This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-09-14 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The Court of Appeals deemed it necessary to rule on the issue for the proper determination of these cases. The Court has ruled that the Court of Appeals is imbued with sufficient authority and discretion to review matters, not otherwise assigned as errors on appeal, if it finds that their consideration is necessary in arriving at a complete and just resolution of the case or to serve the interests of justice or to avoid dispensing piecemeal justice.[36] Further, while it is true that the issue of constitutionality must be raised at the first opportunity, this Court, in the exercise of sound discretion, can take cognizance of the constitutional issues raised by the parties in accordance with Section 5(2)(a), Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.[37] | |||||
|
2008-10-10 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| We disagree with the argument of petitioner. The identification of the land being claimed is a factual finding supported by evidence and cannot be disturbed in this petition.[19] Both the CA and MTC found that the subject land was a portion of the land which respondent inherited from her predecessor. They considered the total land area covered by the tax declarations. We see no reason to disturb such factual determination. | |||||
|
2008-08-20 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| A contract to sell is akin to a conditional sale, in which the efficacy or obligatory force of the vendor's obligation to transfer title is subordinated to the happening of a future and uncertain event, so that if the suspensive condition does not take place, the parties would stand as if the conditional obligation had never existed. The suspensive condition is commonly full payment of the purchase price.[34] One form of conditional sale is what is now popularly termed as a "Contract to Sell," in which ownership or title is retained until the fulfillment of a positive suspensive condition, normally the payment of the purchase price in the manner agreed upon.[35] | |||||