Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

GAVINA MAGLUCOT-AW v. LEOPOLDO MAGLUCOT

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 185745 2014-10-15	SPS. DOMINADOR MARCOS v. HEIRS OF ISIDRO BANGI REYES, J.
Partition is the separation, division and assignment of a thing held in common among those to whom it may belong.[16] Every act which is intended to put an end to indivision among co-heirs and legatees or devisees is deemed to be a partition.[17] Partition may be inferred from circumstances sufficiently strong to support the presumption. Thus, after a long possession in severalty, a deed of partition may be presumed.[18] Thus, in Hernandez v. Andal,[19] the Court emphasized that: On general principle, independent and in spite of the statute of frauds, courts of equity have enforced oral partition when it has been completely or partly performed.
	GR No. 180614 2012-08-29	LEONARDO NOTARTE v. GODOFREDO NOTARTE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
On the second issue, we sustain the RTC and CA in finding that the property covered by OCT No. 48098 had already been partitioned long before respondent purchased his lot. Under Article 1082 of the Civil Code, every act which is intended to put an end to indivision among co-heirs is deemed to be a partition even though it should purport to be a sale, an exchange, or any other transaction. Partition may thus be inferred from circumstances sufficiently strong to support the presumption.[36]
	AC. No. 5955 2009-09-08	JOHN CHRISTEN S. HEGNA v. ATTY. GOERING G.C. PADERANGA PERALTA, J.
While the act of registration of a document is not necessary in order to give it legal effect as between the parties, requirements for the recording of the instruments are designed to prevent frauds and to permit and require the public to act with the presumption that a recorded instrument exists and is genuine.[27] However, while the RTC was correct in holding that said omission on respondent's part may not be considered falsification, he had shown an intent to defraud the government, which had the right to collect revenue from him, as well as from other persons who may have an interest in said properties.
	GR No. 149017 2008-11-28	VALENTE RAYMUNDO v. TEOFISTA ISAGON VDA. DE SUAREZ NACHURA, J.
On more than one occasion, we laid down the test to ascertain whether an order is interlocutory or final i.e., "Does it leave something to be done in the trial court with respect to the merits of the case?" If it does, it is interlocutory; if it does not, it is final. The key test to what is interlocutory is when there is something more to be done on the merits of the case.[32] The Orders dated May 29, 1996 and September 6, 1996 issued by Judge Santos are interlocutory, and therefore, not appealable, as they leave something more to be done on the merits of the case. In fact, in paragraph (d) of Judge Santos' Order dated May 29, 1996, herein respondents were directed to submit evidence showing settlement of the estate of the deceased Marcelo Sr.
	GR No. 105608 2008-04-30	TIRSO D. MONTEROSO v. CA VELASCO JR., J.
[T]he jurisdiction of the Court in cases brought before it from the Court of Appeals via Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to reviewing errors of law. Findings of fact of the latter are conclusive, except in the following instances: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; and (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.[22]
	GR No. 177703 2008-01-28	VILMA G. ARRIOLA and ANT RONALD G. ARRIOLA v. JOHN NABOR C. ARRIOLA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
That said notwithstanding, we must emphasize that, while we treat the subject house as part of the co-ownership of the parties, we stop short of authorizing its actual partition by public auction at this time. It bears emphasis that an action for partition involves two phases: first, the declaration of the existence of a state of co-ownership; and second, the actual termination of that state of co-ownership through the segregation of the common property.[28] What is settled thus far is only the fact that the subject house is under the co-ownership of the parties, and therefore susceptible of partition among them.
	GR NO. 171102 2006-11-24	ATP TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL v. MICRON PRECISION PHILS. YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The jurisdiction of this Court in cases brought before it from the Court of Appeals via Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to reviewing errors of law. Findings of fact of the latter are conclusive, except in the following instances: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; and (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.[18]
	GR NO. 150350 2006-08-22	KOJI YASUMA v. HEIRS OF CECILIO S. DE VILLA CORONA, J.
However, the corporation may ratify the unauthorized act of its corporate officer.[12] Ratification means that the principal voluntarily adopts, confirms and gives sanction to some unauthorized act of its agent on its behalf. It is this voluntary choice, knowingly made, which amounts to a ratification of what was theretofore unauthorized and becomes the authorized act of the party so making the ratification.[13] The substance of the doctrine is confirmation after conduct, amounting to a substitute for a prior authority.[14] Ratification can be made either expressly or impliedly. Implied ratification may take various forms like silence or acquiescence, acts showing approval or adoption of the act, or acceptance and retention of benefits flowing therefrom.[15]