Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CHING SEN BEN v. CA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 143697 2008-01-28	DIONISIA DORADO VDA. DE DELFIN v. SALVADOR D. DELLOTA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Jurisprudence recognizes that there is no conclusive test to determine whether a deed purporting to be a sale on its face is really a simple loan accommodation secured by a mortgage.[5] However, our case law consistently shows that the presence of even one of the circumstances enumerated in Article 1602 suffices to convert a purported contract of sale into an equitable mortgage.[6] In this case, what should be determined is whether the consideration of P5,300.00 paid by Gumersindo to Dionisa for a five-hectare portion of Lot No. 1213 on June 9, 1949 is "unusually inadequate."
	GR No. 123498 2007-11-23	BPI FAMILY BANK v. AMADO FRANCO NACHURA, J.
Attorney's fees may be awarded when a party is compelled to litigate or incur expenses to protect his interest,[54] or when the court deems it just and equitable.[55] In the case at bench, BPI-FB refused to unfreeze the deposits of Franco despite the Makati RTC's Order Lifting the Order of Attachment and Quiaoit's unwavering assertion that the P400,000.00 was part of Franco's savings account. This refusal constrained Franco to incur expenses and litigate for almost two (2) decades in order to protect his interests and recover his deposits. Therefore, this Court deems it just and equitable to grant Franco P75,000.00 as attorney's fees. The award is reasonable in view of the complexity of the issues and the time it has taken for this case to be resolved.[56]
	GR No. 156132 2006-10-16	CITIBANK v. MODESTA R. SABENIANO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
With the award of exemplary damages, then respondent shall also be entitled to an award of attorney's fees.[148] Additionally, attorney's fees may be awarded when a party is compelled to litigate or to incur expenses to protect his interest by reason of an unjustified act of the other party.[149] In this case, an award of P200,000.00 attorney's fees shall be satisfactory.
	GR NO. 151333 2005-09-20	SPS. NATALIO AND FELICIDAD SALONGA v. SPS. MANUEL AND NENITA CONCEPCION AND FLORENCIA REALTY CORPORATION
The provision shall apply to a contract purporting to be an absolute sale.[41] In case of doubt, a contract purporting to be a sale with right to repurchase shall be considered as an equitable mortgage.[42] In a contract of mortgage, the mortgagor merely subjects the property to a lien, but the ownership and possession thereof are retained by him.[43]
	GR NO. 125585 2005-06-08	HEIRS OF EDUARDO MANLAPAT v. CA TINGA, J.
For a person to validly constitute a valid mortgage on real estate, he must be the absolute owner thereof as required by Article 2085 of the New Civil Code.[39] The mortgagor must be the owner, otherwise the mortgage is void.[40] In a contract of mortgage, the mortgagor remains to be the owner of the property although the property is subjected to a lien.[41] A mortgage is regarded as nothing more than a mere lien, encumbrance, or security for a debt, and passes no title or estate to the mortgagee and gives him no right or claim to the possession of the property.[42] In this kind of contract, the property mortgaged is merely delivered to the mortgagee to secure the fulfillment of the principal obligation.[43] Such delivery does not empower the mortgagee to convey any portion thereof in favor of another person as the right to dispose is an attribute of ownership.[44] The right to dispose includes the right to donate, to sell, to pledge or mortgage. Thus, the mortgagee, not being the owner of the property, cannot dispose of the whole or part thereof nor cause the impairment of the security in any manner without violating the foregoing rule.[45] The mortgagee only owns the mortgage credit, not the property itself.[46]
	GR NO. 149756 2005-02-11	MYRNA RAMOS v. SUSANA S. SARAO PANGANIBAN, J.
This Court has consistently decreed that the nomenclature used by the contracting parties to describe a contract does not determine its nature.[27] The decisive factor is their intention -- as shown by their conduct, words, actions and deeds -- prior to, during, and after executing the agreement.[28] This juristic principle is supported by the following provision of law:Article 1371. In order to judge the intention of the contracting parties, their contemporaneous and subsequent acts shall be principally considered.[29]
	GR No. 132115 2002-01-04	TEOFILO C. VILLARICO v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
[9] Ching Sen Ben vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124355, 314 SCRA 762, 773 (1999).