This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2015-09-14 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| In Binayug v. Ugaddan,[109] which involved the sale of two properties covered by a homestead patent,[110] this court cited jurisprudence showing that in cases involving the sale of a property covered by the five-year prohibitory period, the property should be returned to the grantee.[111] | |||||
|
2015-09-07 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Questions of fact challenge the lower court's appreciation of evidence and factual conclusions, as opposed to questions of law that no longer deal with the probative value of evidence:[92] | |||||
|
2015-08-05 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| As a void contract, the Deed of Donation produces no legal effect whatsoever. Quod nullum est, nullum producit effectum[34] That which is a nullity produces no effect.[35] Logically, it could not have transferred title to the subject property from the Spouses Gozo to PUMCO-SDA and there can be no basis for the church's demand for the issuance of title under its name. Neither does the church have the right to subsequently dispose the property nor invoke acquisitive prescription to justify its occupation. A void contract is not susceptible to ratification, and the action for the declaration of absolute nullity of such contract is imprescriptible.[36] | |||||
|
2015-06-29 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| The foregoing provision of law unambiguously classifies the subject contract of sale executed on March 28, 1977 as unlawful and null and void ab initio for being in violation of Section 118, i.e., entered into within the five-year prohibitory period. This provision of law is clear and explicit and a contract which purports to alienate, transfer, convey or encumber any homestead within the prohibitory period is void from its execution.[14] The Court has held in a number of cases that such provision of law is mandatory[15] with the purpose of promoting a specific public policy to preserve and keep in the family of the patentee that portion of the public land which the State has gratuitously given to them.[16] | |||||
|
2015-06-29 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| A void contract produces no legal effect whatsoever in accordance with the principle “quod nullum est nullum producit effectum.”[23] It could not transfer title to the subject property and there could be no basis for the issuance of a title from petitioner Anastacio’s name to the names of respondent-spouses. It is not susceptible of ratification and the action for the declaration of its absolute nullity is imprescriptible.[24] It was therefore error for both courts a quo to rule that “[p]etitioner’s failure to act on such considerable time has already barred him by estoppel and laches.”[25] We quote the pertinent portion of the appellate court’s assailed decision where it discussed its basis for ruling that laches exists in the case at bar:x x x Appellees in their brief admitted that deceased appellant can repurchase the property at the same price within the five (5)[-]year period from the execution of the deed of sale. | |||||
|
2014-06-11 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| A question of law exists when the doubt or controversy concerns the correct application of law or jurisprudence to a certain set of facts; or when the issue does not call for the examination of the probative value of the evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted. A question of fact exists when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts or when the query invites calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of the witnesses, the existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances, as well as their relation to each other and to the whole, and the probability of the whole situation.[21] Thus, the test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is not the appellation given to such question by the party raising the same; rather, it is whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise it is a question of fact.[22] | |||||