Pascual v. Pascual Bautista

G.R. No. 84240 March 25, 1992 OLIVIA S. PASCUAL and HERMES S. PASCUAL, petitioners, vs.ESPERANZA C. PASCUAL-BAUTISTA, MANUEL C. PASCUAL, JOSE C. PASCUAL, SUSANA C. PASCUAL-BAUTISTA, ERLINDA C. PASCUAL, WENCESLAO C. PASCUAL, JR., INTESTATE ESTATE OF ELEUTERIO T. PASCUAL, AVELINO PASCUAL, ISOCELES PASCUAL, LEIDA PASCUAL-MARTINES, VIRGINIA PASCUAL-NER, NONA PASCUAL-FERNANDO, OCTAVIO PASCUAL, GERANAIA PASCUAL-DUBERT, and THE HONORABLE PRESIDING JUDGE MANUEL S. PADOLINA of Br. 162, RTC, Pasig, Metro Manila, respondents. Facts: ·          Petitioners...

Read More

Corpuz v. Administrator

·          Teodoro R. Yangco died in Manila at the age of seventy-seven years. His will was probated in the CFI. ·          Yangco had no forced heirs. At the time of his death, his nearest relatives were o    (1) his half brother, Luis R. Yangco, o    (2) his half sister, Paz Yangco, o    (3) Amalia Corpus, Jose A. V. Corpus, and Ramon L. Corpus, the children of his half brother, Pablo Corpus,...

Read More

Xiamen Academy of International Law

...

Read More

KOPPEL VS. ALFREDO L. YATCO, COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

G.R. No. L-47673             October 10, 1946 Facts: ·          Koppel Philippines Inc. (KPI) has a capital stock divided into thousand (1,000) shares of P100 each. ·          The Koppel Industrial Car and Equipment Company (KICEC) owns 995 shares of the total capital stock. KICEC is organized under US laws and not licensed to do business in the Philippines. The remaining five (5) shares only...

Read More

Manuel Dulay Enterprises, Inc. v. CA, Torres [Aug 27, 1993]

Facts: ·         Manuel R. Dulay Enterprises, Inc, a domestic corporation obtained various loans for the construction of its hotel project, Dulay Continental Hotel (now Frederick Hotel).   ·         Manuel Dulay by virtue of Board Resolution No 18  sold the subject property to spouses Maria Theresa and Castrense Veloso. ·         Maria Veloso (buyer), without the knowledge of Manuel Dulay, mortgaged the subject property...

Read More

Union Bank v. SEC [June 6, 2001]

Facts: ·         Union Bank sought the opinion of SEC as to the applicability and coverage of the Full Material Disclosure Rule on banks, contending that said rules, in effect, amend Section 5 (a) (3) of the Revised Securities Act which exempts securities issued or guaranteed by banking institutions from the registration requirement. ·         Because its securities are exempt from the registration requirements under Section 5(a)(3)...

Read More