Latest Entries »

 

 

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

THIS CONCERNS A PROPERTY MORTGAGED TO TRC. THE MORTGAGOR WAS NOT THE OWNER OF THE WHOLE PROPERTY. SHE CANNOT MORTGAGE THE PORTION SHE  DOES NOT OWN.

THE MORTGAGOR  ZARATE SPOUSES CLAIMS THAT IN 1978 THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD TO THEM. THIS SALE MUST TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER THE ORAL PARTITION CLAIMED BY HEIR ALVAREZ. THE COURT RECOGNIZED THAT SAID THE SALE WAS FAKE. ORAL PARTITION IS RECOGNIZED BY COURTS.

ZARATE SPOUSES CLAIM THAT ALVAREZ COMMITTED LACHES FOR BRINGING THE CASE LATE AFTER SO MANY YEARS. SUPREME COURT NOT ALL ELEMENTS OF LACHES ARE PRESENT. ALVAREZ DISCOVERED THE DEFECT LATE AND THUS FILED THE CASE ONLY RECENTLY.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

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

 

 

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

CHAN GRANTED A PERMIT TO HOLD COCKFIGHTS IN FAVOR OF LIGA NG MGA BARANGAY WHICH IS PROHIBITED FROM HAVING INTEREST IN ANY COCKPIT OPERATION.

………………………….

(NOTE: IT SOMEHOW APPEARS THAT CHAN ONLY CERTIFIED THAT A PERMIT WAS ISSUED BY THE SB IN FAVOR OF THE LIGA NG MGA BARANGAY. THE PERMIT WAS ISSUED BY THE SB NOT BY MAYOR CHAN? THE DECISION MIGHT BE WORTH REVISITING?)

CHAN ARGUED THAT SHE HAD NO INTENT TO COMMIT THE OFFENSE CHARGED. SC SAID CRIMINAL INTENT IS NOT NECESSARY IN MALA PROHIBITA CASES.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

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

 

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

THIS CASE INVOLVES A CLAIM BY RESPONDENT FOR DAMAGES WHICH THE CA GRANTED. RESPONDENT MADE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE PROPERTY.  PETITIONER SAID THERE WAS NO CONTRACT OF LEASE. SC SAID THERE WAS AS EVIDENCED BY SECURITY DEPOSIT AND RENTAL PAYMENTS. PETITIONER SAID RESPONDENT WAS NOT A PARTY IN INTEREST. SUPREME COURT SAID HE IS BECAUSE HE INVESTED HUGE SUM IN THE RESORT OF PETITIONER.

WAS THERE A CONTRACT OF LEASE EVEN THOUGH THE LEASE DOCUMENT WAS NOT PRODUCED?

YES BECAUSE THERE WAS SECURITY DEPOSIT AND RENTAL PAYMENTS.

IS PADILLA A PARTY IN INTEREST?

YES BECAUSE HE MADE HUGE INVESTMENTS IN THE RESORT AND THEREFORE A PARTY WHO WILL BE INJURED OR WILL BENEFIT IN THE CASE.

ON ATTY’S FEES:

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

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