Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JOSE MENCHAVEZ v. FLORENTINO TEVES JR.

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 193747 2013-06-05	JOSELITO C. BORROMEO v. JUAN T. MINA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
In consequence, petitioner cannot assert any right over the subject landholding, such as his present claim for landholding exemption, because his title springs from a null and void source. A void contract is equivalent to nothing; it produces no civil effect; and it does not create, modify or extinguish a juridical relation.[41] Hence, notwithstanding the erroneous identification of the subject landholding by the MARO as owned by Cipriano Borromeo, the fact remains that petitioner had no right to file a petition for landholding exemption since the sale of the said property to him by Garcia in 1982 is null and void. Proceeding from this, the finding that petitioner's total agricultural landholdings is way below the retention limits set forth by law thus, becomes irrelevant to his claim for landholding exemption precisely because he has no right over the aforementioned landholding.
	GR No. 172727 2010-09-08	QUEENSLAND-TOKYO COMMODITIES v. THOMAS GEORGE NACHURA, J.
It is settled that a void contract is equivalent to nothing; it produces no civil effect. It does not create, modify, or extinguish a juridical relation. Parties to a void agreement cannot expect the aid of the law; the courts leave them as they are, because they are deemed in pari delicto or in equal fault.[21] This rule, however, is not absolute. Article 1412 of the Civil Code provides an exception, and permits the return of that which may have been given under a void contract. Thus: Art. 1412. If the act in which the unlawful or forbidden cause consists does not constitute a criminal offense, the following rules shall be observed:
	GR No. 179743 2010-08-02	HADJA FATIMA GAGUIL MAGOYAG v. HADJI ABUBACAR MARUHOM NACHURA, J.
A void contract is equivalent to nothing; it produces no civil effect. It does not create, modify, or extinguish a juridical relation. Parties to a void agreement cannot expect the aid of the law; the courts leave them as they are, because they are deemed in pari delicto or in equal fault.[19] To this rule, however, there are exceptions that permit the return of that which may have been given under a void contract. One of the exceptions is found in Article 1412 of the Civil Code, which states: Art. 1412. If the act in which the unlawful or forbidden cause consists does not constitute a criminal offense, the following rules shall be observed:
	GR NO. 156364 2007-09-03	JACOBUS BERNHARD HULST v. PR BUILDERS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Thus, exception (c) finds application in this case. Under Article 1414, one who repudiates the agreement and demands his money before the illegal act has taken place is entitled to recover. Petitioner is therefore entitled to recover what he has paid, although the basis of his claim for rescission, which was granted by the HLURB, was not the fact that he is not allowed to acquire private land under the Philippine Constitution. But petitioner is entitled to the recovery only of the amount of P3,187,500.00, representing the purchase price paid to respondent. No damages may be recovered on the basis of a void contract; being nonexistent, the agreement produces no juridical tie between the parties involved.[43] Further, petitioner is not entitled to actual as well as interests thereon,[44] moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees.
	GR NO. 154765 2007-03-29	PEDRO T. BERCERO v. CAPITOL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
It is well-settled that parties to a void agreement cannot expect the aid of the law; the courts leave them as they are, because they are deemed in pari delicto or "in equal fault".[35] No suit can be maintained for its specific performance, or to recover the property agreed to be sold or delivered, or the money agreed to be paid, or damages for its violation, and no affirmative relief of any kind will be given to one against the other.[36] Each must bear the consequences of his own acts.[37] They will be left where they have placed themselves since they did not come into court with clean hands.
	GR No. 161745 2005-09-30	LEA MER INDUSTRIES v. MALAYAN INSURANCE CO. PANGANIBAN, J.
The resolution of the present case hinges on whether the loss of the cargo was due to a fortuitous event. This issue involves primarily a question of fact, notwithstanding petitioner's claim that it pertains only to a question of law. As a general rule, questions of fact may not be raised in a petition for review.[15] The present case serves as an exception to this rule, because the factual findings of the appellate and the trial courts vary.[16] This Court meticulously reviewed the records, but found no reason to reverse the CA.