Legal Principles and Precedents

FIRST SARMIENTO PROPERTY HOLDINGS, INC. vs   PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS ,   G.R. No. 202836, June 19, 2018 LEONEN,  J. : PRINCIPLE: To determine the nature of an action, whether or not its subject matter is capable or incapable of pecuniary estimation, the nature of the principal action or relief sought must be ascertained. If the principal relief is for the recovery of a sum of money or real property, then the action is capable of pecuniary estimation. However, if the principal relief sought is not for the recovery of sum of money or real property, even if a claim over a sum of money or real property results as a consequence of the principal relief, the action is incapable of pecuniary estimation. FACTS: First Sarmiento obtained from PBCOM a P40,000,000.00 loan, which was secured by a real estate mortgage over 1,076 parcels of land. On March 15, 2003, 7  the loan agreement was amended 8  with the increase of the loan amount to P51,200,000.00. On Sep...

TAGS: JURISDICTION; NOTARIAL DOC TUJAN-MILITANTE vs  NUSTAD   G.R. No. 209518 FACTS: Nustad, a Norwegian, filed a petition ordering Militante to surrender to the Register of Deeds the owner's duplicate copy of the Transfer Certificate of Title which 'were all issued in Nustad's name.  Instead of filing an Answer, Tujan-Militante filed an Omnibus Motion to Dismiss and Annul Proceedings. She averred that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over her person as she was not able to receive summons. She  further alleged that the Power of Attorney executed by Nustad in favor of her Atty. is void and non-existent. The CA recognized the jurisdictional defect over  the  person of Tujan-Militante, but nevertheless ruled that the flaw was cured by Tujan-Militante's filing of her Motion. Tujan-Militante filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by the CA in a Resolution.   RULING: (a) As to the issue on jurisdiction, a trial court acquires juri...

PALAGANAS vs. PALAGANAS   This case is about the probate before Philippine court of a will executed abroad by a foreigner although it has not been probated in its place of execution.   FACTS: Ruperta C. Palaganas, a Filipino who became a naturalized United States (U.S.) citizen, died single and childless. In the last will and testament she executed in California, she designated her brother as the executor of her will for she had left properties in the Philippines and in the U.S.   However, petitioners-nephews of Ruperta, opposed the petition on the ground that Ruperta’s will should not be probated in the Philippines but in the U.S. where she executed it.   ISSUE: Whether or not a will executed by a foreigner abroad may be probated in the Philippines although it has not been previously probated and allowed in the country where it was executed.   HELD: Yes. The Philippine laws do not prohibit the probate of wills executed by foreigners ab...

NUGUID vs. NUGUID (1966) FACTS: Rosario Nuguid, decedent, single, without descendants, legitimate or illegitimate. Surviving heirs were her legitimate parents and six siblings. The sister of the deceased filed in the CFI a holographic will allegedly executed by Rosario Nuguid on November 17, 1951, some 11 years before her demise. The parents of the deceased Rosario Nuguid, entered their opposition to the probate of her will - that by the institution of petitioner as universal heir of the deceased, the parents — who are compulsory heirs of the deceased in the direct ascending line — were illegally preterited and that in consequence the institution is void. ISSUE: Whether or not there the will is void by reason of preterition. HELD: Yes. This is a clear case of Preterition. The deceased left no descendants, legitimate or illegitimate. But she left forced heirs in the direct ascending line her parents, now oppositors. And, the will completely omits both of them. They thus ...

FACTS: Martin Jugo died on July 16, 1974 in Malabon, Rizal. He left a last Will and Testament duly signed by him. In the said Will, the testator named and appointed herein petitioner as his sole and only executor of his estate. It is clearly stated in the Will that the testator was legally married to a certain Rufina Gomez by whom he had two legitimate children, but since 1952, he had been estranged from his lawfully wedded wife and had been living with petitioner as husband and wife. The testator devised to his forced heirs, namely, his legal wife Rufina Gomez and his children Oscar and Carmelita his entire estate and the free portion thereof to herein petitioner.   ISSUE: Whether the respondent court acted in excess of its jurisdiction when after declaring the last Will and Testament of the deceased validly drawn, it went on to pass upon the intrinsic validity of the testamentary provision in favor of herein petitioner.   HELD: The petitioner submits th...