Category: Uncategorized


CASE 2016-0075: NAGA CENTRUM INC., REPRESENTED BY AIDA KELLY YUBUCO V. SPOUSES RAMON J. ORZALES AND NENITA F. ORZALES, (G.R. NO. 203576, 14 SEPTEMBER 2016 , DEL CASTILLO, J.) (SUBJECT/S: RIGHT OF WAY) (BRIEF TITLE: NAGA CENTURM VS SPOUSES ORZALES)

Filed under: LATEST SUPREME COURT CASES, Uncategorized — Leave a comment
November 4, 2016

CASE 2016-0075: NAGA CENTRUM INC., REPRESENTED BY AIDA KELLY YUBUCO V. SPOUSES RAMON J. ORZALES AND NENITA F. ORZALES,  (G.R. NO. 203576, 14 SEPTEMBER 2016 , DEL CASTILLO, J.) (SUBJECT/S: RIGHT OF WAY) (BRIEF TITLE: NAGA CENTURM VS  SPOUSES ORZALES)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The May 23, 2012 Decision and August 28, 2012 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 93926 are AFFIRMED.

 

 SO ORDERED”

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHILE THE CASE FOR RIGHT OF WAY WAS PENDING, PETITIONER CONSTRUCTED STRUCTURES ON THE SITE, SUBJECT OF RIGHT OF WAY. SUBSEQUENTLY PETITIONER’S DEFENSE IS THAT THE RIGHT OF WAY OVER THE SITE IS IMPROPER BECAUSE THERE ARE ALREADY STRUCTURES. IS PETITIONER CORRECT?

 

NO. PETITIONER IS GUILTY OF GROSS AND EVIDENT MALICE. TO  ALLOW THIS WOULD BE TANTAMOUNT TO REWARDING MALICE, CUNNING, AND BAD FAITH.

 

“Petitioner thus acknowledged respondents’ right to use Rizal Street.  It should have known from familiarity not only with its own land, but with those adjoining it, and from the ongoing proceedings in the case, that respondents had no other way to and from Valentin Street than through its property.  For this reason, it is guilty of gross and evident malice and bad faith when, even while Civil Case No. 2004-0036 was pending, it deliberately blocked respondents’ access to Rizal Street by constructing a building thereon, dumping filling materials and junk on the main gate of respondents’ home, and converting portions of the road into an auto repair shop and parking space, making it difficult and                                                            

inconvenient, if not humiliating, for respondents to traverse the path to and from their home. Under Article 19 of the Civil Code, “( e )very person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.” Under Article 26, “( e )very person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors.” Petitioner’s action betrays a perverse and deliberate intention to hurt and punish respondents for legally demanding a right of way which it nevertheless knew was forthcoming, and which, considering the size of its land, it may give without the least prejudice to its own rights.

 

The Court cannot therefore accept petitioner’s argument that since there are permanent structures already erected on the appointed right of way, then the parties should negotiate a different location therefor. To allow this would be tantamount to rewarding malice, cunning, and bad faith. Quite the contrary, petitioner deserves a lesson in not trifling with the rights of others, the law, and the courts. A party cannot be allowed to influence and manipulate the courts’ decisions by perfonning acts upon the disputed property during the pendency of the case, which would allow it to achieve the objectives it desires.”

 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

scd-2016-0075-naga-centrum-inc 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

 

 

 

Comment

CASE 2016-0073: COMMO. LAMBERTO R. TORRES (RET.),V. SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION) AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (G.R. 221562-69, 05 OCTOBER 2016 , VELASCO, JR., J.) (BRIEF TITLE: TORRES VS SANDIGANBAYAN)

Filed under: Uncategorized — Leave a comment
October 25, 2016

CASE 2016-0073: COMMO. LAMBERTO R. TORRES (RET.),V. SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION) AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (G.R. 221562-69, 05 OCTOBER 2016 , VELASCO, JR., J.) (BRIEF TITLE: TORRES VS SANDIGANBAYAN)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The Resolutions dated August 27, 2015 and October 28, 2015 of the Sandiganbayan First Division in Criminal Case Nos. SB-l 1-CRM-0423, 0424, 0426, 0427, 0429, 0430, 0432, and 0433 are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.

 

The Sandiganbayan is likewise ordered to DISMISS Criminal Case Nos. SB-1 l-CRM-0423, 0424, 0426, 0427, 0429, 0430, 0432, and 0433 for violation of the constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases of petitioner Commo. Lamberto R. Torres (Ret.).

