Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LIM TAY v. VS.

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 177795 2009-06-19	LEAH M. NAZARENO v. CITY OF DUMAGUETE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Since petitioners' right to the payment of their salaries by the City Government of Dumaguete is still unsettled at this point, the Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus against respondents to make such payment. Mandamus applies only where the petitioner's right is founded clearly in law and not when it is doubtful.[38] The writ will not issue to compel an official to give to the applicant anything to which he is not entitled by law.[39] Mandamus will not issue to establish a right, but only to enforce one that is already established.[40]
	GR NOS. 149840-41 2006-03-31	SPS. FRANCISCO AND RUBY REYES v. A BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK CORONA, J.
BPI-FSB and Transbuilders only extended the repayment term of the loan from one year to twenty quarterly installments at 18% interest per annum. There was absolutely no intention by the parties to supersede or abrogate the old loan contract secured by the real estate mortgage executed by petitioners in favor of BPI-FSB. In fact, the intention of the new agreement was precisely to revive the old obligation after the original period expired and the loan remained unpaid. The novation of a contract cannot be presumed. In the absence of an express agreement, novation takes place only when the old and the new obligations are incompatible on every point.[10]
	GR NO. 153267 2005-06-23	CHINA BANKING CORPORATION v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
It bears stressing that it is only when the last element occurs that a cause of action arises. Accordingly, a cause of action on a written contract accrues only when an actual breach or violation thereof occurs.[14]
	GR NO. 132209 2005-04-29	CARLOS C. BUENDIA v. CITY OF ILIGAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
"The failure to file the certiorari petition within a reasonable time renders the petitioner [respondent in this case] susceptible to the adverse legal consequences of laches."[20] The essence of laches is the failure, or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier; it is the negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it.[21]
	GR No. 147758 2002-06-26	SPS. ARSENIO R. REYES AND NIEVES S. REYES v. CA BELLOSILLO, J.
The Court of Appeals likewise found that there was no novation, which is defined as the extinguishment of an obligation by a subsequent one which terminates it, either by changing its object or principal conditions, by substituting a new debtor in place of the old one, or by subrogating a third person to the rights of the creditor.[29] For novation to take place, the following requisites must concur: (a) there must be a previous valid obligation; (b) there must be an agreement of the parties concerned to a new contract; (c) there must be the extinguishment of the old contract; and, (d) there must be the validity of the new contract.[30]
	GR No. 139136 2002-01-16	LINA ABALON LUBOS v. MARITES GALUPO PARDO, J.
Acquisitive prescription is a mode of acquiring ownership by a possessor through the requisite lapse of time. In order to ripen into ownership, possession must be in the concept of an owner, public, peaceful and uninterrupted. Thus, possession with a juridical title, such as by a usufructuary, a trustee, a lessee, agent or a pledgee, not being in the concept of an owner, cannot ripen into ownership by acquisitive prescription unless the juridical relation is first expressly repudiated and such repudiation has been communicated to the other party.[17]
	GR No. 122824 2001-09-26	AURORA F. IGNACIO v. VALERIANO BASILIO QUEZON CITY QUISUMBING, J.
On the second issue, bar by laches appears particularly pertinent in this controversy. Laches is meant the negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it.[7] It does not involve mere lapse or passage of time, but is principally an impediment to the assertion or enforcement of a right, which has become under the circumstances inequitable or unfair to permit.[8] While a question of jurisdiction may be raised at any time, a party may be barred from raising it on ground of laches or estoppel.[9]
	GR No. 124293 2000-11-20	JG SUMMIT HOLDINGS v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
"In order that a writ of mandamus may issue, it is essential that the person petitioning for the same has a clear legal right to the thing demanded and that it is the imperative duty of the respondent to perform the act required. It neither confers powers nor imposes duties and is never issued in doubtful cases. It is simply a command to exercise a power already possessed and to perform a duty already imposed."[16]