Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

GATEWAY ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 177420 2010-10-06	SPS. ANTHONY L. NGO AND SO HON K. NGO AND SPS. LUIS M. LITAM v. ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION NACHURA, J.
A preliminary mandatory injunction is more cautiously regarded than a mere prohibitive injunction since, more than its function of preserving the status quo between the parties, it also commands the performance of an act.[15] Accordingly, the issuance of
	GR No. 171968 2009-07-31	XYST CORPORATION v. DMC URBAN PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENT INC. QUISUMBING, J.
Equally important are the three stages of a contract: (1) preparation or negotiation, (2) perfection, and (3) consummation. Negotiation begins from the time the prospective contracting parties manifest their interest in the contract and ends at the moment of agreement of the parties. The perfection or birth of the contract takes place when the parties agree upon the essential elements of the contract. The last stage is the consummation of the contract wherein the parties fulfill or perform the terms agreed upon in the contract, culminating in the extinguishment thereof.[12]
	GR Nos. 182136-37 2008-11-27	BON-MAR REALTY v. SPS. NICANOR AND ESTHER DE GUZMAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The pendency of a case for annulment of the decision in Civil Case No. 67315 cannot affect the character of our disposition in the instant case; unless annulled, the decision in said case stands. It must be borne in mind that annulment of judgment is a recourse equitable in character, allowed only in exceptional cases as where there is no available or other adequate remedy.[6] Having given the parties herein the opportunity to confront each other head on in Civil Case No. 56393, we cannot, on mere unilateral assertions, bordering on contumacious conduct, of obtaining a better resolution devoid of our "erroneous assumptions," see the wisdom of DE GUZMANS' argument that a resolution of the issues could be better had via a petition for annulment of judgment.
	GR No. 174569 2008-09-17	CHINA BANKING CORPORATION v. BENJAMIN CO CARPIO MORALES, J.
To be entitled to a writ of preliminary injunction, however, the petitioners must establish the following requisites: (a) the invasion of the right sought to be protected is material and substantial; (b) the right of the complainant is clear and unmistakable; and (c) there is an urgent and permanent necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.[16]
	GR Nos. 182136-37 2008-08-29	BON-MAR REALTY YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
On December 18, 2003, however, the trial court denied[14] BON-MAR's motion to intervene and to quash the writ of execution on the ground that its right to the subject lots was merely inchoate, since BON-MAR's claim was still the subject of a pending appeal in the Court of Appeals. The writ of execution in Civil Case No. 56393 was thus carried out, and TCT Nos. 8238-R to 8241-R in the name of the UYS were cancelled and TCT Nos. T-11566-R to T-11569-R were issued in the name of the DE GUZMANS. These titles were consolidated into two titles, TCT Nos. 11607-R and 11608-R.[15] Entry No. 34865, or the notice of lis pendens covering Civil Case No. 67315, was carried over to these titles.
	GR Nos. 182136-37 2008-08-29	BON-MAR REALTY YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
The decision in Civil Case No. 67315 declared BON-MAR as successor-in-interest of the DE GUZMANS. Thus, BON-MAR is not a mere stranger to the litigation in Civil Case No. 56393; it is a necessary party who must be joined in the suit if complete relief is to be accorded as to those already parties, or for a complete determination or settlement of the claim subject of the action.[29] BON-MAR's intervention is necessary in order to put an end to Civil Case No. 56393, because if it were established that BON-MAR obtained its title from the GARCIAS who in turn obtained the same from the DE GUZMANS, then there is nothing left for the DE GUZMANS to execute, because their claim in Civil Case No. 56393 has been fully satisfied as early as 1995.[30] There would thus be no further reason for the proceedings in Civil Case No. 56393 to continue.
	GR No. 173562 2008-01-22	CENTRAL CEMENT CORPORATION v. MINES ADJUDICATION BOARD and ROCK REYES, R.T., J.
Petitioner confuses the concept of "perfection" of contract with the "consummation" of contract. A contract undergoes three distinct stages: (1) preparation or negotiation; (2) perfection; and (3) consummation. Negotiation begins from the time the prospective contracting parties manifest their interest in the contract and ends at the moment of agreement of the parties. The perfection or birth of the contract takes place when the parties agree upon the essential elements of the contract. The last stage is the consummation of the contract wherein the parties fulfill or perform the terms agreed upon in the contract, culminating in its extinguishment.[53]