Lawyerly

GR No. 158866

2013-09-09

BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS v. TALA REALTY SERVICES CORPORATION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

Dictated by the principle of stare decisis et non quieta movere,[60] which enjoins adherence to judicial precedents, the Court therefore enforces its ruling in G.R. No. 137533, as duly applied in the succeeding cases, i.e., G.R. Nos. 130088, 131469, 155171, 155201, and 166608; and G.R. No. 188302, as the controlling and binding doctrine in the resolution of these consolidated petitions. In view of the nullity of the trust agreement, Banco Filipino has no cause of action against Tala Realty, thereby validating the dismissal of the former's reconveyance complaints filed before the courts a quo. For these reasons, the Court denies the petitions in G.R. Nos. 158866 and 187551 given that they both seek the reversal of the CA's Decision granting defendants' motions to dismiss. On the contrary, the Court grants the petition in G.R. No. 181933 since it properly seeks to reverse the CA's denial of Nancy's motions to dismiss the reconveyance cases.

GR No. 188302

2012-06-27

NANCY L. TY v. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS

BRION, J.

In her comment to the respondent's motion to revive proceedings,[52] the petitioner argued that the proceedings should not be revived since all the reconveyance cases are grounded on the same theory of implied trust which this Court in G.R. No. 137533[53] found void for being illegal as it was a scheme to circumvent the 50% limitation on real estate holdings under the General Banking Act.

GR No. 188302

2012-06-27

NANCY L. TY v. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS

BRION, J.

In its March 31, 2009 decision, the CA affirmed the RTC's orders.[59] It noted that res judicata does not apply since the issue of validity or enforceability of the trust agreement was raised in an ejectment case, not an action involving title or ownership, citing the Court's pronouncement in G.R. No. 144705[60] that G.R. No. 137533[61] does not put to rest all pending litigations involving the issues of ownership between the parties since it involved only an issue of de facto possession.

GR No. 188302

2012-06-27

NANCY L. TY v. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS

BRION, J.

The petitioner argues that the CA erred in refusing to apply G.R. No. 137533 under the principle of res judicata by conclusiveness of judgment and stare decisis, and ignoring the November 26, 2007 minute resolution in G.R. No. 177865[64] and the April 7, 2009 consolidated decision in G.R. Nos. 130088, 131469, 155171, 155201, and 166608[65] that reiterated the Court's pronouncement in G.R. No. 137533.

GR No. 130088

2009-04-07

TALA REALTY SERVICES CORPORATION v. CA

CARPIO MORALES, J.

In the meantime or on November 22, 2002, this Court, in Tala Realty Services Corporation v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank originating from an ejectment case filed by Tala Realty against Banco Filipino concerning properties in Malolos, Bulacan, found that the trust agreement between Banco Filipino and Tala Realty is contrary to law, and as both parties are in pari delicto, no affirmative relief should be given to one against the other.[27]

GR No. 130088

2009-04-07

TALA REALTY SERVICES CORPORATION v. CA

CARPIO MORALES, J.

In Tala Realty Services Corporation v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank,[46] this Court, by Decision dated November 22, 2002, ruling on one of several ejectment cases filed by Tala Realty against Banco Filipino arising from the same trust agreement in the reconveyance cases subject of the present petitions, held that the trust agreement is void and cannot thus be enforced. The relevant portion of the Court's ruling in said case reads:The Bank alleges that the sale and twenty-year lease of the disputed property were part of a larger implied trust "warehousing agreement." Concomitant with this Court's factual finding that the 20-year contract governs the relations between the parties, we find the Bank's allegation of circumstances surrounding its execution worthy of credence; the Bank and Tala entered into contracts of sale and lease back of the disputed property and created an implied trust "warehousing agreement" for the reconveyance of the property. In the eyes of the law, however, this implied trust is inexistent and void for being contrary to law.[47]

GR NO. 129247

2006-03-03

SPS. ARSENIO AND NIEVES S. REYES v. SOLEMAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

We hold that the Court of Appeals did not err in ordering the RTC, Branch 135, Makati City, to dismiss petitioners' complaint in Civil Case No. 92-109. Jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the action is determined by the allegations of the complaint, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein.[1] It cannot be made to depend on the exclusive characterization of the case by one of the parties.[2] After reviewing carefully the allegations in petitioners' complaint, specifically paragraphs 4, 10, and 15,[3] we found no reason to deviate from the finding of the Appellate Court that indeed the complaint is for forcible entry. Significantly, the complaint was filed on January 14, 1992, or within one (1) year, specifically within eight (8) days, from the alleged forcible entry to the property by respondent Tanseco on January 6, 1992.[4] While captioned as a Complaint for Damages with Application for a TRO and Preliminary Injunction, yet the allegations therein show that petitioners are asserting their right to the peaceful possession of their property which is proper in an ejectment suit. All ejectment cases are within the jurisdiction of the MTC.[5]

GR No. 144516

2004-02-11

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. COA

CARPIO, J.

