Case Title : HOMEOWNERS SAVINGS & LOAN BANK, petitioner, vs. MIGUELA C. DAILO, respondent. Case Nature : PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals. Division: SECOND DIVISION Docket Number: G.R. No. 153802 Ponente: TINGA Dispositive Portion: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Costs against petitioner. DOCTRINES: In Guiang v. Court of Appeals, it was held that the sale of a conjugal property requires the consent of both the husband and wife. In applying Article 124 of the Family Code, this Court declared that the absence of the consent of one renders the entire sale null and void, including the portion of the conjugal property pertaining to the husband who contracted the sale. The same principle in Guiang squarely applies to the instant case. As shall be discussed next, there is no legal basis to construe Article 493 of the Civil Code as an exception to Article 124 of the Family Code. The regime of conjugal partnership of gains is a special type of part

Case Title : EVANGELINE D. IMANI,** petitioner, vs. METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, respondent. Case Nature : PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals. Division: SECOND DIVISION Docket Number: G.R. No. 187023 Ponente: NACHURA Dispositive Portion: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision and the Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 93061 sustaining the validity of the writ of execution, the auction sale, and the certificate of sale are AFFIRMED. DOCTRINES: Contrary to the CA’s advice, the remedy of terceria or a separate action under Section 16, Rule 39 is no longer available to Sina Imani because he is not deemed a stranger to the case filed against petitioner: [T]he husband of the judgment debtor cannot be deemed a “stranger” to the case prosecuted and adjudged against his wife. Thus, it would have been inappropriate for him to institute a separate case for annulment of writ of execution. All property of t

Oposa vs. Factoran, Jr., 224 SCRA 792, July 30, 1993 Case Nature : SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION for certiorari of the dismissal order of the RTC of Makati, Br. 66. Division: EN BANC Docket Number: G.R. No. 101083 Ponente: DAVIDE, JR. Dispositive Portion: WHEREFORE, being impressed with merit, the instant Petition is hereby GRANTED, and the challenged Order of respondent Judge of 18 July 1991 dismissing Civil Case No. 90-777 is hereby set aside. The petitioners may therefore amend their complaint to implead as defendants the holders or grantees of the questioned timber license agreements. DOCTRINES: Petitioners instituted Civil Case No. 90-777 as a class suit. The original defendant and the present respondents did not take issue with this matter. Nevertheless, We hereby rule that the said civil case is indeed a class suit. The subject matter of the complaint is of common and general interest not just to several, but to all citizens of the Philippines. Consequently, since the parties are so num

Case Title:   CIRILA ARCABA, petitioner, vs. ERLINDA TABANCURA VDA. DE BATOCAEL, SEIGFREDO C. TABANCURA, DORIS C. TABANCURA, LUZELLI C. TABANCURA, BELEN C. TABANCURA, RAUL A. COMILLE, BERNADETTE A. COMILLE, and ABNER A. COMILLE, respondents. Case Nature:   PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals. Division:        SECOND DIVISION Docket Number:        G.R. No. 146683 Dispositive Portion: WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the trial court is hereby AFFIRMED. Doctrines: The general rule is that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, subject only to certain exceptions: (a) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculations, surmises, or conjectures; (b) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (c) where there is grave abuse of discretion; (d) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (e) when the find

No. L-31102. May 5, 1979; THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FELIPE DUEÑO, alias FELIPE CATALAN, SOFRONIO DUEÑO and ANDRESITO BELONIO alias HAPON, defendants-appellants. DOCTRINES: Appellants’ contention that the testimonies of the eyewitnesses Dellomos and Dolfo are inherently improbable as not be credible has been successfully traversed by the Solicitor General. For, Dolfo and Dellomos, having been the target of accused-appellants only a few hours earlier in the afternoon of the same day, may and should be expected to take some risks—to the point perhaps of being illogical and reckless—to identify and, if possible, frustrate any further attempts on the part of the three accused to assault and to try to kill them again. Motive is relevant where the indentity of the persons accused of having committed the crime is in dispute, where there are no eyewitnesses, and where suspicion is likely to fall upon a number of persons (People vs. Portugueza, L-22604, July 31, 1967

MIRASOL CASTILLO, Petitioner  vs.  REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES and FELIPE IMPAS, Respondents Division : SECOND DIVISION Docket Number : G.R. No. 214064 Ponente : PERALTA Dispositive Portion : WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition for review on certiorari filed by herein petitioner Mirasol Castillo. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the assailed Decision and Resolution, dated March 10, 2014 and August 28, 2014, respectively, of the Court of Appeals. Notes. The Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages as contained in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, which the Court promulgated on 15 March 2003, extends only to those marriages entered into during the effectivity of the Family Code which took effect on August 3, 1988. (Bolos vs. Bolos, 634 SCRA 429 [2010])  The initial common consensus on psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code was that it did not involve a species of vice of consent. (Agraviador vs. Amparo-Agraviador, 637 SCRA 519 [2010