This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-09-14 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| In Arsenal, the property covered by a homestead patent had been sold to Suralta in 1957,[122] while the Complaint was filed before the trial court in 1974.[123] The case was decided by this court in 1986.[124] Thus, Suralta had been in possession of the property for approximately 17 years before a Complaint was filed. This court held that: The value of any improvements made on the land and the interests on the purchase price are compensated by the fruits the respondent Suralta and his heirs received from their long possession of the homestead.[125] | |||||
|
2012-12-05 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| To reiterate, Section 118 of the Public Land Act, as amended, reads that "[e]xcept in favor of the Government or any of its branches, units, or institutions, or legally constituted banking corporations, lands acquired under free patent or homestead provisions shall not be subject to encumbrance or alienation from the date of the approval of the application and for a term of five years from and after the date of issuance of the patent or grant x x x." The provisions of law are clear and explicit. A contract which purports to alienate, transfer, convey, or encumber any homestead within the prohibitory period of five years from the date of the issuance of the patent is void from its execution. In a number of cases, this Court has held that such provision is mandatory.[21] | |||||
|
2011-09-14 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The right to set up the nullity of a void or non-existent contract is not limited to the parties, as in the case of annullable or voidable contracts; it is extended to third persons who are directly affected by the contract. Thus, where a contract is absolutely simulated, even third persons who may be prejudiced thereby may set up its inexistence.[41] The Heirs of Alfonso are the children of Alfonso, with his deceased children represented by their children (Alfonso's grandchildren). The Heirs of Alfonso are clearly his heirs and successors-in-interest and, as such, their interests are directly affected, thereby giving them the right to question the legality of the Deed of Sale. | |||||
|
2004-03-01 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| In the case at bar, the offer of the NHA to sell the subject property, as embodied in Resolution No. 2126, was similarly not accepted by the respondent.[24] Thus, the alleged contract involved in this case should be more accurately denominated as inexistent. There being no concurrence of the offer and acceptance, it did not pass the stage of generation to the point of perfection.[25] As such, it is without force and effect from the very beginning or from its incipiency, as if it had never been entered into, and hence, cannot be validated either by lapse of time or ratification.[26] Equity can not give validity to a void contract,[27] and this rule should apply with equal force to inexistent contracts. | |||||