Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

GEORGINA HILADO v. HEIRS OF RAFAEL MEDALLA

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR NO. 151333 2005-09-20	SPS. NATALIO AND FELICIDAD SALONGA v. SPS. MANUEL AND NENITA CONCEPCION AND FLORENCIA REALTY CORPORATION
The nomenclature given by the parties to the contract is not conclusive of the nature and legal effects thereof.[46] Even if a document appears on its face to be a sale, the owner of the property may prove that the contract is really a loan with mortgage, and that the document does not express the true intent of the parties.[47]
	GR Nos. 139275-76 and 140949 2004-11-25	LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Atty. Moises S. Tolentino, Jr., General Manager of Metro Transit Organization (operators of the LRT system), then filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition (CA-G.R. SP No. 44227) on May 21, 1997, assailing the trial court's order dated May 13, 1997, finding him, Evangeline M. Razon, and Geronima P. Anastacio, guilty of indirect contempt and ordering the issuance of warrants of arrest against them. Atty. Tolentino contended that the trial court issued the orders in disregard of substantive and procedural due process.[4]
	GR Nos. 139275-76 and 140949 2004-11-25	LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
SO ORDERED.[6]
	GR Nos. 139275-76 and 140949 2004-11-25	LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In the meantime, petitioner, on April 14, 1999, filed in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 44220 and 44227 a Motion for Clarification of Decision,[12] but it was denied by the CA per Resolution dated May 21, 1999.[13] Petitioner sought reconsideration but it was also denied per Resolution dated July 9, 1999,[14] prompting petitioner to institute on July 29, 1999, a petition for certiorari with this Court, docketed as G.R. Nos. 139275-76.
	GR Nos. 139275-76 and 140949 2004-11-25	LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
CA-G.R. SP Nos. 44220 and 44227 involved three issues. First is whether or not an injunction order, as embodied in the April 16, 1997 order, is effective prior to the posting of an injunction bond and the issuance of the injunctive writ;[19] second, whether or not the Order of April 29, 1997 is valid and binding;[20] and the third is whether or not the petitioners were validly held guilty of contempt of court per Order dated May 13, 1997.[21]
	GR Nos. 139275-76 and 140949 2004-11-25	LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
(a.) This Agreement shall be effective for five (5) years to commence on April 1, 1992 until March 31, 1997, unless sooner terminated as provided hereunder."[28]
	GR Nos. 139275-76 and 140949 2004-11-25	LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
It was the trial court's belief that to allow the contract to expire would render respondent's action for reformation of contract moot and academic.[30] Needless to say, a contract can be renewed, revived or extended only by mutual consent of the parties. No court can compel a party to agree to a contract through the instrumentality of a writ of preliminary injunction.[31] Also, the possibility of irreparable damage without proof of actual existing right is not a ground for an injunction.[32]