Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ANTONIO CHIENG v. SPS. EULOGIO AND TERESITA SANTOS

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 183984 2011-04-13	ARTURO SARTE FLORES v. SPS. ENRICO L. LINDO CARPIO, J.
In Chieng v. Santos,[20] this Court ruled that a mortgage-creditor may institute against the mortgage-debtor either a personal action for debt or a real action to foreclose the mortgage. The Court ruled that the remedies are alternative and not cumulative and held that the filing of a criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 was in effect a collection suit or a suit for the recovery of the mortgage-debt.[21] In that case, however, this Court pro hac vice, ruled that respondents could still be held liable for the balance of the loan, applying the principle that no person may unjustly enrich himself at the expense of another.[22]
	GR No. 181393 2009-07-28	GRANDTEQ INDUSTRIAL STEEL PRODUCTS v. EDNA MARGALLO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The principle against unjust enrichment obliges Grandteq and Gonzales to refund to Margallo the car loan payments she had made, since she has not actually acquired the car. To relieve Grandteq and Gonzales of their obligation to reimburse Margallo would, indeed, be to sanction unjust enrichment in favor of the first two and cause unjust poverty to the latter.[34]
	GR No. 174238 2009-07-07	ANITA CHENG v. SPS. WILLIAM SY AND TESSIE SY NACHURA, J.
There is unjust enrichment when (1) a person is unjustly benefited, and (2) such benefit is derived at the expense of or with damages to another. This doctrine simply means that a person shall not be allowed to profit or enrich himself inequitably at another's expense. One condition for invoking this principle of unjust enrichment is that the aggrieved party has no other recourse based on contract, quasi-contract, crime, quasi-delict or any other provision of law.[26]
	GR No. 163794 2008-11-28	REPUBLIC v. NORMELITO J. BALLOCANAG NACHURA, J.
In the exercise of our mandate as a court of justice and equity,[34] we rule in favor of Reyes pro hac vice. We reiterate that this Court is not precluded from rectifying errors of judgment if blind and stubborn adherence to the doctrine of immutability of final judgments would involve the sacrifice of justice for technicality.[35] Indubitably, to order the reversion of the subject land without payment of just compensation, in absolute disregard of the rights of Reyes over the improvements which he, in good faith, introduced therein, would not only be unjust and inequitable but cruel as well.