Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JOSIE GO TAMIO v. ENCARNACION TICSON

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 162372 2012-09-11	GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. COA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Such benefit is derived at the expense of or with damages to another.[11] In Car Cool Philippines, Inc. v. Ushio Realty and Development Corporation[12] we said: [T]here is unjust enrichment when a person unjustly retains a benefit to the loss of another, or when a person retains money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience.
	GR No. 182148 2011-06-08	SIME DARBY PILIPINAS v. GOODYEAR PHILIPPINES MENDOZA, J.
In an assignment of a lease, there is a novation by the substitution of the person of one of the parties - the lessee. [24] The personality of the lessee, who dissociates from the lease, disappears. Thereafter, a new juridical relation arises between the two persons who remain - the lessor and the assignee who is converted into the new lessee. The objective of the law in prohibiting the assignment of the lease without the lessor's consent is to protect the owner or lessor of the leased property. [25]
	GR No. 169914 2008-04-18	ASIA'S EMERGING DRAGON CORPORATION v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
... a complement of legal jurisdiction [that] seeks to reach and to complete justice where courts of law, through the inflexibility of their rules and want of power to adapt their judgments to the special circumstances of cases, are incompetent to do so. x x x[153]
	GR No. 133179 2008-03-27	ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION v. LIM SIO WAN VELASCO JR., J.
In Tamio v. Ticson, we further clarified the principle of unjust enrichment, thus: "Under Article 22 of the Civil Code, there is unjust enrichment when (1) a person is unjustly benefited, and (2) such benefit is derived at the expense of or with damages to another."[59]
	GR No. 170606 2007-11-23	LCK INDUSTRIES INC. v. PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Equity, as the complement of legal jurisdiction, seeks to reach and complete justice where courts of law, through the inflexibility of their rules and want of power to adapt their judgments to the special circumstances of cases, are incompetent to do so. Equity regards the spirit and not the letter, the intent and not the form, the substance rather than the circumstance, as it is variously expressed by different courts.[49]
	GR NO. 156364 2007-09-03	JACOBUS BERNHARD HULST v. PR BUILDERS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
This is not a case of equity overruling or supplanting a positive provision of law or judicial rule. Rather, equity is exercised in this case "as the complement of legal jurisdiction [that] seeks to reach and to complete justice where courts of law, through the inflexibility of their rules and want of power to adapt their judgments to the special circumstances of cases, are incompetent to do so."[50]
	GR NO. 169647 2007-08-31	ANTONIO CHIENG v. SPS. EULOGIO AND TERESITA SANTOS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As can be gleaned from the foregoing, there is unjust enrichment when (1) a person is unjustly benefited, and (2) such benefit is derived at the expense of or with damages to another.[34] The main objective of the principle of unjust enrichment is to prevent one from enriching oneself at the expense of another.[35] It is commonly accepted that this doctrine simply means that a person shall not be allowed to profit or enrich himself inequitably at another's expense.[36] One condition for invoking this principle is that the aggrieved party has no other action based on contract, quasi-contract, crime, quasi- delict or any other provision of law.[37]