Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JOANIE SURPOSA UY v. JOSE NGO CHUA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 174673 2016-01-11	REPUBLIC v. FE ROA GIMENEZ LEONEN, J.
To reiterate, "[d]emurrer to evidence authorizes a judgment on the merits of the case without the defendant having to submit evidence on his [or her] part, as he [or she] would ordinarily have to do, if plaintiff's evidence shows that he [or she] is not entitled to the relief sought."[175] The order of dismissal must be clearly supported by facts and law since an order granting demurrer is a judgment on the merits: As it is settled that an order dismissing a case for insufficient evidence is a judgment on the merits, it is imperative that it be a reasoned decision clearly and distinctly stating therein the facts and the law on which it is based.[176] (Citation omitted)
	GR No. 160446 2012-09-19	RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION v. DOLORES HILARIO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Settled is the rule that "a judicial compromise has the effect of res judicata. A judgment based on a compromise agreement is a judgment on the merits."[29] As discussed above, the court-approved Compromise Agreement in Civil Case No. Q-91-10079 disposed of the issue of Yolanda's payment of the outstanding loans and the validity of the mortgages involved in these civil cases. This being so, said Compromise Agreement bound the parties herein.
	GR No. 184528 2012-04-25	NILO OROPESA v. CIRILO OROPESA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
A demurrer to evidence is defined as "an objection by one of the parties in an action, to the effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law, whether true or not, to make out a case or sustain the issue."[23] We have also held that a demurrer to evidence "authorizes a judgment on the merits of the case without the defendant having to submit evidence on his part, as he would ordinarily have to do, if plaintiff's evidence shows that he is not entitled to the relief sought."[24]
	GR No. 156185 2011-09-12	CATALINA B. CHU v. SPS. FERNANDO C. CUNANAN BERSAMIN, J.
The first requisite was attendant. Civil Case No. G-1936 was already terminated under the compromise agreement, for the judgment, being upon a compromise, was immediately final and unappealable. As to the second requisite, the RTC had jurisdiction over the cause of action in Civil Case No. G-1936 for the enforcement or rescission of the deed of sale with assumption of mortgage, which was an action whose subject matter was not capable of pecuniary estimation. That the compromise agreement explicitly settled the entirety of Civil Case No. G-1936 by resolving all the claims of the parties against each other indicated that the third requisite was also satisfied.[34]
	GR No. 193840 2011-06-15	ALEXANDER S. GAISANO v. BENJAMIN C. AKOL VELASCO JR., J.
A compromise agreement is a contract whereby the parties make reciprocal concessions, avoid litigation, or put an end to one already commenced. [4] Its validity depends on its fulfillment of the requisites and principles of contracts dictated by law; its terms and conditions being not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public policy and public order. [5]