Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

TALA REALTY SERVICES CORPORATION v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 158866 2013-09-09	BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS v. TALA REALTY SERVICES CORPORATION PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
At the outset, the basic facts as well as the issues raised in these petitions have already been passed upon by the Court in its Decision[55] dated April 7, 2009 in G.R. Nos. 130088, 131469, 155171, 155201, and 166608 as well as its more recent Decision[56] dated June 27, 2012 in G.R. No. 188302. Pertinently, in these cases, the Court applied the earlier case of Tala Realty Services Corporation v. Banco Filipino Savings & Mortgage Bank, docketed as G.R. No. 137533,[57] wherein it declared, in no uncertain terms, that the implied trust agreement between Banco Filipino and Tala Realty is "inexistent and void for being contrary to law." As such, Banco Filipino cannot demand the reconveyance of the subject properties in the present cases; neither can any affirmative relief be accorded to one party against the other since they have been found to have acted in pari delicto,[58] viz.:An implied trust could not have been formed between the Bank and Tala as this Court has held that "where the purchase is made in violation of an existing statute and in evasion of its express provision, no trust can result in favor of the party who is guilty of the fraud." x x x.
	GR No. 158866 2013-09-09	BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS v. TALA REALTY SERVICES CORPORATION PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
At the outset, the basic facts as well as the issues raised in these petitions have already been passed upon by the Court in its Decision[55] dated April 7, 2009 in G.R. Nos. 130088, 131469, 155171, 155201, and 166608 as well as its more recent Decision[56] dated June 27, 2012 in G.R. No. 188302. Pertinently, in these cases, the Court applied the earlier case of Tala Realty Services Corporation v. Banco Filipino Savings & Mortgage Bank, docketed as G.R. No. 137533,[57] wherein it declared, in no uncertain terms, that the implied trust agreement between Banco Filipino and Tala Realty is "inexistent and void for being contrary to law." As such, Banco Filipino cannot demand the reconveyance of the subject properties in the present cases; neither can any affirmative relief be accorded to one party against the other since they have been found to have acted in pari delicto,[58] viz.:An implied trust could not have been formed between the Bank and Tala as this Court has held that "where the purchase is made in violation of an existing statute and in evasion of its express provision, no trust can result in favor of the party who is guilty of the fraud." x x x.
	GR No. 180882 2013-02-27	BAGUIO REGREENING MOVEMENT v. ATTY. BRAIN MASWENG LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
We have also previously held that "[u]nder the doctrine of stare decisis, once 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."[27]
	GR No. 188302 2012-06-27	NANCY L. TY v. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS BRION, J.
The petitioner argues that the CA erred in refusing to apply G.R. No. 137533 under the principle of res judicata by conclusiveness of judgment and stare decisis, and ignoring the November 26, 2007 minute resolution in G.R. No. 177865[64] and the April 7, 2009 consolidated decision in G.R. Nos. 130088, 131469, 155171, 155201, and 166608[65] that reiterated the Court's pronouncement in G.R. No. 137533.
	GR No. 154113 2011-12-07	EDEN GLADYS ABARIA v. NLRC VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Stare decisis et non quieta movere. Stand by the decision and disturb not what is settled. Under the doctrine of stare decisis, once 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, [54] 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. 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. [55]