Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ARTURO SARTE FLORES v. SPS. ENRICO L. LINDO

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 201892 2015-07-22	NORLINDA S. MARILAG v. MARCELINO B. MARTINEZ PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
In loan contracts secured by a real estate mortgage, the rule is that the creditor-mortgagee has a single cause of action against the debtor mortgagor, i.e., to recover the debt, through the filing of a personal action for collection of sum of money or the institution of a real action to foreclose on the mortgage security. The two remedies are alternative,[36] not cumulative or successive,[37] and each remedy is complete by itself. Thus, if the creditor-mortgagee opts to foreclose the real estate mortgage, he waives the action for the collection of the unpaid debt,[38] except only for the recovery of whatever deficiency may remain in the outstanding obligation of the debtor-mortgagor after deducting the bid price in the public auction sale of the mortgaged properties.[39] Accordingly, a deficiency judgment shall only issue after it is established that the mortgaged property was sold at public auction for an amount less than the outstanding obligation.
	GR No. 198636 2014-10-08	ESPERANZA C. CARINAN v. SPS. GAVINO CUETO AND CARMELITA CUETO REYES, J.
Esperanza's refusal to pay back would likewise result in unjust enrichment, to the clear disadvantage of the respondents. "The main objective of the principle against unjust enrichment is to prevent one from enriching himself at the expense of another without just cause or consideration."[21] While Esperanza claims that her brother's generosity was the consideration for the respondents' payment of her obligations, this was not sufficiently established, that even the respondents vehemently denied the allegation.
	GR No. 178451 2014-07-30	RURAL BANK OF CABADBARAN v. JORGITA A. MELECIO-YAP PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Similarly, in Flores v. Lindo, Jr.,[68] the Court pronounced that: The liability of x x x on the principal contract of the loan however subsists notwithstanding the illegality of the mortgage. Indeed, where a mortgage is not valid, the principal obligation which it guarantees is not thereby rendered null and void. That obligation matures and becomes demandable in accordance with the stipulation pertaining to it. Under the foregoing circumstances, what is lost is merely the right to foreclose the mortgage as a special remedy for satisfying or settling the indebtedness which is the principal obligation. In case of nullity, the mortgage deed remains as evidence or proof of a personal obligation of the debtor and the amount due to the creditor may be enforced in an ordinary action.[69]
	GR No. 177484 2014-07-18	SPS. ALEJANDRO MANZANILLA AND REMEDIOS VELASCO v. WATERFIELDS INDUSTRIES CORPORATION DEL CASTILLO, J.
"The principle of unjust enrichment requires two conditions: (1) that a person is benefited without a valid basis or justification, and (2) that such benefit is derived at the expense of another."[40] It does not, however, apply in this case since any benefit that the spouses Manzanilla may obtain from the subject premises cannot be said to be without any valid basis or justification. It is well to remind Waterfields that they violated the contract of lease and that they failed to vacate the premises upon demand. Hence, the spouses Manzanilla are justified in recovering the physical possession thereof and consequently, in making use of the property. Besides, in violating the lease by failing to pay the rent, Waterfields took the risk of losing the improvements it introduced thereon in favor of the spouses Manzanilla. This is because despite the fact that the lease contract provides that in case of termination of the lease agreement all permanent improvements and structures found in the subject premises shall belong to the lessors,[41] it still violated the lease.
	GR No. 192105 2013-12-09	ANTONIO LOCSIN II v. MEKENI FOOD CORPORATION DEL CASTILLO, J.
The main objective of the principle against unjust enrichment is to prevent one from enriching himself at the expense of another without just cause or consideration. x x x[28]
	GR No. 183308 2012-04-25	INSULAR INVESTMENT v. CAPITAL ONE EQUITIES CORP. MENDOZA, J.
In the recent case of Flores v. Spouses Lindo,[77] this Court expounded on the subject matter: There is unjust enrichment "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." The principle of unjust enrichment requires two conditions: (1) that a person is benefited without a valid basis or justification, and (2) that such benefit is derived at the expense of another.