Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

TALA REALTY SERVICES CORP. v. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 188302 2012-06-27	NANCY L. TY v. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS BRION, J.
In her compliance,[34] the petitioner summarized this Court's rulings in the consolidated cases of G.R. Nos. 130184 and 139166,[35] and in G.R. No. 132703,[36] and reported on the other cases involving the same parties decided by this Court, such as G.R. Nos. 129887,[37] 137980,[38] 132051,[39] 137533,[40] 143263,[41] and 142672,[42] as well as the other related cases decided by this Court, i.e., G.R. Nos. 144700,[43] 147997,[44] 167255,[45] and 144705.[46]
	GR NO. 162922 2007-01-31	BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS v. AMALIK P. ESPINOSA CARPIO MORALES, J.
On its face, the Entry of Judgment[7] in G.R. No. 132051 showed that two Resolutions subsequent to the June 25, 2001 Decision were also certified as having become final and executory. Clearly apparent from the chronology of dispositions is the fact that the June 25, 2001 Decision was later modified by the July 24, 2002 Resolution which, in turn, was reconsidered and set aside by the September 3, 2003 Resolution. This matter was brought to the attention of public respondent by petitioner during the hearing of respondent's Motion for Execution on February 26, 2004.
	GR No. 143263 2004-01-29	TALA REALTY SERVICES CORPORATION v. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
This is not the first time that we have passed upon the same controversy between the same parties. In G.R. No. 129887 (involving the Urdaneta property),[10] we ruled that the twenty-year contract is the real and genuine contract between the parties. Applying the principle of stare decisis, this Court, in G.R. No. 137980 (Davao property),[11] G.R. No. 132051 (Iloilo property),[12] G.R. No. 147997 (Lucena property)[13] and G.R. No. 137533 (Bulacan property),[14] consistently upheld the 20-year lease contract and dismissed petitioner's complaint for illegal detainer by reason of prematurity.
	GR No. 148126 2003-11-10	GEORGE T. VILLENA v. SPS. ANTONIO C. CHAVEZ AND NOEMI MARCOS-CHAVEZ AND CARLITA C. CHAVEZ PANGANIBAN, J.
We stress that when a court has laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases in which the facts are substantially the same.[25] Stare decisis et non quieta movere. Stand by the decisions and disturb not what is settled. Stare decisis simply means that for the sake of certainty, a conclusion reached in one case should be applied to those that follow if the facts are substantially the same, even though the parties may be different.[26] It proceeds from the first principle of justice that, absent any powerful countervailing considerations, like cases ought to be decided alike.[27]