A trust is a "fiduciary relationship with respect to property which involves the existence of equitable duties imposed upon the holder of the title to the property to deal with it for the benefit of another."[27] A trust is either express or implied. Express trusts are those which the direct and positive acts of the parties create, by some writing or deed, or will, or by words evincing an intention to create a trust.[28]

GR No. 143263

2004-01-29

TALA REALTY SERVICES CORPORATION v. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

This is not the first time that we have passed upon the same controversy between the same parties. In G.R. No. 129887 (involving the Urdaneta property),[10] we ruled that the twenty-year contract is the real and genuine contract between the parties. Applying the principle of stare decisis, this Court, in G.R. No. 137980 (Davao property),[11] G.R. No. 132051 (Iloilo property),[12] G.R. No. 147997 (Lucena property)[13] and G.R. No. 137533 (Bulacan property),[14] consistently upheld the 20-year lease contract and dismissed petitioner's complaint for illegal detainer by reason of prematurity.

GR No. 143263

2004-01-29

TALA REALTY SERVICES CORPORATION v. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

The maxim stare decisis et non quieta movere invokes adherence to precedents and mandates not to unsettle things which are established. When the court has once laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it must adhere to that principal and apply it to all future cases where the facts are substantially the same.[15] In the instant case, we reiterate our ruling in G.R. No. 137533 that both parties are "in pari delicto," thus, no affirmative relief should be given to one against the other. They should be left where they are, each paying the price for its deception. If at all, petitioner TALA should seek remedy for its loss from the Central Bank which caused the respondent bank's arbitrary closure and not from the bank which was itself a victim of the arbitrary act of the government. Indeed, there is no ground for ejectment either expiration of the lease or non-payment of rent.

