Posts

TRADERS ROYAL BANK vs. COURT OF APPEALS

TRADERS ROYAL BANK vs. COURT OF APPEALS, FILRITERS GUARANTY ASSURANCE CORPORATION and CENTRAL BANK of the PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 93397 March 3, 1997 Facts: 1.       Defendant Filriters is the registered owner of CBCI (Central Bank Certificate of Indebtedness). 2.       Under a deed of assignment, Filriters transferred CBCI to Philippine Underwriters Finance Corporation. 3.       Subsequently, Philfinance transferred CBCI, which was still registered in the name of Filriters, to appellant TRB. 4.       The transfer was made under a repurchase agreement, granting Philfinance the right to repurchase the instrument. 5.       When Philfinance failed to buy back the note on maturity date, it executed a deed of assignment, conveying to appellant TRB all its right and the title to CBCI. 6.       TRB then sought the transfer and reg...

ARB CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., and MARK MOLINA vs. COURT OF APPEALS

ARB CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., and MARK MOLINA vs. COURT OF APPEALS, TBS SECURITY AND INVESTIGATION AGENCY represented by CECILIA R. BACLAY G.R. No. 126554. May 31, 2000 Facts: 1.       TBS Security and Investigation Agency (TBSS) entered into two Service Contracts with ARBC wherein TBSS agreed to provide and post security guards in the five establishments being maintained by ARBC. 2.       This contract shall be effective for a period of one year and shall be considered automatically renewed for the same period unless otherwise a written notice of termination shall have been given by one party to the other party thirty days in advance. 3.       In a letter ARBC informed TBSS of its desire to terminate the Service Contracts. 4.       ARBC through its Vice President for Operations, Mark Molina, informed TBSS that it was replacing its security guards with those of Global Securit...

ADALIA B. FRANCISCO and MERRYLAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. RITA C. MEJIA

ADALIA B. FRANCISCO and MERRYLAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. RITA C. MEJIA G.R. No. 141617 August 14, 2001 Facts: 1.       Andrea Cordova Vda. de Gutierrez was the registered owner of a parcel of lands. 2.       The property was later subdivided into five lots. 3.       Gutierrez and Cardale Financing and Realty Corporation executed a Deed of Sale with Mortgage relating to the lots, for the consideration of P800,000.00. 4.       Upon the execution of the deed, Cardale paid Gutierrez P171,000.00. 5.       It was agreed that the balance of P629,000.00 would be paid in several installments within five years from the date of the deed, at an interest of nine percent per annum "based on the successive unpaid principal balances." 6.       To secure payment of the balance of the purchase price, Cardale constituted a mortgage on...

Lim vs. CA

RUFINA LUY LIM  vs. COURT OF APPEALS, AUTO TRUCK TBA CORPORATION, SPEED DISTRIBUTING, INC., ACTIVE DISTRIBUTORS, ALLIANCE MARKETING CORPORATION, ACTION COMPANY, INC. G.R. No. 124715. January 24, 2000 Facts: 1.       On 11 June 1994, Pastor Y. Lim died intestate. 2.       Petitioner, as surviving spouse, filed a joint petition for the administration of the estate. 3.       Private respondent corporations, whose properties were included in the inventory of the estate of Pastor Y. Lim, then filed a motion for the lifting of lispendens and motion for exclusion of certain properties from the estate of the decedent. 4.       The surviving spouse allege that although the above business entities dealt and engaged in business with the public as corporations, all their capital, assets and equity were however, personally owned by the late Pastor Y Lim. 5.    ...

PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO. [PLDT] vs. THE NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION AND CELLCOM, INC

PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO. [PLDT] vs. THE NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION AND CELLCOM, INC., (EXPRESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS CO., INC. [ETCI]) G.R. No. 88404 October 18, 1990 Facts: 1.       Rep. Act No. 2090, was enacted, Granting Felix Alberto and Company, Incorporated, a Franchise to Establish Radio Stations for Domestic and Transoceanic Telecommunications. 2.       Felix Alberto & Co., Inc. (FACI) was the original corporate name, which was changed to ETCI with the amendment of the Articles of Incorporation in 1964. 3.       ETCI admits that in 1964, the Albertos, as original owners of more than 40% of the outstanding capital stock sold their holdings to the Orbes. 4.       In 1968, the Albertos re-acquired the shares they had sold to the Orbes. 5.       In 1987, the Albertos sold more than 40% of their shares to HoracioYalun...

Tatad vs. Garcia

FRANCISCO S. TATAD, JOHN H. OSMENA and RODOLFO G. BIAZON vs. HON. JESUS B. GARCIA, JR., in his capacity as the Secretary of the Department of Transportation and Communications, and EDSA LRT CORPORATION, LTD. G.R. No. 114222 April 6, 1995 Facts: 1.       In 1989, the government planned to build a railway transit line along EDSA. 2.       No bidding was made but certain corporations were invited to prequalify. 3.       The only corporation to qualify was the EDSA LRT Consortium which was obviously formed for this particular undertaking. 4.       An agreement was then made between the government, through the DOTC, and EDSA LRT Consortium. 5.       The agreement was based on the Build-Operate-Transfer scheme provided for by law (RA 6957, amended by RA 7718). 6.       Under the agreement, EDSA LRT Consortium shall build the f...

COMETA and STATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC. vs. COURT OF APPEALS

REYNALDO T. COMETA and STATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON.GEORGE MACLIING G.R. No. 124062. January 21, 1999 Facts: 1.       Petitioner SITI extended loans in various amounts to GIDC (Guevent Industrial Development Corp), which the latter failed to pay on the dates they became due. 2.       A rehabilitation plan was agreed upon for GIDC under which it mortgaged several parcels of land to petitioner SITI. 3.       Hence, SITI foreclosed the mortgages andacquired the properties as highest bidder. 4.       Alleging irregularities in the foreclosure, GIDC filed a case but was eventually settled through a compromise agreement. 5.       A dispute later arose concerning the interpretation of the compromise agreement, as respondent HBI offered to purchase from GIDC the lot and the latter agreed but petitioner SITI (the mortgagee) refused ...