This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-07-10 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Sometime in August 1990, Spouses Pedro and Rosita de Guzman (Spouses de Guzman) engaged the legal services of Atty. Francisco L. Rosario, Jr. (petitioner) as defense counsel in the complaint filed against them by one Loreta A. Chong (Chong) for annulment of contract and recovery of possession with damages involving a parcel of land in Parañaque City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 1292, with an area of 266 square meters, more or less. Petitioner's legal services commenced from the RTC and ended up in this Court.[3] Spouses de Guzman, represented by petitioner, won their case at all levels. While the case was pending before this Court, Spouses de Guzman died in a vehicular accident. Thereafter, they were substituted by their children, namely: Rosella de Guzman-Bautista, Lellani de Guzman, Arleen de Guzman, and Philip Ryan de Guzman (respondents).[4] | |||||
|
2009-11-05 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Nonetheless, it is a settled rule that the failure to observe the proper form prescribed by Article 1358 does not render the acts or contracts enumerated therein invalid. It has been uniformly held that the form required under the said Article is not essential to the validity or enforceability of the transaction, but merely for convenience.[29] The Court agrees with the CA in holding that a sale of real property, though not consigned in a public instrument or formal writing, is, nevertheless, valid and binding among the parties, for the time-honored rule is that even a verbal contract of sale of real estate produces legal effects between the parties.[30] Stated differently, although a conveyance of land is not made in a public document, it does not affect the validity of such conveyance. Article 1358 does not require the accomplishment of the acts or contracts in a public instrument in order to validate the act or contract but only to insure its efficacy.[31] Thus, based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the CA did not err in ruling that the contract of sale between Pedro and Marcos is valid and binding. | |||||
|
2009-06-16 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In any case, an unauthorized appearance of an attorney may be ratified by the client either expressly or impliedly. Ratification retroacts to the date of the lawyer's first appearance and validates the action taken by him.[10] Implied ratification may take various forms, such as by silence or acquiescence, or by acceptance and retention of benefits flowing therefrom.[11] Respondents' silence or lack of remonstration when the case was finally elevated to the CA means that they have acquiesced to the filing of the appeal. | |||||