Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ARTURO R. ABALOS v. DR. GALICANO S. MACATANGAY

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 185063 2009-07-23	SPS. LITA DE LEON AND FELIX RIO TARROSA v. ANITA B. DE LEON VELASCO JR., J.
As a final consideration, the Court agrees with the CA that the sale of one-half of the conjugal property without liquidation of the partnership is void. Prior to the liquidation of the conjugal partnership, the interest of each spouse in the conjugal assets is inchoate, a mere expectancy, which constitutes neither a legal nor an equitable estate, and does not ripen into a title until it appears that there are assets in the community as a result of the liquidation and settlement.[26] The interest of each spouse is limited to the net remainder or "remanente liquido" (haber ganancial) resulting from the liquidation of the affairs of the partnership after its dissolution.[27] Thus, the right of the husband or wife to one-half of the conjugal assets does not vest until the dissolution and liquidation of the conjugal partnership, or after dissolution of the marriage, when it is finally determined that, after settlement of conjugal obligations, there are net assets left which can be divided between the spouses or their respective heirs.[28]
	GR No. 176664 2008-07-21	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. SPS. REYNALDO NACHURA, J.
Settled is the rule that payment must be made in legal tender. A check is not legal tender and, therefore, cannot constitute a valid tender of payment.[23] Since a negotiable instrument is only a substitute for money and not money, the delivery of such an instrument does not, by itself, operate as payment. Mere delivery of checks does not discharge the obligation under a judgment. The obligation is not extinguished and remains suspended until the payment by commercial document is actually realized.[24]
	GR No. 171008 2007-09-13	CARMELITA FUDOT v. CATTLEYA LAND TINGA, J.
The congruence of the wills of the spouses is essential for the valid disposition of conjugal property.[27] Thus, under Article 166 of the Civil Code[28] which was still in effect on 19 December 1986 when the deed of sale was purportedly executed, the husband cannot generally alienate or encumber any real property of the conjugal partnership without the wife's consent.
	GR NO. 166714 2007-02-09	AMELIA S. ROBERTS v. MARTIN B. PAPIO CALLEJO, SR., J.
There is no evidence on record that, on or before July 1985, petitioner agreed to sell her property to the respondent for P250,000.00. Neither is there any documentary evidence showing that Ventura was authorized to offer for sale or sell the property for and in behalf of petitioner for P250,000.00, or to receive the said amount from respondent as purchase price of the property. The rule is that when a sale of a piece of land or any interest therein is through an agent, the authority of the latter shall be in writing; otherwise, the sale shall be void[64]and cannot produce any legal effect as to transfer the property from its lawful owner.[65]Being inexistent and void from the very beginning, said contract cannot be ratified.[66] Any contract entered into by Ventura for and in behalf of petitioner relative to the sale of the property is void and cannot be ratified by the latter. A void contract produces no effect either against or in favor of anyone.[67]