This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2014-06-09 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Thus, it is only upon the death of Pedro Calalang on December 27, 1989 that his heirs acquired their respective inheritances, entitling them to their pro indiviso shares to his whole estate. At the time of the sale of the disputed property, the rights to the succession were not yet bestowed upon the heirs of Pedro Calalang. And absent clear and convincing evidence that the sale was fraudulent or not duly supported by valuable consideration (in effect an inofficious donation inter vivos), the respondents have no right to question the sale of the disputed property on the ground that their father deprived them of their respective shares. Well to remember, fraud must be established by clear and convincing evidence. Mere preponderance of evidence is not even adequate to prove fraud.[20] The Complaint for Annulment of Sale and Reconveyance of Property must therefore be dismissed. | |||||
|
2013-03-20 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| As for the supposed fact that possession by tolerance was not among the issues simplified during the pre-trial of the case, suffice it to say that the same is subsumed in the second issue identified in the RTC's 29 November 1983 pre-trial order, i.e., "(w)hether or not [p]etitioners and the[ir] predecessors-in-interest had been in the actual, physical possession of the land in question in the concept [of] owners since 1906 up to the present."[64] Since Simplecio's possession of the subject parcel was by mere tolerance, we find that the CA correctly brushed aside petitioners' reliance on estoppel which cannot be sustained by mere argument or doubtful inference.[65] The same may be said of the CA's rejection of laches, an equitable doctrine the application of which is controlled by equitable considerations.[66] It operates not really to penalize neglect or sleeping on one's rights, but rather to avoid recognizing a right when to do so would result in a clearly inequitable situation.[67] Unfortunately for petitioners' cause, no such situation obtains in the case. | |||||
|
2011-09-21 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| It cannot be gainsaid that, as a public document, the Deed of Assignment Biondo executed in favor of Eden not only enjoys a presumption of regularity[17] but is also considered prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.[18] A party assailing the authenticity and due execution of a notarized document is, consequently, required to present evidence that is clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant.[19] In view of the Spouses Realubit's failure to discharge this onus, we find that both the RTC and the CA correctly upheld the authenticity and validity of said Deed of Assignment upon the combined strength of the above-discussed disputable presumptions and the testimonies elicited from Eden[20] and Notary Public Rolando Diaz.[21] As for the Spouses' Realubit's bare assertion that Biondo's signature on the same document appears to be forged, suffice it to say that, like fraud,[22] forgery is never presumed and must likewise be proved by clear and convincing evidence by the party alleging the same.[23] Aside from not being borne out by a comparison of Biondo's signatures on the Joint Venture Agreement[24] and the Deed of Assignment,[25] said forgery is, moreover debunked by Biondo's duly authenticated certification dated 17 November 1998, confirming the transfer of his interest in the business in favor of Eden.[26] | |||||
|
2011-09-14 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In fact, as between the parties, even an oral partition by the heirs is valid if no creditors are affected. The requirement of a written memorandum under the statute of frauds does not apply to partitions effected by the heirs where no creditors are involved considering that such transaction is not a conveyance of property resulting in change of ownership but merely a designation and segregation of that part which belongs to each heir.[49] | |||||
|
2009-07-31 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Although prescription and laches are distinct concepts, we have held, nonetheless, that in some instances, the doctrine of laches is inapplicable where the action was filed within the prescriptive period provided by law. Therefore, laches will not apply to this case, because respondents' possession of the subject property has rendered their right to bring an action for quieting of title imprescriptible and, hence, not barred by laches. Moreover, since laches is a creation of equity, acts or conduct alleged to constitute the same must be intentional and unequivocal so as to avoid injustice. Laches will operate not really to penalize neglect or sleeping on one's rights, but rather to avoid recognizing a right when to do so would result in a clearly inequitable situation.[52] | |||||
|
2005-08-29 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Under the Civil Code, only the wife can ask to annul a contract that disposes of conjugal real property without her consent. The wife must file the action for annulment during the marriage and within ten years from the questioned transaction. Article 173 is explicit on the remedies available if the wife fails to exercise this right within the specified period. In such case, the wife or her heirs can only demand the value of the property provided they prove that the husband fraudulently alienated the property. Fraud is never presumed, but must be established by clear and convincing evidence.[20] | |||||
|
2005-07-29 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Under the Civil Code, only the wife can ask to annul a contract that disposes of conjugal real property without her consent. The wife must file the action for annulment during the marriage and within ten years from the questioned transaction. Article 173 is explicit on the remedies available if the wife fails to exercise this right within the specified period. In such case, the wife or her heirs can only demand the value of the property provided they prove that the husband fraudulently alienated the property. Fraud is never presumed, but must be established by clear and convincing evidence.[20] | |||||
|
2005-07-28 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Fraud refers to all kinds of deception whether through insidious machination, manipulation, concealment or misrepresentation that would lead an ordinarily prudent person into error after taking the circumstances into account.[23] In contracts, a fraud known as dolo causante or causal fraud[24] is basically a deception used by one party prior to or simultaneous with the contract, in order to secure the consent of the other.[25] Needless to say, the deceit employed must be serious. In contradistinction, only some particular or accident of the obligation is referred to by incidental fraud or dolo incidente,[26] or that which is not serious in character and without which the other party would have entered into the contract anyway.[27] | |||||
|
2004-06-03 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| ART. 1338. There is fraud when, through insidious words or machinations of one of the contracting parties, the other is induced to enter into a contract which, without them, he would not have agreed to. As defined, fraud refers to all kinds of deception, whether through insidious machination, manipulation, concealment or misrepresentation to lead another party into error.[4] The deceit employed must be serious. It must be sufficient to impress or lead an ordinarily prudent person into error, taking into account the circumstances of each case.[5] | |||||