Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

TALA REALTY SERVICES CORPORATION v. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 188302 2012-06-27	NANCY L. TY v. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS BRION, J.
In her compliance,[34] the petitioner summarized this Court's rulings in the consolidated cases of G.R. Nos. 130184 and 139166,[35] and in G.R. No. 132703,[36] and reported on the other cases involving the same parties decided by this Court, such as G.R. Nos. 129887,[37] 137980,[38] 132051,[39] 137533,[40] 143263,[41] and 142672,[42] as well as the other related cases decided by this Court, i.e., G.R. Nos. 144700,[43] 147997,[44] 167255,[45] and 144705.[46]
	GR NO. 132887 2005-08-11	MANILA BANKING CORPORATION v. EDMUNDO S. SILVERIO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
1) There is no proof that the said sale took place prior to the date of the attachment. The notarized deed of sale, which would have served as the best evidence of the transaction, did not materialize until 22 July 1993, or three (3) years after TMBC caused the annotation of its lien on the titles subject matter of the alleged sale. Mr. Jerry Tanchuan, Archivist 1 of the Records Management of the Archives Office (RMAO), testified that the procedure being followed with respect to notarized documents is that the Records Section of the RTC will transmit to the RMAO copies in its possession of the original documents notarized by a notary public together with the Notarial Registry Book.[28] In herein case, the RTC did not transmit any book of Atty. Anacleto T. Lacanilao, Jr., the notary public who allegedly notarized the deed of sale between Ricardo, Sr. and Edmundo for the year 1989.[29] Instead, what the RMAO was in possession of was only a loose leaf entry form for "Document No. 444, Page 90, Book No. 17, Series of 1989" which is an affidavit of one Maria J. Segismundo dated 11 September 1989.[30] The RMAO did not have available in its file the particular deed of sale acknowledged by Atty. Lacanilao as Document No. 444, Page 90, Book No. 17, Series of 1989.[31] In Tala Realty Services Corporation v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank,[32] as reiterated in two other Tala cases,[33] the Court rejected a notarized deed that was not reported to the Clerk of Court of the RTC by the notary public who notarized it. The Court held that this fact militates against the use of the document as basis to uphold the petitioner's claim. The same is true in this case. The fact that the assailed deed of sale is not one of those submitted by Atty. Lacanilao to the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Makati City[34] renders it virtually worthless in the absence of corroboration as to its due execution other than petitioner (now private respondent) Edmundo's self-serving statements. This being the case, Edmundo could simply have presented the witnesses to the transaction (his wife and his lawyer), Atty. Lacanilao or the seller himself, Ricardo Sr., to testify as to the execution of the contract of sale on 11 September 1989. This he did not do, thus lending more credence to the theory of TMBC that the sale was entered into only as an afterthought, hatched to prevent the transfer of the properties to TMBC after the latter had already annotated its lien thereon.
	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. 147997 2002-04-05	TALA REALTY SERVICES CORPORATION v. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS MENDOZA, J.
It is not the eleven (11)-year lease contract but the twenty (20)-year lease contract which is the real and genuine contract between petitioner Tala Realty and private respondent Banco Filipino. Considering that the twenty (20)-year lease contract is still subsisting and will expire in 2001 yet, Banco Filipino is entitled to the possession of the subject premises for as long as it pays the agreed rental and does not violate the other terms and conditions thereof.[14] The facts of this case are substantially the same as those of G.R. No. 129887. Except for the fact that this case involves another property in Lucena City and the amount of rent is different, the ruling in G.R. No. 129887 would have constituted res judicata in the case at bar. Nonetheless, the principle of stare decisis dictates that for the sake of certainty and the stability of case law the conclusion reached in the prior case should be followed in this case.[15] Indeed, in subsequent cases involving properties of petitioner in Davao City, Iloilo City, and Malabon, which had been similarly leased to respondent bank, this Court held that the lease contract for 20 years, not the one for 11 years, was the valid contract.[16]
	GR No. 137980 2000-06-20	TALA REALTY SERVICES CORP. v. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Petitioner is even barred from questioning our adherence to the ruling in G.R. No. 129887 since it categorically declared in its Petition that the same was "likewise filed so that any favorable ruling in said petitions (referring to G.R. Nos. 129887 and 132051) may be extended or made to apply in the instant case."[11] Petitioner cannot now complain that the ruling in G.R. No. 129887 regarding the validity of the twenty-year lease contract is not binding in this case simply because the same is unfavorable to it.