Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EMILIE T. SUMBAD AND BEATRICE B. TAIT v. CA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 144225 2003-06-17	SPS. GODOFREDO ALFREDO AND CARMEN LIMON ALFREDO v. SPS. ARMANDO BORRAS AND ADELIA LOBATON BORRAS CARPIO, J.
Petitioners invoke the absence of approval of the sale by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources to nullify the sale. Petitioners never raised this issue before the trial court or the Court of Appeals. Litigants cannot raise an issue for the first time on appeal, as this would contravene the basic rules of fair play, justice and due process.[28] However, we will address this new issue to finally put an end to this case.
	GR No. 128759 2002-08-01	RAYMUNDO TOLENTINO v. DE GUZMAN QUISUMBING, J.
the basic rules of fair play and justice.[10] Moreover, there is nothing in Article 1605 of the Civil Code that prohibits the institution of an action different from the one provided therein. Said article uses the word "may". It is a settled doctrine in statutory construction that the word "may" denotes discretion, and cannot be construed as having a mandatory effect.[11] Thus, it is not obligatory for the aggrieved party, under Article 1605 of the Civil Code, to file an action for reformation of instruments. He can avail of another action that he thinks is most appropriate and effective under the circumstances. WHEREFORE, there being no error committed by the Court of Appeals, the petition is DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals dated December 13, 1996, and its resolution dated March 31, 1997, in CA-G.R. CV No. 21005, are AFFIRMED.
	GR No. 128759 2002-08-01	RAYMUNDO TOLENTINO v. DE GUZMAN QUISUMBING, J.
the basic rules of fair play and justice.[10] Moreover, there is nothing in Article 1605 of the Civil Code that prohibits the institution of an action different from the one provided therein. Said article uses the word "may". It is a settled doctrine in statutory construction that the word "may" denotes discretion, and cannot be construed as having a mandatory effect.[11] Thus, it is not obligatory for the aggrieved party, under Article 1605 of the Civil Code, to file an action for reformation of instruments. He can avail of another action that he thinks is most appropriate and effective under the circumstances. WHEREFORE, there being no error committed by the Court of Appeals, the petition is DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals dated December 13, 1996, and its resolution dated March 31, 1997, in CA-G.R. CV No. 21005, are AFFIRMED.
	GR No. 125935 2000-11-29	CARMELITA P. BASILIO v. CA PARDO, J.
The deed of sale dated March 19, 1987, was executed by Dionisio Z. Basilio in favor of spouses Zablan, and notarized by Atty. Ruben Silvestre. Generally, a notarized document carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution, and documents acknowledged before a notary public have in their favor the presumption of regularity.[12] However, the presumption is not absolute and may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.[13] Furthermore, an allegation of forgery must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, and whoever alleges it has the burden of proving the same.[14]
	GR No. 112954 2000-08-25	RICARDO DISTAJO v. CA PARDO, J.
Factual findings of the trial court will not be disturbed on appeal unless the court has overlooked or ignored some fact or circumstance of sufficient weight or significance, which, if considered, would alter the result of the case.[17] When there is no
	GR No. 112954 2000-08-25	RICARDO DISTAJO v. CA PARDO, J.
the claim of forgery. Petitioner even failed to present a witness who was familiar with the signature of Iluminada Abiertas. Forgery should be proved by clear and convincing evidence, and whoever alleges it has the burden of proving the same.[20] Petitioner likewise contends that the sale transactions are void for having been entered into by the administrator of the properties. We disagree. The pertinent Civil Code provision provides: "Art. 1491. The following persons cannot acquire by purchase, even at a public or judicial auction, either in person or through the mediation of another:
	GR No. 127263 2000-04-12	FILIPINA Y. SY v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
Although we have repeatedly ruled that litigants cannot raise an issue for the first time on appeal, as this would contravene the basic rules of fair play and justice,[23] in a number of instances, we have relaxed observance of procedural rules, noting that technicalities are not ends in themselves but exist to protect and promote substantive rights of litigants. We said that certain rules ought not to be applied with severity and rigidity if by so doing, the very reason for their existence would be defeated.[24] Hence, when substantial justice plainly requires, exempting a particular case from the operation of technicalities should not be subject to cavil.[25] In our view, the case at bar requires that we address the issue of the validity of the marriage between Fillipina and Fernando which petitioner claims is void from the beginning for lack of a marriage license, in order to arrive at a just resolution of a deeply seated and violent conflict between the parties. Note, however, that here the pertinent facts are not disputed; and what is required now is a declaration of their effects according to existing law.