Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. MADRIGAL WAN HAI LINES CORPORATION

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 167195 2009-05-08	ASSET PRIVATIZATION TRUST v. T.J. ENTERPRISES TINGA, J.
On the second issue, petitioner posits that the sale being in an as-is-where-is basis, respondent agreed to take possession of the things sold in the condition where they are found and from the place where they are located. The phrase as-is where-is basis pertains solely to the physical condition of the thing sold, not to its legal situation.[16] It is merely descriptive of the state of the thing sold. Thus, the as-is where-is basis merely describes the actual state and location of the machinery and equipment sold by petitioner to respondent. The depiction does not alter petitioner's responsibility to deliver the property to respondent.
	GR No. 170606 2007-11-23	LCK INDUSTRIES INC. v. PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Under the principle of unjust enrichment - nemo cum alterius detrimento locupletari potest - no person shall be allowed to enrich himself unjustly at the expense of others.[47] This principle of equity has been enshrined in our Civil Code, Article 22 of which provides:Art. 22. Every person who through an act of performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him.
	GR NO. 169647 2007-08-31	ANTONIO CHIENG v. SPS. EULOGIO AND TERESITA SANTOS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In the exercise of our mandate as a court of justice and equity,[38] we hold, pro hac vice, that respondents are still liable to pay the remaining balance of the loan.