Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HEIRS OF TRANQUILINO LABISTE v. HEIRS OF JOSE LABISTE

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 211972 2015-07-22	WILSON GO v. ESTATE OF LATE FELISA TAMIO DE BUENAVENTURA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Trust is the right to the beneficial enjoyment of property, the legal title to which is vested in another. It is a fiduciary relationship that obliges the trustee to deal with the property for the benefit of the beneficiary. Trust relations between parties may either be express or implied. An express trust is created by the intention of the trustor or of the parties, while an implied trust comes into being by operation of law.[41]
	GR No. 140528 2011-12-07	TOSINO v. SPS. ANDRES T. ROSARIO AND LENA DUQUE-ROSARIO AND BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Trust is the right to the beneficial enjoyment of property, the legal title to which is vested in another. It is a fiduciary relationship that obliges the trustee to deal with the property for the benefit of the beneficiary. Trust relations between parties may either be express or implied. An express trust is created by the intention of the trustor or of the parties, while an implied trust comes into being by operation of law. [61]
	GR No. 171805 2011-05-30	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. MERELO B. AZNAR LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Trust is the right to the beneficial enjoyment of property, the legal title to which is vested in another. It is a fiduciary relationship that obliges the trustee to deal with the property for the benefit of the beneficiary. Trust relations between parties may either be express or implied. An express trust is created by the intention of the trustor or of the parties. An implied trust comes into being by operation of law.[21]
	GR No. 181206 2009-10-09	MEGAWORLD GLOBUS ASIA v. MILA S. TANSECO CARPIO MORALES, J.
As for Megaworld's argument that Tanseco's claim is considered barred by laches on account of her belated demand, it does not lie too. Laches is a creation of equity and its application is controlled by equitable considerations.[20] It bears noting that Tanseco religiously paid all the installments due up to January, 1998, whereas Megaworld reneged on its obligation to deliver within the stipulated period. A circumspect weighing of equitable considerations thus tilts the scale of justice in favor of Tanseco.