 

 SO ORDERED”

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

 “In the present case, petitioner has undoubtedly been prejudiced by virtue of the delay in the resolution of the cases filed against him. Even though he was not initially included as a respondent in the investigation conducted from 1996 to 2006 pertaining to the “overpricing of medicines” procured through emergency purchase, he has already been deprived of the ability to adequately prepare his case considering that he may no longer have any access to records or contact with any witness in support of his defense. This is even aggravated by the fact that petitioner had been retired for fifteen ( 15) years. Even if he was never imprisoned and subjected to trial, it cannot be denied that he has lived under a cloud of anxiety by virtue of the delay in the resolution of his case.”

 

 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

scd-2016-0073-commo-lamberto-r-torres-ret

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

 

 

 

Comment

CASE 2016-0068: SPOUSES CHARITO M. REYES AND ROBERTO REYES, AND SPOUSES VILMA M. MARAVILLO AND DOMINGO MARA VILLO, JR., PETITIONERS, -VERSUS HEIRS OF BENJAMIN * MALANCE, NAMELY: ROSALINA M. MALANCE, BERNABE M. MALANCE, BIENVENIDO M. MALANCE, AND DOMINGA** M. MALANCE, REPRESENTED BY BIENVENIDO M. MALAN CE, RESPONDENTS (G.R. NO. 219071, 24 AUGUST 2016, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.) (CONTRACT OF ANTICHRESIS) (BRIEF TITLE: SPOUSES REYES ET AL VS. HEIRS OF BENJAMIN MALANCE)

Filed under: Uncategorized — Leave a comment
October 9, 2016

CASE 2016-0068: SPOUSES CHARITO M. REYES AND ROBERTO REYES, AND SPOUSES VILMA M. MARAVILLO AND DOMINGO MARA VILLO, JR., PETITIONERS, -VERSUS HEIRS OF BENJAMIN * MALANCE, NAMELY: ROSALINA M. MALANCE, BERNABE M. MALANCE, BIENVENIDO M. MALANCE, AND DOMINGA** M. MALANCE, REPRESENTED BY BIENVENIDO M. MALAN CE, RESPONDENTS (G.R. NO. 219071, 24 AUGUST 2016, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.) (CONTRACT OF ANTICHRESIS) (BRIEF TITLE: SPOUSES REYES ET AL VS. HEIRS OF BENJAMIN MALANCE)


DISPOSITIVE:

 

 “WHEREFORE, the Decision dated July 23, 2013 and the Resolution dated June 18, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 95984 are hereby MODIFIED: (a) declaring that the unpaid loan balance of Benjamin Malance’s (Benjamin) to petitioners Charito M. Reyes and Vilma M. Maravillo (the Magtalas sisters) is ?273,648.93 as herein computed; (b) dismissing the counterclaim of petitioners the Magtalas sisters and their respective husbands, Roberto Reyes and Domingo Maravillo, Jr., on the ground of prematurity, without prejudice; and (c) directing the Magtalas sisters, as antichretic creditors, to henceforth render an annual accounting to respondents Heirs of Benjamin Malance, namely: Rosalina M. Malance, Bernabe M. Malance, Bienvenido M. Malance, and Dominga M. Malance, as represented by Bienvenido Malance, of the annual net yield from the subject land, until such time that they have completely collected the outstanding loan balance of Benjamin’s debt.


SO ORDERED.”

 

 SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

“The Court, however, concurs with the RTC’s finding, as affirmed by the CA, that the Kasulatan is a contract of antichresis. Article 2132 of the Civil Code provides:

Art. 2132. By the contract of antichresis the creditor acquires the right to receive the fruits of an immovable of his debtor, with the obligation to apply them to the payment of the interest, if owing, and thereafter to the principal of his credit.

 

Thus, antichresis involves an express agreement between parties whereby : (a) the creditor will have possession of the debtor’s real property given as security; (b) such creditor will apply the fruits of the said property to the interest owed by the debtor, if any, then to the principal amount;53 (c) the creditor retains enjoyment of such property until the debtor has totally paid what he owes;54 and (d) should the obligation be duly paid, then the contract is automatically extinguished proceeding from the accessory character of the agreement. 55

 

Bearing these elements in mind, the evidence on record shows that the parties intended to enter into a contract of antichresis. . . . .

 

As antichretic creditors, the Magtalas sisters are entitled to retain enjoyment of the subject land until the debt has been totally paid.

 

………

 

The debt not having been totally paid, petitioners are entitled to retain enjoyment of the subject land. Consequently, the Malance heirs’ complaint for recovery of possession, declaration of nullity of the Kasulatan, and damages against petitioners must be dismissed.

 

As a final matter for resolution, the Court likewise dismisses petitioners’ counterclaim for the payment of Benjamin’s principal debt, including interest, considering that the same was not yet due and demandable at the time the claim therefor was filed.”

 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

scd-2016-0068-spouses-reyes

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

 

 

Comment