Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LOURDES ONG LIMSON v. CA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 201112 2012-06-13	ARCHBISHOP FERNANDO R. CAPALLA v. COMELEC PERALTA, J.
Petitioners fault the Comelec in totally disregarding the recommendation of the Comelec Advisory Council (CAC) not to exercise the OTP. They point out that in its Resolution No. 2012-2003, the CAC resolved to recommend that the Comelec should exert all efforts to procure the necessary AES only through public bidding. The CAC likewise allegedly recommended that the OTP should not be exercised if as a consequence, the rest of the system must come from the same vendor as the Comelec would lose the opportunity to look for better technology; would prevent the Comelec from taking advantage of the best possible technology available; would prevent other prospective vendors from competitively participating in the bidding process; and may erode the public trust and confidence in the electoral process. In its report to the Congressional Oversight Committee after the 2010 elections, the CAC supposedly concluded that the Comelec does not need to use the same PCOS machines and that the Comelec would be better off not exercising the OTP the PCOS machines so it can look for an even better solution for the May 2013 elections.[22] Like the other petitioners, it is their position that Comelec Resolution No. 9376 is totally null and void having been issued in violation of the express provisions of RA 9184 and the AES contract. According to petitioners, the Comelec itself provided in its bid bulletins for a fixed and determinate period, and such period ended on December 31, 2010. Thus, Smartmatic-TIM could not have unilaterally extended the option period and the Comelec could not have also given its consent to the extension. In extending the option period, it is tantamount to giving the winning bidder a benefit that was not known and available to all bidders during the bidding of the 2010 AES, which is a clear violation of the bidding rules and the equal protection clause of the Constitution.[23] Considering that the option period already expired, the purchase of the PCOS machines requires competitive public bidding. Lastly, petitioners claim that the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in opting to buy the PCOS machines and allied paraphernalia of Smartmatic-TIM for the 2013 elections, despite incontrovertible findings of the glitches, malfunctions, bugs, and defects of the same.[24]
	GR No. 183387 2009-09-29	SIMEON M. VALDEZ v. FINANCIERA MANILA PERALTA, J.
It is a cardinal rule in contract interpretation that the ascertainment of the intention of the contracting parties is to be discharged by looking to the words they used to project that intention in their contract, that is, all the words, not just a particular word or two, and words in context, not words standing alone.[43]
	GR No. 169472 2009-01-20	FRANCISCO LANDICHO v. FELIX SIA PUNO, C.J.
The instant case involves three parcels of agricultural land located in Barangay Mateona, Tayabas, Quezon, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 135953 - Lot No. 9297,[3] TCT No. 135952 - Lot No. 9856,[4] and TCT No. 135929 - Lot No. 9895,[5] with an aggregate area of approximately 27,287 square meters. The subject parcels of land were originally owned by Loreanne Z. Aragon, Alberto Z. Aragon, Jr., and Alberto Z. Aragon III (Aragons).[6] The agricultural land was tenanted by the late Arcadio Landicho from 1949 until his death in 1972[7] after which his tenancy rights were succeeded by his son, petitioner Francisco Landicho.[8] The other petitioners, Buenaventura Landicho, Francisco Landicho's son, and Federico Landicho, Francisco's brother, helped him cultivate the land.[9]
	GR No. 167884 2009-01-20	ENRICO S. EULOGIO v. SPS. CLEMENTE APELES AND LUZ APELES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
An option is a contract by which the owner of the property agrees with another person that the latter shall have the right to buy the former's property at a fixed price within a certain time. It is a condition offered or contract by which the owner stipulates with another that the latter shall have the right to buy the property at a fixed price within a certain time, or under, or in compliance with certain terms and conditions; or which gives to the owner of the property the right to sell or demand a sale.[22] An option is not of itself a purchase, but merely secures the privilege to buy. It is not a sale of property but a sale of the right to purchase. It is simply a contract by which the owner of the property agrees with another person that he shall have the right to buy his property at a fixed price within a certain time. He does not sell his land; he does not then agree to sell it; but he does sell something, i.e., the right or privilege to buy at the election or option of the other party. Its distinguishing characteristic is that it imposes no binding obligation on the person holding the option, aside from the consideration for the offer.[23]
	GR No. 157493 2007-02-05	OESMER v. PARAISO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Settled is the rule that in the interpretation of contracts, the ascertainment of the intention of the contracting parties is to be discharged by looking to the words they used to project that intention in their contract, all the words, not just a particular word or two, and words in context, not words standing alone.[19]
	GR NO. 154156 2006-08-31	JMA HOUSE INCORPORATED v. STA. MONICA INDUSTRIAL CALLEJO, SR., J.
It must be stressed that an option is a continuing offer or contract by which an owner stipulates with another that the latter shall have the right to buy the property at a fixed price with a certain time, or under, or in compliance with, certain terms and conditions; or which gives to the owner of the property the right to sell or demand a sale.[85] It is, in fine, an unaccepted offer, governed by the second paragraph of Article 1479 of the New Civil Code which states that "a promise to buy and sell a determinate thing for a price certain is reciprocally demandable." An option is not of itself a purchase, but merely secures the privilege to buy. An option is a privilege given by the owner of the property to another to buy the property at his election, and the owner does not sell the property but gives another the right to buy at his election.[86] It imposes no binding obligation on the person holding the option, aside from the consideration for the offer. Without acceptance, it is not, properly speaking, treated as a contract, and does not vest, transfer or agree to transfer, any title to, or any interest or right in the subject property, but is merely a contract by which the owner of the property gives the optionee the right or privilege of accepting the offer and buying the property on certain terms.[87]
	GR NO. 137549 2005-02-11	AURELIO P. ALONZO v. JAIME CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is a cardinal rule in contract interpretation that the ascertainment of the intention of the contracting parties is to be discharged by looking to the words they used to project that intention in their contract, that is, all the words, not just a particular word or two, and words in context, not words standing alone.[46]