Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BUENAFLOR C. UMALI v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 176425 2013-06-05	HEIRS OF MANUEL UY EK LIONG v. MAURICIA MEER CASTILLO PEREZ, J.
Alongside her husband, Felipe Castillo, respondent Mauricia Meer Castillo was the owner of four parcels of land with an aggregate area of 53,307 square meters, situated in Silangan Mayao, Lucena City and registered in their names under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. T-42104, T-32227, T-31752 and T-42103. With the death of Felipe, a deed of extrajudicial partition over his estate was executed by his heirs, namely, Mauricia, Buenaflor Umali and respondents Victoria Castillo, Bertilla Rada, Marietta Cavanez, Leovina Jalbuena and Philip Castillo. Utilized as security for the payment of a tractor purchased by Mauricia's nephew, Santiago Rivera, from Bormaheco, Inc., it appears, however, that the subject properties were subsequently sold at a public auction where Insurance Corporation of the Philippines (ICP) tendered the highest bid. Having consolidated its title, ICP likewise sold said parcels in favor of Philippine Machinery Parts Manufacturing Co., Inc. (PMPMCI) which, in turn, caused the same to be titled in its name.[4]
	GR No. 156571 2008-07-09	INTRA-STRATA ASSURANCE CORPORATION v. REPUBLIC BRION, J.
The second element to consider in a suretyship agreement relates to the terms of the bonds themselves, under the rule that the terms of the suretyship are determined by the suretyship contract itself.[14] The General Warehousing Bond [15] that is at the core of the present dispute provides:KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
	GR NO. 168306 2007-06-19	WILLIAM C. YAO v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is an elementary and fundamental principle of corporation law that a corporation is an entity separate and distinct from its stockholders, directors or officers. However, when the notion of legal entity is used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime, the law will regard the corporation as an association of persons, or in the case of two corporations merge them into one.[46] In other words, the law will not recognize the separate corporate existence if the corporation is being used pursuant to the foregoing unlawful objectives. This non-recognition is sometimes referred to as the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate entity or disregarding the fiction of corporate entity. Where the separate corporate entity is disregarded, the corporation will be treated merely as an association of persons and the stockholders or members will be considered as the corporation, that is, liability will attach personally or directly to the officers and stockholders.[47]
	GR NO. 125851 2006-07-11	ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
Section 152 of the Negotiable Instruments Law pertaining to indorsers, relied on by respondents, is not pertinent to this case. There are well-defined distinctions between the contract of an indorser and that of a guarantor/surety of a commercial paper, which is what is involved in this case. The contract of indorsement is primarily that of transfer, while the contract of guaranty is that of personal security.[14] The liability of a guarantor/surety is broader than that of an indorser. Unless the bill is promptly presented for payment at maturity and due notice of dishonor given to the indorser within a reasonable time, he will be discharged from liability thereon.[15] On the other hand, except where required by the provisions of the contract of suretyship, a demand or notice of default is not required to fix the surety's liability.[16] He cannot complain that the creditor has not notified him in the absence of a special agreement to that effect in the contract of suretyship.[17] Therefore, no protest on the export bill is necessary to charge all the respondents jointly and severally liable with G.G. Sportswear since the respondents held themselves liable upon demand in case the instrument was dishonored and on the surety, they even waived notice of dishonor as stipulated in their Letters of Guarantee.
	GR NO. 149237 2006-07-11	CHINA BANKING CORPORATION v. DYNE-SEM ELECTRONICS CORPORATION CORONA, J.
The similarity of business of the two corporations did not warrant a conclusion that respondent was but a conduit of Dynetics. As we held in Umali v. Court of Appeals,[19] "the mere fact that the businesses of two or more corporations are interrelated is not a justification for disregarding their separate personalities, absent sufficient showing that the corporate entity was purposely used as a shield to defraud creditors and third persons of their rights."