Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BENJAMIN CORONEL v. FLORENTINO CONSTANTINO

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 194366 2012-10-10	NAPOLEON D. NERI v. HEIRS OF HADJI YUSOP UY PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Ratification means that one under no disability voluntarily adopts and gives sanction to some unauthorized act or defective proceeding, which without his sanction would not be binding on him. It is this voluntary choice, knowingly made, which amounts to a ratification of what was theretofore unauthorized, and becomes the authorized act of the party so making the ratification.[16] Once ratified, expressly or impliedly such as when the person knowingly received benefits from it, the contract is cleansed from all its defects from the moment it was constituted,[17] as it has a retroactive effect.
	AC. No. 6052 2003-12-11	IN RE: PETITION TO DISQUALIFY ATTY. LEONARD DE VERA v. ATTY. LEONARD DE VERA TINGA, J.
Finally, on the allegation that respondent de Vera or his handlers had housed the delegates from Eastern Mindanao in the Century Park Hotel to get their support for his candidacy, again petitioners did not present any proof to substantiate the same. It must be emphasized that bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to proof under our Rules of Court.[52]
	GR No. 136729 2003-09-23	ASTRO ELECTRONICS CORP. v. PHILIPPINE EXPORT AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Roxas' claim that the phrases "in his personal capacity" and "in his official capacity" were inserted on the notes without his knowledge was correctly disregarded by the RTC and the Court of Appeals. It is not disputed that Roxas does not deny that he signed the notes twice. As aptly found by both the trial and appellate court, Roxas did not offer any explanation why he did so. It devolves upon him to overcome the presumptions that private transactions are presumed to be fair and regular[15] and that a person takes ordinary care of his concerns.[16] Aside from his self-serving allegations, Roxas failed to prove the truth of such allegations. Thus, said presumptions prevail over his claims. Bare allegations, when unsubstantiated by evidence, documentary or otherwise, are not equivalent to proof under our Rules of Court.[17]
	GR No. 123655 2000-01-19	ANGEL BAUTISTA v. CA PUNO, J.
On October 30, 1978,[15] the lot covered by TCT No. 12106 was sold by respondents to Realty Baron Corporation for eight hundred seventy five thousand five hundred fifty pesos (P 875,550.00). Accordingly, TCT No. T-12113 was issued in favor of Realty Baron Corporation.
	GR No. 123655 2000-01-19	ANGEL BAUTISTA v. CA PUNO, J.
On January 26, 1979, petitioner verified from the Register of Deeds of Tagaytay if respondents had already secured a new title for the property. He discovered that the property sold to him has been subdivided into two lots.[16] He also learned that the respondents sold to Realty Baron Corporation the property covered by TCT No. 12106 (now TCT No. 12113), the same area which Papa was planning to buy from him.[17]