This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-04-23 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In any case, going to the matter of authenticity and due execution of the assailed document, petitioners do not dispute that the copy of the deed of sale that respondents submitted as part of their evidence is a duplicate of the original deed of sale dated June 20, 1958. It is settled that a signed carbon copy or duplicate of a document executed at the same time as the original is known as a duplicate original and maybe introduced in evidence without accounting for the non-production of the original.[18] | |||||
|
2000-12-04 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Besides, petitioner's claims on the lands and dividends allegedly due it from respondent Benedicto's other business holdings are not enforceable in court. Only liquidated debts are enforceable in court, there being no apparent defenses inherent in them.[21] "For compensation to take place, a distinction must be made between a debt and a mere claim. A debt is a claim which has been formally passed upon by the highest authority to which it can in law be submitted and has been declared to be a debt. A claim, on the other hand, is a debt in embryo. It is mere evidence of a debt and must pass through the process prescribed by law before it develops into what is properly called a debt."[22] There being no two debts for which either party may be said as principally bound to each other, again, there can be no set-off. | |||||