Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

UNIVERSITY OF PHILIPPINES v. PHILAB INDUSTRIES

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 175773 2013-06-17	MITSUBISHI MOTORS PHILIPPINES SALARIED EMPLOYEES UNION v. MITSUBISHI MOTORS PHILIPPINES CORPORATION DEL CASTILLO, J.
To constitute unjust enrichment, it must be shown that a party was unjustly enriched in the sense that the term unjustly could mean illegally or unlawfully.[50] A claim for unjust enrichment fails when the person who will benefit has a valid claim to such benefit.[51]
	GR No. 165548 2011-06-13	PHILIPPINE REALTY v. LEY CONSTRUCTION SERENO, J.
Unjust enrichment is a term used to depict result or effect of failure to make remuneration of or for property or benefits received under circumstances that give rise to legal or equitable obligation to account for them; to be entitled to remuneration, one must confer benefit by mistake, fraud, coercion, or request. [51]
	GR No. 165548 2011-06-13	PHILIPPINE REALTY v. LEY CONSTRUCTION SERENO, J.
In order for an unjust enrichment claim to prosper, one must not only prove that the other party benefited from one's efforts or the obligations of others; it must also be shown that the other party was unjustly enriched in the sense that the term "unjustly" could mean "illegally" or "unlawfully." [52] LCDC was aware that the escalation agreement was limited to P36 million. It is not entitled to remuneration of the excess, since it did not confer this benefit by mistake, fraud, coercion, or request. Rather, it voluntarily infused the excess amount with full knowledge that PRHC had no obligation to reimburse it.
	GR NO. 132196 2005-12-09	SPS. SEGUNDO RAMOS AND FELISA VALDEZ v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is axiomatic that a contract cannot be binding upon and cannot be enforced against one who is not a party to it, even if he is aware of such contract and has acted with knowledge thereof.[15] A person who is not a party to a compromise agreement cannot be affected by it.[16] This is already well-settled. Thus, in Young v. Court of Appeals[17] we stressed:The main issue in this case is whether or not petitioner can enforce a compromise agreement to which she was not a party.
	GR No. 152219 2004-10-25	NUTRIMIX FEEDS CORPORATION v. CA AND SPS. EFREN AND MAURA EVANGELISTA CALLEJO, SR., J.
court. Conformably, this Court may review findings of facts when the judgment of the CA is premised on a misapprehension of facts.[25]