Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BERNICE LEGASPI v. SPS. RITA AND FRANCISCO ONG

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 199852 2014-11-12	SPS. FELIPE SOLITARIOS AND JULIA TORDA v. SPS. GASTON JAQUE AND LILIA JAQUE VELASCO JR., J.
This Court had held that a purported contract of sale where the vendor remains in physical possession of the land, as lessee or otherwise, is an indicium of an equitable mortgage.[15] In Rockville v. Sps. Culla,[16] We explained that the reason for this rule lies in the legal reality that in a contract of sale, the legal title to the property is immediately transferred to the vendee. Thus, retention by the vendor of the possession of the property is inconsistent with the vendee's acquisition of ownership under a true sale. It discloses, in the alleged vendee, a lack of interest in the property that belies the truthfulness of the sale.
	GR No. 180325 2013-02-20	O. VENTANILLA ENTERPRISES CORPORATION v. VELASCO PERALTA, J.
First of all, as held in Legaspi v. Ong,[18] "[e]xecution pending appeal does not bar the continuance of the appeal on the merits, for the Rules of Court precisely provides for restitution according to equity in case the executed judgment is reversed on appeal."[19]
	GR No. 145817 2011-10-19	URBAN BANK v. MAGDALENO M. PEÑA SERENO, J.
The rule is that, where the executed judgment is reversed totally or partially, or annulled - on appeal or otherwise - the trial court may, on motion, issue such orders of restitution or reparation of damages as equity and justice may warrant under the circumstances.[354] The Rules of Court precisely provides for restitution according to equity, in case the executed judgment is reversed on appeal.[355] "In an execution pending appeal, funds are advanced by the losing party to the prevailing party with the implied obligation of the latter to repay the former, in case the appellate court cancels or reduces the monetary award."[356]
	GR No. 155716 2009-10-02	ROCKVILLE EXCEL INTERNATIONAL EXIM CORPORATION v. SPS. OLIGARIO CULLA AND BERNARDITA MIRANDA BRION, J.
That a contract where the vendor remains in physical possession of the land, as lessee or otherwise, is an equitable mortgage is well-settled.[14] The reason for this rule lies in the legal reality that in a contract of sale, the legal title to the property is immediately transferred to the vendee; retention by the vendor of the possession of the property is inconsistent with the vendee's acquisition of ownership under a true sale.[15] It discloses, in the alleged vendee, a lack of interest in the property that belies the truthfulness of the sale.[16]
	GR No. 183753 2009-06-19	ARCHINET INTERNATIONAL v. BECCO PHILIPPINES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In any event, execution pending appeal does not bar the continuance of the appeal on the merits[56] and respondents are not left without relief in the event of reversal of the judgment against it. Section 5, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court specifically provides that where the executed judgment is reversed totally or partially, or annulled, on appeal or otherwise, the trial court may, on motion, issue such orders of restitution or reparation of damages as equity and justice may warrant under the circumstances.
	GR NO. 162112 2007-07-03	DOMINGO R. LUMAYAG v. HEIRS OF JACINTO NEMEÑO GARCIA, J.
Evidence is extant on record that the respondent heirs, as vendors a retro, remained in possession of the subject lots after the execution of the deed of sale with right to repurchase. In stark contrast, evidence is wanting that petitioners ever enjoyed possession thereof. If the transaction was really a sale with right to repurchase, as claimed by the petitioners, then the latter should have asserted their rights for the immediate delivery of the lots to them instead of allowing some of the respondents to freely stay in the premises. Well-settled to the point of being elementary is the doctrine that where the vendor remains in physical possession of the land as lessee or otherwise, the contract should be treated as an equitable mortgage.[16]
	GR NO. 162366 2006-11-10	FEDERICA M. SERRANO v. SPS. ANSELMO GUTIERREZ AND CARMELITA GUTIERREZ TINGA, J.
The matter of attorney's fees cannot be dealt with only in the dispositive portion of the decision. The text of the decision must state the reason behind the award of attorney's fees. Otherwise, its award is totally unjustified. [22]
	GR NO. 145871 2006-01-31	LEONIDES C. DIÑO v. LINA JARDINES AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In any of the foregoing cases, any money, fruits, or other benefit to be received by the vendee as rent or otherwise shall be considered as interest which shall be subject to the usury laws. (Emphasis supplied) In Legaspi vs. Ong,[7] the Court further explained that:The presence of even one of the above-mentioned circumstances as enumerated in Article 1602 is sufficient basis to declare a contract of sale with right to repurchase as one of equitable mortgage. As stated by the Code Commission which drafted the new Civil Code, in practically all of the so-called contracts of sale with right of repurchase, the real intention of the parties is that the pretended purchase price is money loaned and in order to secure the payment of the loan, a contract purporting to be a sale with pacto de retro is drawn up.[8] In the same case, the Court cited Article 1603 of the Civil Code, which provides that in case of doubt, a contract purporting to be a sale with right to repurchase shall be construed as an equitable mortgage.[9]