This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-06-13 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| Attorney's fees may be awarded when the act or omission of the defendant compelled the plaintiff to incur expenses to protect the latter's interest. [79] In ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. v. CA, [80] we held thus: The general rule is that attorney's fees cannot be recovered as part of damages because of the policy that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate. They are not to be awarded every time a party wins a suit. The power of the court to award attorney's fees under Article 2208 demands factual, legal, and equitable justification. Even when a claimant is compelled to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his rights, still attorney's fees may not be awarded where no sufficient showing of bad faith could be reflected in a party's persistence in a case other than an erroneous conviction of the righteousness of his cause. | |||||
|
2009-07-07 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| It bears stressing that a Homestead Patent, once registered under the Land Registration Act, becomes as indefeasible as a Torrens Title.[42] Verily, Section 103 of P.D. No. 1529 mandates the registration of patents, and such registration is the operative act to convey the land to the patentee, thus:Sec. 103. . . . . . The deed, grant, patent or instrument of conveyance from the Government to the grantee shall not take effect as a conveyance or bind the land but shall operate only as a contract between the Government and the grantee and as evidence of authority to the Register of Deeds to make registration. It is the act of registration that shall be the operative act to affect and convey the land, and in all cases under this Decree, registration shall be made in the office of the Register of Deeds of the province or city where the land lies. The fees for registration shall be paid by the grantee. After due registration and issuance of the certificate of title, such land shall be deemed to be registered land to all intents and purposes under this Decree. (Emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2008-02-11 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Indeed, one party's appeal from a judgment will not inure to the benefit of a co-party who failed to appeal; and as against the latter, the judgment will continue to run its course until it becomes final and executory.[27] To this general rule, however, one exception stands out: where both parties have a commonality of interests, the appeal of one is deemed to be the vicarious appeal of the other.[28] As the Court held in John Kam Biak Y. Chan, Jr. v. Iglesia ni Cristo:The modification made by this Court to the judgment of the Court of Appeals must operate as against Yoro, for as fittingly held by the court a quo: | |||||