Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 18 views

    Ayala Corporation vs. Rosa-Diana Realty and Development Corporation G.R. No. 134284 December1, 2000 Facts

    Uploaded by

    cristilyn pangosfian
    The CA decision ruling in favor of respondent Villadores was not an obiter dictum. While the issue of whether petitioner was an offended party was not essential to the case, it was clearly raised by respondent and discussed in the body of the CA decision. For a statement to be considered an obiter dictum, it must be incidental to the question before the court, but here the statement was directly pertinent to an issue presented. Further, adjudicating on any point within the issues presented cannot be considered dicta. The special civil action for certiorari used by respondent is a remedy for correcting jurisdictional errors, not errors of judgment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ayala Corporation vs. Rosa-Diana Realty and Development Corporation G.R. No. 134284 December1, 2000 Facts

    Uploaded by

    cristilyn pangosfian
    18 views1 page
    The CA decision ruling in favor of respondent Villadores was not an obiter dictum. While the issue of whether petitioner was an offended party was not essential to the case, it was clearly raised by respondent and discussed in the body of the CA decision. For a statement to be considered an obiter dictum, it must be incidental to the question before the court, but here the statement was directly pertinent to an issue presented. Further, adjudicating on any point within the issues presented cannot be considered dicta. The special civil action for certiorari used by respondent is a remedy for correcting jurisdictional errors, not errors of judgment.

    Original Description:

    case

    Original Title

    Villanueva V

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The CA decision ruling in favor of respondent Villadores was not an obiter dictum. While the issue of whether petitioner was an offended party was not essential to the case, it was clearly raised by respondent and discussed in the body of the CA decision. For a statement to be considered an obiter dictum, it must be incidental to the question before the court, but here the statement was directly pertinent to an issue presented. Further, adjudicating on any point within the issues presented cannot be considered dicta. The special civil action for certiorari used by respondent is a remedy for correcting jurisdictional errors, not errors of judgment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    18 views1 page

    Ayala Corporation vs. Rosa-Diana Realty and Development Corporation G.R. No. 134284 December1, 2000 Facts

    Uploaded by

    cristilyn pangosfian
    The CA decision ruling in favor of respondent Villadores was not an obiter dictum. While the issue of whether petitioner was an offended party was not essential to the case, it was clearly raised by respondent and discussed in the body of the CA decision. For a statement to be considered an obiter dictum, it must be incidental to the question before the court, but here the statement was directly pertinent to an issue presented. Further, adjudicating on any point within the issues presented cannot be considered dicta. The special civil action for certiorari used by respondent is a remedy for correcting jurisdictional errors, not errors of judgment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Villanueva v.

    CA
    G.R. No. 142947, March 19, 2002

    Ponente: Justice De Leon, Jr. AYALA CORPORATION vs. ROSA-DIANA REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT
    CORPORATION
    Facts: G.R. No. 134284 December1, 2000
    Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against several parties, including
    IBC13. After the decision, IBC13 appealed to NLRC. The appeal bond by IBC13 Facts:
    was found to be falsified. Two complaints for falsification of public documents Petitioner Ayala Corporation was the registered owner of a parcel of land
    were filed against Atty. Eulalio Diaz III and respondent Villadores. located in Alfaro Street, Salcedo Village, Makati City. On April 20, 1976,
    In 1998, the appellate court dismissed the petition against Villadores, which Ayala sold the lot to Manuel Sy married to Vilma Po and Sy Ka Kieng married
    eventually became final and executory. Villadores then moved for the to Rosa Chan. The Deed of Sale executed between Ayala and the buyers
    disqualification of the counsel of petitioner on the ground that Villanueva is not an contained Special Conditions of Sale and Deed Restrictions. Among the
    offended party, for it wasIBC13 who falsified the bond. If there be anyone who was Special Conditions of Sale were: a) the vendees shall build on the lot and
    prejudiced, it was IBC 13 when it purchased a fake surety bond. The counsel submit the building plans to the vendor before September 30, 1976 for the
    opposed saying that the pronouncement was only an obiter dictum. The CA then latter’s approval b) the construction of the building shall start on or before
    ruled in favor of respondent. March 30, 1977 and completed before 1979. Before such completion, neither
    the deed of sale shall be registered nor the title released even if the purchase
    Issue: Whether or not the CA decision was an obiter dictum. price shall have been fully paid and c) there shall be no resale of the
    property.
    Held:
    No. The CA decision touched upon a matter clearly raised by respondent in his Issue:
    petition (whether petitioner was an offended party). An obiter dictum is an Whether or not the deed of restriction can be enforced by Ayala Corporation.
    opinion expressed by a court upon some question of law which is not
    necessary to the decision of the case before it. It is incidental, and not directly upon Ruling:
    the question before him. Such are not binding as precedent. The body of the decision Contractual obligations between parties have the force of law between them
    contains discussion on that point and it clearly mentioned certain principles of law. and absent any allegation that the same are contrary to law, morals, good
    Adjudication on any point within the issues presented by the case cannot be customs, public order or public policy, they must be complied with in good
    considered as obiter dictum, and this rule applies to all pertinent questions, faith. The party guilty of violating the deed of restrictions may only be held
    although only incidentally involved, which are presented and decided in alternatively liable for substitute performance of its obligation, that is, for the
    the regular course of the consideration of the case, and led up to the final conclusion, payment of damages.
    and to any statement as to matter on which the decision is predicated. So, also, where
    a case presents two (2) or more points, any one of which is sufficient to determine
    the ultimate issue, but the court actually decides all such points, the case as an
    authoritative precedent as to every point decided, and none of such points can be
    regarded as having the status of a dictum, and one point should not be denied
    authority merely because another point was more dwelt on and more fully argued
    and considered, nor does a decision on one proposition make statements
    of the court regarding other propositions
    dicta. The special civil action for certiorari, which was availed
    of respondent Villadores, is a remedy designed for the correction of errors
    of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment.

    You might also like