Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

AZNAR BROTHERS REALTY COMPANY v. CA

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 198756 2015-01-13	BANCO DE ORO v. REPUBLIC LEONEN, J.
The temporary restraining order is not moot. The acts sought to be enjoined are not fait accompli. For an act to be considered fait accompli, the act must have already been fully accomplished and consummated.[232] It must be irreversible, e.g., demolition of properties,[233] service of the penalty of imprisonment,[234] and hearings on cases.[235] When the act sought to be enjoined has not yet been fully satisfied, and/or is still continuing in nature,[236] the defense of fait accompli cannot prosper.
	GR No. 187752 2010-11-23	IRENE K. NACU v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION NACHURA, J.
Instead of just discrediting the PNP Crime Lab's findings, Nacu should have channeled her efforts into providing her own proof that the signatures appearing on the questioned SOS were forgeries. After all, whoever alleges forgery has the burden of proving the same by clear and convincing evidence.[17] Nacu could not simply depend on the alleged weakness of the complainant's evidence without offering stronger evidence to contradict the former.
	GR No. 175375 2009-06-23	CONRADO O. LASQUITE v. VICTORY HILLS QUISUMBING, J.
Respondent avers that petitioner Lasquite forged the Deed of Quitclaim/Assignment of Rights to make it appear that Jose Manahan conveyed Lot No. 3050 to him. It must be stressed, however, that whoever alleges forgery has the burden of proving the same. Forgery cannot be presumed but should be substantiated with clear and convincing evidence.[42]
	GR No. 148846 2007-09-25	CECILIA AMODIA VDA. DE MELENCION v. CA NACHURA, J.
We have already ruled that the registration contemplated in this provision refers to registration under the Torrens System, which considers the act of registration as the operative act[41] that gives validity to the transfer or creates a lien upon the land.[42] This rule precisely applies to cases involving conflicting rights over registered property and those of innocent transferees who relied on the clean title of the properties.[43] Thus, we held that registration must be done in the proper registry in order to bind the same.[44]
	GR NO. 151060 2005-08-31	JN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. PHILIPPINE EXPORT TINGA, J.
Anent the issue of forgery, the CA is correct in reversing the decision of the trial court. Save for the denial of Narciso Cruz that it was not his signature in the Undertaking and the perfunctory comparison of the signatures, nothing in the records would support the claim of forgery. Forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence and the burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery.[52] Mere denial will not suffice to overcome the positive value of the Undertaking, which is a notarized document, has in its favor the presumption of regularity, and carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution.[53] Even in cases where the alleged forged signature was compared to samples of genuine signatures to show its variance therefrom, this Court still found such evidence insufficient.[54] Mere variance of the signatures cannot be considered as conclusive proof that the same were forged.[55]
	GR No. 146717 2004-11-22	TRANSFIELD PHILIPPINES v. LUZON HYDRO CORPORATION TINGA, J,
Settled is the rule that injunction would not lie where the acts sought to be enjoined have already become fait accompli or an accomplished or consummated act.[63] In Ticzon v. Video Post Manila, Inc.[64] this Court ruled that where the period within which the former employees were prohibited from engaging in or working for an enterprise that competed with their former employer the very purpose of the preliminary injunction has expired, any declaration upholding the propriety of the writ would be entirely useless as there would be no actual case or controversy between the parties insofar as the preliminary injunction is concerned.
	GR No. 154826 2003-07-31	ROMY AGAG v. ALPHA FINANCING CORPORATION YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The settled rule is that in an action for ejectment, the only question involved is possession de facto. However, when the issue of possession cannot be decided without resolving the issue of ownership, the court may receive evidence on the question of title to the property,[21] but the resulting judgment would be conclusive only with respect to the possession, but not the ownership of the property.[22]
	GR No. 136773 2003-06-25	MILAGROS MANONGSONG v. FELOMENA JUMAQUIO ESTIMO CARPIO, J.
The Kasulatan, being a document acknowledged before a notary public, is a public document and prima facie evidence of its authenticity and due execution. To assail the authenticity and due execution of a notarized document, the evidence must be clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant.[24] Otherwise the authenticity and due execution of the document should be upheld.[25] The trial court itself held that "(n)o countervailing proof was adduced by plaintiffs to overcome or impugn the document's legality or its validity."[26]