Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RENATO CENIDO v. SPS. AMADEO APACIONADO AND HERMINIA STA. ANA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 162333 2008-12-22	BIENVENIDO C. TEOCO v. METROPOLITAN BANK REYES, R.T., J.
True it is that the Civil Code requires certain transactions to appear in public documents. However, the necessity of a public document for contracts which transmit or extinguish real rights over immovable property, as mandated by Article 1358 of the Civil Code, is only for convenience; it is not essential for validity or enforceability.[19] Thus, in Cenido v. Apacionado,[20] this Court ruled that the only effect of noncompliance with the provisions of Article 1358 of the Civil Code is that a party to such a contract embodied in a private document may be compelled to execute a public document:Article 1358 does not require the accomplishment of the acts or contracts in a public instrument in order to validate the act or contract but only to insure its efficacy, so that after the existence of said contract has been admitted, the party bound may be compelled to execute the proper document. This is clear from Article 1357, viz.:
	GR No. 149322 2008-11-28	JAIME L. YANEZA v. CA NACHURA, J.
The existence of the new contract of sale over the 280-sq m area therefore having been established, it follows that the petitioner may be compelled to execute the corresponding deed of sale reflecting this new agreement. After the existence of the contract has been admitted, the party bound thereby may be compelled to execute the proper document.[31] This is clear from Article 1357, viz.:Art. 1357. If the law requires a document or other special form, as in the acts and contracts enumerated in the following article [Article 1358], the contracting parties may compel each other to observe that form, once the contract has been perfected. This right may be exercised simultaneously with the action upon the contract.
	GR No. 169914 2008-04-18	ASIA'S EMERGING DRAGON CORPORATION v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
AEDC attempts to evade the effects of its compromise agreement by alleging that it was compelled to enter into such an agreement when former President Joseph E. Estrada asserted his influence and intervened in Civil Case No. 66213. This allegation deserves scant consideration. Without any proof that such events did take place, such statements remain mere allegations that cannot be given weight. One who alleges any defect or the lack of a valid consent to a contract must establish the same by full, clear and convincing evidence, not merely by preponderance thereof.[52] And, even assuming arguendo, that the consent of AEDC to the compromise agreement was indeed vitiated, then President Estrada was removed from office in January 2001. AEDC filed the present Petition only on 20 October 2005. The four-year prescriptive period, within which an action to annul a voidable contract may be brought, had already expired.[53]
	GR NO. 141273 2005-05-17	JOSE RIVERO v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
It is, likewise, plain as day that only Mary Jane recognized Benedick as the illegitimate son of her deceased father That the defendant Maryjane Dy Chiao-De Guzman hereby recognizes the plaintiff as the illegitimate son of her deceased father Benito Dy Chiao, Sr.[51] Such recognition, however, is ineffectual, because under the law, the recognition must be made personally by the putative parent and not by any brother, sister or relative.[52]