Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RUDOLF LIETZ v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 199990 2015-02-04	SPS. ROLANDO v. SPS. ROGELIO MENDOZA, J.
The award of damages to Spouses Rabaja cannot be sustained by this Court. The filing alone of a civil action should not be a ground for an award of moral damages in the same way that a clearly unfounded civil action is not among the grounds for moral damages.[53] Article 2220 of the New Civil Code provides that to award moral damages in a breach of contract, the defendant must act fraudulently or in bad faith. In this case, Spouses Rabaja failed to sufficiently show that Spouses Salvador acted in a fraudulent manner or with bad faith when it breached the contract of sale. Thus, the award of moral damages cannot be warranted.
	GR No. 208462 2014-12-10	SPS. CARLOS J. SUNTAY v. KEYSER MERCANTILE MENDOZA, J.
Finally, the Court cannot grant the claim for damages by Spouses Suntay. The filing alone of a civil action should not be a ground for an award of moral damages in the same way that a clearly unfounded civil action is not among the grounds for moral damages.[35] Spouses Suntay failed to show a compelling reason to warrant the award of moral damages aside from their bare allegations.
	GR No. 177839 2012-01-18	FIRST LEPANTO-TAISHO INSURANCE CORPORATION v. CHEVRON VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Finally, we hold that the trial court correctly dismissed petitioner's counterclaim for moral damages and attorney's fees. The filing alone of a civil action should not be a ground for an award of moral damages in the same way that a clearly unfounded civil action is not among the grounds for moral damages.[27] Besides, a juridical person is generally not entitled to moral damages because, unlike a natural person, it cannot experience physical suffering or such sentiments as wounded feelings, serious anxiety, mental anguish or moral shock.[28] Although in some recent cases we have held that the Court may allow the grant of moral damages to corporations, it is not automatically granted; there must still be proof of the existence of the factual basis of the damage and its causal relation to the defendant's acts. This is so because moral damages, though incapable of pecuniary estimation, are in the category of an award designed to compensate the claimant for actual injury suffered and not to impose a penalty on the wrongdoer.[29] There is no evidence presented to establish the factual basis of petitioner's claim for moral damages.
	GR No. 173215 2009-05-21	CEBU WINLAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. ONG SIAO HUA PUNO, C.J.
In Rudolf Lietz, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[30] we held:Article 1539 governs a sale of immovable by the unit, that is, at a stated rate per unit area. In a unit price contract, the statement of area of immovable is not conclusive and the price may be reduced or increased depending on the area actually delivered. If the vendor delivers less than the area agreed upon, the vendee may oblige the vendor to deliver all that may be stated in the contract or demand for the proportionate reduction of the purchase price if delivery is not possible. If the vendor delivers more than the area stated in the contract, the vendee has the option to accept only the amount agreed upon or to accept the whole area, provided he pays for the additional area at the contract rate.
	GR No. 153077 2008-09-19	DOLORES SALINAS v. SPS. BIENVENIDO S. FAUSTINO AND ILUMINADA G. FAUSTINO CARPIO MORALES, J.
Indeed, in a contract of sale of land in a mass, the specific boundaries stated in the contract must control over any statement with respect to the area contained within its boundaries.[14] Thus, it is the boundaries indicated in a deed of absolute sale, and not the area in sq. m. mentioned therein 300.375 sq. m. in the Deed of Sale in respondents' favor - that control in the determination of which portion of the land a vendee acquires.
	GR NO. 169890 2007-03-12	FELICIANO ESGUERRA v. VIRGINIA TRINIDAD CARPIO MORALES, J.
In sales involving real estate, the parties may choose between two types of pricing agreement: a unit price contract wherein the purchase price is determined by way of reference to a stated rate per unit area (e.g., P1,000 per square meter), or a lump sum contract which states a full purchase price for an immovable the area of which may be declared based on an estimate or where both the area and boundaries are stated (e.g., P1 million for 1,000 square meters, etc.). In Rudolf Lietz, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[27] the Court discussed the distinction:. . . In a unit price contract, the statement of area of immovable is not conclusive and the price may be reduced or increased depending on the area actually delivered. If the vendor delivers less than the area agreed upon, the vendee may oblige the vendor to deliver all that may be stated in the contract or demand for the proportionate reduction of the purchase price if delivery is not possible. If the vendor delivers more than the area stated in the contract, the vendee has the option to accept only the amount agreed upon or to accept the whole area, provided he pays for the additional area at the contract rate.