This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-11-19 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The Court's pronouncements in the decided cases regarding these issues are discussed below. The doctrine of stare decisis et non quieta movere, which means "to abide by, or adhere to, decided cases,"[112] compels us to apply the rulings by the Court to these consolidated cases before us. Under the doctrine of stare decisis, "when this Court has once 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, where facts are substantially the same; regardless of whether the parties and property are the same."[113] This is to provide stability in judicial decisions, as held by the Court in a previous case: 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. It proceeds from the first principle of justice that, absent any powerful countervailing considerations, like cases ought to be decided alike.[114] | |||||
|
2013-09-09 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| At the outset, the basic facts as well as the issues raised in these petitions have already been passed upon by the Court in its Decision[55] dated April 7, 2009 in G.R. Nos. 130088, 131469, 155171, 155201, and 166608 as well as its more recent Decision[56] dated June 27, 2012 in G.R. No. 188302. Pertinently, in these cases, the Court applied the earlier case of Tala Realty Services Corporation v. Banco Filipino Savings & Mortgage Bank, docketed as G.R. No. 137533,[57] wherein it declared, in no uncertain terms, that the implied trust agreement between Banco Filipino and Tala Realty is "inexistent and void for being contrary to law." As such, Banco Filipino cannot demand the reconveyance of the subject properties in the present cases; neither can any affirmative relief be accorded to one party against the other since they have been found to have acted in pari delicto,[58] viz.:An implied trust could not have been formed between the Bank and Tala as this Court has held that "where the purchase is made in violation of an existing statute and in evasion of its express provision, no trust can result in favor of the party who is guilty of the fraud." x x x. | |||||