	GR No. 158866 2013-09-09	BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS v. TALA REALTY SERVICES CORPORATION PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Dictated by the principle of stare decisis et non quieta movere,[60] which enjoins adherence to judicial precedents, the Court therefore enforces its ruling in G.R. No. 137533, as duly applied in the succeeding cases, i.e., G.R. Nos. 130088, 131469, 155171, 155201, and 166608; and G.R. No. 188302, as the controlling and binding doctrine in the resolution of these consolidated petitions. In view of the nullity of the trust agreement, Banco Filipino has no cause of action against Tala Realty, thereby validating the dismissal of the former's reconveyance complaints filed before the courts a quo. For these reasons, the Court denies the petitions in G.R. Nos. 158866 and 187551 given that they both seek the reversal of the CA's Decision granting defendants' motions to dismiss. On the contrary, the Court grants the petition in G.R. No. 181933 since it properly seeks to reverse the CA's denial of Nancy's motions to dismiss the reconveyance cases.
	GR No. 188302 2012-06-27	NANCY L. TY v. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS BRION, J.
In her comment to the respondent's motion to revive proceedings,[52] the petitioner argued that the proceedings should not be revived since all the reconveyance cases are grounded on the same theory of implied trust which this Court in G.R. No. 137533[53] found void for being illegal as it was a scheme to circumvent the 50% limitation on real estate holdings under the General Banking Act.
	GR No. 188302 2012-06-27	NANCY L. TY v. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS BRION, J.
In its March 31, 2009 decision, the CA affirmed the RTC's orders.[59] It noted that res judicata does not apply since the issue of validity or enforceability of the trust agreement was raised in an ejectment case, not an action involving title or ownership, citing the Court's pronouncement in G.R. No. 144705[60] that G.R. No. 137533[61] does not put to rest all pending litigations involving the issues of ownership between the parties since it involved only an issue of de facto possession.
	GR No. 188302 2012-06-27	NANCY L. TY v. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS BRION, J.
The petitioner argues that the CA erred in refusing to apply G.R. No. 137533 under the principle of res judicata by conclusiveness of judgment and stare decisis, and ignoring the November 26, 2007 minute resolution in G.R. No. 177865[64] and the April 7, 2009 consolidated decision in G.R. Nos. 130088, 131469, 155171, 155201, and 166608[65] that reiterated the Court's pronouncement in G.R. No. 137533.
	GR No. 130088 2009-04-07	TALA REALTY SERVICES CORPORATION v. CA CARPIO MORALES, J.
In the meantime or on November 22, 2002, this Court, in Tala Realty Services Corporation v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank originating from an ejectment case filed by Tala Realty against Banco Filipino concerning properties in Malolos, Bulacan, found that the trust agreement between Banco Filipino and Tala Realty is contrary to law, and as both parties are in pari delicto, no affirmative relief should be given to one against the other.[27]
	GR No. 130088 2009-04-07	TALA REALTY SERVICES CORPORATION v. CA CARPIO MORALES, J.
In Tala Realty Services Corporation v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank,[46] this Court, by Decision dated November 22, 2002, ruling on one of several ejectment cases filed by Tala Realty against Banco Filipino arising from the same trust agreement in the reconveyance cases subject of the present petitions, held that the trust agreement is void and cannot thus be enforced. The relevant portion of the Court's ruling in said case reads:The Bank alleges that the sale and twenty-year lease of the disputed property were part of a larger implied trust "warehousing agreement." Concomitant with this Court's factual finding that the 20-year contract governs the relations between the parties, we find the Bank's allegation of circumstances surrounding its execution worthy of credence; the Bank and Tala entered into contracts of sale and lease back of the disputed property and created an implied trust "warehousing agreement" for the reconveyance of the property. In the eyes of the law, however, this implied trust is inexistent and void for being contrary to law.[47]
	GR NO. 129247 2006-03-03	SPS. ARSENIO AND NIEVES S. REYES v. SOLEMAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
We hold that the Court of Appeals did not err in ordering the RTC, Branch 135, Makati City, to dismiss petitioners' complaint in Civil Case No. 92-109. Jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the action is determined by the allegations of the complaint, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein.[1] It cannot be made to depend on the exclusive characterization of the case by one of the parties.[2] After reviewing carefully the allegations in petitioners' complaint, specifically paragraphs 4, 10, and 15,[3] we found no reason to deviate from the finding of the Appellate Court that indeed the complaint is for forcible entry. Significantly, the complaint was filed on January 14, 1992, or within one (1) year, specifically within eight (8) days, from the alleged forcible entry to the property by respondent Tanseco on January 6, 1992.[4] While captioned as a Complaint for Damages with Application for a TRO and Preliminary Injunction, yet the allegations therein show that petitioners are asserting their right to the peaceful possession of their property which is proper in an ejectment suit. All ejectment cases are within the jurisdiction of the MTC.[5]
	GR No. 144516 2004-02-11	DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. COA CARPIO, J.
A trust is a "fiduciary relationship with respect to property which involves the existence of equitable duties imposed upon the holder of the title to the property to deal with it for the benefit of another."[27] A trust is either express or implied. Express trusts are those which the direct and positive acts of the parties create, by some writing or deed, or will, or by words evincing an intention to create a trust.[28]
	GR No. 143263 2004-01-29	TALA REALTY SERVICES CORPORATION v. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
This is not the first time that we have passed upon the same controversy between the same parties. In G.R. No. 129887 (involving the Urdaneta property),[10] we ruled that the twenty-year contract is the real and genuine contract between the parties. Applying the principle of stare decisis, this Court, in G.R. No. 137980 (Davao property),[11] G.R. No. 132051 (Iloilo property),[12] G.R. No. 147997 (Lucena property)[13] and G.R. No. 137533 (Bulacan property),[14] consistently upheld the 20-year lease contract and dismissed petitioner's complaint for illegal detainer by reason of prematurity.
	GR No. 143263 2004-01-29	TALA REALTY SERVICES CORPORATION v. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
The maxim stare decisis et non quieta movere invokes adherence to precedents and mandates not to unsettle things which are established. When the court has once laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it must adhere to that principal and apply it to all future cases where the facts are substantially the same.[15] In the instant case, we reiterate our ruling in G.R. No. 137533 that both parties are "in pari delicto," thus, no affirmative relief should be given to one against the other. They should be left where they are, each paying the price for its deception. If at all, petitioner TALA should seek remedy for its loss from the Central Bank which caused the respondent bank's arbitrary closure and not from the bank which was itself a victim of the arbitrary act of the government. Indeed, there is no ground for ejectment either expiration of the lease or non-payment of rent.