This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2012-09-24 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Besides, under Article 1347 of the Civil Code, "No contract may be entered into upon future inheritance except in cases expressly authorized by law." Paragraph 2 of Article 1347, characterizes a contract entered into upon future inheritance as void. The law applies when the following requisites concur: (1) the succession has not yet been opened; (2) the object of the contract forms part of the inheritance; and (3) the promissor has, with respect to the object, an expectancy of a right which is purely hereditary in nature.[18] | |||||
|
2011-02-09 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| MCIAA's invocation of the Statute of Frauds is misplaced primarily because the statute applies only to executory and not to completed, executed, or partially consummated contracts.[29] Carbonnel v. Poncio, et al., quoting Chief Justice Moran, explains the rationale behind this rule, thusly: x x x "The reason is simple. In executory contracts there is a wide field for fraud because unless they may be in writing there is no palpable evidence of the intention of the contracting parties. The statute has been precisely been enacted to prevent fraud." x x x However, if a contract has been totally or partially performed, the exclusion of parol evidence would promote fraud or bad faith, for it would enable the defendant to keep the benefits already derived by him from the transaction in litigation, and at the same time, evade the obligations, responsibilities or liabilities assumed or contracted by him thereby.[30] (Emphasis in the original.) | |||||
|
2010-06-29 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| We disagree for several reasons. Foremost of these is that the Statute of Frauds expressed in Article 1403, par. (2),[29] of the Civil Code applies only to executory contracts, i.e., those where no performance has yet been made. Stated a bit differently, the legal consequence of non-compliance with the Statute does not come into play where the contract in question is completed, executed, or partially consummated.[30] | |||||
|
2006-10-11 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| SO ORDERED.[6] This time, petitioner filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 52132. The CA,[7] in its Decision dated April 30, 2001, denied the petition, "without prejudice to the outcome of Civil Case No. Q-97-30333 entitled 'Bank of Commerce v. Erlinda de Sola' and to the filing of an appropriate plenary action to settle the issue of ownership of the disputed property."[8] | |||||