Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ALEJANDRO V. TANKEH v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 200558 2015-07-01	CONSUELO V. PANGASINAN v. CRISTINA DISONGLO-ALMAZORA MENDOZA, J.
Fraud must be proven by clear and convincing evidence and not merely by a preponderance thereof.[46] Clear and convincing proof is more than mere preponderance, but not to extent of such certainty as is required beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal cases.[47] The imputation of fraud in a civil case requires the presentation of clear and convincing evidence. Mere allegations will not suffice to sustain the existence of fraud. The burden of evidence rests on the part of the plaintiff or the party alleging fraud.[48]
	GR No. 167519 2015-01-14	WELLEX GROUP v. U-LAND AIRLINES LEONEN, J.
In Tankeh v. Development Bank of the Philippines,[193] this court enumerated the relevant provisions of the Civil Code on fraud: Fraud is defined in Article 1338 of the Civil Code as:
	GR No. 167519 2015-01-14	WELLEX GROUP v. U-LAND AIRLINES LEONEN, J.
Respondent U-Land was not defrauded by petitioner Wellex to agree to the First Memorandum of Agreement. To constitute fraud under Article 1338, the words and machinations must have been so insidious or deceptive that the party induced to enter into the contract would not have agreed to be bound by its terms if that party had an opportunity to be aware of the truth.[197]
	GR No. 196182 2014-09-01	ECE REALTY v. RACHEL G. MANDAP PERALTA, J.
First, the fraud must be dolo causante or it must be fraud in obtaining the consent of the party.[16] This is referred to as causal fraud. The deceit must be serious. The fraud is serious when it is sufficient to impress, or to lead an ordinarily prudent person into error; that which cannot deceive a prudent person cannot be a ground for nullity.[17] The circumstances of each case should be considered, taking into account the personal conditions of the victim.[18]
	GR No. 206806 2014-06-25	ARCO PULP v. DAN T. LIM LEONEN, J.
In Tankeh v. Development Bank of the Philippines,[49] we stated that: The purpose of exemplary damages is to serve as a deterrent to future and subsequent parties from the commission of a similar offense. The case of People v. Rante citing People v. Dalisay held that: