Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 167615 2016-01-11	SPS. ALEXANDER v. KODAK PHILIPPINES LEONEN, J.
Rescission under Article 1191 has the effect of mutual restitution.[107] In Velarde v. Court of Appeals:[108]
	GR No. 202079 2013-06-10	FIL-ESTATE GOLF v. VERTEX SALES BRION, J.
"Mutual restitution is required in cases involving rescission under Article 1191" of the Civil Code; such restitution is necessary to bring back the parties to their original situation prior to the inception of the contract.[10] Accordingly, the amount paid to FEGDI by reason of the sale should be returned to Vertex. On the amount of damages, the CA is correct in not awarding damages since Vertex failed to prove by sufficient evidence that it suffered actual damage due to the delay in the issuance of the certificate of stock.
	GR Nos. 143803 2005-11-17	CRESER PRECISION SYSTEMS v. COA GARCIA, J.
Very recently in Laperal vs. Solid Homes,[11] this Court had occasion to stress that:xxx. "It is a long established doctrine that the law does not relieve a party from the effects of an unwise, foolish, or disastrous contract, entered into with all the required formalities and with full awareness of what he was doing. Courts have no power to relieve parties from obligations voluntarily assumed, simply because their contracts turned out to be disastrous deals or unwise investments." xxx.