This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2008-07-04 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| Apparently, the deed purports to be a sale with right to purchase. However, since it was executed in consideration of the aforesaid loans and/or indebtedness, said contract is indubitably an equitable mortgage. The rule is firmly settled that whenever it is clearly shown that a deed of sale with pacto de retro, regular on its face, is given as security for a loan, it must be regarded as an equitable mortgage.[61] | |||||
|
2005-09-20 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Worse, respondent Orola failed to submit the real estate mortgage contracts to the intestate estate court for its consideration and approval. To give approval means to confirm, ratify, or to consent to some act or thing done by another.[39] Unless and until the said contracts are approved by the intestate estate court, the same cannot have any binding effect upon the estate; nor serve as basis for any action against the estate and against the parcels of land described in the said contracts belonging to it.[40] | |||||
|
2005-06-30 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The Court agrees with the respondent's contention that he was not proscribed from assailing the August 1, 2002 Order of the RTC before the CA on certiorari, even before his arrest. The respondent believed, albeit erroneously, that the aforementioned order of the RTC was null and void; hence, it may be assailed any time, either directly or collaterally, or by resisting such order in any action or proceeding wherein it is involved.[26] One need not wait to be arrested before filing such petition. Upon receipt of a copy of the said order from the RTC, the respondent already had the right to assail the same in an appropriate proceeding for the said purpose. | |||||
|
2005-03-31 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The petitioners are correct in claiming that an order or resolution of the Sandiganbayan ordering the dismissal of criminal cases becomes final and executory upon the lapse of 15 days from notice thereof to the parties, and, as such, is beyond the jurisdiction of the graft court to review, modify or set aside, if no appeal therefrom is filed by the aggrieved party. However, if the Sandiganbayan acts in excess or lack of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in dismissing a criminal case, the dismissal is null and void. A tribunal acts without jurisdiction if it does not have the legal power to determine the case; there is excess of jurisdiction where a tribunal, being clothed with the power to determine the case, oversteps its authority as determined by law.[26] A void judgment or order has no legal and binding effect, force or efficacy for any purpose. In contemplation of law, it is non-existent.[27] Such judgment or order may be resisted in any action or proceeding whenever it is involved. It is not even necessary to take any steps to vacate or avoid a void judgment or final order; it may simply be ignored.[28] | |||||