Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HEIRS OF POLICRONIO M. URETA v. HEIRS OF LIBERATO M. URETA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 175483 2015-10-14	VALENTINA S. CLEMENTE v. CA JARDELEZA, J.
Simulation takes place when the parties do not really want the contract they have executed to produce the legal effects expressed by its wordings.[46] Article 1345 of the Civil Code provides that the simulation of a contract may either be absolute or relative. The former takes place when the parties do not intend to be bound at all; the latter, when the parties conceal their true agreement. The case of Heirs of Policronio M. Ureta, Sr. v. Heirs of Liberate M. Ureta[47] is instructive on the matter of absolute simulation of contracts, viz: In absolute simulation, there is a colorable contract but it has no substance as the parties have no intention to be bound by it. The main characteristic of an absolute simulation is that the apparent contract is not really desired or intended to produce legal effect or in any way alter the juridical situation of the parties. As a result, an absolutely simulated or fictitious contract is void, and the parties may recover from each other what they may have given under the contract...[48] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 204029 2014-06-04	AVELINA ABARIENTOS REBUSQUILLO v. SPS. DOMINGO VELASCO JR., J.
In Heirs of Policronio Ureta Sr. v. Heirs of Liberato Ureta,[11] this Court explained the concept of the simulation of contracts: In absolute simulation, there is a colorable contract but it has no substance as the parties have no intention to be bound by it. The main characteristic of an absolute simulation is that the apparent contract is not really desired or intended to produce legal effect or in any way alter the juridical situation of the parties. As a result, an absolutely simulated or fictitious contract is void, and the parties may recover from each other what they may have given under the contract. However, if the parties state a false cause in the contract to conceal their real agreement, the contract is relatively simulated and the parties are still bound by their real agreement. Hence, where the essential requisites of a contract are present and the simulation refers only to the content or terms of the contract, the agreement is absolutely binding and enforceable between the parties and their successors in interest. (emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 164408 2014-03-24	REPUBLIC v. ZURBARAN REALTY BERSAMIN, J.
The respondent may perhaps object to a determination of this issue by the Court for the same reason that it objects to the determination of whether it established when the land was declared alienable and disposable, that is, the issue was not raised in and resolved and by the trial court. But the objection would be futile because the issue was actually raised in the trial court, as borne out by the Republic's allegation in its opposition to the application to the effect "that the land is a portion of the public domain not subject to prescription." In any case, the interest of justice dictates the consideration and resolution of an issue that is relevant to another that was specifically raised. The rule that only theories raised in the initial proceedings may be taken up by a party on appeal refers only to independent, not concomitant, matters to support or oppose the cause of action.[24]
	GR No. 179597 2014-02-03	IGLESIA FILIPINA INDEPENDIENTE v. HEIRS OF BERNARDINO TAEZA PERALTA, J.
Closely analogous cases of unenforceable contracts are those where a person signs a deed of extrajudicial partition in behalf of co-heirs without the latter's authority;[15] where a mother as judicial guardian of her minor children, executes a deed of extrajudicial partition wherein she favors one child by giving him more than his share of the estate to the prejudice of her other children;[16] and where a person, holding a special power of attorney, sells a property of his principal that is not included in said special power of attorney.[17]
	GR No. 181623 2012-12-05	ALEJANDRO BINAYUG v. EUGENIO UGADDAN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
As a void contract, the Absolute Deed of Sale dated July 10, 1951 produces no legal effect whatsoever in accordance with the principle "quod nullum est nullum producit effectum,"[23] thus, it could not have transferred title to the subject properties from Gerardo to Juan and there could be no basis for the issuance of TCT No. T-106394 in Juan's name. A void contract is also not susceptible of ratification, and the action for the declaration of the absolute nullity of such a contract is imprescriptible.[24]