Skip to main content

Online Law Ph

Search This Blog

TOP TEN LANDMARK CASES BY THE PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT

on March 02, 2014

Get link
Facebook
X
Pinterest
Email
Other Apps

http://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Top_10_Landmark_Cases_Decided_by_the_Philippine_Supreme_Court

Get link
Facebook
X
Pinterest
Email
Other Apps

Comments

Popular Posts

Case Digest: Rizal Alih et al vs Castro GR No L-69401

Rizal Alih et. al., vs Castro GR No L-69401 June 23, 1987 Facts: A group of more than 200 Philippine marines and home defense forces raided the compound occupied by the petitioners (Rizal Alih et. al.) is search of loose firearms, ammunition and other explosives. The people inside the compound resisted the invasion and a crossfire between the Philippine marines and the petitioner occurred, resulting in number of casualties. The petitioners surrendered the next morning and 16 occupants were arrested, later to be finger-printed, paraffin-tested and photographed over their objection. The military also inventoried and confiscated several M16 rifles, M14 rifle, rifle grenades and rounds of ammunition. Pe...

Commodatum vs. Usufruct

Commodatum is essentially gratuitous. Simple loan may be gratuitous or with a stipulation to pay interest. Article 1933. By the contract of loan, one of the parties delivers to another, either something not consumable so that the latter may use the same for a certain time and return it, in which case the contract is called a commodatum ; or money or other consumable thing, upon the condition that the same amount of the same kind and quality shall be paid, in which case the contract is simply called a loan or mutuum. In commodatum the bailor retains the ownership of the thing loaned, while in simple loan, ownership passes to the borrower. (1740a) Article 562. Usufruct gives a right to enjoy the property of another with the obligation of preserving its form and substance, unless the title constituting it or the law otherwise provides. (467)

Rules On Double Sale Of Immovables

In double sale of an immovable, the rules of preference are as follows: (a) the first registrant in good faith; (b) should there be no entry, the first in possession in good faith; and (c) in the absence thereof, the buyer who presents the oldest title in good faith. (Martinez vs. CA, 358 SCRA 38 (2001); Art. 1544, NCC). Prior registration of the subject property does not by itself confer ownership or a better right over the property. Article 1544 requires that before the second buyer can obtain priority over the first, he must show that he acted in good faith throughout (i.e., in ignorance of the first sale and of the first buyer’s rights) from the time of acquisition until the title is transferred to him by registration or failing registration, by delivery of possession. (Uraca vs. CA, 344 Phil 253; Consolidated Rural Bank (Cagayan Valley) Inc. vs. CA, et al, G.R. No. 1...

Powered by Blogger