Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

GEORGE T. VILLENA v. SPS. ANTONIO C. CHAVEZ AND NOEMI MARCOS-CHAVEZ AND CARLITA C. CHAVEZ

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 166458 2008-02-14	MR. SERGIO VILLADAR v. ELDON ZABALA and SAMUEL ZABALA QUISUMBING, J.
While Samuel, Sr. is the registered owner of Lot No. 5095-B, he has no cause to eject petitioners for alleged unlawful detainer since a finding of unlawfulness of petitioners' possession of the disputed portion depends upon the rescission of the contract of sale between Samuel, Sr. and Estelita.[37] We hasten to add that rescission is not even absolute for the court may fix a period within which Estelita, if she is found in default, may be permitted to comply with her obligation.[38]
	GR NO. 142358 2006-01-31	GRAND PLACEMENT v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Stare decisis et non quieta movere. Stand by the decision and disturb not what is settled. Stare decisis simply means that for the sake of certainty, a conclusion reached in one case should be applied to those that follow if the facts are substantially the same, even though the parties may be different. It proceeds from the first principle of justice that, absent any powerful countervailing considerations, like cases ought to be decided alike.[42] Thus, where the same questions relating to the same event have been put forward by parties similarly situated as in a previous case litigated and decided by a competent court, the rule of stare decisis is a bar to any attempt to relitigate the same issue.[43]
	GR No. 144705 2005-11-15	NANCY L. TY v. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS PROMULGATED: AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Time and again, the Court has held that it is a very desirable and necessary judicial practice that when a court has laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases in which the facts are substantially the same. Stare decisis et non quieta movere. Stand by the decisions and disturb not what is settled. Stare decisis simply means that for the sake of certainty, a conclusion reached in one case should be applied to those that follow if the facts are substantially the same, even though the parties may be different. It proceeds from the first principle of justice that, absent any powerful countervailing considerations, like cases ought to be decided alike.[13] Thus, where the same questions relating to the same event have been put forward by parties similarly situated as in a previous case litigated and decided by a competent court, the rule of stare decisis is a bar to any attempt to relitigate the same issue.[14]
	GR NO. 145874 2005-09-30	SPS. SALVACION SERRANO LADANGA AND AGUSTIN LADANGA v. BERNARDO ASENETA CORONA, J.
Stare decisis et non quieta movere. Let the decision stand and disturb not what is already settled. The doctrine of stare decisis is a salutary and necessary rule. When a court lays down a principle of law applicable to a certain state of facts, it must adhere to such principle and apply it to all future cases in which the facts sued upon are substantially the same.[21] Once a case is decided one way, then another case involving exactly the same point at issue should be decided the same way.[22] It proceeds from the principle of justice that, absent any powerful countervailing considerations, like cases ought to be decided alike.[23]
	GR NO. 150478 2005-04-15	HACIENDA BINO/HORTENCIA STARKE v. CANDIDO CUENCA CALLEJO, SR., J.
On the substantial issue of whether the respondents are regular or seasonal employees, the petitioners contend that the CA violated the doctrine of stare decisis by not applying the ruling in the Mercado case that sugar workers are seasonal employees. We hold otherwise. Under the doctrine of stare decisis, when a court has laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases in which the facts are substantially the same.[22] Where the facts are essentially different, however, stare decisis does not apply, for a perfectly sound principle as applied to one set of facts might be entirely inappropriate when a factual variance is introduced.[23]
	GR No. 148223 2004-11-25	FERNANDO GABATIN v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is beyond cavil, therefore, that since this Court had already ruled on the prospective application of the Land Bank v. De Leon decision, said issue must be laid to rest and must no longer be disturbed in this decision. Stare decisis et non quieta movere.[25] Stand by the decisions and disturb not what is settled. It is a very desirable and necessary judicial practice that when a court has laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases where the facts are substantially the same, absent any countervailing considerations.[26] An in-depth study of the case at bar clearly shows that it does not fall under the exception of the stare decisis rule.
	GR No. 145793 2004-06-10	LINA VILLANUEVA v. GENEROSO YAP CALLEJO, SR., J.
SO ORDERED.[4] The petitioner appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 48126, alleging as follows: That the Trial Court below erred in not dismissing the plaintiff-appellee's complaint on the ground of res judicata;