This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-01-30 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| "[T]he general rule is that he who alleges fraud or mistake in a transaction must substantiate his allegation as the presumption is that a person takes ordinary care for his concerns and that private dealings have been entered into fairly and regularly."[31] One who alleges defect or lack of valid consent to a contract by reason of fraud or undue influence must establish by full, clear and convincing evidence such specific acts that vitiated a party's consent, otherwise, the latter's presumed consent to the contract prevails.[32] | |||||
|
2006-10-31 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| It should be kept in mind that the obligation to serve written notice devolves upon the vendor co-heirs because the latter are in the best position to know the other co-owners who, under the law, must be notified of the sale.[24] This will remove all uncertainty as to the fact of the sale, its terms and its perfection and validity, and quiet any doubt that the alienation is not definitive.[25] As a result, the party notified need not entertain doubt that the seller may still contest the alienation. [26] | |||||
|
2006-03-17 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Petitioners' right to redeem would have existed only had there been co-ownership among petitioners-siblings. But there was none. For this right to be exercised, co-ownership must exist at the time the conveyance is made by a co-owner and the redemption is demanded by the other co-owner or co-owner(s).[7] However, by their own admission, petitioners were no longer co-owners when the property was sold to respondents in 1979. The co-ownership had already been extinguished by partition. | |||||