Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. JOSE AND EVANGELINE AGUILAR v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 173038 2011-09-14	ELENA JANE DUARTE v. MIGUEL SAMUEL A.E. DURAN DEL CASTILLO, J.
As to whether there was a contract of sale between the parties, we hold that there was, and the absence of a written contract of sale does not mean otherwise. A contract of sale is perfected the moment the parties agree upon the object of the sale, the price, and the terms of payment.[60] Once perfected, the parties are bound by it whether the contract is verbal or in writing because no form is required.[61] Contrary to the view of petitioner, the Statute of Frauds does not apply in the present case as this provision applies only to executory, and not to completed, executed or partially executed contracts.[62] In this case, the contract of sale had been partially executed because the possession of the laptop was already transferred to petitioner and the partial payments had been made by her. Thus, the absence of a written contract is not fatal to respondent's case. Respondent only needed to show by a preponderance of evidence that there was an oral contract of sale, which he did by submitting in evidence his own affidavit, the affidavit of his witness Dy, the receipt dated February 18, 2002 and the demand letter dated July 29, 2002.
	GR No. 182485 2009-07-03	SPS. HENRY O AND PACITA CHENG v. SPS. JOSE JAVIER AND CLAUDIA DAILISAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
To prove that petitioners did not receive a copy of the Order, respondents submitted the certification of the Acting Branch Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court-Pasig, Branch 155 stating that "there is no showing that the Order of this Court dated October 16, 1989 which was sent by registered mail to Atty. Nicasio E. Martin at his address appearing on record was received by the said counsel" and that "the registry receipt number evidencing that this Court had indeed sent the said Order by registered mail to Atty. Nicasio E. Martin at his given address is no longer available and cannot be located anymore despite diligent efforts."[23] However, said certification does not conclusively prove that the Order was not sent to or received by petitioners' counsel. On the contrary, what the certification shows is that a copy of the Order was sent by registered mail to petitioner's counsel but the registry receipt accompanying the same could no longer be found in the records. Said certification did not indicate that the Order was never sent out. Besides, a closer examination of the records shows that although no registry receipt was attached to the October 16, 1989 Order, the dorsal side bears a notation stating "Reg. Mail, date, and 1. N. Martin 2. D. Telan."[24] This is similar to the notations in the other notices[25] that were previously sent to and received by the parties' counsels. Besides, the best evidence to prove that notice was sent would be a certification from the postmaster, and not from the clerk of court, who should certify not only that the notice was issued or sent but also as to how, when and to whom the delivery thereof was made. The mailman may also testify that the notice was actually delivered.[26]
	GR No. 164267 2009-03-31	PHILIPPINE AIRLINES v. HEIRS OF BERNARDIN J. ZAMORA QUISUMBING, J.
PAL's argument that its chaotic situation due to its rehabilitation rendered the filing of a notice of change of address impractical does not merit consideration. Since moving out from its office at Allied Bank Center, where the NLRC decision was sent, PAL occupied four different office addresses. Yet these office addresses could be found in the same building, the PAL Center Building in Makati City. PAL merely moved from one floor to another. To our mind, it would have been more prudent had PAL informed the NLRC that it has moved from one floor to another rather than allowed its old address at Allied Bank Center to remain as its official address. To rule in favor of PAL considering the circumstances in the instant case would negate the purpose of the rules on completeness of service and the notice of change of address, which is to place the date of receipt of pleadings, judgments and processes beyond the power of the party being served to determine at his pleasure.[22]
	GR NO. 170948 2007-06-26	SILLIMAN UNIVERSITY v. NANILA FONTELO-PAALAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We cannot condone the practice of parties who, either by their own or their counsel's inadvertence, have allowed a judgment to become final and executory and, after the same had reached finality, seeks the shield of substantial justice to assail it. The finality of decision is a jurisdictional event which cannot be made to depend on the convenience of the party. To rule otherwise would completely negate the purpose of the rule on completeness of service, which is to place the date of receipt of pleadings, judgment and processes beyond the power of the party to determine at his pleasure.[35]
	GR NO. 145420 2006-09-19	A. RAFAEL C. DINGLASAN JR. v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The finality of decision is a jurisdictional event which cannot be made to depend on the convenience of the party. To rule otherwise would completely negate the purpose of the rule on completeness of service, which is to place the date of receipt of pleadings, judgment and processes beyond the power of the party being served to determine at his pleasure.[25]