by the trial court, that respondent is deliberately impeding the early disposition of this case. The filing of the second motion to dismiss was, therefore, "not only improper but also dilatory."[28] Thus, the trial court, "far from deviating or straying off course from established jurisprudence on [the] matter, x x x had in fact faithfully observed the law and legal precedents in this case."[29] The Court of Appeals, therefore, erred not only in entertaining respondent's petition for certiorari, it likewise erred in ruling that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion when it denied respondent's motion to dismiss. | |||||
|
2012-10-10 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| There is a dearth of proof at the time of the marriage defendant knew about the mental condition of plaintiff; and there is proof that plaintiff continues to be without sound reason. The charges in this very complaint add emphasis to the findings of the neuro-psychiatrist handling the patient, that plaintiff really lives more in fancy than in reality, a strong indication of schizophernia (sic).[4] | |||||
|
2011-01-19 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Article 45 of the Family Code, on the other hand, refers to voidable marriages, meaning, marriages which are valid until they are set aside by final judgment of a competent court in an action for annulment.[12] In both instances under Articles 40 and 45, the marriages are governed either by absolute community of property[13] or conjugal partnership of gains[14] unless the parties agree to a complete separation of property in a marriage settlement entered into before the marriage. Since the property relations of the parties is governed by absolute community of property or conjugal partnership of gains, there is a need to liquidate, partition and distribute the properties before a decree of annulment could be issued. That is not the case for annulment of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code because the marriage is governed by the ordinary rules on co-ownership. | |||||
|
2007-08-09 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| The resolution of the court in a given issue embodied in the fallo or dispositive part of a decision or order is the controlling factor as to settlement of rights of the parties.[9] Thus, where there is a conflict between the fallo and the ratio decidendi or body of the decision, the fallo controls. This rule rests on the theory that the fallo is the final order while the opinion in the body is merely a statement ordering nothing.[10] The rule applies when the dispositive part of a final decision or order is definite, clear, and unequivocal, and can wholly be given effect without need of interpretation or construction.[11] | |||||
|
2002-01-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Petitioners allege grave abuse of discretion under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The essential requisites for a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 are: (1) the writ is directed against a tribunal, a board, or an officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (2) such tribunal, board, or officer has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (3) there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[9] For writs of prohibition, the requisites are: (1) the impugned act must be that of a "tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person, whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions;" and (2) there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." [10] | |||||