Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RESTITUTA LEONARDO v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 154670 2012-01-30	FONTANA RESORT v. SPS. ROY S. TAN AND SUSAN C. TAN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
As a general rule, "the remedy of appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court contemplates only questions of law and not issues of fact. This rule, however, is inapplicable in cases x x x where the factual findings complained of are absolutely devoid of support in the records or the assailed judgment of the appellate court is based on a misapprehension of facts."[27] Another well-recognized exception to the general rule is when the factual findings of the administrative agency and the Court of Appeals are contradictory.[28] The said exceptions are applicable to the case at bar.
	GR No. 172239 2008-03-28	CONCHITA TAN v. PLANTERS PRODUCTS REYES, R.T., J.
In the recent case of Leonardo v. Court of Appeals,[39] this Court reiterated:The essence of consent is the agreement of the parties on the terms of the contract, the acceptance by one of the offer made by the other. It is the concurrence of the minds of the parties on the object and the cause which constitutes the contract. The area of agreement must extend to all points that the parties deem material or there is no consent at all.[40] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR NO. 147776 2007-07-10	SPS. GUILLERMO MALISON AND AMELITA MALISON v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Moreover, a reading of the Manifestation/Motion filed by petitioners on April 29, 2002 shows that it may be considered as a motion for reconsideration of the RTC Decision. The rule is that it is not the caption of the pleading but the allegations that determine the nature of the action, and the court should grant the relief warranted by the allegations and the proof even if no such relief is prayed for.[16] In this case, the Manifestation/Motion sought the reconsideration of the RTC Decision on the ground that they have proved their case by preponderance of evidence. It is significant to note that the RTC dismissed petitioners' complaint due to their failure to prove their case by preponderance of evidence despite respondents' non-presentation of their own evidence.
	GR NO. 159153 2007-07-09	ISIDRO ANADON v. MIGUELINA HERRERA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Moreover, a reading of the Manifestation/Motion filed by petitioners on April 29, 2002 shows that it may be considered as a motion for reconsideration of the RTC Decision. The rule is that it is not the caption of the pleading but the allegations that determine the nature of the action, and the court should grant the relief warranted by the allegations and the proof even if no such relief is prayed for.[16] In this case, the Manifestation/Motion sought the reconsideration of the RTC Decision on the ground that they have proved their case by preponderance of evidence. It is significant to note that the RTC dismissed petitioners' complaint due to their failure to prove their case by preponderance of evidence despite respondents' non-presentation of their own evidence.
	GR NO. 143721 2005-08-31	TERESITA E. VILLALUZ v. ROLANDO R. LIGON AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Indeed, there exists a presumption of mistake or error to those who have not had the benefit of a good education under Art. 1332 of the Civil Code.[52] However, one who alleges such mistake or fraud must show that her personal circumstances warrant the application thereof.[53] Apart from claiming in her affidavit that she is illiterate, petitioner did not make any effort to prove in court the truthfulness of such claim, despite the many opportunities given her to do so. We therefore cannot give credence to her allegation.
	GR NO. 133638 2005-04-15	PERPETUA VDA. DE APE v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
A contract of sale is a consensual contract, thus, it is perfected by mere consent of the parties. It is born from the moment there is a meeting of minds upon the thing which is the object of the sale and upon the price.[52] Upon its perfection, the parties may reciprocally demand performance, that is, the vendee may compel the transfer of the ownership and to deliver the object of the sale while the vendor may demand the vendee to pay the thing sold.[53] For there to be a perfected contract of sale, however, the following elements must be present: consent, object, and price in money or its equivalent. In the case of Leonardo v. Court of Appeals, et al.,[54] we explained the element of consent, to wit:The essence of consent is the agreement of the parties on the terms of the contract, the acceptance by one of the offer made by the other. It is the concurrence of the minds of the parties on the object and the cause which constitutes the contract. The area of agreement must extend to all points that the parties deem material or there is no consent at all.