You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. ALVARO PASTOR v. CA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

2013-10-16
REYES, J.
In this case, the writ of execution issued by the RTC originated from Civil Case No. 18808, which is an action for Reconveyance with Damages filed by Galen against Raymundo and Tensorex, where Galen sought recovery of the property subject of the Deed of Absolute Sale between Galen and Raymundo. The RTC ruled in favor of Galen, finding that the transaction between them is an equitable mortgage, which was affirmed by the CA. Both the RTC and the CA, in the dispositive portions of their respective decisions, ordered Raymundo to "reconvey the subject property to [Galen] upon [Galen's] payment to x x x Raymundo x x x plus legal interest thereon from the date of [the] filing of the complaint, until it is fully paid, or if reconveyance is no longer feasible, for x x x Raymundo and Tensorex to solidarily pay [Galen] the fair market value of the subject property by expert appraisal."[32] In implementing said judgment, the RTC should have considered the nature of the agreement between Galen and Raymundo. The rule is that in case of ambiguity or uncertainty in the dispositive portion of a decision, the body of the decision may be scanned for guidance in construing the judgment.[33]
2012-04-07
DEL CASTILLO, J.
Will in probate proceedings.[64]  This is expressly provided for in Rule 75, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, which states: Rule 75
2000-01-31
MENDOZA, J.
In cases for the probate of wills, it is well-settled that the authority of the court is limited to ascertaining the extrinsic validity of the will, i.e., whether the testator, being of sound mind, freely executed the will in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law.[9]