This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2004-05-21 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Anent the award of interest, petitioner contends that such award is not in order as it had not been prayed for by respondent in its complaint nor was it an issue agreed upon by the parties during the pre-trial of the case. Nonetheless, the rule is well settled that when the obligation is breached, and it consists in the payment of a sum of money, i.e., a loan or forbearance of money, the interest due should be that which may have been stipulated in writing, as in this case. Furthermore, the interest due shall itself earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded.[8] Besides, the matter of how much interest respondent is entitled to falls squarely within the issues framed by the parties in their respective pleadings filed with the court a quo. At any rate, courts may indeed grant the relief warranted by the allegations and proof even if no such specific relief is prayed for if only to conclude a complete and thorough resolution of the issues involved.[9] | |||||
|
2001-08-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The basic characteristic of an absolutely simulated or fictitious contract is that the apparent contract is not really desired or intended to produce legal effects or alter the juridical situation of the parties in any way.[30] However, in this case, the parties already undertook certain acts which were directed towards fulfillment of their respective covenants under the second deed, indicating that they intended to give effect to their agreement. | |||||