This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2014-06-10 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Second, the IBP BOG ruled that the first rotation cycle had already terminated with the 2005 to 2007 term despite the lack of representation from Eastern Samar as it has effectively waived its turn in the first rotation cycle. It emphasized that the rotation rule is not absolute and is subject to waiver, such as when the chapters, in the order of rotation, opt not to file or nominate their own candidates for governor during the election regularly done for that purpose. It also held that Atty. Maglana's contentions that IBP Eastern Samar can reclaim the governorship at any time and that the first rotation cycle cannot be completed unless IBP Eastern Samar has had its turn are completely anathema to the concept of the rotation cycle; the rotation cycle should run its course and the rotation in the region cannot be held hostage by any one chapter.[22] | |||||
|
2011-08-24 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Thus, Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1517,[68] as amended by P.D. No. 2016,[69] grants to qualified tenants of land in areas declared as urban land reform zones, the right of first refusal to purchase the same within a reasonable time and at a reasonable price.[70] The same right is accorded by Republic Act No. 7279[71] (Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992) to qualified beneficiaries of socialized housing, with respect to the land they are occupying. Accordingly, in Valderama v. Macalde,[72] Parañaque Kings Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[73] and Conculada v. Court of Appeals,[74] the Supreme Court sustained the tenant's right of first refusal pursuant to P.D. 1517. | |||||
|
2009-02-13 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Neither can it be said that Premiere Bank waived its right to apply payments when it specifically demanded payment of the P6,000,000.00 loan under Promissory Note No. 714-Y. It is an elementary rule that the existence of a waiver must be positively demonstrated since a waiver by implication is not normally countenanced. The norm is that a waiver must not only be voluntary, but must have been made knowingly, intelligently, and with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences. There must be persuasive evidence to show an actual intention to relinquish the right. Mere silence on the part of the holder of the right should not be construed as a surrender thereof; the courts must indulge every reasonable presumption against the existence and validity of such waiver.[29] | |||||
|
2006-11-29 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| Moreover, it is a well-established principle in law that as between two parties, he who, by his acts, caused the loss shall bear the same.[5] RCBC, in this instance, should therefore bear the loss. | |||||
|
2006-10-30 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The waiver is clear. The recent case of Valderama v. Macalde reiterated the three (3) essential elements of a valid waiver, thus: (a) existence of a right; (b) athe knowledge of the existence thereof; and, (c) an intention to relinquish such right. [25] These elements are all present in the case at bar. The three (3) executors, who were co-owners and titleholders of the said lot since 1954, were aware of their rights, and executed the Deed of Quitclaim in clear and unambiguous language to waive and relinquish their rights over Lot No. 3880 in favor of the heirs of Victoriana and Telesfora Reyes. Thus, the existence of a valid waiver has been positively demonstrated. Moreover, in People v. Bodoso, cited in Valderama, it was held that the standard of a valid waiver requires that it not only must be voluntary, but must be knowing, intelligent, and done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.[26] In the instant case, petitioners utterly failed to adduce any evidence showing that the assailed quitclaim was done absent such standard. Indeed, we note with approval the CAs apt application of the presumption that a person takes ordinary care of his concerns and that private transactions have been fair and regular.[27] | |||||