This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-06-15 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, in Puyat v. Zabarte,[7] we laid down the requisites for the proper rendition of summary judgment:For summary judgment to be valid, Rule 34, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, requires (a) that there must be no genuine issue as to any material fact, except for the amount of damages; and (b) that the party presenting the motion for summary judgment must be entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. | |||||
|
2015-01-14 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Third, there is no indication of "unwillingness to extend local judicial facilities to non-residents or aliens."[93] That Saudia has managed to bring the present controversy all the way to this court proves this. | |||||
|
2012-10-11 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Nevertheless, petitioner does not err in seeking the return of the down payment as a consequence of the sale having been declared void. The rule is settled that the declaration of nullity of a contract which is void ab initio operates to restore things to the state and condition in which they were found before the execution thereof.[17] Petitioner is correct in its argument that allowing respondents to keep the amount received from petitioner is tantamount to judicial acquiescence to unjust enrichment. Unjust enrichment exists "when a person unjustly retains a benefit to the loss of another, or when a person retains money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience."[18] There is unjust enrichment under Article 22 of the Civil Code when (1) a person is unjustly benefited, and (2) such benefit is derived at the expense of or with damages to another.[19] Thus, the sale which created the obligation of petitioner to pay the agreed amount having been declared void, respondents have the duty to return the down payment as they no longer have the right to keep it. The principle of unjust enrichment essentially contemplates payment when there is no duty to pay, and the person who receives the payment has no right to receive it.[20] As found by the CA and undisputed by the parties, the amount of the down payment made is P14,000,000.00 which shall also be the amount to be returned by respondents. | |||||
|
2002-09-19 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| bad faith, or patently unsubstantial.[50] To forestall summary judgment, it is essential for the non-moving party to confirm the existence of genuine issues where he has substantial, plausible and fairly arguable defense, i.e., issues of fact calling for the presentation of evidence upon which a reasonable findings of fact could return a verdict for the non-moving party although mere scintilla of evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment will be insufficient to preclude entry thereof.[51] The proper inquiry would therefore be whether the affirmative defense offered by petitioner-spouses constitutes genuine issue of fact requiring a full-blown trial. We rule that the affirmative defense sets up a sham issue which justifies summary judgment. For one, petitioner-spouses have not explained how their affirmative defense, since it attempts to vary a written agreement, could be proved by admissible evidence. It would | |||||