Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. EXEQUIEL LOPEZ AND EUSEBIA LOPEZ v. SPS. EDUARDO LOPEZ AND MARCELINA R. LOPEZ

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 175483 2015-10-14	VALENTINA S. CLEMENTE v. CA JARDELEZA, J.
Simulation takes place when the parties do not really want the contract they have executed to produce the legal effects expressed by its wordings.[46] Article 1345 of the Civil Code provides that the simulation of a contract may either be absolute or relative. The former takes place when the parties do not intend to be bound at all; the latter, when the parties conceal their true agreement. The case of Heirs of Policronio M. Ureta, Sr. v. Heirs of Liberate M. Ureta[47] is instructive on the matter of absolute simulation of contracts, viz: In absolute simulation, there is a colorable contract but it has no substance as the parties have no intention to be bound by it. The main characteristic of an absolute simulation is that the apparent contract is not really desired or intended to produce legal effect or in any way alter the juridical situation of the parties. As a result, an absolutely simulated or fictitious contract is void, and the parties may recover from each other what they may have given under the contract...[48] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 169055 2012-02-22	SPS. JOSE AND MILAGROS VILLACERAN AND FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. JOSEPHINE DE GUZMAN VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Article 1345[19] of the Civil Code provides that the simulation of a contract may either be absolute or relative. In absolute simulation, there is a colorable contract but it has no substance as the parties have no intention to be bound by it. The main characteristic of an absolute simulation is that the apparent contract is not really desired or intended to produce legal effect or in any way alter the juridical situation of the parties.[20] As a result, an absolutely simulated or fictitious contract is void, and the parties may recover from each other what they may have given under the contract. However, if the parties state a false cause in the contract to conceal their real agreement, the contract is only relatively simulated and the parties are still bound by their real agreement. Hence, where the essential requisites of a contract are present and the simulation refers only to the content or terms of the contract, the agreement is absolutely binding and enforceable between the parties and their successors in interest.[21]
	GR No. 165748 2011-09-14	HEIRS OF POLICRONIO M. URETA v. HEIRS OF LIBERATO M. URETA MENDOZA, J.
Theprimary consideration in determining the true nature of a contract is the intention of the parties.If the words of a contract appear to contravene the evident intention of the parties, the latter shall prevail. Such intention is determined not only from the express terms of their agreement, but also from the contemporaneous and subsequent acts of the parties.[16] The true intention of the parties in this case was sufficiently proven by the Heirs of Alfonso.
	GR No. 169985 2011-06-15	MODESTO LEOVERAS v. CASIMERO VALDEZ BRION, J.
By fraudulently causing the transfer of the registration of title over the disputed property in his name, the petitioner holds the title to this disputed property in trust for the benefit of the respondent as the true owner; [39] registration does not vest title but merely confirms or records title already existing and vested. The Torrens system of registration cannot be used to protect a usurper from the true owner, nor can it be used as a shield for the commission of fraud, or to permit one to enrich oneself at the expense of others. [40] Hence, the CA correctly ordered the reconveyance of the disputed property, covered by TCT No. 195813, to the respondent.