SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for www.chanrobles.com


Endnotes:

1 Under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court.

2 In CA-G. R. CV No. 48430, promulgated on June 29, 1998, Cui, J., ponente, Mabutas, Jr., and Aquino, JJ., concurring.

3 In BCV 91-62, dated June 27, 1994, Judge Edelwina C. Pastoral, presiding.

4 Petition for Review, Rollo, pp. 11-30, p. 18.

5 The case was docketed as LRC Case No. B-15.

6 As stated in the Complaint for Reconveyance and Damages filed by Dominador San Miguel, et al. with the Regional Trial Court, Br. XIX, Bacoor, Cavite on July 18, 1991, RTC Records, pp. 1-13, p. 6.

7 CA Rollo, pp. 110-111.

8 As quoted in the Alias Writ of Demolition, RTC Records, pp. 136-137.

9 Alias Writ of Demolition, RTC Records, pp. 136-137.

10 Lot 1 and 2 of LRC Psu-1313.

11 With an area of 108 square meters (LRC- Psu-1312).

12 Brief for Defendants-Appellants, Annex A, Kasunduan, CA Rollo, pp. 37-39.

13 Brief for Defendants-Appellants, Annex B, Kasulatan sa Bilihan ng Lupa, CA Rollo, pp. 40-42.

14 Designated as a motion to order.

15 Brief for Defendants-Appellants, Annex C, Motion to Order, CA Rollo, pp. 43-45.

16 Brief for Defendants-Appellants, Annex D, Opposition to Motion to Order, CA Rollo, pp. 46-47.

17 Declaration of Real Property, Tax Declaration No. 20233, CA Rollo, p. 118.

18 Brief for Defendants-Appellants, Annex E, Reply to the Opposition to Motion to Order, CA Rollo, pp. 48-49.

19 Brief for Defendants-Appellants, Annex F, Rejoinder to Reply, CA Rollo, pp. 50-51.

20 Brief for Defendants-Appellants, Annex A, Kasunduan, CA Rollo, p. 38.

21 Supra, Note 13.

22 Petition for Review, Annex A, Order of the Regional Trial Court dated June 27, 1994, Rollo, pp. 32-36, pp. 35-36.

23 Brief for Defendants-Appellants, Annex K, Motion for Reconsideration, CA Rollo, pp. 72-73.

24 Petition for Review, Annex B, Order of the Regional Trial Court dated January 23, 1995, Rollo, pp. 37-39, p. 39.

25 CA Rollo, p. 147.

26 Petition for Review, Annex C, Decision of the Court of Appeals, Rollo, pp. 40-44, p. 44.

27 Petition for Review, Annex C, Decision of the Court of Appeals, Rollo, pp. 40-44, p. 44.

28 CA Rollo, pp. 189-192.

29 Petition for Review, Annex D, Resolution of the Court of Appeals, Rollo, p. 46.

30 Notice of Appeal was filed on November 11, 1998 (Petition for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review on Certiorari), CA Rollo, p. 202-203; On June 23, 1999, the Court resolved to give due course to the petition (Rollo, p. 58).

31 Petition for Review, Rollo, pp. 11-31, pp. 20-21.

32 A question of law exists when doubt or difference arises as to what is the pertaining law given a certain state of facts. On the other hand, there is a question of fact when doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts (Reyes v. Court of Appeals, 328 Phil. 171, 179 [1996]).

33 Article 1306 of the Civil Code is one of the exceptions to the rule that contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and must be complied with in good faith (Bustamante v. Rosel, 319 SCRA 413, [1999]).

34 National Steel Corporation v. Regional Trial Court of Lanao del Norte, Br. 2., Iligan City, 304 SCRA 595 [1999].

35 Asia World Recruitment, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 313 SCRA 1 [1999].

36 In Pisuena v. Heirs of Petra Unating (313 SCRA 493 [1999]), When a person who is not the owner of the thing sells or alienates or delivers it, and later, the seller or grantor acquires title thereto, such title passes by operation of law to the buyer or grantee.

37 Valarao v. Court of Appeals, 363 Phil. 495 [1999]. See also Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals, 338 Phil. 795 [1997].

38 Declaration of Real Property, Tax Declaration No. 20233, CA Rollo, p. 118.

39 Serna v. Court of Appeals, 308 SCRA 527, 534-535 [1999].

40 There is unjust enrichment when something is received when there is no right to demand it. In such a case, the person who received it is under an obligation to return it (Civil Code, Article 2154).

41 No one shall unjustly enrich himself at the expense of another.

42 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Appeals, 271 SCRA 605 [1997].

43 276 SCRA 149 [1997]. In this case, the sellers were no longer able to deliver the object of the sale to the buyers as the buyers themselves have already acquired title and delivery thereof from the rightful owner.




chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman