This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-01-18 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Thereafter, petitioners filed before the RTC of Pasig City a suit for Reconveyance and/or Quieting of Title and/or Removal of Cloud on Title to Real Property and Damages[7] against the Spouses Liganor. The Spouses Liganor, in turn, filed an action[8] to annul TCT No. 172138 in the name of petitioner Soledad Tucker. These cases were consolidated and assigned to Branch 159. In the Decision[9] dated April 21, 1995, the RTC of Pasig City, Branch 159 declared the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by the Spouses Oppus in favor of the Spouses Tucker as null and void and ordered the reconveyance of the property to the Spouses Liganor. The RTC held that the real intention of Maria Paz Oppus was to borrow money from the Spouses Tucker, and not to transfer ownership of the property, and that the agreement had the badges of pactum commisorium, and was, therefore, null and void. | |||||
|
2009-08-14 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| An award of consequential damages for property not taken is not tantamount to unjust enrichment of the property owner. There is unjust enrichment "when a person unjustly retains a benefit to the loss of another, or when a person retains money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience."[38] Article 22 of the Civil Code provides that "[e]very person who through an act of performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him." The principle of unjust enrichment under Article 22 requires two conditions: (1) that a person is benefited without a valid basis or justification, and(2) that such benefit is derived at another's expense or damage.[39] There is no unjust enrichment when the person who will benefit has a valid claim to such benefit.[40] | |||||