Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BANK OF AMERICA v. AMERICAN REALTY CORPORATION

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR Nos. 178382-83 2015-09-23	CONTINENTAL MICRONESIA v. JOSEPH BASSO JARDELEZA, J.
Similarly, in Bank of America, NT&SA v. American Realty Corporation,[56] we ruled that a foreign law, judgment or contract contrary to a sound and established public policy of the forum shall not be applied. Thus:Moreover, foreign law should not be applied when its application would work undeniable injustice to the citizens or residents of the forum. To give justice is the most important function of law; hence, a law, or judgment or contract that is obviously unjust negates the fundamental principles of Conflict of Laws.[57]
	GR No. 193707 2014-12-10	NORMA A. DEL SOCORRO v. ERNST JOHAN BRINKMAN VAN WILSEM PERALTA, J.
In view of respondent's failure to prove the national law of the Netherlands in his favor, the doctrine of processual presumption shall govern. Under this doctrine, if the foreign law involved is not properly pleaded and proved, our courts will presume that the foreign law is the same as our local or domestic or internal law.[44] Thus, since the law of the Netherlands as regards the obligation to support has not been properly pleaded and proved in the instant case, it is presumed to be the same with Philippine law, which enforces the obligation of parents to support their children and penalizing the non-compliance therewith.
	GR No. 158621 2008-12-10	ROYAL CARGO CORPORATION v. DFS SPORTS UNLIMITED AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Furthermore, even if respondent's answer was not amended to conform to the evidence it presented, it does not preclude the trial court from adjudicating the issue of payment. Citing of Bank of America, NT & SA v. American Realty Corporation[27] and Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc. v. Asociacion de Agricultores de Talisay-Silay, Inc.,[28] this Court held in Mercader v. Development Bank of the Philippines (Cebu Branch)[29] that:The failure of a party to amend a pleading to conform to the evidence adduced during trial does not preclude adjudication by the court on the basis of such evidence which may embody new issues not raised in the pleadings. x x x Although, the pleading may not have been amended to conform to the evidence submitted during trial, judgment may nonetheless be rendered, not simply on the basis of the issues alleged but also on the issues discussed and the assertions of fact proved in the course of the trial. The court may treat the pleading as if it had been amended to conform to the evidence, although it had not been actually amended. x x x Clearly, a court may rule and render judgment on the basis of the evidence before it even though the relevant pleading had not been previously amended, so long as no surprise or prejudice is thereby caused to the adverse party. Put a little differently, so long as the basic requirements of fair play had been met, as where the litigants were given full opportunity to support their respective contentions and to object to or refute each other's evidence, the court may validly treat the pleadings as if they had been amended to conform to the evidence and proceed to adjudicate on the basis of all the evidence before it.[30] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 138085 2004-11-11	AZOLLA FARMS v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As can be gleaned from the records, it was petitioners' belief that respondent's evidence justified the amendment of their complaint. The trial court agreed thereto and admitted the amended complaint. On this score, it should be noted that courts are given the discretion to allow amendments of pleadings to conform to the evidence presented during the trial. Thus, in Bank of America, NT and SA vs. American Realty Corporation,[22] the Court stated:There have been instances where the Court has held that even without the necessary amendment, the amount proved at the trial may be validly awarded, as in Tuazon v. Bolanos (95 Phil. 106), where we said that if the facts shown entitled plaintiff to relief other than that asked for, no amendment to the complaint was necessary, especially where defendant had himself raised the point on which recovery was based.[23] The appellate court could treat the pleading as amended to conform to the evidence although the pleadings were actually not amended. Amendment is also unnecessary when only clerical error or non substantial matters are involved, as we held in Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Laguna (48 Phil. 5). In Co Tiamco vs. Diaz (75 Phil. 672), we stressed that the rule on amendment need not be applied rigidly, particularly where no surprise or prejudice is caused the objecting party. And in the recent case of National Power Corporation vs. Court of Appeals (113 SCRA 556), we held that where there is a variance in the defendant's pleadings and the evidence adduced by it at the trial, the Court may treat the pleading as amended to conform with the evidence.[24]
	AM No. CAJ-04-41 2004-09-22	ANTONIO K. LITONJUA v. CA JUSTICES JUAN Q. ENRIQUEZ AZCUNA, J.
On appeal to the CA, the RTC decision was affirmed in toto. A petition for review with this Court[5] resulted in a modification of the judgment, reducing the award of exemplary damages from P5,000,000 to P50,000. The decision became final on April 3, 2000. Entry of judgment was made thereafter and the case was remanded to the court of origin.
	GR No. 130699 2000-05-12	SPS. BERNARDO MERCADER AND FLORINA M. MERCADER v. MANREAL DAVIDE JR., C.J.
More recently, in Bank of America v. American Realty Corporation[39] citing Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc. v. Asociacion de Agricultores de Talisay-Silay, Inc.,[40] the Court reinforces the Co Tiamco ruling on the application of Section 5, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court in this wise:The failure of a party to amend a pleading to conform to the evidence adduced during trial does not preclude adjudication by the court on the basis of such evidence which may embody new issues not raised in the pleadings. x x x Although, the pleading may not have been amended to conform to the evidence submitted during trial, judgment may nonetheless be rendered, not simply on the basis of the issues alleged but also on the issues discussed and the assertions of fact proved in the course of the trial. The court may treat the pleading as if it had been amended to conform to the evidence, although it had not been actually amended. xxx Clearly, a court may rule and render judgment on the basis of the evidence before it even though the relevant pleading had not been previously amended, so long as no surprise or prejudice is thereby caused to the adverse party. Put a little differently, so long as the basic requirements of fair play had been met, as where the litigants were given full opportunity to support their respective contentions and to object to or refute each other's evidence, the court may validly treat the pleadings as if they had been amended to conform to the evidence and proceed to adjudicate on the basis of all the evidence before it.