Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EDSEL LIGA v. ALLEGRO RESOURCES CORP.

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 208928 2015-07-08	ANDY ANG v. SEVERINO PACUNIO PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Having established that respondents are not the real parties in interest to the instant suit, the proper course of action was for the CA to merely affirm the RTC's dismissal of their complaint. It therefore erred in proceeding to resolve the other substantive issues of the case and granting one of the principal reliefs sought by respondents, which is the declaration of the nullity of the Questioned Deed of Absolute Sale.[35] In the same vein, the CA erred in awarding portions of the subject land to various non-parties to the case, such as the Heirs of Gaccion and Udiaan's children. Basic is the rule that no relief can be extended in a judgment to a stranger or one who is not a party to a case.[36]
	GR No. 174844 2013-03-20	VEVENCIA ECHIN PABALAN v. HEIRS OF SIMEON A.B. MAAMO PEREZ, J.
As for the supposed fact that possession by tolerance was not among the issues simplified during the pre-trial of the case, suffice it to say that the same is subsumed in the second issue identified in the RTC's 29 November 1983 pre-trial order, i.e., "(w)hether or not [p]etitioners and the[ir] predecessors-in-interest had been in the actual, physical possession of the land in question in the concept [of] owners since 1906 up to the present."[64] Since Simplecio's possession of the subject parcel was by mere tolerance, we find that the CA correctly brushed aside petitioners' reliance on estoppel which cannot be sustained by mere argument or doubtful inference.[65] The same may be said of the CA's rejection of laches, an equitable doctrine the application of which is controlled by equitable considerations.[66] It operates not really to penalize neglect or sleeping on one's rights, but rather to avoid recognizing a right when to do so would result in a clearly inequitable situation.[67] Unfortunately for petitioners' cause, no such situation obtains in the case.
	GR No. 156038 2010-10-11	SPS. VICTORIANO CHUNG AND DEBBIE CHUNG v. ULANDAY CONSTRUCTION BRION, J.
In contractual relations, the law allows the parties leeway and considers their agreement as the law between them.[39] Contract stipulations that are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy shall be binding[40] and should be complied with in good faith.[41] No party is permitted to change his mind or disavow and go back upon his own acts, or to proceed contrary thereto, to the prejudice of the other party.[42] In the present case, we find that both parties failed to comply strictly with their contractual stipulations on the progress billings and change orders that caused the delays in the completion of the project.
	GR No. 161387 2009-03-13	SPS. ADRIANO AND NORMA SIOSON and SPS. ARNIEL AND EDITH SIOSON v. VS. CARPIO, J.
We agree with petitioners. Courts of justice have no jurisdiction or power to decide a question not in issue.[16] It is elementary that a judgment must conform to, and be supported by, both the pleadings and the evidence, and must be in accordance with the theory of the action on which the pleadings are framed and the case was tried.[17] The courts, in rendering decisions, ought to limit themselves to the issues presented by the parties in their pleadings.[18] A judgment that goes outside of the issues and purports to adjudicate something on which the court did not hear the parties is not only irregular but also extra-judicial and invalid.[19] The rule rests on the fundamental tenets of fair play.[20]
	GR No. 161387 2009-03-13	SPS. ADRIANO AND NORMA SIOSON and SPS. ARNIEL AND EDITH SIOSON v. VS. CARPIO, J.
We agree with petitioners. Courts of justice have no jurisdiction or power to decide a question not in issue.[16] It is elementary that a judgment must conform to, and be supported by, both the pleadings and the evidence, and must be in accordance with the theory of the action on which the pleadings are framed and the case was tried.[17] The courts, in rendering decisions, ought to limit themselves to the issues presented by the parties in their pleadings.[18] A judgment that goes outside of the issues and purports to adjudicate something on which the court did not hear the parties is not only irregular but also extra-judicial and invalid.[19] The rule rests on the fundamental tenets of fair play.[20]