This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-02-25 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Section 118 of CA 141, therefore, is predicated on public policy. Its violation gives rise to the cancellation of the grant and the reversion of the land and its improvements to the government at the instance of the latter.[20] The provision that "nor shall they become liable to the satisfaction of any debt contracted prior to the expiration of the five-year period" is mandatory[21] and any sale made in violation of such provision is void[22] and produces no effect whatsoever, just like what transpired in this case. Clearly, it is not within the competence of any citizen to barter away what public policy by law seeks to preserve.[23] | |||||
|
2010-02-11 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| The entrenched procedural rule in this jurisdiction is that a party who did not appeal cannot assign such errors as are designed to have the judgment modified. All that said appellee can do is to make a counter-assignment of errors or to argue on issues raised at the trial only for the purpose of sustaining the judgment in his favor, even on grounds not included in the decision of the court a quo or raised in the appellant's assignment of errors or arguments.[28] | |||||
|
2006-01-31 |
PANGANIBAN, CJ. |
||||
| Trusts may be either express or implied.[46] Express trusts are those created by direct and positive acts of the parties, such as by some writing, deed or will; or by words either expressly or impliedly evidencing an intention to create a trust. Implied trusts are those that, without being expressed, are deducible from the nature of the transaction as matters of intent; or that are super-induced in the transaction by operation of law as a matter of equity, independently of the particular intention of the parties.[47] | |||||