Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. PROVINCE OF TARLAC

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 182128 2014-02-19	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. TERESITA TAN DEE REYES, J.
There is nothing on record showing that the Memorandum of Agreement has been nullified or is the subject of pending litigation; hence, it carries with it the presumption of validity.[44] Consequently, the execution of the dation in payment effectively extinguished respondent PEPI's loan obligation to the petitioner insofar as it covers the value of the property purchased by Dee. This negates the petitioner's claim that PEPI must first redeem the property before it can cancel or release the mortgage. As it now stands, the petitioner already stepped into the shoes of PEPI and there is no more reason for the petitioner to refuse the cancellation or release of the mortgage, for, as stated by the Court in Luzon Development Bank, in accepting the assigned properties as payment of the obligation, "[the bank] has assumed the risk that some of the assigned properties are covered by contracts to sell which must be honored under PD 957."[45] Whatever claims the petitioner has against PEPI and AFP-RSBS, monetary or otherwise, should not prejudice the rights and interests of Dee over the property, which she has already fully paid for.
	GR NO. 163269 2006-04-19	ROLANDO C. RIVERA v. PROMULGATED: SOLIDBANK CORPORATION CALLEJO, SR., J.
Article 1306 of the New Civil Code provides that the contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy. The freedom of contract is both a constitutional and statutory right.[44] A contract is the law between the parties and courts have no choice but to enforce such contract as long as it is not contrary to law, morals, good customs and against public policy.
	GR NO. 158149 2006-02-09	BOSTON BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. PERLA P. MANALO CALLEJO, SR., J.
[55] GSIS v. Province of Tarlac, G.R. No. 157860, December 1, 2003, 417 SCRA 60.
	GR NO. 146120 2006-01-27	DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH v. HTMC ENGINEERS COMPANY CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It must be stressed at this point that HTMC's failure to accept the amendment proposed by the DOH did not, in any way, affect the validity and the subsistence of the four consultancy contracts which bound both parties upon its perfection as early as May 1996. A contract properly executed between parties continue to be the law between said parties and should be complied with in good faith.[9] There being a perfected contract, DOH cannot revoke or renounce the same without the consent of the other party. Just as nobody can be forced to enter into a contract, in the same manner, once a contract is entered into, no party can renounce it unilaterally or without the consent of the other.[10] It is a general principle of law that no one may be permitted to change his mind or disavow and go back upon his own acts, or to proceed contrary thereto, to the prejudice of the other party.[11] As no revision to the original agreement was ever arrived at, the terms of the original contract shall continue to govern over both the HTMC and the DOH with respect to the infrastructure projects as if no amendments were ever initiated. In the absence of a new perfected contract between HTMC and DOH, both parties shall continue to be bound by the stipulations of the original contract and all its natural effects.[12]