You're currently signed in as:
User

BANK OF COMMERCE v. RADIO PHILIPPINES NETWORK

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

2015-09-08
MENDOZA, J.
After the pre-trial, Yu filed an Amended Complaint,[13] wherein he also impleaded YIL, Y-I Leisure Phils., Inc. (YILPI) and Y-I Club & Resorts, Inc. (YICRI). According to Yu, he discovered in the Registry of Deeds of Pampanga that, substantially, all the assets of MADCI, consisting of one hundred twenty (120) hectares of land located in Magalang, Pampanga, were sold to YIL, YILPI and YICRI. The transfer was done in fraud of MADCI's creditors, and without the required approval of its stockholders and board of directors under Section 40 of the Corporation Code. Yu also alleged that Sangil even filed a case in Pampanga which assailed the said irregular transfers of lands.
2015-03-18
DEL CASTILLO, J.
While it is true that a judgment cannot bind persons who are not parties to the action,[51] petitioner cannot, after invoking the proceedings in Civil Case No. MAN-2683 to secure affirmative relief against respondent and thereafter failing to obtain such relief, be allowed to repudiate or question the CA's ruling in CA-G.R. CV No. 78971.  The principle of estoppel bars him from denying the resultant pronouncement by the appellate court, which became final and executory, that the subject property is respondent's paraphernal property.  "In estoppel, a person, who by his deed or conduct has induced another to act in a particular manner, is barred from adopting an inconsistent position, attitude or course of conduct that thereby causes loss or injury to another.  It further bars him from denying the truth of a fact which has, in the contemplation of law, become settled by the acts and proceeding of judicial or legislative officers or by the act of the party himself, either by conventional writing or by representations, express or implied or in pais."[52]