Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HEIRS OF LATE SPS. AURELIO AND ESPERANZA BALITE v. RODRIGO N. LIM

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	AC. No. 6655 2011-10-11	PACITA CAALIM-VERZONILLA v. ATTY. VICTORIANO G. PASCUA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
As to the charge of falsification, the Court finds that the documents annexed to the present complaint are insufficient for us to conclude that the subject deeds were indeed falsified and absolutely simulated. We have previously ruled that a deed of sale that allegedly states a price lower than the true consideration is nonetheless binding between the parties and their successors in interest.[13] Complainant, however, firmly maintains that she and her co-heirs had no participation whatsoever in the execution of the subject deeds. In any event, the issues of forgery, simulation and fraud raised by the complainant in this proceeding apparently are still to be resolved in the pending suit filed by the complainant and her co-heirs for annulment of the said documents (Civil Case No. 2836-S).
	GR No. 158384 2008-06-12	JUAN OLIVARES v. ESPERANZA DE LA CRUZ SARMIENTO CARPIO, J.
Where the terms of the contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulations shall control.[20] The contract is the law between the parties and when the words of the contract are clear and can be easily understood, there is no room for construction.[21]
	GR NO. 171250 2007-07-04	SPS. CARLOS AND EULALIA RAYMUNDO AND SPS. ANGELITO AND JOCELYN BUENAOBRA v. SPS. DOMINADOR AND ROSALIA BANDONG CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
For Articles 1602 and 1604 to apply, two requisites must concur: one, the parties entered into a contract denominated as a contract of sale; and two, their intention was to secure an existing debt by way of an equitable mortgage.[13]
	GR NO. 169129 2007-03-28	SPS. VIRGILIO F. SANTOS v. SPS. JOSE LUMBAO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is noteworthy that at the time of the execution of the documents denominated as "Bilihan ng Lupa," the entire property owned by Maria, the mother of Rita, was not yet divided among her and her co-heirs and so the description of the entire estate is the only description that can be placed in the "Bilihan ng Lupa, dated 17 August 1979 and 9 January 1981" because the exact metes and bounds of the subject property sold to respondents Spouses Lumbao could not be possibly determined at that time. Nevertheless, that does not make the contract of sale between Rita and respondents Spouses Lumbao invalid because both the law and jurisprudence have categorically held that even while an estate remains undivided, co-owners have each full ownership of their respective aliquots or undivided shares and may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage them.[28] The co-owner, however, has no right to sell or alienate a specific or determinate part of the thing owned in common, because such right over the thing is represented by an aliquot or ideal portion without any physical division. In any case, the mere fact that the deed purports to transfer a concrete portion does not per se render the sale void. The sale is valid, but only with respect to the aliquot share of the selling co-owner. Furthermore, the sale is subject to the results of the partition upon the termination of the co-ownership.[29]
	GR NO. 141993 2006-03-17	NARCISA AVILA v. SPS. BENJAMIN BARABAT CORONA, J.
For Articles 1602 and 1604 to apply, two requisites must concur: (1) the parties entered into a contract denominated as a contract of sale and (2) their intention was to secure an existing debt by way of mortgage.[4] Here, both the trial and appellate courts found that Exhibit "A" evidenced a contract of sale. They also agreed that the circumstances of the case show that Avila intended her agreement with respondents to be a sale. Both courts were unanimous in finding that the subsequent acts of Avila revealed her intention to absolutely convey the disputed property. It was only after the perfection of the contract, when her siblings began protesting the sale, that she wanted to change the agreement.
	GR NO. 164801 2005-08-18	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. HEIRS OF ESTANISLAO MILITAR YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Whether petitioners are innocent mortgagee or purchasers in good faith and for value, is a factual matter, which cannot be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.[9] Settled is the rule that this Court is not a trier of facts and does not normally embark on a re-examination of the evidence adduced by the parties during trial.[10] In Heirs of the Late Spouses Aurelio and Esperanza Balite v. Lim,[11] we held that factual findings of the Court of Appeals are binding and conclusive upon us. These findings may be reviewed only under exceptional circumstances such as when the inference is manifestly mistaken; the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; findings of the trial court contradict those of the appellate court; or the latter manifestly overlooked relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.