This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2014-06-02 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Consequently, the conjugal partnership was converted into an implied ordinary co-ownership between the surviving spouse, on the one hand, and the heirs of the deceased, on the other.[14] This resulting ordinary co-ownership among the heirs is governed by Article 493 of the Civil Code which reads: Art. 493. Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even substitute another person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights are involved. But the effect of the alienation of the mortgage, with respect to the co-owners shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted to him in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership." (Emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2011-12-07 |
TOSINO v. SPS. ANDRES T. ROSARIO AND LENA DUQUE-ROSARIO AND BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Nonetheless, the failure of Banco Filipino to comply with the due diligence requirement was not the result of a dishonest purpose, some moral obliquity, or breach of a known duty for some interest or ill will that partakes of fraud that would justify damages. [84] | |||||
|
2011-09-07 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Before applying such rules, however, the conjugal partnership of gains must be subsisting at the time of the effectivity of the Family Code. There being no dispute that Protacio, Sr. and Marta were married prior to the effectivity of the Family Code on August 3, 1988, their property relation was properly characterized as one of conjugal partnership governed by the Civil Code. Upon Marta's death in 1987, the conjugal partnership was dissolved, pursuant to Article 175 (1) of the Civil Code,[15] and an implied ordinary co-ownership ensued among Protacio, Sr. and the other heirs of Marta with respect to her share in the assets of the conjugal partnership pending a liquidation following its liquidation.[16] The ensuing implied ordinary co-ownership was governed by Article 493 of the Civil Code,[17] to wit: Article 493. Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even substitute another person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights are involved. But the effect of the alienation or the mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted to him in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership. (399) | |||||
|
2011-06-13 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The general rule that a mortgagee need not look beyond the title does not apply to banks and other financial institutions as greater care and due diligence is required of them. [48] Imbued with public interest, they "are expected to be more cautious than ordinary individuals." [49] Thus, before approving a loan, the standard practice for banks and other financial institutions is to conduct an ocular inspection of the property offered to be mortgaged and verify the genuineness of the title to determine the real owner or owners thereof. [50] Failure to do so makes them mortgagees in bad faith. | |||||
|
2011-04-11 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| presumption.[22] The separation-in-fact between the husband and the wife without judicial approval shall not affect the conjugal partnership. The lot retains its conjugal nature.[23] Moreover, the presumption of conjugal ownership applies even when the manner in which the property was acquired does not appear. The use of the conjugal funds is not an essential requirement for the presumption to arise.[24] There is no dispute that the subject property was acquired by spouses Elenita and Eduardo during their marriage. It is also undisputed that their marital relations are governed by the conjugal partnership of gains, since they were married before the enactment of the Family | |||||