This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2005-04-12 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The rule is that a sale made in violation of a right of first refusal is valid. However, it may be rescinded, or, as in this case, may be the subject of an action for specific performance.[22] In Riviera Filipina, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals,[23] the Court discussed the concept and interpretation of the right of first refusal and the consequences of a breach thereof, to wit:. . . It all started in 1992 with Guzman, Bocaling & Co. v. Bonnevie where the Court held that a lease with a proviso granting the lessee the right of first priority "all things and conditions being equal" meant that there should be identity of the terms and conditions to be offered to the lessee and all other prospective buyers, with the lessee to enjoy the right of first priority. A deed of sale executed in favor of a third party who cannot be deemed a purchaser in good faith, and which is in violation of a right of first refusal granted to the lessee is not voidable under the Statute of Frauds but rescissible under Articles 1380 to 1381 (3) of the New Civil Code. | |||||
|
2003-02-14 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Time and again we have established the distinctions between the remedies under Rule 45 and Rule 65.[18] We have constantly reminded members of the bench and bar regarding these distinct remedies and the requisites to avail of them. An erroneous mode of appeal can have fatal consequences to a petition. | |||||
|
2003-01-31 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| However, despite the trial court's failure to adhere to the rule on substitution of a deceased party, its judgment remains valid and binding on the following heirs, namely, Salvador, Concepcion and Ernesto. Formal substitution of heirs is not necessary when the heirs themselves voluntarily appeared, shared in the case and presented evidence in defense of deceased defendant.[23] This is precisely because, despite the court's non-compliance with the rule on substitution, the heirs' right to due process was obviously not impaired.[24] In other words, the purpose of the rule on substitution of a deceased party was already achieved. The following facts indicate plainly that there was active participation of these heirs in the defense of Glicerio after his death. | |||||