Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

TERESITA V. IDOLOR v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 179441 2010-08-09	ST. JAMES COLLEGE OF PARAÑAQUE v. EQUITABLE PCI BANK VELASCO JR., J.
As a civil law concept, novation is the extinguishment of an obligation by the substitution or change of the obligation by a subsequent one which terminates it, either by changing its objects or principal conditions, or by substituting a new debtor in place of the old one, or by subrogating a third person to the rights of the creditor.[24] Novation may be extinctive or modificatory. It is extinctive when an old obligation is terminated by the creation of a new one that takes the place of the former; it is merely modificatory when the old obligation subsists to the extent that it remains compatible with the amendatory agreement.[25] Novation may either be express, when the new obligation declares in unequivocal terms that the old obligation is extinguished, or implied, when the new obligation is on every point incompatible with the old one.[26] The test of incompatibility lies on whether the two obligations can stand together, each one with its own independent existence.[27]
	GR No. 169970 2009-01-20	PROTACIO VICENTE v. DELIA SOLEDAD AVERA PUNO, C.J.
Injunction, as a preservative remedy, aims to protect substantive rights and interests.[27] To be entitled to a writ of injunction, the complainant must establish the following requisites: (1) there must be a right in esse or the existence of a right to be protected; and (2) the act against which injunction is to be directed is a violation of such right.[28] The grant of the writ is conditioned on the existence of the complainant's clear legal right, which means one clearly founded in or granted by law or is "enforceable as a matter of law."[29]
	GR NO. 127967 2005-12-14	FEDERATED REALTY CORPORATION v. CA TINGA, J.
In a long line of cases, this Court has held that injunction is a preservative remedy aimed at protecting substantive rights and interests.[26] The very foundation of the jurisdiction to issue a writ of injunction rests in the existence of a cause of action and in the probability of irreparable injury, inadequacy of pecuniary compensation and the prevention of multiplicity of suits.[27] Where facts are not shown to bring the case within these conditions, the relief of injunction should be refused.[28]
	GR NO. 161028 2005-01-31	TERESITA V. IDOLOR v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The trial court issued a writ of preliminary injunction, however, the Court of Appeals in a petition for certiorari filed by respondent-spouses, annulled the same for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion. We affirmed said decision of the appellate court in Idolor v. Court of Appeals.[4]
	GR No. 147950 2003-12-11	CALIFORNIA BUS LINES v. STATE INVESTMENT HOUSE QUISUMBING, J.
Novation has been defined as the extinguishment of an obligation by the substitution or change of the obligation by a subsequent one which terminates the first, either by changing the object or principal conditions, or by substituting the person of the debtor, or subrogating a third person in the rights of the creditor.[40]
	GR No. 154127 2003-12-08	ROMEO C. GARCIA v. DIONISIO V. LLAMAS PANGANIBAN, J.
Novation is a mode of extinguishing an obligation by changing its objects or principal obligations, by substituting a new debtor in place of the old one, or by subrogating a third person to the rights of the creditor.[10] Article 1293 of the Civil Code defines novation as follows:"Art. 1293. Novation which consists in substituting a new debtor in the place of the original one, may be made even without the knowledge or against the will of the latter, but not without the consent of the creditor. Payment by the new debtor gives him rights mentioned in articles 1236 and 1237."