Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. EXEQUIEL FUERZA Y CAYETANO

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 146839 2011-03-23	ROLANDO T. CATUNGAL v. ANGEL S. RODRIGUEZ LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari, assailing the following issuances of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 40627 consolidated with CA-G.R. SP No. 27565: (a) the August 8, 2000 Decision,[1] which affirmed the Decision[2] dated May 30, 1992 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 27 of Lapu-lapu City, Cebu in Civil Case No. 2365-L, and (b) the January 30, 2001 Resolution,[3] denying herein petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the August 8, 2000 Decision.
	GR No. 146839 2011-03-23	ROLANDO T. CATUNGAL v. ANGEL S. RODRIGUEZ LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
[38] CA rollo (CA-G.R. CV No. 40627), pp. 26-71 and (CA-G.R. SP No. 27565), pp. 23-114.
	GR No. 146839 2011-03-23	ROLANDO T. CATUNGAL v. ANGEL S. RODRIGUEZ LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In a Motion for Reconsideration dated August 21, 2000,[48] counsel for the Catungals, Atty. Borromeo, argued for the first time that paragraphs 1(b) and 5[49] of the Conditional Deed of Sale, whether taken separately or jointly, violated the principle of mutuality of contracts under Article 1308 of the Civil Code and thus, said contract was void ab initio. He adverted to the cases mentioned in his various citations of authorities to support his argument of nullity of the contract and his position that this issue may be raised for the first time on appeal.
	GR No. 146839 2011-03-23	ROLANDO T. CATUNGAL v. ANGEL S. RODRIGUEZ LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Meanwhile, a Second Motion for Substitution[50] was filed by Atty. Borromeo in view of the death of Jose Catungal.
	GR No. 146839 2011-03-23	ROLANDO T. CATUNGAL v. ANGEL S. RODRIGUEZ LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
From the foregoing, this Court is of the considered view that rescission of the conditional deed of sale by the defendants is without any legal or factual basis.[64] x x x. (Emphases supplied.)
	GR No. 146839 2011-03-23	ROLANDO T. CATUNGAL v. ANGEL S. RODRIGUEZ LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
It cannot be gainsaid that "contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith.'" We have also previously ruled that "[b]eing the primary law between the parties, the contract governs the adjudication of their rights and obligations. A court has no alternative but to enforce the contractual stipulations in the manner they have been agreed upon and written.'" We find no merit in petitioners' contention that their parents were merely "duped" into accepting the questioned provisions in the Conditional Deed of Sale. We note that although the contract was between Agapita Catungal and Rodriguez, Jose Catungal nonetheless signed thereon to signify his marital consent to the same. We concur with the trial court's finding that the spouses Catungals' claim of being misled into signing the contract was contrary to human experience and conventional wisdom since it was Jose Catungal who was a practicing lawyer while Rodriquez was a non-lawyer.[74] It can be reasonably presumed that Atty. Catungal and his wife reviewed the provisions of the contract, understood and accepted its provisions before they affixed their signatures thereon.